[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13328-13347]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2003

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        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, hazardous fuel reduction on 
     or adjacent to such lands, and for emergency rehabilitation 
     of burned-over National Forest System lands and water, 
     $1,513,449,000, 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 2002 
     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 the 
     Joint Fire Science Program: 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, $640,000,000 is 
     for preparedness, $420,699,000 is for wildfire suppression 
     operations, $228,109,000 is for hazardous fuel treatment, 
     $63,000,000 is for rehabilitation and restoration, 
     $20,376,000 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.), $58,000,000 is for state fire 
     assistance, $8,500,000 is for volunteer fire assistance, 
     $27,000,000 is for forest health activities on State, 
     private, and Federal lands, and $12,500,000 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 in addition to funds provided for State Fire 
     Assistance programs, and subject to all authorities available 
     to the Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry 
     Appropriations, up to $15,000,000 may be used on adjacent 
     non-Federal lands for the purpose of protecting communities 
     when hazard reduction activities are planned on national 
     forest lands that have the potential to place such 
     communities at risk: Provided further, That included in 
     funding for hazardous fuel reduction is $5,000,000 for 
     implementing the Community Forest Restoration Act, Public Law 
     106-393, title VI, and any portion of such funds shall be 
     available for use on non-Federal lands in accordance with 
     authorities available to the Forest Service under the State 
     and Private Forestry Appropriation: Provided further, That 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: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     Federal Government procurement and contracting laws, the 
     Secretaries may conduct fuel reduction treatments, 
     rehabilitation and restoration, and other activities 
     authorized under this heading on and adjacent to Federal 
     lands using grants and cooperative agreements: Provided 
     further, That 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 local private, nonprofit, or 
     cooperative entities; Youth Conservation Corps crews or 
     related partnerships, with State, local and non-profit youth 
     groups; small or micro-businesses; or other entities that 
     will hire or train a significant percentage of local people 
     to complete such contracts: Provided further, That 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: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     transfer or reimburse funds, not to exceed $7,000,000, 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 2002 and 2003: Provided 
     further, That the amount of the transfer of 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

[[Page 13329]]

     wildland fire management activities affecting National Forest 
     System lands.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 77, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $43,000,000''.
       Page 78, line 8, after the second dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 78, line 9, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $35,000,000)''.
       Page 114, line 7, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $50,000,000)''.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I 
hope will help those of us among the body who feel a terrible mistake 
was made in an earlier amendment that actually increased funding for 
the National Endowment for the Arts. My amendment reduces funding for 
the National Endowment for the Arts by $50 million and redirects the 
money into the budget for the U.S. Forest Service.
  We all know and certainly have had a lot of discussion about the 
devastating impact the fires have had on the American West, with 
hundreds of thousands of acres in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and my home 
State of Colorado reduced to charcoal by wildfire. In many of these 
States, the fire season is only now underway. According to the Forest 
Service, an additional 73 million acres remain at risk to catastrophic 
fire. To put it in perspective, 73 million acres is an area slightly 
larger than the State of Arizona.
  While this amendment only reduces its budget, few programs seem more 
worthy of outright elimination than the National Endowment for the 
Arts. First created in 1965, the NEA has been one of the most 
controversial government programs on the books, almost since its 
inception. The most notorious aspects of the NEA have been talked about 
for many years, and I will not go into them today.
  Instead of squandering nearly $100 million on questionable and 
offensive exhibits, we should utilize these funds in a way that better 
serve the public interest. In a lean budget year like this one, we 
ought to not squander limited resources on subsidizing the arts. 
Instead, I believe we should use these funds to increase the 
government's ability to help control and prevent wildfires in the 
American West.
  My amendment would do just that by redirecting the portion of the NEA 
budget to the U.S. Forest Service Wildland Fire Management Plan, 
splitting the dollars between fire suppression efforts and hazardous 
fuels reduction programs.
  Mr. Chairman, President Theodore Roosevelt's then agricultural 
secretary James Wilson wrote a letter where he said, ``And where 
conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question should always be 
decided from the standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest 
number over the long run.'' I ask my colleagues to let Mr. Wilson's 
words guide them in their actions today when making a decision on this 
amendment. Which program will do the greatest good for the greatest 
number.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment on behalf of the committee.
  This agreement that we have on NEA is long-standing, it is 
bipartisan, it is very delicate, and conservatives and liberals and 
moderates have come together on this in the past. Obviously, the 
amendment that just passed increasing NEA funding makes this amendment 
somewhat problematic for some on this side.
  I have to also say, as a member of the subcommittee for 6 years, we 
have seen tremendous improvement. Under Bill Ivey's leadership, the NEA 
is much more accountable, much more responsive, and much more 
efficient. I know he is no longer there, but it is a much-improved 
organization. The funding levels have been agreed to.
  This bill is a careful balance. On virtually every item in the bill 
we have had to work through a compromise so that we could report the 
bill out with comity and cooperation for the good of the country. This 
agreement, at approximately $100 million for the NEA, is a carefully 
crafted bill. This amendment cuts that in half, which obviously would 
create the inability to ever pass this bill, to ever conference this 
bill with the Senate, to ever finally arrive at an agreement here.
  So we respectfully oppose the amendment and ask the entire body to 
vote against the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in very willing opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment is not about adding money to anything, it is about 
cutting the minimal funding which is currently in this bill for the 
arts. In light of the vote just taken by the House of Representatives, 
in which 234 Members voted for the arts, I think it is also very 
untimely.
  This amendment would cut the NEA below the $116 million requested by 
President Bush and recommended by the Republican leadership of the 
committee. The $116 million provided in this bill for the National 
Endowment for the Arts is only 1 percent above last year. It is $46 
million below the level approved in 1994 for the agency.
  The gentleman's arguments against NEA are outdated and do not reflect 
the many reforms implemented by the Congress and former NEA chairman 
Bill Ivey, and the new chairman, Eileen Mason, to address public 
concerns about controversial arts projects supported by public funds.
  Anyone who knows about the arts realizes that there will always be 
controversy. These include broader distribution of funds throughout the 
United States, elimination of general operating support for 
organizations with no control on content, and prohibitions on 
regranting of NEA funds to other organizations. Today, funds at NEA 
flow to over 300 congressional districts with great enthusiasm and very 
little complaint, and with an emphasis on quality.
  Essentially, the same item was offered last year on the Interior bill 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). It failed on a vote of 145 
to 264. I hope an even larger number of Members will vote ``no'' on 
this amendment and finally declare an end to the culture wars which 
started 8 years ago in this House. It is over.
  Let me also say that the gentleman from Washington was the author of 
an amendment to increase the firefighting funds available to this 
administration in a supplemental attached to this bill by $700 million 
with $200 million for the BLM and $500 million for the Forest Service. 
Obviously, we recognize the need to deal with forest fires.
  I would say that those who were voting yesterday to kill the cut of 
the BLM funding are the same people who should be looked at in terms of 
their commitment to having adequate funding at the BLM in order to do 
the firefighting.
  This amendment is bad, it is wrong, it is unnecessary, and I think we 
should voice vote it and move along.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'', 
     for fiscal year 2002 in addition to the amounts made 
     available by Public Law 107-63 $500,000,000, remain available 
     until December 31, 2002, for the cost of fire suppression 
     activities carried out by the Forest Service and other 
     Federal agencies related to the 2002 fire season, including 
     reimbursement of funds borrowed from other Department of 
     Agriculture programs to fight such fires: Provided, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

[[Page 13330]]

                  capital improvement and maintenance

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $572,731,000, 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, 
     $64,866,000 is for conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act: Provided 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, $146,336,000, 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) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act.


         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), $5,542,000, 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 
     113 passenger motor vehicles, of which 10 will be used 
     primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 113 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) acquisition of land, 
     waters, and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) 
     for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National 
     Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) 
     the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and 
     (7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 
     U.S.C. 3718(c).
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     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 and all funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire 
     Management'' are obligated.
       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) 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 
     $2,500,000 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 authorized investments of Federal 
     funds held by the Foundation 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

[[Page 13331]]

     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.
       For fiscal years 2003 through 2007, 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 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.
       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.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                         clean coal technology

                               (deferral)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in prior years, $50,000,000 shall not be available 
     until October 1, 2003: Provided, That funds made available in 
     previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any 
     ongoing project regardless of the separate request for 
     proposal under which the project was selected.


                 fossil energy research and development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $664,205,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $11,000,000 is for construction, renovation, furnishing, and 
     demolition or removal of buildings at National Energy 
     Technology Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, West Virginia 
     and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and for acquisition of lands, 
     and interests therein, in proximity to the National Energy 
     Technology Laboratory, and of which $150,000,000 are to be 
     made available, after coordination with the private sector, 
     for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative 
     providing for competitively-awarded demonstrations of 
     commercial scale technologies to reduce the barriers to 
     continued and expanded coal use: Provided, That no project 
     may be selected for which sufficient funding is not available 
     to provide for the total project: Provided further, That 
     funds shall be expended in accordance with the provisions 
     governing the use of funds contained under the heading 
     ``Clean Coal Technology'' in prior appropriations: Provided 
     further, That the Department may include provisions for 
     repayment of Government contributions to individual projects 
     in an amount up to the Government contribution to the project 
     on terms and conditions that are acceptable to the 
     Department, including repayments from sale and licensing of 
     technologies from both domestic and foreign transactions: 
     Provided further, That such repayments shall be retained by 
     the Department for future coal-related research, development 
     and demonstration projects: Provided further, That any 
     technology selected under this program shall be considered a 
     Clean Coal Technology, and any project selected under this 
     program shall be considered a Clean Coal Technology Project, 
     for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and 
     60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: 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 naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities, $20,831,000, 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

       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 become available on October 1, 2003 for 
     payment to the State of California for the State Teachers' 
     Retirement Fund from the Elk Hills School Lands Fund. 


                          energy conservation

        For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $984,653,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That $300,000,000 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: 
     $250,000,000 for weatherization assistance grants and 
     $50,000,000 for State energy conservation grants.


                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,487,000, 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.), $175,856,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                         spr petroleum account

       For the acquisition and transportation of petroleum and for 
     other necessary expenses pursuant to the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et 
     seq.), $7,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                   northeast home heating oil reserve

       For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operations, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, 
     $8,000,000 to remain available until expended.


                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $80,611,000, 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 3 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.

[[Page 13332]]

       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, $2,508,756,000, 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 $468,130,000 for 
     contract medical care shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2004: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $25,000,000 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 1-year contracts and grants which 
     are to be performed in 2 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, 2004: 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 $270,734,000 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 2003, of which not to 
     exceed $2,500,000 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 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, $391,865,000, 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 continue a priority project for the acquisition of 
     land, planning, design and construction of 79 staff quarters 
     in the Bethel service area, pursuant to the 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 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: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law or regulation, for purposes of acquiring sites for a new 
     clinic and staff quarters in St. Paul Island, Alaska, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services may accept land 
     donated by the Tanadgusix Corporation.


            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 therefor 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 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

[[Page 13333]]

     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, 
     $14,491,000, 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), 
     $5,130,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for construction of the Library Technology Center.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses


                         (including rescission)

       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, $450,760,000, of which 
     not to exceed $41,884,000 for the instrumentation program, 
     collections acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the 
     National Museum of the American Indian, security 
     improvements, and the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program shall remain available until expended, and including 
     such funds as may be necessary to support American overseas 
     research centers and a total of $125,000 for the Council of 
     American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated herein are available for advance payments to 
     independent contractors performing research services or 
     participating in official Smithsonian presentations: Provided 
     further, That the Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal 
     appropriations designated in this Act for lease or rent 
     payments for long term and swing space, as rent payable to 
     the Smithsonian Institution, and such rent payments may be 
     deposited into the general trust funds of the Institution to 
     the extent that federally supported activities are housed in 
     the 900 H 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.
       From unobligated balances of prior year appropriations 
     $14,100,000 is rescinded.


            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 necessary personnel, including not to 
     exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $81,300,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $16,750,000 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, including 
     necessary personnel, $10,000,000, 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.

                        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, $78,219,000, 
     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, $16,230,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $16,310,000.


                              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, $17,600,000, 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, $8,488,000.

           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, 
     $99,489,000

[[Page 13334]]

     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.

                 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, 
     $109,932,000, 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, $16,122,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $10,436,000 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.

                      Challenge America Arts Fund


                        challenge america grants

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 89-209, 
     as amended, $17,000,000 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: Provided further, That the 
     Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may 
     approve grants up to $10,000, if in aggregate this amount 
     does not exceed 5 percent of the sums appropriated for grant 
     making purposes per year: Provided further, That such small 
     grant actions are taken pursuant to the terms of an expressed 
     and direct delegation of authority from the National Council 
     on the Arts to the Chairperson.

                        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), $1,255,000: 
     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.


                        administrative provision

       None of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act, 
     except funds appropriated to the Office of Management and 
     Budget, shall be available to study the alteration or 
     transfer of the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs 
     program.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $3,667,000: 
     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, $7,553,000: 
     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 Museum


                       holocaust memorial museum

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310), 
     $38,663,000, 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, $21,327,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended.
  Mr. WAMP (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through title II 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 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                 Amendment No. 8 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. 8 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 95, line 14, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000) 
     (increased by $3,000,000)'' after ``$984,653,000''.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is being 
cosponsored by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Mark Udall), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). To the best of my knowledge, it has been 
agreed to by the majority, and I thank them very much for that.
  The legislative intent of this amendment is to increase funding for 
the highly successful Energy Star program by $3 million, bringing the 
total funding for this program up to the President's request of $6.2 
million. This increase in funding will be offset by a $3 million 
reduction in salaries and expenses at the Department of Energy that I 
hope will be restored in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, the Energy Star program has a cost-effective proven 
track record of saving energy and saving money. In fact, for every 
dollar spent on program costs, the Energy Star program produces average 
energy bill savings of $75 and sparks $15 in investment and new 
technology. This voluntary partnership program helps businesses, State 
and local governments, homeowners, and consumers save money by 
investing in energy efficiency.
  The bottom line is that if this amendment is passed, we will increase 
energy efficiency, save consumers money, protect the environment and 
enhance our energy security.
  According to the Alliance to Save Energy, in 2001 alone, Americans, 
with the help of Energy Star, saved $5 billion on their energy bills, 
reduced carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking 10 million 
cars off the road, and prevented 140,000 tons of nitrogen oxide 
emissions.
  To date, more than 55,000 Energy Star homes have been built, locking 
in financial savings for homeowners of more than $15 million every 
single year.

                              {time}  1545

  Through the Energy Star Building Program, more than $25 billion 
kilowatt hours of energy have been saved. However, as successful as the 
Energy Star program has been, much more could be accomplished with 
increased funding. For example, it is estimated that if all consumers 
chose only Energy Star-labeled products over the next decade or so, the 
Nation's energy bill would be reduced by about $100 billion while 
avoiding 300 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
  If all commercial building owners took advantage of the Energy Star 
program, they could achieve another $130 billion in energy savings and 
reduce 350 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the 
next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, rising energy costs and consumer demands make today's 
investments in energy efficiency ever more vital to America's energy 
security.

[[Page 13335]]

  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for accepting this amendment. I 
think it is an excellent amendment, and we appreciate their support as 
well as the support of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and 
the minority.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the subcommittee, we have no 
objection to this amendment and we commend the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) for offering it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I also commend the gentleman from Vermont. 
This is a very good amendment. The gentleman every year has had a 
constructive addition to this bill, and we compliment him for that.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment that would increase funding by $3 million for the Energy Star 
program, bringing it to the level of the President's request.
  Energy Star is a voluntary partnership program that helps businesses, 
state and local governments, homeowners, and consumers save money by 
investing in energy efficiency in homes, businesses, buildings, and 
products.
  For every federal dollar spent on program costs, the Energy Star 
program produces average energy bill savings of $75 and sparks $15 in 
investment in new technology.
  Recognizing this impressive track record, the Bush Administration 
called for Energy Star's expansion in last year's National Energy 
Policy report, and this year requested a higher level of funding for 
the program. Sixty of my colleagues in the House indicated their 
endorsement of the President's request by signing a letter I circulated 
this year in support of increased Energy Star funding.
  Through programs like Energy Star, we can reduce pollution, promote 
economic growth by stimulating investment in new technology, help 
reduce dependence on imported oil, and help ensure the reliability of 
our electric system by reducing peak demand. An investment in Energy 
Star today means greater energy security tomorrow.
  The President's FY03 request for increased funding for Energy Star 
recognized that this program could accomplish more with increased 
funding. It is estimated that if all consumers chose only Energy Star-
labeled products over the next decade or so, the nation's energy bill 
would be reduced by about $100 billion while avoiding 380 million 
metric tons of carbon-equivalent in greenhouse gas emissions.
  These are real benefits that make the Energy Star program worthy of 
funding at the level of the President's request. I urge support for 
this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the 
gentleman from Vermont to restore $3 million requested by the 
Administration for the Department of Energy's Energy Star program. I do 
so with at least a measure of reluctance because I understand the 
Appropriations Committee leadership's frustration with the current 
administration of program and the agency's inability to meet deadlines.
  As the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and someone 
committed to the cause of energy conservation and energy efficiency, I 
am a strong supporter of the goals of the Energy Star program. The 
program helps identify products that are the most energy efficient 
products currently available in the marketplace--thereby assisting 
consumers in reducing their energy costs, encouraging manufacturers to 
develop more energy efficient products and helping the nation to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil. However, I can attest that timeliness 
has been a serious problem for DOE's Energy Star program--at least in 
the development of new standards for energy efficient windows.
  It is my understanding that several manufacturers, not just one as 
some have alleged, are ready to go forward with new window products 
that could help cut energy losses through improved design. These 
designs meet mandatory codes already in effect in several states. 
Despite widespread support for the standards, DOE's has been working on 
this issue for 18 months. The agency has proposed new standards on two 
occasions, issued a delay to the effective date once and now has 
withdrawn the proposal entirely pending further analysis.
  Therefore, I understand the committee's frustration with the program 
as evidenced by their reduction of the amount requested. I am 
concerned, however, that the reduction below the requested amount could 
only further delay these important rules. I appreciate the committee's 
sensitivity to the window issue and their willingness to provide 
additional funding for window related research, research that should be 
used to expedite the decisionmaking on the proposed new standards and 
not to delay action further. However, I believe the Energy Star program 
funds are needed to ensure the fastest possible action.
  Accordingly, I urge a yes vote on the amendment to restore the 
program to the level recommended by the Administration.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of the House Financial 
Services Committee, I'm still new enough to hope that both sides of the 
aisle truly want to accomplish meaningful corporate reform. But I'm not 
naive.
  A few months ago, in the wake of Enron, many of us on the Committee 
offered amendments to the majority's corporate governance reform. We 
offered an amendment to stop the conflicts between analysts and 
investment bankers. The majority defeated it. We offered an amendment 
to ensure independence of auditors. The majority diluted it. We offered 
amendments to achieve true structural reform and end corporate 
thievery. The majority delayed it.
  And now, in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and two strikes, 
suddenly the majority has seen the light and felt the heat of an 
expansive population of angry Americans who are watching their 
retirements dissipate.
  The President has asked us to get a bill on his desk--while members 
of his Administration deal with a daily barrage of reports on their own 
conduct as the corporate leaders of Haliburton, Harkin, Enron and 
others.
  Tonight we have a choice. We can continue to allow the majority to 
defeat, dilute and delay true protections of Main Street investors and 
retirees. Or we can draw the line with the Sarbanes bill that puts 
people ahead of politics.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 2002.
       Sec. 307. (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.

[[Page 13336]]

       (c) Report.--On September 30, 2003, 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. 308. 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, 106-291, and 107-63 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 2002 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. 309. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts--
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made 
     to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be 
     used to make a grant to any other organization or individual 
     to conduct activity independent of the direct grant 
     recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments 
     made in exchange for goods and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs and/or projects.
       Sec. 310. 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. 311. (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. 312. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the 
     5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act.
       Sec. 313. 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. 314. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2002 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the 14th 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. 315. 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. 316. 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 redcedar: Provided, That sales which are 
     deficit when appraised under the transaction evidence 
     appraisal system using domestic Alaska values for western 
     redcedar 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 2002, 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 redcedar, all of the western redcedar 
     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 2002, 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 redcedar, the 
     volume of western redcedar 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 redcedar 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 
     redcedar is eligible for sale to various markets shall be 
     made at the time each sale is awarded). Western redcedar 
     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 
     redcedar logs from a given sale to domestic Alaska processors 
     at price equal to or greater than the log selling value 
     stated in the contract.

[[Page 13337]]

     All additional western redcedar 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. 317. 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.
       Sec. 318. Prior to October 1, 2003, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of 
     subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) 
     solely because more than 15 years have passed without 
     revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary from 
     any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or any other 
     law: Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting 
     expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding 
     available, to revise a plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System, this section shall be void with respect to such plan 
     and a court of proper jurisdiction may order completion of 
     the plan on an accelerated basis.
       Sec. 319. Until September 30, 2004, 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. 320. 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.
       Sec. 321. Section 347(a) of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in 
     Public Law 105-277 as amended, is amended by striking 
     ``2004'' and inserting ``2005''. The authority to enter into 
     stewardship and end result contracts provided to the Forest 
     Service in accordance with section 347 of title III of 
     section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277 is hereby 
     expanded to authorize the Forest Service to enter into an 
     additional 12 contracts subject to the same terms and 
     conditions as provided in that section.
       Sec. 322. Technical Correction Related to Cabin User 
     Fees.--Section 608(b)(2) of the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act 
     of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6207(b)(2); Public Law 106-291) is amended 
     by striking ``value influences'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``criteria'' and striking ``section 606(b)(3)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``section 606(b)(2)''.
       Sec. 323. Extension of Forest Service Conveyances Pilot 
     Program.--Section 329 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (16 U.S.C. 580d 
     note; Public Law 107-63) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``20''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2006''.
       Sec. 324. A grazing permit or lease issued by the Secretary 
     of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture where 
     National Forest System lands are involved that expires (or is 
     transferred or waived) during fiscal year 2003 shall be 
     renewed under section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1752), section 
     19 of the Granger-Thye Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5801), 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 or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture 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 statutory authority of the 
     Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. 
     Any Federal lands included within the boundary of Lake 
     Roosevelt National Recreation Area, as designated by the 
     Secretary of the Interior on April 5, 1990 (Lake Roosevelt 
     Cooperative Management Agreement), that were utilized as of 
     March 31, 1997, for grazing purposes pursuant to a permit 
     issued by the National Park Service, the person or persons so 
     utilizing such lands as of March 31, 1997, shall be entitled 
     to renew said permit under such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary may prescribe, for the lifetime of the permittee or 
     20 years, whichever is less.
       Sec. 325. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, employees of foundations established by Acts of 
     Congress to solicit private sector funds on behalf of Federal 
     land management agencies shall qualify for General Services 
     Administration contract airfare rates and Federal Government 
     hotel accommodation rates when such employees are traveling 
     on official foundation business.
       Sec. 326. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, to promote the more efficient use of the health 
     care funding allocation for fiscal year 2003, the Eagle Butte 
     Service Unit of the Indian Health Service, at the request of 
     the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, may pay base salary rates to 
     health professionals up to the highest grade and step 
     available to a physician, pharmacist, or other health 
     professional and may pay a recruitment or retention bonus of 
     up to 25 percent above the base pay rate.
       Sec. 327. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer 
     made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any 
     other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 328. In entering into agreements with foreign 
     countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior are authorized to enter into 
     reciprocal agreements in which the individuals furnished 
     under said agreements to provide wildfire services are 
     considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the 
     country receiving said services when the individuals are 
     fighting fires. The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall not enter into any agreement under this 
     provision unless the foreign country (either directly or 
     through its fire organization) agrees to assume any and all 
     liability for the acts or omissions of American firefighters 
     engaged in firefighting in a foreign country. When an 
     agreement is reached for furnishing fire fighting services, 
     the only remedies for acts or omissions committed while 
     fighting fires shall be those provided under the laws of the 
     host country and those remedies shall be the exclusive 
     remedies for any claim arising out of fighting fires in a 
     foreign country. Neither the sending country nor any 
     organization associated with the firefighter shall be subject 
     to any action whatsoever pertaining to or arising out of 
     fighting fires.
       Sec. 329. Prohibition of Oil and Gas Drilling in the Finger 
     Lakes National Forest, New York.--None of the funds in this 
     Act may be used to prepare or issue a permit or lease for oil 
     or gas drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest, New 
     York, during fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. WAMP (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 135, line 13, 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 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of amendment No. 2 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Capps:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:

       Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     expended by the Department of the Interior to approve any 
     exploration plan, any development and production plan, any 
     application for permit to drill or to permit any drilling on 
     Outer Continental Shelf Southern California Planning Area 
     leases numbered OCS-P0443, OCS-P0445, OCS-P0446, OCS-P0449, 
     OCS-P0499, OCS-P0500, OCS-P0210, OCS-P0527, OCS-P0460, OCS-
     P0464, OCS-P0409, OCS-P0396, OCS-P0397, OCS-P0402, OCS-P0403, 
     OCS-P0408, OCS-P0414,

[[Page 13338]]

     OCS-P0319, OCS-P0320, OCS-P0322, OCS-P0323-A, OCS-P0426, OCS-
     P0427, OCS-P0432, OCS-P0435, OCS-P0452, OCS-P0453, OCS-P0425, 
     OCS-P0430, OCS-P0431, OCS-P0433, OCS-P0434, OCS-P0415, OCS-
     P0416, OCS-P0421, and OCS-P0422.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller). It is time to take action to 
permanently end the threat of new oil drilling off the central coast of 
California. Californians oppose new drilling. We have plenty of oil 
platforms already, and even the oil companies themselves want a 
resolution to our mess.
  Passage of this amendment would be a major step toward terminating 
the leases that threaten the central coast's environment and economy. 
Specifically, our amendment would prohibit the Department of the 
Interior from spending any funds during this funding cycle to permit 
new drilling activities on the 36 undeveloped oil and gas leases off 
California's coast. We hope this will spur negotiations between the 
administration, the oil company lease holders, and the State of 
California about terminating these leases.
  Mr. Chairman, there is precedent for this approach. Settlements to 
remove leases from Alaska and North Carolina occurred after 
congressional action to prevent new leasing and the development of 
existing leases. Last year the House passed a historic amendment 
similar to what we are offering here today. The Davis amendment halted 
the sale of Lease 181 off Florida's coast. It passed by a wide 
bipartisan margin, with 70 of my Republican colleagues voting in favor 
of it. Following up on this action, the administration reached an 
agreement with Florida to purchase drilling leases in Lease 181 area 
and other coastal areas and the Everglades. These actions have been 
widely acclaimed throughout Florida. I fully supported this bold step 
to protect their environment and economy.
  The President cited local opposition to new drilling as a prime 
reason for the decision. Which left Californians asking, What about us? 
According to Department of Interior Secretary Norton, ``A major 
difference between Florida and California is that Florida opposes 
coastal drilling and California does not.''
  As the U.S. Representative for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo 
Counties, and a nearly 40-year resident of the central coast, I was 
dumbfounded by this assertion. The Santa Barbara News Press 
editorialized about what it called Secretary Norton's jaw-dropping 
remarks asking, ``What alternative universe is Ms. Norton living in?''
  Mr. Chairman, I lived in Santa Barbara in 1969 when a huge blowout on 
Union Oil's platform A put 4 million gallons of oil into our sea. It 
killed thousands of sea birds, and I will show one. Sea birds like this 
one, seals, dolphins, fish and other sea life; and it damaged a huge 
swath of our beautiful coast.
  It galvanized central coast residents, indeed virtually the whole 
State, against more offshore oil drilling. While we were outraged by 
the environmental damage, we knew another blowout would wreak havoc on 
our tourism, fishing, and recreation industries, all critical 
components of our local economy.
  As the newspaper noted, ``This catastrophe helped spark an 
environmental movement that has spread far beyond Santa Barbara.'' 
Since that time, at least two dozen city and county governments have 
passed anti-oil measures. In 1994, Republican Governor Pete Wilson 
signed into a law a permanent ban on new offshore leasing in State 
waters.
  In 1999, the State Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the 
Federal Government enact a permanent ban on drilling off California's 
coast. Even the Federal Government has demonstrated its sensitivity to 
Californians' opposition to new drilling.
  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush placed a 10-year moratorium on 
new leasing in Federal waters off California, later renewed and 
extended by President Clinton. We have asked for the administration, 
the leaseholders, and the State of California to work with us to 
terminate the leases off California's coast.
  It is time to end the long-standing controversy surrounding the 36 
undeveloped leases. Californians have spoken loud and clear. We do not 
want more drilling. The Federal Government should respect our wishes.
  California's coastline is a priceless treasure. It is home to 
everything from blue whales to otters, and it is home to two of our 
national marine sanctuaries and the Channel Islands National Park. This 
map shows where the park fits and where these leases are right in 
between. More oil drilling is just not worth the risk to this 
environmentally and economically valuable area.
  I urge support for the Capps-Rahall-Miller amendment to demonstrate 
the House's commitment to protecting the environment and the economy of 
both coastlines, the Atlantic and the Pacific.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes 
equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I very reluctantly rise on behalf of the subcommittee 
to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. She is a class act in every 
sense of the term, and such a wonderful person, and serves her State 
and district with such distinction, and certainly her motives are pure 
here in trying to take care of the environment in the great Pacific 
region of our country. Certainly there is a need there.
  However, there is no reason for this funding limitation in this bill 
when there are no development plans approved by the Department of the 
Interior for this year. Both the State of California and the 
leaseholders are currently litigating this issue. Some Members today 
will likely point to the actions that Congress took last year with 
respect to the leases off the coast of Florida, but the facts are very 
different and there has not been offshore oil and gas development off 
the coast of Florida.
  We know there has been a significant amount of development off the 
coast of California. As a matter of fact, Federal leases have produced 
more than a billion barrels of oil, and State leases have produced more 
than 2.5 billion barrels of oil.
  I am the co-chairman of the House Renewable Energy Efficiency Caucus 
and have worked with the gentlewoman there on a variety of new 
technologies and alternative energy sources. And clearly with respect 
to energy and the environment, we need to do that. I advocate that 
greatly. However, we cannot reduce the amount of energy production that 
our country has today without dramatically impacting our freedom in 
this country.
  In order to maintain our society as we know it, we are going to have 
to maintain a certain amount of domestic production, and this obviously 
would cut into that domestic production. Energy issues have dominated 
recent debate, especially as both price and supply of energy fuels have 
been in the headlines. This amendment would actually send the wrong 
message right now to the markets. It would potentially drive up costs 
at a time when we are experiencing economic pains; and clearly, we are 
going to have to look at both reducing the demand and increasing the 
supply.
  That is what the President's comprehensive energy proposal is all 
about. That bill is in conference today between the Senate and the 
House. We need a conference report on the energy bill, but we better 
not tie our hands behind our backs through this amendment and actions 
like this amendment because we have to be able to produce a certain 
amount of oil in this country in order to not be so reliant on foreign 
sources and ultimately have the proverbial gun to our head from OPEC, 
Iraq and other nations.

[[Page 13339]]

                              {time}  1600

  Therefore, the subcommittee respectfully, very respectfully, opposes 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources and the coauthor of this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me this time, and I certainly want to commend her for her 
excellent leadership on this issue, an issue that is dear and near to 
her State and to her people. She has been a true fighter on this most 
important matter.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us concerned with the impacts of Federal oil 
and gas leasing sought to overlook the politics of the issue when 
President Bush, as a favor to his brother Jeb, recently announced the 
buyback of certain oil and gas leases in Florida. These were highly 
controversial leases and their development threatened parts of 
Florida's coastline and efforts to restore the Everglades. Moreover, 
there have been similar settlements in the past, although they were 
prompted by congressional action in the case of OCS leases off the 
coast of North Carolina and in Bristol Bay, Alaska.
  So initially we sought to overlook the fact that the President's 
brother was up for reelection as Governor of Florida and that the 
buyback of these leases would help his candidacy as well as the 
President's own fortunes in the State of Florida. And we sought to 
ignore it as well because the buyback was the right thing to do.
  I would say to my colleagues that we were not allowed to overlook the 
politics for too long. I say this because the Governor of California 
also asked for the same consideration for 36 highly controversial OCS 
leases off the coast of that State. These are undeveloped leases, 
several of which are over 3 decades old. Yet the Secretary of the 
Interior, Gale Norton, denied that request. She stated, and it is 
quoted here in this editorial, ``A major difference between Florida and 
California is that Florida opposes coastal drilling and California does 
not.'' As this editorial states, ``What alternative universe is Ms. 
Norton living in?'' Even a person of my generation, born and raised in 
the southern coal fields of Beckley, West Virginia, knows that the very 
genesis of the campaign to limit offshore oil and gas drilling was in 
that State of California.
  We are offering this amendment today to say thank you, President 
Bush, for what you did in Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. President. 
But the interests of all Americans should compel you to do the same 
thing in the State of California. There are resources at stake here 
that have national significance. The OCS oil and gas leases in question 
are adjacent to the Channel Islands National Park which encompasses 
250,000 acres over five islands. The park is of international 
significance, having been designated a Biosphere Reserve by the United 
Nations in 1976. Further, this area is also part of a national marine 
sanctuary. Clearly oil and gas development is not compatible with these 
national preservation designations.
  This amendment is premised on seeking equity for all parties 
involved, for the people of southern California who want to protect 
their shoreline and their economy; equity for the American people as a 
whole who have a vested interest in the integrity of units of the 
national park system such as the Channel Islands; and equity for the 
holders of 36 OCS leases themselves who are left holding the bag with 
these stranded investments in some cases for 3 decades now.
  In my view, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is time to come to grips 
with this controversy, to own up to the fact that these 36 leases will 
probably never be developed, and to work out a sensible solution. I 
urge the House to adopt the pending amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I find this amendment 
interesting. These 36 leases are suspended. They are not active. This 
language only deals with 1 year, if my information is correct, so it 
says no money in this budget could be spent. From my understanding of 
the oil and gas business--and I come from where it started in 
Pennsylvania, I live 5 miles from the first oil well--is that really 
this legislation is of no value, or is somewhat meaningless, because 
you could not facilitate in 12 months what it would take to get these 
leases active, and so it prohibits activity for the next 12 months.
  But I would like to speak a moment on the bigger issue. Coming from 
an oil patch, I want to share with you what nature does. The hills in 
Pennsylvania where oil was first discovered, and we did not know much 
about production, they had gushers, it comes spurting out of the 
ground. There are pictures of a place that is now called Oil Creek 
State Park where there was nothing growing. Every tree was dead. Every 
blade of grass was dead. The streams were polluted. The hills were 
washing away every time you would get a rainstorm. Today, that is a 
mature oak forest. It is a State park. It is beautiful. The springs are 
clean. The streams are natural habitat for brook trout, as good as it 
gets. It was totally destroyed 100 and some years ago when oil was 
discovered, but nature has healed it.
  Back then, we did not know how to produce oil. But I find it 
troubling every time we get an oil or gas vote on this floor, we vote 
to lock it up. We had the President's set-asides with his areas. We had 
a vote last year on the Great Lakes where you now do slant drilling and 
you do not drill into the lake but you drill under the lake. We buy oil 
and gas from Canada that comes out from under the Great Lakes but we 
prohibit Great Lakes drilling in the States. Much of the coastline is 
locked up. Last year we locked up some more of the Gulf. Much of the 
Midwest is locked up. I guess the question I ask is, is it more 
important to lock up oil and gas drilling around this country when we 
have safe, modern methods that do not cause environmental degradation? 
You look at the record in recent years of oil and gas drilling in this 
country, and it is pretty good, because we have the skill to do it. For 
a country as dependent on energy as us and that energy comes from 
countries like Iraq and Iran, does it make sense to continue, every 
time we have a vote on oil and gas, to lock it up? I find it 
interesting that one of the debaters for this amendment supports 
mountaintop mining, certainly with greater environmental degradation 
than drilling an oil and gas well, punching a little hole in the 
ground.
  I think we as a body need to be more thoughtful. Where do we go with 
energy? We know it needs to be more renewable. We know we need to be 
better conserving. But in the interim, until we have something to 
replace oil, we need oil for this country. Every time we have a spike 
in oil and gas prices, and we had one in 2000 and 2001, this economy 
pays. We lost millions of jobs in this country with a spike in energy 
prices just a year and a half ago. Yet we continue on a course, with 
supposedly good environmental stewardship, of locking it up, resources 
that we can extract today with good sound science, and I think it is a 
debate we better think seriously about. These leases could not be 
developed in the next 12 months if we wanted to, yet that is what this 
amendment does. It says we lock it up for 12 more months because no 
money can be spent. It is an amendment to raise another vote against 
oil and gas development, something this country is dependent on for its 
absolute economic future. I think it is something we need to be very 
thoughtful about.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this amendment. It 
is very important to this Nation, and let me point out why.
  First of all, there is a big myth going on that we need this oil and 
gas off the

[[Page 13340]]

California coastline. These leases have been out there since 1968 and 
the oil companies did nothing with them. They did not drill on these 
leases. They have sat on them. They have been exempt from all the 
moratoriums and now they want to continue these leases. Why, we think? 
What has changed since 1968? What has changed is that California has 
invested in alternative energy. No other State has developed more 
alternatives. No other State has more geothermal, wind, biomass, hydro, 
nuclear, natural gas. In energy conservation, we have done more than 
any other State to make our State not dependent on one source of energy 
but independent by developing all kinds of alternatives.
  We want our State coastline back. Why? Because a majority of 
Californians live on that coastline. It is the most productive, 
prosperous, enjoyed, visited, photographed, painted, lived-in coastline 
in the United States. The people that come there to photograph it, 
enjoy it and swim in that ocean are your constituents. They do not want 
to come to visit offshore oil rigs. They want to enjoy the pristine 
California coast.
  So, Mr. President, do for California what you did for your brother in 
Florida. Buy back the leases.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for her 
outstanding amendment. We have had similar problems in the State of 
Washington. We passed numerous amendments to deal with that problem 
and, of course, the issue now is that of equity between California and 
Florida.
  In May of this year, President George Bush reached agreement with 
Governor Jeb Bush to buy back a series of oil leases which had been 
awarded many years ago, but which were under a moratorium from 
development as a result of public opposition to drilling near the 
Florida coastline. This agreement, which we support, will cost $235 
million. I would note, however, that the National Environmental Trust 
has described the deal as a $235 million campaign contribution to the 
incumbent Governor of Florida.
  California is faced with very similar circumstances but has so far 
received no similar accommodation from the Federal Government. There 
are currently 36 Outer Continental Shelf leases off the California 
coast which the Governor of California does not want to develop because 
of threats to the beach and coastline. They have taken the Federal 
Government to court as did the State of Florida. But a court case could 
take many, many years due to the uncertainty with regard to the Federal 
Government's position on drilling in California waters.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California and others 
would send a clear signal that the Federal Government will not permit 
drilling. This action, while effective for 1 year only, would push both 
the State and the Department of the Interior to reach a settlement so 
that the people of California will know that these areas remain free of 
risk from drilling and potential environmental damage.
  The amendment should be agreed to.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who is the past chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and 
the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is very perplexing to be 
a Member of Congress to note the way this body sometimes will simply go 
with the trends, what is trendy, especially when it comes to issues of 
science and energy. I am perplexed as much as I ever have been about 
this particular issue. I, as most of you know and as many people in the 
public may know, am an avid surfer. I am in the ocean water every 
weekend. Less than 4 days ago, I was out surfing. I am also a scuba 
diver. I am someone who loves the ocean. We have had offshore oil 
drilling in my district for almost 50 years and there has never been 
not only not a major problem but not even a significant problem with 
any type of spillage or any other type of threat to our environment. 
What did happen during that time period, however, was a major spill, 
and guess where it came from? A tanker. Yes, a tanker that was 
delivering oil. Let us also remember the Exxon Valdez was headed toward 
southern California. If it would have had its accident down there, we 
would still be cleaning up that mess. The tanker accident off of my 
district was when a tanker inadvertently ran over its own anchor, 
spilling a huge amount of oil onto our coastline.
  What we hear being suggested today by people claiming to be concerned 
about the environment and the ocean is to make our coastline perhaps 
10, perhaps a hundred times more likely to suffer from an oil spill 
because every drop of oil that we do not get from these offshore oil 
rigs will come to us by tanker. We can philosophize that, oh, we 
shouldn't be so dependent on oil in the first place.

                              {time}  1615

  Okay, I will listen to that. I will listen to we should try to 
develop other alternative resources, but in reality, everyone in here 
knows that if we do not develop the actual oil resources, we are going 
to get that oil from someone who will deliver it to us by tanker, which 
is perhaps 10 to 100 times more likely to spill that oil on our 
coastline.
  This bill is an antienvironmental bill. This proposition is against 
cleanliness in the ocean, but it is trendy, it is happy; we do not have 
to explain ourselves because everybody knows that one has to be against 
actual oil drilling to be for the environment.
  Let me note that this also has a bad effect on the environment. I can 
tell my colleagues, I have gone as a scuba diver and taken dives off 
the offshore oil rigs and found that is where all the fish are because 
they know it is safe for them to be around those rigs. They are not in 
the other places, they are near those rigs. But what else does it do 
for us? It is better for the environment not to be dependent on these 
oil tankers, but it is also better for our country not to be dependent 
on hostile powers.
  Why is it that we have people in this body who will vote against any 
type of energy development when it comes to oil or natural gas? Why is 
that, when they realize we have people overseas at this minute risking 
their lives because our country is dependent on potentially hostile 
powers for our oil. Again, we could philosophize and say, oh, well, we 
should not be so dependent on oil, we should develop wind and solar and 
the rest of it, and I am for that. But we know that if we do not 
develop our oil resources, we are going to have the Saudi Arabians, the 
Iraqis, all the others who we are going to be more dependent on.
  So we cannot even drill in Alaska, one of the most God-forsaken areas 
of the world. So we cannot drill there and we cannot drill offshore, 
and what does that do to our economy? By the way, the local offshore 
rigs in my district have been providing revenue to our State and our 
local areas all of this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, why is it that we are doing this? Number 
one, it is trendy. It is very trendy to be against offshore oil 
drilling and, number two, we have some very wealthy people who are 
concerned about their view, and that is it; very wealthy people 
concerned about their view. We are making our country more likely to 
have oil spills. We are putting ourselves in jeopardy by being 
dependent on these overseas powers to give us the oil, and we are 
hurting ourselves by eliminating that resource in terms of tax 
resources. And, by the way, when we talk about the balance of payments, 
if we are concerned about our economy, and it is wavering now, this is 
a major cause of unbalanced payments. We are not going to do anything 
to try and help those things, but we are going to help the rich people 
so they do not have to see an ugly oil well. Well, I would support 
anything that says let us make those oil wells not ugly. But I will not 
say we should not have oil. We

[[Page 13341]]

can build those oil wells offshore that are safe and are beautiful, but 
let us not say we are not going to utilize what God gave us as these 
natural resources when it is safer to do so.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), my esteemed colleague.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States of 
America has taken action against offshore oil drilling in Florida. The 
problem we have here is we just have not been able to find any of his 
relatives in California.
  I have checked the Santa Barbara phone book and I found an Allison 
Bush, an Albert Bush and an Anna Bush, and I hope that they or any of 
the other people named Bush in the Santa Barbara area will call the 
White House and ask the President to afford them the same courtesy he 
afforded his relative in Florida.
  The President takes care of his family, and this is a noble, virtuous 
thing. We believe in family values on this side of the aisle, but we 
want to believe that to take care of all of the Bush relatives in the 
State of California, I do not care if it is a second cousin, third time 
removed, call the White House and ask him to take care of California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, about 1 year ago, former 
Congressman Joe Scarborough and I led a debate on the floor of the 
House that is remarkably similar to the one today, except it had to do 
with the coast of Florida. One of the arguments we raised was that the 
minimal amount of supply available off the coast of Florida did not 
warrant the extraordinary risk to our State, its pristine beauty, and 
to so many people that depended upon the economy associated with those 
beautiful beaches. Those same arguments apply here today in California.
  We are talking about supply related to asphalt. I do not hear anybody 
here complaining we are depending on other countries to build enough 
parking lots in this Nation. California needs a few less parking lots 
and so do the State of Florida and others. So we are not talking about 
a precious supply for motor vehicles, for generating electricity for 
industry and manufacturing; we are talking about asphalt. I think the 
Democrats and Republicans in the State of California are entitled to 
the same respect that we afford to Floridians when we sat up and told 
our colleagues of the economic impact to our State associated with a 
spill that could occur.
  The final point here is that the President of the United States and 
others need to stand up and say, why are Californians different than 
Floridians? Are they of some inferior status? Of course the answer is 
no. We are a country. This is an issue to put politics aside. It does 
not matter who the Governor of the State of California is this year or 
in the future. It is the same issue. If this Congress will pay 
attention to the details, because the devil is in the details, as we 
did last year, we will adopt the Capps amendment, and I urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the former chair 
of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a critical 
issue for so many reasons. It is not only a question of equity of 
whether or not California will be treated the same as Florida, but it 
is also a question about the California economy.
  Our oceans, our beaches, our seaside landscapes are huge economic 
engines within our State. They are the engines that drive individuals 
who want to come and reside there and start businesses and provide 
opportunity. They are the engines for tourism. They are the engines for 
a whole range of economic activity.
  Now, we know that this is a much better oil industry today than it 
was at the time of the Santa Barbara oil spill. We know that the 
technology is much better today than it was then. But we also know that 
we have a much more intense concentration of economic benefits on our 
coast today than we had then, and that an accident and the risk of that 
accident for the benefits of the amount of oil available just does not 
make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) said, how can we do this? How can we turn down the supply 
of oil? Well, if we are going to take the supply of oil and put it into 
cars that get 12 and 13 miles a gallon, we have already made a decision 
that we are going to waste this oil. Seventy percent of our oil goes 
into transportation, and earlier this year, this Congress made the 
decision that we are not going to improve the CAFE standards, not a 
mile, not 2 miles, not 3 miles. So why would we risk this magnificent 
coastline, its magnificent benefits to us and its dynamic economic 
energy, why would we risk that at a time when the Congress has made a 
decision that they are simply going to waste the oil?
  We have to support the Capps amendment. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman for her leadership and her tenacity on this issue. We are 
not going away until we get the same justice that the people in Florida 
got and we get it for our economy and for our environment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague on the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this very important 
amendment today.
  I would like to state some facts for the Record. Why are we in 
support of this? First of all, we have the fifth largest economy in the 
world, California does. We are a nation State and, you bet, we are 
going to go to bat for our economy. A good deal of our economy rests on 
our coast side. We have fishermen, we have tourism, we have many small 
businesses, and we want to protect them. We do not want these parts of 
our coast side despoiled.
  Now, I purposely said ``parts.'' We are not talking about the entire 
coastline of California. California today produces its fair share of 
our Nation's need for oil supply from its coast. We want a fair shake 
from the President, from this administration, that we be able to buy 
these leases that have been outstanding.
  We think that the President should speak to his father, who agreed 
with us on this. This is a long-term, bipartisan issue in California.
  Today the Republican nominee in California says no offshore oil 
drilling; continued moratorium on these specific leases. So as the Bush 
administration of today says ``yes'' to his brother in Florida, we say, 
Mr. President, Members of Congress, follow the previous President's 
support and the President before that, George Bush 41. Give us a fair 
shake. Let us buy back these leases to protect California's coastline 
and her economy.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a battle that my California 
colleagues and I have been fighting for many, many years. It is not a 
fad. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), as well as 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for their leadership on this issue.
  Without this amendment, the Bush administration's concern with 
promoting the interests of big oil over serving the people of 
California will cause great harm to our coast.
  The answer to America's energy needs is not contained in 36 oil 
leases; our energy future depends on increased use of renewable energy 
sources and conservation measures. Drilling for oil off our coast will 
threaten to destroy our environment, wreak havoc on our economy, an 
economy that depends on tourism and a great deal on fishing.

[[Page 13342]]

  Unfortunately, the future of these 36 undeveloped leases is only a 
symptom of a bigger problem.
  The real solution is for the Federal Government to enact a permanent 
ban on drilling off California's coast. For too long now, the coast of 
California has been protected only by a multiyear presidential order.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I 
thank my colleagues for joining with me in presenting our case for the 
State of California. This is about our economy, it is about a national 
economy, a State that produces its fair share of energy resources, a 
State where we have a coastline that needs protection. This amendment 
seeks to limit the Interior Department's funding for the funding cycle 
so that we can encourage the Federal Government and the State of 
California to sit with the local oil lessees, oil lessees who have come 
to my office and told me that they would like to settle, they would 
like to find a way out, and this amendment can give them that time and 
give us the opportunity to make a resolution in some situation such as 
Florida has done.

                              {time}  1630

  Again, it will protect our environment. This oil-soaked bird is an 
example of what can happen with one accident.
  Our economy needs this protection; our environment needs this 
protection. I am pleased to implore my colleagues to support this 
amendment and work with us to allow these negotiations to occur for the 
State of California, for our environment and our economy.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps) and all of our friends from California for fighting for a clean 
environment and fighting for what is right and good in our country. I 
have been there and seen the whales and enjoyed it as much as anyone.
  But I think we must be vigilant and continue to recognize in the days 
following September 11 how fragile our economy is, how fragile our 
freedom is, and how much we must reduce our dependence on the Middle 
East for oil.
  If we are going to do that, we cannot cancel leases. We cannot use 
funds to restrict oil and gas leases that we have domestically. The 
vast majority of people in this country believe we must have our own 
production capabilities, and we must not retreat from that, and in 
doing so, keep our country free and strong and productive. That is what 
we must do.
  So on behalf of the subcommittee, we respectfully ask that the 
amendment be denied, with the greatest respect for those that offered 
it, because their motives are pure; but it is not in our country's best 
interest to limit this capability at this time through this 
appropriations bill.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps-
Rahall-Miller amendment as a matter of equity for California in its 
long effort to protect its coastline from the potential effects of 
offshore oil production.
  Many of us remember the devastation to the Santa Barbara coastline 
because of an oil spill. The state of California has been actively 
fighting these leases since then, including a 1994 law permanently 
banning new offshore oil leasing in state waters.
  Like Florida, the coastal resources of California are critical to the 
strong economy of the state as well as to the aesthetic appreciation of 
its citizens and people around our Nation. I have been proud to join 
the authors in a series of efforts to insist that California be 
protected from potential environmental effects of new oil and gas 
offshore drilling.
  It is important to protect our coastline by preventing the 
administration from expending funds to allow new drilling activity.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for 
the Capps-Rahall-Million amendment. This important amendment would work 
toward ending 36 undeveloped oil leases off the Californian cost. If 
these leases are allowed to be developed, we risk the tragic 
environmental contamination of a great swath of coastline. Executive 
Orders have placed moratoriums on developing these leases since 1990 
and this outstanding amendment moves us closer to a permanent solution 
that will protect the health of the coast.
  While I am greatly pleased with this amendment, I must also voice my 
criticism of two provisions within this bill that I find objectionable. 
I have long been an opponent of corporate welfare in its many forms. 
This bill contains several provisions that benefit corporate America at 
the expense of the American taxpayer. I believe that the are wrong and 
should be addressed.
  The fee charged for grazing animals on public lands is one of the 
most blatant and objectionable subsidies in this bill. Currently, 
ranchers may apply for permits to graze their animals on Federal land 
at significantly below market rates. The Bureau of Land Management and 
the Forest Service each charge approximately $1.43 per animal per 
month, whereas the market value of the same averages $13.10 per head. 
This is a 915 percent difference. This body and this country should not 
allow this gift to continue unabated.
  This bill also contains another offensive subsidy to corporate 
America that should be addressed. Hardrock mining, the mining of solid 
minerals that are not fuel from rock deposits, are governed by the 
General Mining Law of 1872. The law ranges free access to individuals 
and corporations to prospect for minerals in public domain lands, and 
allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or ``locate'') a claim 
on that deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the 
minerals and may be ``patented'' to convey full title to the claimant. 
The total amount of money that the claimant pays to the government to 
develop the mining claim is a $100 a year holding fee and between $2.50 
and $5.00 an acre (not adjusted since 1872) for an application fee.
  The 1872 law allows companies to extract minerals without paying a 
royalty. This is unlike all other resources taken from public lands. 
For example, oil gas and coal industries operating on public lands pay 
a 12.5 percent royalty on the gross income of the operation. We are 
giving away resources that belong to us all. The public interest is not 
being served, and will not be served until we eliminate this example of 
corporate welfare.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and Chairman announced that the noes appeared 
to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. Blumenauer:
       Add at the end, before the short title, the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into any new 
     commercial agricultural lease on the Lower Klamath and Tule 
     Lake National Wildlife Refuges in the States of Oregon and 
     California that permits the growing of row crops or alfalfa.

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debates on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, 
equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) will control 
20 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members may remember the huge controversy from last 
year when the Bureau of Reclamation shut off irrigation water to 
farmers in order to provide enough water for endangered suckerfish and 
threatened coho salmon. It was back in the news again recently, where 
the Bureau of Reclamation announced last week that this will be another 
dry year in the Klamath Basin.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is always going to be a story, or on the 
verge of

[[Page 13343]]

being one, for two reasons: number one, land management on our refuges 
in the Klamath Basin, and part of what I want to talk about here today 
deals with this remarkable wildlife refuge, it is guided by 
incompatible priorities: the reclamation of wetlands for agriculture 
and the preservation of wetlands for wildlife.
  The water in this basin is overallocated by some 100,000 acre feet a 
year. Visualize 100,000 football fields covered by a foot of water. The 
water will be available for competing uses in the Klamath Basin only 
for perhaps 6 out of every 10 years; 2, 3, 4, 5 of those 10 years, we 
are going to be in deficit.
  Now, the Federal Government created this mess at the beginning of the 
century by draining regions where there was too much water and creating 
an artificial hydrological system in the basin. The basin was a 3,500-
acre wetland. Now, over 75 percent of this 350,000 acres has been 
drained for agriculture and other developments.
  The water that is left in the basin is damaged. The Klamath River is 
one of the more polluted rivers in the State of Oregon, and the Upper 
Klamath Basin Lake is severely polluted. American Rivers has listed the 
Klamath as one of America's most endangered rivers.
  The basin is always going to be in the news unless and until we take 
steps to reduce the damage. This amendment is a simple, commonsense 
step towards addressing part of the conflict in the basin between 
farmers, endangered species, the wildlife refuges, and Native 
Americans. It aims to reduce the damage from commercial agriculture and 
the refuge lands in the basin.
  The Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge was established by Teddy 
Roosevelt as the Nation's first waterfowl refuge in 1908. Members may 
be surprised to find out, as I was, that the Klamath Basin refuges are 
the only refuges in the country that allow leasing for commercial 
agriculture of this nature. They are damaging wildlife in the process.
  Farming on the refuge currently uses 56 different pesticide products, 
including 10 carcinogenics, two neurotoxins, and 13 endocrine 
disrupters. At least six of the pesticides have been determined by the 
U.S. EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey to be toxic to salmon. This is 
activity that is going on in one of our precious natural wildlife 
refuges.
  That is one of the reasons, perhaps, the daily peak of overall number 
of birds who visit the refuge have declined from 6 million birds in the 
sixties to less than 1 million birds today.
  For most of America, the conflict between wildlife refuge use and 
agriculture was fixed by Congress when it passed the National Wildlife 
Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997 by an overwhelming vote of 407 to 
one. The act clarified that wildlife conservation is the singular 
mission of wildlife refuges. It requires that the economic uses of 
national wildlife refuges only be permitted if they contribute to the 
achievement of refuge purposes and that such uses not degrade 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.
  Unfortunately, this standard has not yet been applied to the Klamath 
Basin.
  I want to be clear: the amendment would not eliminate the lease land 
program on Tule Lake in the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge. The 
amendment only applies to the 17 agricultural leases that will be up 
for renewal in October of this year, a little over 2,000 acres out of 
the 22,000 acres that we are currently leasing.
  The amendment does not stop agricultural activity. Farmers would be 
able to continue to farm in the wildlife refuge; but it would prohibit 
the growing of alfalfa, which is water-intensive, and row crops such as 
onions and potatoes, which are pesticide-intensive, on any new leases. 
The statistics are rather stark about the intense use of water for 
these row crops during the summer months when water is scarce in the 
basin. Farmers would still be able to grow crops that are beneficial to 
wildlife, such as barley, oats, and wheat.
  The Federal Government's efforts in the Klamath Basin have been 
uncoordinated; and in fact, in concert with some local boosters over 
the last 100 years, they have made environmental shortcuts and did not 
honor basic agreements on the scale of ownership, financial commitment, 
and water use. In this process, Native Americans, the environment, 
wildlife, and the taxpayers have all been shortchanged.
  I strongly urge that my colleagues join me in helping restore the 
integrity of the Klamath Basin and the National Wildlife Refuge system, 
and support this amendment that has been offered by myself and my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the subcommittee, I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, the lease land program is a perfect example 
of how wildlife and agriculture can thrive together. Congress 
recognized that balance and specifically afforded farming a special 
status in the national wildlife refuges of the Klamath Basin. The 
Kuchel Act enshrined the lease land farm program in Federal law, 
specifying a compromise between row and forage crops and cereal grains 
in a way that would satisfy the requirements of the law, including 
maximizing revenues to the government and to local counties, and 
providing food and habitat for the migrating birds and other wildlife.
  While couched in seemingly innocent terms, this amendment takes a 
short step in the direction of eliminating the lease land program by 
chipping away at its foundation. If we remove row crops, we remove the 
greatest incentive to farm and upset the balance that was established 
in Federal law almost 40 years ago.
  Moreover, this would deal another devastating economic blow to these 
communities, which have already suffered incredible hardship in the 
wake of last year's tragic water shutoff. Estimates are that these 
crops generated an average of approximately $10 million annually over 
the last 5 years. Those same acres planted to grain, as required by 
this amendment, would generate a little over $1 million. That is a $9 
million out of $10 million loss that would cripple this community.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues with agriculture in their districts know 
how tenuous commodity markets are. Farmers need opportunities, not more 
baseless limitations. The irony here is, Mr. Chairman, that despite the 
gentleman's stated desires to help wildlife, their amendment would do 
precisely the opposite. By preventing the planting of onions, potatoes, 
and alfalfa, we effectively eliminate an important food source.
  The potatoes, which I should note the gentlemen have specifically 
targeted, provide a particularly important source of nutrients for 
geese, allowing them to migrate and breed successfully; and they remove 
the very mechanism, crop rotation, that allows farmers to maintain the 
quality of the soils, and, in turn, enhance the production of the 
cereal grains that provide food and habitat. That is why it is in the 
Kuchel Act.
  Claims of harm from pesticides used are simply unfounded. There is 
not a shred of evidence, not one, despite years of study, that lends 
any support whatsoever to that argument. The refuge manager himself has 
stated that there is ``no smoking gun.'' That is because pesticide use 
is severely restricted. California has the most stringent pesticide 
rules in the country, and over 95 percent of those allowable pesticides 
are prohibited on the leased lands.
  Despite the rhetoric of the radical environmental groups, all the 
evidence is exactly to the contrary. Mr. Chairman, consider this 
statement from the California Waterfowl Association: ``For nearly 100 
years, farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin have co-existed with 
immense populations of wildlife. Many wildlife species, especially 
waterfowl, are familiar visitors to their highly productive farms and 
ranches.

[[Page 13344]]

Klamath Basin agriculture provides a veritable nursery for wildlife.''
  So if there is no harm here, if experience over the long history of 
this program has shown that agriculture helps and enhances wildlife, 
then why seek to undo the delicate balance? The only explanation is, 
quite simply, that this is another attempt to shrink farming in this 
area.
  Note that some of the same radical environmental groups behind this 
amendment were the same groups that were pursuing a similar proposal 2 
years ago which would have eliminated the leases entirely. There is no 
doubting these groups' desire to remove agriculture from the Klamath 
Basin.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this anti-agriculture 
amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Oregon for yielding time to me and for his work on this 
very important matter.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is good for agriculture, it is good for 
waterfowl, it is good for the fishing industry, and it is good for the 
families in the Klamath Basin, the north coast of California, and the 
coast of Oregon.
  In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt established our country's first 
waterfowl refuge in the Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

                              {time}  1645

  These are among the most important refuges in our country and they 
are the most important refuges in California. It is the largest staging 
area for waterfowl in the entire Pacific flyway. It also has the 
greatest concentration of wintering bald eagles in the United States. 
As was pointed out earlier, these are the only refuges in the country 
that allow commercial lease land farming. They farm over 20,000 acres 
of farmland. Many of the crops are water-consumptive and chemically 
intensive. The area is an area of very little waterfall. The average is 
less than that of some parts of Arizona where they have next to 
nothing.
  There are about 100,000 acre-feet of water that are overallocated in 
the basin; and this, Mr. Chairman, coupled with a multiyear drought, 
has hurt farmers, it hurts fish, and it hurts waterfall. The area of 
the headwaters of the Klamath River, which was the number one salmon 
river in the Lower 48 States. Today's water shortages and intensive 
chemicals have greatly diminished the fish and the economy of the 
coastal communities of Northern California and some parts of Oregon.
  In 1988, sports and commercial fishing in the Pacific region 
generated over $1.2 billion to our regional economy. Today's salmon 
fishing between Fort Bragg, California and my district and Coos Bay, 
Oregon has been all but shut down for the last 10 years. Klamath River 
salmon are 1 percent of their historical population, and the coast 
families in California and Oregon have lost over 72,000 family wage 
jobs. We must address the water problems of the Klamath Basin. We have 
got to do it soon.
  This amendment, I believe, is a very important first step in doing 
that. The amendment will limit the crops grown on about 2,000 acres of 
the refuge that is leased to farming. That is 17 leases and, remember, 
they farm 2,000 acres of lease farming there. The crops that will be 
grown on those 17 leases, on those 2,000 acres, will be less water-
consumptive. They will rely less on chemicals and they will provide 
some very needed food to waterfowl.
  We are talking about going from row crops and alfalfa to potatoes to 
cereal grain to crops that are beneficial to the important wildlife 
that fly through the entire Pacific flyway. And most important and 
against what some of the critics of this amendment will say is that it 
still allows families in the area to farm. These areas will not go out 
of farming production. They will continue to be farmed. There are just 
going to be restrictions on what can be farmed in this area, 
restrictions that will be good for the coastal communities, good for 
the farming communities, good for the Native American community, good 
for fish, good for wildlife and good for waterfowl.
  This is an important solution to the Klamath Basin water problem and 
it will help immensely with the downturn in the economy for the 
aforementioned reasons, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this initiative, and do so knowing this can be good for 
fish, good for waterfowl and good for people.
  I thank the gentleman from Oregon again.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce and the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed that my colleague 
from Portland has chosen to attack farming the Klamath Basin with this 
reckless and harmful amendment. By doing so, we are kicking the very 
farmers in the stomach just when they have been begun to recover from 
the last attack that this government hit them with. You remember, these 
are the men and women of the Klamath Basin who had their irrigation 
water cut off to them last year. They could not raise their crops and 
then the National Academy of Science has found the government's 
decision to cut off their water could not be backed up by science.
  In short, the Federal Government got it wrong, terribly wrong.
  What makes this amendment especially troubling is that it flies in 
the face of science and could hurt the farmers, the economy, the 
community and the very species that it is supposed to be introduced to 
protect.
  Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility to see that this Congress does 
not get it wrong again and do even more damage in the Klamath Basin, 
damage not only to the farmers who lease the lands on the refuges but 
also damage the wildlife, the waterfowl and refuges.
  The proponents make two arguments: That growing row crops and alfalfa 
are incompatible with the refuges and the pesticides are adversely 
affecting the environment of the refuges. First, growing row crops is 
not only compatible with the refuges, but is also a practice that 
benefits the soil by improving its fertility as crops are rotated. This 
practice is as old as farming in America. The increased fertility of 
the soil in turn benefits the cereal grains that represent more than 75 
percent of the acreage in the refuges which are then eaten by various 
species.
  Mr. Chairman, activities on the Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges are 
governed by several Federal laws, including the 1964 Kuchel Act, which 
restricts row crops on the refuges to no more than 25 percent. It is 
worth noting that current planning of row crops represents less than 
that figure.
  Periodically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts a 
compatibility determination, a formal and involved public process to 
make sure that agricultural processes are consistent with operating the 
refuges for the benefit of wildlife and waterfowl. The latest 
compatibility determination was issued on June 4 of this year. It 
selected a no-action alternative which means that the farming 
activities are indeed compatible with the goals of the refuge.
  Further, Fish and Wildlife determined that even if these leased lands 
are reduced, the increased returned flows of water generated from 
reduced lease land farming would not be available to refuge wetlands. 
They are the lowest on the priority list to water rights in the basin. 
This is because the Endangered Species Acts, tribal trust assets, and 
agricultural contracts take precedent.
  In short, cutting back on leasing the lease lands will not result in 
more water to the refuge wetlands.
  Now let us talk about alfalfa. We are talking about onions and 
potatoes. Growing onions requires hand-weeding which helps keep down 
the noxious weeds. What better way to control noxious weed infestations 
than by hand-weeding. Growing potatoes benefits waterfowl. According to 
the California Waterfowl Association, potatoes specifically benefit two 
types of geese, the

[[Page 13345]]

lesser snow and the white-fronted geese, because after the first frost 
the potatoes left in the field provide food for these geese. The 
pronghorned antelope on the refuge eat the alfalfa sprouts.
  Mr. Chairman, the Blumenauer-Thompson amendment would deny leases 
that allow farmers to raise these row crops that have indeed been found 
compatible with the purposes of the refuge.
  Now let us move on to pesticides. It is ironic that my friend from 
California would be on this amendment about pesticides when all the 
scientific studies, and I have a list of them here, found no adverse 
effect from these pesticides. And, in fact, I want to go to a statement 
by the manager of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge. ``We have 
never found that the pesticides have had an adverse effect on the 
environment.''
  The Littlejohn report from 1993, the Boyer and Grew reports from 
1994, the Moore report in 1993, on and on. These farmers used 
integrated pest management programs to minimize the use of pesticides 
in this basin. Each year they go through a pesticide use proposal 
process. I have the minutes of the April meeting here where they go 
through and look at how they can minimize the use.
  California, and you all from California know this, probably has the 
most restricted use of pesticides in the United States of America. On 
this refuge, 97.8 percent of those pesticides allowed everywhere else 
in California are denied in this refuge already. They only use 2.2 
percent of the available pesticides. For nearly a decade scientist 
after scientist has studied the use of the pesticides and found no 
problems. Where they have thought there might be some concerns, they 
have moved back how they applied the pesticides so it does not get in 
the water, does not get in the canals, and does not adversely affect 
the species in the Klamath Refuge.
  It is important to note, because I know my friend and colleague from 
Portland originally wanted to ban funding for any renewal of leases but 
then compromised and just wants to do away about the row crops. Let me 
point out what Phil Norton, the manager of the Klamath Basin Refuge 
said. His greatest nightmare would be to have a whole bunch of lands 
that we were not set up to handle. That is what will happen if we start 
cutting off these leases.
  Again, I want to make the point, if the lease lands are not used, the 
water does not go to the refuge but to other higher-use priorities.
  Finally, let me close by saying this. Those of us who represent rural 
areas have a concern when those in the urban areas have situations far 
worse than polluting rivers. In the city of Portland, 3.4 billion 
gallons of stormwater and sewage flow in in 55 locations into the 
Columbia and the Willamette River; 3.4 billion gallons of raw sewage. 
They flush it and it flows right into where the endangered salmon are. 
Right over where there are toxic dumps, Superfund sites in the 
Willamette River. Yet the American Rivers Council does not say that one 
is polluted. They just say that Klamath is.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment for agriculture. It does not 
work for the wildlife. What they have done on that refuge is 
compatible, and I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask if there is a chance we could get a 
unanimous consent agreement on dividing the time equally, but limiting 
the remaining debate to 12 minutes so we can honor leadership's 
commitment to rise at a time certain, and that would be six minutes per 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. With all due respect, I wanted to cooperate with the 
gentleman. I did this from the beginning. It was the other side who 
asked for 20 minutes. I had agreed to 15 minutes a side. Now I am going 
to get behind the curve. If you give me 9 minutes, I will agree to 6. I 
think that will put us even and I am a happy guy.
  Mr. WAMP. If we go beyond 12, we will have to rise and come back at 6 
o'clock. That was an agreement we made earlier.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will be happy to do it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have been working very hard, as I think 
my gentleman friend from Eastern Oregon knows, to deal with the 
problems in the Willamette River. I negotiated a settlement. We put a 
lot of money into it. I am continuing to work on that. But one thing we 
decided is we were going to make it better, not worse. And what this 
amendment is seeking to do is to make sure that we are making it 
better.
  Second, the notion is given to the 1964 Kuchel Act. Well, give me a 
break. We have learned a lot about managing the environment in the last 
28 years. And if we were doing it over again, we would not enact, I do 
not think even this Congress would enact something that looks like that 
1964 act. And I am suggesting that what we are doing here is an attempt 
to bring that into conformity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time and for offering this amendment.
  To follow up on what he said, we have spent the last 15 years 
cleaning up after the reclamation projects that were started in the 
1950s, the 1960s and even into the 1970s. We completely reorganized the 
Central Utah project, the Central Arizona project, the Garrison 
project, the Central Valley project in California. Why? Because in 1964 
and 1960 and 1970, we made some very bad decisions about the use of 
those lands, and the damage from those decisions was now spilling over 
onto other farmers, onto the cities, onto water users, onto tribes, 
onto the environment.
  We have an opportunity here under this amendment to take a realistic 
look at a very oversubscribed basin on the use of water. And the 
particular use here is at the behest of Federal leases that are 
subsidized; at crops, in some cases, that are subsidized or the farmer 
was growing crops, one subsidized, one unsubsidized, and I am not clear 
whether or not yet the water is in fact subsidized.
  That is kind of what makes this basin go. But the spillover effect of 
this basin is all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and it spills over to 
the recreational industries, onto tourism industry, onto the farming 
industry, onto the Pacific Coast fisheries, onto the water qualities 
issues, and the environmental issues.
  At a minimum what the gentleman has raised is something we ought to 
take very seriously because we had a huge outbreak of concern in the 
Klamath about how we will allocate water between species and farmers 
and Indians and fish and all the rest of it.
  We have an opportunity with the renewal of these leases to put some 
of this in abeyance and see what the impact is on the other entities in 
what is an area that is clearly oversubscribed. If everybody exercises 
their water rights, the species, the farmers, the tribes, then we know 
that it is oversubscribed. That is why we are having this problem. Yes, 
this might have made sense 40 years ago and it might have made sense at 
the turn of the century when people came to the Klamath Basin. But the 
State of Utah made a decision, the State of Arizona made a decision, to 
some extent the State of California, it does not make sense to keep 
raising alfalfa in the desert.

                              {time}  1700

  Because the usage of the water is just too high, especially if we are 
doing it

[[Page 13346]]

on subsidized land, and those are the kinds of changes that have to be 
made.
  I do not know if this is the perfect amendment, but we ought not to 
turn down the serious consideration, what the gentleman is offering 
here, as we in the Committee on Resources sit and look at the struggle 
that is going on in this basin. This may be one of the easier options 
that we can have in trying to sort out an area that is so terribly over 
subscribed and short of water for all of the competing uses, all of 
which have very, very legitimate claims on that water. But as we try to 
sort it out, I think the gentleman has brought forth one of the tools 
that might be used that is under the control of the Secretary who has 
to make some very tough decisions and can try to balance out the 
competing interests of the parties.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), a distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I am sort of amazed at the overkill, the overrhetoric that comes on 
some of these debates. I know there has been allegations by the 
distinguished gentlemen who were the sponsors of this amendment, both 
of whom I respect, who said there is damage to the fowl and the fish; 
and yet the manager of the refuge has not made that determination at 
all. In fact, he said we found that the pesticides that are used, that 
none of these pesticides have an adverse effect on the environment.
  I listened to the gentleman from California talk about environmental 
protection. Ninety-eight percent of the pesticides that are allowed in 
California are already prohibited from use on this refuge. So I say let 
us clean up California. Maybe if there is such a pesticide problem in 
California or on this refuge, clean up California first rather than 
coming out and trying to whack away at farmers.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is 17 families that are affected by this 
issue, 17 leases. Well, that is 17 families who were trying like crazy 
to make a living in farming. In fact, the refuge monitors pesticides 
all the time. That is why we have managers of refuges. That is what 
they do. They make sure there is no adverse effect on fish or fowl.
  So to come in here and keep saying there is damage to this and there 
is damage to that, it just is not true. There is no evidence of it, and 
I think that this House ought to stand up and say, wait a minute, this 
is overkill and let us not go to extremism that I think some of the 
supporters of this amendment want us to go to.
  In fact, if a person does not grow potatoes in this refuge, the 
lesser snow and white fronted geese feed on the first frost in the 
refuge. So my point is this is good for wild fowl and snow and white 
fronted geese. Same with alfalfa, it is good for the fowl and the 
animals in the refuge.
  So enough overkill. That is what this amendment is, and I urge its 
defeat.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has 2 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the rhetoric, 
and I find it somewhat amusing. First, they have been quoting Phil 
Norton, the refuge manager, about the fact that there are not any 
problems with pesticides. First of all, it might be hard to tell the 
effect of the pesticides when the farmers are not allowed to go on the 
fields after they spray for 48 to 72 hours. That is a hint that it may 
not be as healthy as one suggests.
  The notion that this Mr. Norton somehow is a proponent of 
continuation, I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Mr. 
Norton said, ``We want to manage the land we already own.'' That, ``we 
want.'' The leased land program has to go. We get conflicting reactions 
from the wildlife manager; but the point is, I think it is bizarre that 
it is being advanced that somehow the wildlife are not going to survive 
unless we are growing things like potatoes on the wildlife refuge.
  The fact is that the wildlife got along quite well without us. It is 
after we went in and monkeyed with the ecosystems up and down the 
coasts that we have had problems.
  We are suggesting that farming can continue consistent with the uses 
of the refuge. We are hearing about potatoes; $10 million was 
referenced by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). 
That has been a wildly up and down notion in terms of the value. My 
friend who is in the Chair right now knows that last year people were 
leaving potatoes in the field because they cannot afford to harvest 
them. The point is the potatoes use extensive water, particularly 
during the growing season. It is not the best use.
  We have the charge about reckless and damaging; and with all due 
respect, as I think my colleagues review the hundred-year history of 
the Klamath Basin, the people who are reckless and damaging are those 
who feel that we do not need any changes, that somehow we can continue 
to ignore the demands of the overall environment of wildlife, of Native 
Americans, and that the failure to renew 17 leases for other than uses 
that are compatible with agriculture is reckless and upsetting, I 
think, Mr. Speaker is overblown, and anybody who looks at it will 
concur.
  Dennis Healey once talked about the theory of the hole; when a person 
is in it, stop digging. This is a tiny step to restoring the health of 
the Klamath Basin and protecting the wildlife refuge.
  I urge its passage.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let us get to the facts here; and 
the facts are these, and let me read this. I will turn to pesticides. 
Although current studies and modern activities have failed to detect an 
acute problem with pesticides on the refuge, they go into this. That is 
why they did, the IPM, the integrated pest management plan. I can give 
my colleague study after study right here of great researchers in the 
State of Oregon that have looked at pesticide use and have found no 
significant impact.
  Beyond that, let me just say this. I have supported, as have the 
gentleman, legislation to study the water quality and quantity in this 
basin. It has passed this Congress, probably unanimously, and the 
agencies are working on that. I have supported and the gentleman has 
supported legislation to improve fish passage at Chilicottan dam. I 
have supported conservation efforts to improve water quality and 
quantity in this basin and habitat.
  My feet are not stuck in concrete, but I want to do it in a way that 
works in the basin for the farmers and the fish and the fowl with 
science-based decisions. The rest is the rhetoric.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that when I 
see somebody from an urban area sponsoring an amendment that deals with 
rural America, I get a little bit antsy, and I think that is the case 
that is happening right here.
  I was down at Klamath Basin a little over a year ago at a hearing, 
and I heard what the farmers went through. It was devastating to them; 
and now this amendment, which looks innocuous, it just simply says a 
person cannot grow row crops and no money should be used for row crops 
or alfalfa. That has an unintended consequence in my view in the future 
of now saying on reclamation projects a person is limited to what crops 
they can grow.
  It sets a precedent and I think a very bad precedent that could apply 
to areas probably all over the country, including the central valley of 
California and my area of Washington, Columbia Basin Project, that I 
think is very detrimental because those larger areas have the large 
diversity of crops.

[[Page 13347]]

  I think the gentleman comes at this with strong feelings. It is a bad 
way to go, in my view. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this area has been devastated by 
government mismanagement already. We already know the history when for 
no good scientific reason the water was cut off to the farmers. It did 
irreparable harm, and it should not have happened, and now we come with 
this new amendment which is going to just compound the error that was 
made then and will do grave injustice to a community that depends upon 
the farming.
  The farming is essential to these refuges. These refuges do not use 
much water. I think 2 percent of the water developed in the basin goes 
for the purpose of agriculture. It is really a de minimus amount.
  It is clear that pesticides are not a problem. We have had these uses 
compatible that have gone on for over a hundred years in this area. 
There is a waterfowl area. We need farming. The Kuchel Act mandates we 
have farming in order to sustain the refuges. We have to have this 
continue. It would be a terrible injustice to enact this amendment.
  We need to stay focused, get the good science; and the good science 
says that agriculture and refuges are compatible. Please defeat this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. Blumenauer) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Dan 
Miller of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, 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. 
5093) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________