CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H3363 - GovInfo.gov

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3363June 21, 2001USGS agency in regards to the MethowValley.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Iyield to the gentleman from New Mex-ico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I appre-ciate the gentleman’s kind words, andrecognize his support for the projectsin the legislation.

I assure the gentleman that the sub-committee will work to address hisconcerns regarding these projects inconference.

Mr. HASTINGS. Again, Mr. Chair-man, I want to thank the chairman forhis efforts on this in his very first Inte-rior appropriations bill. I will certainlyprovide any assistance I can give andadditional information necessary tohelp him in conference on these twoprojects.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise instrong support of this bill and rule.

I want to say to my colleague, thegentleman from Washington, I willhelp him in the conference on themeasures that he just mentioned.

I also want to say that I want to ap-plaud the chairman of this committeeand the majority and the minority forworking to keep the commitment lastyear in our substitute for CARA. Thisbill carries with it $1,320 million inconservation spending. I think it is adramatic step in the right direction.

If Members will remember, last yearover 300 House Members voted forCARA, which would have been a 15-year $3 billion program. I offered anamendment with the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. OBEY) that was accept-ed by the majority that would keepthis within the purview of the Com-mittee on Appropriations, and to cre-ate a trust fund to make sure that theyimportant programs were funded. Themajority is working with the minority.We have funded it in the Interior bill,and we hope it will be also funded inthe State, Justice, and Commerce bill.

I agree with the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) that wewould have hoped that the Committeeon Rules might have helped us on acouple of these amendments, but Iwant to say to my colleagues, we aregoing to offer an amendment to in-crease funding for the cultural institu-tions, $10 million for the National En-dowment for the Arts, $3 million forthe National Endowment for the Hu-manities, and $2 million for museumservices.

We are taking the money out of ad-ministrative expenses. I am confidentthat if the amendment is approved, wewill be able to protect that in con-ference. So I am enthusiastically sup-porting this bill. I think we shouldmove ahead and pass the rule on avoice vote and get to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of therule providing for consideration of the FiscalYear 2002 Appropriations bill for the Depart-ment of Interior and Related Agencies, despitea denied request to make two amendments inorder that were proposed yesterday to theCommittee on Rules.

The Minority has been consulted throughoutthe process of developing this legislation andwe believe our views are reflected in many as-pects of the bill. While we do not agree withevery recommendation and continue to workfor improvements in several areas, in balancewe believe that this Interior bill is one whichMembers from both parties can support.

The Minority is particularly pleased with therecommendation for funding of the new Con-servation Trust Fund created last year. By in-cluding the full $1,320 million authorized forconservation, Congress has kept faith with lastyear’s commitment to significantly expandfunding for land acquisition, wildlife protectionand other preservation and conservation pro-grams. We are also pleased by the Commit-tee’s inclusion of a $120 million increase forweatherization and State energy programs toinsulate homes, schools and hospitals. Thesefunds are critical to low income families.

We applaud the Committee’s decision to re-store many of the unwise cuts proposed bythe President in a number of critical areas.This includes approximately $300 million tothe Energy Conservation and Fossil Energyresearch accounts. These funds can signifi-cantly ameliorate the energy crisis identified inthe President’s National Energy Policy. Itmade no sense to cut these programs whencurrent gasoline prices and electricity prob-lems remind us daily of the need for energyconservation and alternative energy programs.

Although the Committee did not make inorder the amendment proposed yesterday,Congresswoman SLAUGHTER and I plan tooffer a new amendment today to increasefunding for our cultural agencies. The amend-ment would provide $10 million for the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts, $3 million forthe National Endowment for the Humanities,and $2 million for the Institute for Museum andLibrary Services offset by small reductions inadministrative costs at the Department of theInterior and the Department of Agriculture. Wehad originally planned to offset these amountsthrough a deferral of excess clean coal fundsas we did last year. Unfortunately the RulesCommittee did not waive the rule to allow this.Instead this amendment makes a very smallreduction of less than .3 percent in administra-tive costs.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule protectingthe bill as reported. It is a clean bill which I in-tend to support.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Ihave no further requests for time, andI yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, I yield back the balance ofmy time, and I move the previous ques-tion on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.The resolution was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.f

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-imous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days within which torevise and extend their remarks onH.R. 2217, and that I may include tab-ular and extraneous material.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.LAHOOD). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from New Mex-ico?

There was no objection.f

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORAND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-PRIATIONS ACT, 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 174 and ruleXVIII, the Chair declares the House inthe Committee of the Whole House onthe State of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill, H.R. 2217.

The Chair designates the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE) as chair-man of the Committee of the Whole,and requests the gentleman from Geor-gia (Mr. ISAKSON) to assume the chairtemporarily.

b 1021

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolveditself into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union for theconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2217)making appropriations for the Depart-ment of the Interior and related agen-cies for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursu-

ant to the rule, the bill is considered ashaving been read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman fromNew Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) and the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS)each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN).

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Interior bill thatwas reported out of the committee pro-vides a total of $18.9 billion, $86 millionabove fiscal year 2001. The increase isless than one-half of 1 percent above2001.

I want to say a few things about thisbill. This is a good, bipartisan bill. Thecommittee members worked to put to-gether a good bill for this Congress,and this is a good bill for our Statesand counties and our programs, withmoney that will help States, counties,and cities to solve their problems.

This is a good bill for our parks. Thebill fulfills President Bush’s commit-ment to our parks, and continues ef-forts of my good friend and formerchairman of the committee, the gen-tleman from Ohio, Mr. Regula, to theparks.

This is a good bill for wildlife stockand endangered species. There ismoney for President Bush’s landownerincentive program, there is money forcritters in this bill. This is a good billfor Indian schools and Indian medicalfacilities. New hospitals, new clinics,and new schools are funded in this bill.

VerDate 21-JUN-2001 05:10 Jun 22, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K21JN7.006 pfrm04 PsN: H21PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3364 June 21, 2001This is a good bill for weatherizationprograms across the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good and re-sponsible bill in responding to our Na-tion’s wildfire needs. This is a greatbill for those who want to save andbring back the Everglades. This is agood bill for needed energy research.

This bill is also a good bill for thosewho want to limit the riders on appro-priation bills, and this is a good bill forMembers who want to pass a non-controversial bill. Yes, this is basicallyan Interior bill free from the normalcontroversies.

I just want to add a few more things.This bill is $791 million above thePresident’s request, but only $86 mil-lion above this year’s budget. This in-crease is easy to explain. We have putback $164 million for critical wildfireneeds. We put back $87 million in cutsfor the U.S. Geological Survey. We putback $15 million for the payment in

lieu of taxes, known as PILT, the PILTprogram that goes to our counties. Wehave put back $294 million to restoreenergy research programs requested byover 200 Members in the House.

We put in $64 million in the conserva-tion category to fulfill the promises wemade in last year’s appropriation bill.We put in a $50 million increase for In-dian hospitals and clinics, and con-struction and maintenance needs.

I want to take a minute to expressmy sincere and lasting thanks to theranking member of the full committee,the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.OBEY), for his help on this bill, and thehelp of the ranking subcommitteemember, my good friend, the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS).They have all worked with me boldlyand in the spirit of bipartisan coopera-tion.

I thank their staff also, especiallyMike Stephens and Leslie Turner, who

spent countless hours with the major-ity’s staff working out problems.

I thank, Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG), forhis support in the first year of mychairmanship of this committee.

I also want to thank the majoritystaff, who have stepped up to help meduring this transition period as a newchairman. Deborah Weatherly, LorettaBeaumont, Joel Kaplan, Chris Topik,Casey Stealer, and Andria Oliver haveall chipped in to help me through thisfirst year. Also to Jim Hughes, frommy personal staff, a special thanks.Their knowledge and ability to workwith both sides of the aisle and theirprofessionalism is a credit to the Houseof Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I include for theRECORD a table detailing the variousaccounts in the bill.

The table referred to is as follows:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3365June 21, 2001

VerDate 21-JUN-2001 05:10 Jun 22, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K21JN7.010 pfrm04 PsN: H21PT1 Inse

rt o

ffset

folio

55G

/1 h

ere

EH

21JN

01.0

01

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3366 June 21, 2001


rt o

ffset

folio

55G

/2 h

ere

EH

21JN

01.0

02



rt o

ffset

folio

55G

/3 h

ere

EH

21JN

01.0

03

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3368 June 21, 2001


rt o

ffset

folio

55G

/4 h

ere

EH

21JN

01.0

04



rt o

ffset

folio

55G

/5 h

ere

EH

21JN

01.0

05

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3370 June 21, 2001Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve

the balance of my time.Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to

congratulate our new chairman, thegentleman from New Mexico (Mr.SKEEN), on his first bill. He has done anoutstanding job. As he has suggested,there has been real collaboration be-tween the majority and minority, boththe Members and the staff.

I want to applaud the staff membersof the Committee, both the majorityand minority, particularly DebbieWeatherly and Mike Stephens and Les-ley Turner on my staff. They haveworked very hard on this bill, and Ithink it is an extraordinary bill.

I rise in support of the FY 02 Interiorappropriations act. I congratulateagain the staff for producing a bill thatI think we all can support. The sub-committee bill represents a significantimprovement over the President’sbudget request. Most of the cuts havebeen restored, and a few very impor-tant programs received small in-creases.

I want to also compliment our major-ity on the cooperative way the bill wascrafted. The minority, as I suggested,was consulted extensively, and the ma-jority went to great lengths to see thatmost of our concerns were addressedthroughout the process.

The most important thing to me inthis bill, and to many of my colleagues,is the commitment to the ConservationTrust Fund which was negotiated lastyear. Under the agreement, conserva-tion spending was nearly doubled in fis-cal year 2001 and would gradually in-crease to fiscal year 2006. This yearcontains the full $1.32 billion called forunder the agreement, but is not a newentitlement. This funding structure en-ables the committee to prioritize spe-cific conservation programs, such asland acquisition, endangered speciesrecovery, historic preservation, as wellas provide grants to States for con-servation activities and urban recre-ation.

This agreement was a careful com-promise last year during the final ne-gotiation on this bill when it becameapparent that the CARA legislation,which created mandatory spending,was not going to pass the Congress.The conservation spending category isa victory for the country.

I am extremely pleased that this billfully honors our commitment on a bi-partisan basis. While I plan to supportthe bill today, I do plan to support anamendment that would increase fund-ing to both the National Endowmentfor the Arts and the National Endow-ment for the Humanities, and wouldalso give a small increase of fundingfor the Institute for Museum and Li-brary Services.

The chairman should be commendedfor his efforts to restore nearly all thecuts to energy research and conserva-tion programs that were proposed bythe President. These cuts were unwise,

especially given the current energy sit-uation we are facing out West. MyState of Washington has seen the im-pacts of this energy crisis firsthand,and many more States are next.

If the President is as concerned as hispublic statements suggest, he wouldwelcome this committee’s increase inthese critical areas.

Aside from some specific programlevels, this is a very good bill. Thetotal in the chairman’s mark is $18.941million. This is $814 million over thePresident’s request, and essentially thesame level as 2001.

b 1030

After adjusting for one-time firemoney in 2001, however, the bill pro-vides an increase over the current yearof $803 million or 5 percent. This is ontop of a 15 percent increase last yearfor nonfire programs.

There is a $60 million increase forStateside Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund grants as well as $60 millionincluded for the President’s two newprivate landowner incentive programs,taking that up to about $150 million.This is one of the President’s impor-tant programs.

We also funded two new private land-owner incentive programs proposed bythe administration.

Both of the President’s two highestpriorities in the Department of Energy,the weatherization program, an in-crease of $120 million, and the CleanCoal Initiative, an increase of $150 mil-lion, were provided. This bill alsorightly continues the National Park’sServices’ Save America’s Treasuresprogram. This program, started byMrs. CLINTON during the last adminis-tration, has been a success, and hashelped restore many historic struc-tures.

I am also pleased that the bill doesnot contain any objectionable riderslike the ones that have threatened thebill in past years.

Again, I compliment the gentlemanfrom New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) on hisfirst Interior bill. It is a pleasure towork with him and his staff, and I lookforward to passing this bill todaywhich I think we can all support.

Mr. Chairman, I see that the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG), thechairman of the Committee on Appro-priations, is here, and the gentlemanfrom Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY); and I wantto thank them for their help in helpingus move this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Florida(Mr. YOUNG), the chairman of the Com-mittee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-man, I want to take a couple of min-utes, and I do not want to delay theconsideration of this bill, but I want toadvise the Members of the good workthat was done by the gentleman fromNew Mexico (Mr. SKEEN), the chairmanof the subcommittee.

This was a new assignment for thegentleman because of our term limitsituation in the House. He did a reallyoutstanding job, and he had a greatpartner in the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS), the ranking mem-ber of the subcommittee. They workedclosely together. They shared informa-tion all of the way through the process.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.OBEY) can speak for himself, but Ithink we were both pleased when weattended the subcommittee markupand saw what a good bipartisan billthis was.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members tohelp us expedite the consideration ofthis bill today. It is a good bill. Therewill be some debate and discussion on afew issues that might stir up some con-troversy but, all in all, it is a good bill.It is a very good bipartisan bill, andthe gentleman from New Mexico andthe gentleman from Washington are tobe congratulated for the work thatthey have done.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I still amexperiencing some laryngitis, but Iwant to take a moment to comment onthis bill.

It is certainly not a perfect bill. AndI believe it needs more funding for botharts and energy research and severalother programs, but I intend to votefor it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratu-late the gentleman from New Mexico(Mr. SKEEN) and his staff for handlingthis bill in the way in which every ap-propriation bill ought to be handled.Information was made fully availableto the minority, and strong effortswere made to work out virtually alldifferences on the bill. In contrast tonominal bipartisanship, this was atruly bipartisan approach. I think itneeds to be recognized in this Housewhen that happens because it does nothappen nearly enough, as evidenced bythe many bills which come to the floorin a state of high controversy.

Let me also congratulate the com-mittee for adhering to an agreementmade last year when the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. REGULA) was chairman.

As Members will recall, a number ofgroups wanted us to pass a new entitle-ment for land acquisition called CARA.I strongly favor added funding for landacquisition, but I could see no reasonwhy we should create an additional en-titlement which made land acquisitiona higher priority than education orhealth care, for instance. Those are mytop priorities.

So the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS) and I worked out with thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA) andwith the other body on a new agree-ment under which we essentially dou-bled conservation funding for a 6-yearperiod, raising what would have been aspending level of about $6 billion overthat period to about $12 billion as partof that agreement. We agreed that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3371June 21, 2001there would be a $120 million annualratcheting up of the total amount inthe portion of the bill under the juris-diction of this subcommittee.

That was our way of demonstratingthat we could make land acquisition avery high priority, make these con-servation items a very high prioritywithout abusing the budget process bycreating another entitlement.

Mr. Chairman, I think the committeewas extremely wise in rejecting theWhite House’s efforts to change thatagreement. We have found the middleground. We have found common groundon this issue; and if we stick together,we can accomplish a good and noblepublic purpose without abusing theprocesses of this Congress. I wouldhope that as this bill moves throughthe process, it retains the spirit of thisagreement.

I appreciate very much the fact thatthe committee rejected some of thefunding reductions that the WhiteHouse proposed in parts of these pro-grams and returned to the agreementthat was reached last year becausethat can be sustained, in my view, overa long period of time.

I would also like to enter into a col-loquy with the gentleman from NewMexico (Mr. SKEEN), if I could.

As the gentleman knows, there wasconfusion regarding the Arctic Na-tional Wildlife Refuge when this mat-ter came up in committee last week,and I believe that confusion has beencleared up.

As I understand it, both the majorityand the minority agree that this billprovides no funding to facilitate seis-mic studies or other predevelopmentactivities within the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge and that there is no au-thority in law for those purposes.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlemanfrom New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. That is correct.Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.

That is my understanding also.As the gentleman knows, concern has

also been expressed regarding languageon page 2 of the bill which authorizes$2.250 million for the assessment of themineral potential of public lands inAlaska pursuant to section 1010 of Pub-lic Law 96–487, the Alaska National In-terest Lands Conservation Act. Is itthe gentleman’s understanding thatsection 1010 provides no authority toundertake the activities in the ArcticRefuge that we all agree are not in-tended to be funded by this bill?

Mr. SKEEN. That is correct.Mr. OBEY. That is my interpretation

as well, but the language of section1010 and its cross-reference to section1001 are sufficiently convoluted, that ithas been helpful to make this clarifica-tion at this time. I appreciate the gen-tleman making the clarification. Ithink it makes quite clear that there isno such authority, and I appreciate thegentleman’s comments.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. NETHERCUTT).

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methis time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stand in sup-port of this bill. It is a balanced bill. Abill which has been worked throughwith the chairman and the gentlemanfrom New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN), who hasdone a marvelous job, and my dearfriend, the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS) on the minority side, to tryto reach a balanced and commonsenseapproach to the management of ourpublic lands. This bill speaks to theneeds of our national treasures in thepublic lands area and certainly speaksto the needs of Indian peoples. It hasan Indian health care measure in it,and Indian education assistance.

It funds appropriately institutionslike the Smithsonian and our museumsand arts and humanities and other in-terests in our country.

By and large it is a very good bill,spending adequate amounts of moneyfor adequate resources within the var-ious agencies that are funded by thisappropriations measure.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the staffwhich has worked very hard on bothsides of the aisle to present a balancedbill. This bill went through our sub-committee in record time because itwas balanced and bipartisan. It wentthrough the full committee in adequateand fair time because it was balancedand bipartisan.

There will be amendments today thatwill be presented, as is our process, butI would urge Members to reject manyof those amendments because theywould upset the delicate balance thatis in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends,the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.SKEEN) and the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS), who worked so hardto make this a balanced and sensiblebill. I urge that the leadership’s exam-ple be followed and that my colleaguesin the House will support this measure,pass it through the House, and move iton through the legislative process so itcan be enacted and it can meet the nat-ural resources needs of our country.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ap-preciate the Interior Appropriations Committeebringing their bill for fiscal year 2002 appro-priations to the floor for consideration today.H.R. 2217 has programs which address manyof the health, education, lands, law enforce-ment, conservation and roads needs of Amer-ican Indians and Alaska Natives.

I appreciate the Interior Appropriations Com-mittee’s increase of the Indian Health Service(IHS) budget of $3,000,000 over the budgetrequest and $124,351,000 above the fiscalyear 2001 level. This increase is justified andwill provide much needed additional programservices to American Indians and Alaska Na-tives.

However, I am concerned with languagethat is in both the House bill and CommitteeReport regarding Contract Support Costs(CSC) for Indian Health Service (IHS) pro-grams. While I appreciate the Interior Appro-priations Committee’s increases in the last fewyears for CSC shortfalls, the current bill con-

tains some provisions harmful to the tribalhealth delivery system. The bill would limitIHS’ authority to enter into new and expandedcontracts which is directly contrary to the fed-eral policy of Indian self-determination. Itwould also limit payment of the direct costsportion of CSC; further, the Committee Reportappears to advocate for their eventual elimi-nation.

In 1999, the House Committee on Re-sources held several hearings to address theshortfalls of CSC and received several rec-ommendations from the General AccountingOffice (GAO) to correct and meet the trueneed of CSC. One of GAO’s recommenda-tions stated that the IHS and the BIA shouldremain consistent with their payment of CSCfor tribally contracted and compacted run pro-grams. I agreed with the GAO recommenda-tion that both programs should be consistentwith their CSC payments. However, while theIHS pays both indirect and direct contract sup-port costs, the BIA does not pay for any directcosts, a policy it (the BIA) now, according toits February 24, 1999, testimony before theHouse Committee on Resources, has underreview. Given the fact that the Indian Self-De-termination and Education Assistance Act(ISDEA) and its regulations provide that CSCinclude direct costs, it is appropriate that theBIA review its policy. In fact, the GAO report(Indian Self-Determination Act: Shortfalls onIndian Contract Support Costs Needs To BeAddressed (GAO/RCED–99–150, June 30,1999) criticized the BIA for not paying directcosts as part of CSC.

The FY 2002 Interior Appropriations billstates: ‘‘no existing self-determination contract,grant, self-governance compact or annualfunding agreement shall receive direct contractsupport costs in excess of the amount re-ceived in fiscal year 2001 for suchcosts. . . .’’ This language would unfairly pro-hibit tribes from negotiating an increase intheir direct costs.

The Committee Report language appears toquestion the propriety of paying direct CSC,indicating that capping direct CSC at the FY2001 level would be the beginning of a proc-ess to eliminate direct CSC payments. Fur-ther, the report instructs IHS to seek Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) approval onthe payment of direct CSC for any new andexpanded contracts in FY 2002. This violatesthe ISDEA by capping the portion of the directcosts portion of CSC payments. The Com-mittee Report goes even further, suggestingthat IHS should not pay the direct costs por-tion of CSC, an amount which is close to 20%of CSC and requiring OMB approval of directcosts for new and expanded contracts. TheISDEA clearly includes direct costs as a partof CSC payments. Elimination of the directcosts portion of CSC payments would be dev-astating to tribal health care providers. Weneed to address this important Interior Appro-priations issue in the Senate and in con-ference. Tribal health care providers shouldnot be penalized because the IHS and BIAhave inconsistent CSC payment systems. Ilook forward to working with my colleagues tofind a reasonable and just resolution to theCSC issue for our American Indian and AlaskaNative constituency.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I risein support of H.R. 2217, the Interior Appropria-tions bill for fiscal year 2002. In this bill, wemake clear our historic commitment to pro-tecting and maintaining our nation’s parks and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3372 June 21, 2001wildlife refuges, and to preserving more openspace.

Let me start by offering my thanks to Chair-man SKEEN, ranking member DICKS and theInterior Subcommittee staff, specifically DebbieWeatherly and Chris Topik, for their hard workin putting this important piece of legislation to-gether and working to satisfy so many de-mands!

Overall, this bill provides $1.32 billion for theTitle VIII Conservation Trust Fund that was es-tablished in last year’s Interior Appropriationsbill. As some may remember, last year’sagreement created a separate budget cat-egory to support these efforts. This fundingwill help our states and the Federal govern-ment to protect and preserve our nation’s for-ests, fields and wetlands—green spaces that,especially those of us from the Northeastknow only too well, are disappearing much tooquickly.

I want to particularly congratulate PresidentBush for fully funding the Land and WaterConservation Fund at $900 million in his Fis-cal Year 2002 Budget Request, a critical com-ponent of the conservation trust fund.

This bill maintains and improves our stew-ardship of America’s greatest natural re-sources, our national parks and wildlife ref-uges. Each year, 285 million of our constitu-ents will visit and enjoy our national parks andexperience the beauty of over 83 million acresof preserved open lands. And it just two years,we will celebrate the centennial of our wildliferefuges—535 national treasures that exist incommunities across the country.

Mr. Chairman, in my home state of NewJersey, the most densely populated state inthe nation, the preservation of open space isa top priority. That is why I am especiallygrateful for the support of my colleagues for anumber of key New Jersey priorities.

At my request, H.R. 2217 contains contin-ued funding for the preservation of New Jer-sey’s Highlands, one of our state’s mostthreatened, and most important watersheds.This bill provides critical funding for land pur-chases within the Highlands; in fact, it is themost significant Federal commitments ever topreserving this area.

Equally as important, the bill directs the De-partment of Interior and Agriculture to work inpartnership with state and local resources, al-ready in place, to protect the Highlands. TheFederal government should be a major partnerin this preservation effort, as we were whenCongress successfully preserved Sterling For-est in the same region.

This bill also builds on our past successesin Congress to expand New Jersey’s nationalparks and wildlife refuges.

In my own Congressional District, there isfunding to further expand our nation’s oldesthistoric park, the Morristown National Histor-ical Park, and to protect a huge collection ofartifacts and Revolutionary War material re-lated to George Washington. There is alsomoney to allow for additional land purchasesat the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.Our delegation also appreciates your supportfo the Cape May, E.B. Forsythe and WalkillNational Wildlife Refuges and the DelawareWater Gap National Recreation Park.

Finally, it is important to note that we meetthese national priorities, and do so within theconfines of our budget agreement.

Mr. Chairman, let there be no doubt aboutit: with passage of this bill, this House is fully

committed to maintaining and improving ournation’s treasured national parks and wildliferefuges.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in supportof some key amendments to the Interior Ap-propriations bill.

I am pleased to join my colleague, Rep-resentative DEFAZIO, in our continued effortsto stop the extension of the misguided Rec-reational Fee Demonstration Program. Lastyear, I was successful in limiting an extensionto only one year. But the bill before us irre-sponsibly extends the RFDP for four years.And it does it by circumventing the normalprocess for extending Federal programs andjust tacks the extension on to a ‘‘must-pass’’spending bill. This is irrresponsible and a dis-service to those of us who would like to findalternative and more appropriate ways to sup-port our National Forests.

In my district the RFDP is known as the Ad-venture Pass and it requires my constituentsto pay just to visit the Los Padres NationalForest. This is a form of double taxation. Wealready pay taxes to maintain our NationalParks, Forests and other publicly ownedlands. We should not have to pay again justto see a sunset or have a picnic in our ownbackyard.

I agree that our parks and forests have abacklog of maintenance and need more fund-ing to address these needs. That’s why I haveintroduced legislation that would end the sub-sidies to timber companies that reduce fundingfor our National Forests. My bill would end theAdventure Pass but ensure that Forest Serv-ice have enough funding to preserve and pro-tect these precious lands.

I am also pleased to join my colleague,Representative RAHALL, on an amendment toban new oil and gas drilling in National Monu-ments.

My district is home to the new Carrizo PlainNational Monument, located almost entirely inSan Luis Obispo County. The Carrizo Plaincontains one of the last remnants of the Cali-fornia Central Valley’s wildflowers and is hometo a host of wildlife, including the endangeredSan Joaquin Kit Fox and the California Con-dor. Carrizo contains significant Native Amer-ican cultural sites, such as the Chumash‘‘Painted Rock,’’ and geological phenomena,including the most visible portion of the SanAndreas Fault. In addition, Carrizo is the loca-tion of an important study on livestock grazingand how it might be used as an effective toolto benefit wildlife and sensitive species de-pendent on indigenous habitats.

The protections afforded to this preciousarea by the Monument designation—includingno new mineral leasing within the Monu-ment—have been met with widespread sup-port in San Luis Obispo County. My constitu-ents support protection of their environmentand cultural heritage, and understand it is avital component of the local economy, ofwhich tourism is a major element. And new oiland gas drilling does not play into that picture.

Mr. Chairman, I have received letters sup-porting the new designation and its restrictionon new oil and gas leasing from a broadswath of the community, including the 1200member San Luis Obispo Chamber of Com-merce, local environmental groups and ranch-ers, and the Chumash Council. I have advisedboth Resources Committee Chairman HANSENand Interior Secretary Norton of these senti-ments and urged that they support my com-

munity’s wishes to protect its environment andeconomy by allowing no new drilling in CarrizoPlain.

The Tribune, San Luis Obispo County’smajor newspapers, correctly calls Carrizo ‘‘areal treasure’’ and notes approvingly that be-cause of the Monument designation ‘‘it willstay as it is forever.’’ Our amendment wouldensure that this prediction comes true.

I urge my colleagues to support both ofthese common sense measures.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like tothank the distinguished Chairman, Mr. SKEEN,and ranking member Mr. DICKS, for their ex-cellent work on this bill. It provides funding formany programs that will benefit both the nat-ural and urban environments in our country,although I would support further increases inseveral critical areas, including energy re-search and the arts.

Mr. Chairman, with California and the Westin the midst of an energy crisis, the last thingwe should do is cut funding for energy re-search, particularly research on clean energysources and technologies. I am proud that thestate of California now leads the country for itsefficient use of energy. California and thecountry should press forward to increase ourenergy efficiency and shift toward clean, sus-tainable energy sources. Yet the President’sbudget proposed a 30% cut in energy effi-ciency research and development. Althoughthe Committee wisely disregarded this pro-posal, we should be doing much more in thisarea.

An important element in this bill is fundingfor the arts and humanities. The arts and hu-manities enrich our culture, boost our econ-omy, and promote creativity and self-con-fidence in our youth. I support the Slaughter-Dicks amendment on increase funding for theNational Endowment for the Arts, National En-dowment for the Humanities, and the Instituteof Museum and Library Services.

The Interior bill recognizes the need to re-duce the backlog of maintenance needs in ournational parks. But it is also important to en-sure that our parks have the operating fundsthey need to provide stewardship of wild landsand historic buildings and run informationalprograms. The bill also takes a step in theright direction providing a modest increase inoperating funds, although the need is muchgreater.

The Interior bill contains a commendable in-crease in funding for conservation programs.While the President’s budget called for fullfunding for the Land and Water ConservationFund at $900 million, that increase would havebeen funded by cutting a number of other im-portant conservation programs. The Com-mittee chose instead to provide $709 millionfor the Land and Water Conservation Fund,while maintaining valuable existing conserva-tion programs, including the Urban Park andRecreation Fund and ‘‘Save America’s Treas-ures.’’ I applaud the decision of the Committeeto omit funding for studies concerning oil drill-ing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, but wecould do so much more for our natural andcultural heritage with additional resources. Un-fortunately, the tax cuts make it difficult to fundmany of these valuable programs. Hopefullythe President and the Congress will place ahigher priority on the arts, recreation, and theenvironment in the future.

VerDate 21-JUN-2001 05:10 Jun 22, 2001 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A21JN7.005 pfrm04 PsN: H21PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3373June 21, 2001Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Mem-

ber rises in support of the Interior appropria-tions bill.

This Member is pleased that the funding re-quested by the Bush Administration for con-struction of the Indian Health Service (IHS)hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska, isincluded in this measure.

It appears an amendment will be offered toincrease funding for the National Endowmentfor the Arts and the National Endowment forthe Humanities. The National Endowment ofthe Humanities serves my constituents andthe state of Nebraska through the programs ofthe Nebraska Humanities Council. The Ne-braska Humanities Council consistently pro-vides high-quality humanities programming atvery little cost to citizens of all walks of life inmy state.

The Nebraska Council has been quite activein promoting the commemoration of the bicen-tennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Dis-covery expedition. For example, the NebraskaCouncil has instituted a six-year Lewis andClark Educational Initiative. The Council heldthe first of several Lewis and Clark TeacherInstitutes earlier this month. Each institute willbe taught by a leading Lewis and Clark schol-ar. There were almost 200 applicants for 25available slots. The teachers attending the firstinstitute sincerely appreciated the opportunityand are exited about sharing what theylearned with their students, schools, and com-munities. The Nebraska Council uses the Fed-eral dollars to leverage private grants andfunds.

These efforts to promote the Lewis andClark expedition will greatly enrich the lives ofNebraskans and certainly go to the heart ofthe mission of the state councils of the Na-tional Endowment of the Humanities.

Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf ofthe Pawnee Nation in Pawnee Oklahoma, I re-spectfully request increased constructionphase funding for the Pawnee ReplacementHealth Center be included in the Indian HealthService (IHS) Budget. This funding was ini-tially included in the IHS FY 2002 BudgetPreparation, but was omitted from H.R. 2217in its current form.

The replacement facility has been on theIHS Health Facility priority list for many years.The need for a replacement building was origi-nally assessed in 1981, but not until last yearwas the 73-year-old clinic, the oldest in thenation, selected for funding. However, thesefunds only covered the design phase of the re-placement facility, leaving construction fundsto be appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

As this bill goes to conference with the Sen-ate, I ask that Conferees fulfill the promiseCongress made to the Pawnee Nation in 1981by funding the remaining construction costs inthe FY 2002 Department of the Interior andRelated Agencies Appropriations Act. Thankyou for considering this request.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday to commend Chairman SKEEN, RankingMember DICKS and the Interior AppropriationsSubcommittee on their efforts to draft a dif-ficult bill this year and balance difficult prior-ities. I sincerely appreciate the subcommittee’sefforts in assisting the State of Florida’s pro-gram for the development of electrochromictechnology. This program is an excellent ex-ample of successful technology transfer from anational laboratory as well as an example of asuccessful public/private partnership.

Electrochromic technology provides a flexiblemeans of controlling the amount of heat andlight that pass through a glass surface pro-viding significant energy conservation opportu-nities in the building and automotive markets.

The Department of Energy estimates thatplacing this technology on all building windowsin the United States would produce yearly en-ergy savings of up to $28 billion per year. Thetechnology also has application within the Ve-hicle Technology/Auxiliary Load ReductionR&D accounts. In recognition of the impor-tance of this technology, the State of Floridahas provided over $2.3 million toward the ad-vancement of this Program.

The Program is being undertaken in con-junction with the University of South Floridaand the National Renewable Energy Labora-tory (NREL) in Colorado through a Coopera-tive Research and Development Agreement(CRADA), and utilizes a patented technologydeveloped at NREL. This is a superb energysavings opportunity important to the Nationand is consistent with the priorities of the in-dustry within the U.S. and the goals of the De-partment of Energy’s windows program.

Electrochromic research is provide for withinthe building and materials section of the en-ergy conservation division of the Interior Ap-propriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002. The re-searchers are now working cooperatively withDOE on the program and we hope to expandthat cooperation in the future. This will requirea recognition by the Agency of the value ofFlorida’s development of Plasma EnhancedChemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) tech-niques for electrochromic technology.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as cochairmanof the congressional Native American Caucus,I rise to express my gratitude to the InteriorSubcommittee Chairman JOE SKEEN and sen-ior Democratic Member NORM DICKS for theirwork on increasing the overall funding levelsof the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the IndianHealth Service in the fiscal year 2002 Interiorappropriations bill.

I must, however, voice my concern aboutlanguage in the Indian Health Service portionof the bill and the accompanying report con-cerning contract support costs. As you know,contract support costs are the necessary ad-ministrative and overhead costs borne by In-dian tribal contractors when operating a Fed-eral program.

The language in the bill would underminetribal self-determination rights by prohibitingtribes from including in renegotiations of con-tract support costs any increase in the directcosts portion of those payments, by imposinga partial moratorium on new and expandedcontracts, and by attempting to cap the portionof negotiated contract support costs which canbe paid in any one year. The bill also cuts thePresident’s budget request for contract sup-port costs by half and provides only $20 mil-lion for that category. The ongoing shortfall forexisting contracts far exceeds that amount.

The committee report questions the pro-priety of direct contract costs and directs theIndian Health Service to secure the approvalof OMB on any direct contract support costspayments for new and expanded contracts.Negotiation of contracts is a matter betweenthe tribes and the Federal agency—the com-mittee’s directive would put tribes in the posi-tion of having to negotiate with OMB regardingtheir contract support payments.

The Indian Self-Determination Act specifi-cally provides that contract support costs in-clude both direct and indirect costs.

As this bill proceeds through the legislativeprocess, I hope that we can all work togetheron a better resolution for dealing with contractsupport costs and increasing the funding forcontract support costs.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concernabout the funding levels of two elements ofthe Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) educationbudget—student transportation and adminis-trative cost grants.

The student transportation item suppliesfunding for the operation of BIA school buses.This account has been underfunded for manyyears and this bill will continue that trend byproviding essentially no increase in funding.

Elevated fuel costs have had a devastatingimpact on BIA school bus programs. For thejust completed school year, BIA schools re-ceived only $2.30/mile for their student trans-portation needs. By contrast, the average rateper-mile spent on student transportation bypublic school systems throughout the countrywas $3.21/mile. BIA estimates show that itsschool bus system is underfunded by $11 mil-lion.

We must fund the BIA school transportationprograms so that the BIA schools can con-tinue to provide adequate transportation needsto their students.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that billfails to increase funding for administrative costgrants which is a vital program that supportsthe administrative needs of tribally-operatedschools.

Tribes and tribal school boards have takenon the responsibility for direct operation oftwo-thirds of the 185 BIA-funded schools, butCongress has not supplied them with the fund-ing required to run their fiscal and manage-ment affairs in a prudent manner.

The chronic shortfalls in administrative costgrants severely compromise the ability of tribalschool boards to maintain proper internal man-agement controls, to prepare for and pay forannual audits, and to discharge the numerouspolicymaking, supervision, program planning,procurement, personnel and management ac-tivities for which these tribal school boards areresponsible. No educational institution cansucceed if it is required to do more with lessyear after year.

Mr. Chairman, unlike children in the publicschool system, Indian children in the BIA sys-tem depend 100% on funding from Congress.We should fulfill our responsibility to properlysupport these Federal schools and meet ourobligations to the Indian students they edu-cate. It is my hope that we can work togetheras the bill proceeds to through the legislativeprocess so that we can increase the fundingfor these two very important Indian educationprograms.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldback the balance of my time.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have nofurther requests for time, and I yieldback the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.ISAKSON). All time for general debatehas expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall beconsidered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

During consideration of the bill foramendment, the Chair may accord pri-ority in recognition to a Member offer-ing an amendment that he or she has


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3374 June 21, 2001printed in the designated place in theCONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Those amend-ments will be considered as read.

The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2217Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled, That the following sumsare appropriated, out of any money in theTreasury not otherwise appropriated, for theDepartment of the Interior and related agen-cies for the fiscal year ending September 30,2002, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THEINTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

For expenses necessary for protection, use,improvement, development, disposal, cadas-tral surveying, classification, acquisition ofeasements and other interests in lands, andperformance of other functions, includingmaintenance of facilities, as authorized bylaw, in the management of lands and theirresources under the jurisdiction of the Bu-reau of Land Management, including thegeneral administration of the Bureau, andassessment of mineral potential of publiclands pursuant to Public Law 96–487 (16U.S.C. 3150(a)), $768,711,000, to remain avail-able until expended, of which $1,000,000 is forhigh priority projects which shall be carriedout by the Youth Conservation Corps, de-fined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985, as amended, for the purposes ofsuch Act; of which $2,225,000 shall be avail-able for assessment of the mineral potentialof public lands in Alaska pursuant to section1010 of Public Law 96–487 (16 U.S.C. 3150); andof which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be de-rived from the special receipt account estab-lished by the Land and Water ConservationAct of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i));and of which $3,000,000 shall be available infiscal year 2002 subject to a match by atleast an equal amount by the National Fishand Wildlife Foundation, to such Foundationfor cost-shared projects supporting conserva-tion of Bureau lands and such funds shall beadvanced to the Foundation as a lump sumgrant without regard to when expenses areincurred; in addition, $32,298,000 for MiningLaw Administration program operations, in-cluding the cost of administering the miningclaim fee program; to remain available untilexpended, to be reduced by amounts col-lected by the Bureau and credited to this ap-propriation from annual mining claim feesso as to result in a final appropriation esti-mated at not more than $768,711,000, and$2,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended, from communication site rental feesestablished by the Bureau for the cost of ad-ministering communication site activities:Provided, That appropriations herein madeshall not be available for the destruction ofhealthy, unadopted, wild horses and burrosin the care of the Bureau or its contractors:Provided further, That of the amount pro-vided, $28,000,000 is for ‘‘Federal Infrastruc-ture Improvement’’, defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act: Pro-vided further, That fiscal year 2001 balancesin the Federal Infrastructure Improvementaccount for the Bureau of Land Managementshall be transferred to and merged with thisappropriation, and shall remain availableuntil expended.

Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr.Chairman, I ask unanimous consentthat title I be considered as read, print-

ed in the RECORD, and open to amend-ment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Isthere objection to the request of thegentleman from New Mexico?

There was no objection.The text of the remainder of title I is

as follows:WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

For necessary expenses for fire prepared-ness, suppression operations, fire science andresearch, emergency rehabilitation, haz-ardous fuels reduction, and rural fire assist-ance by the Department of the Interior,$700,806,000, to remain available until ex-pended, of which not to exceed $19,774,000shall be for the renovation or construction offire facilities: Provided, That such funds arealso available for repayment of advances toother appropriation accounts from whichfunds were previously transferred for suchpurposes: Provided further, That unobligatedbalances of amounts previously appropriatedto the ‘‘Fire Protection’’ and ‘‘EmergencyDepartment of the Interior FirefightingFund’’ may be transferred and merged withthis appropriation: Provided further, Thatpersons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1469 maybe furnished subsistence and lodging withoutcost from funds available from this appro-priation: Provided further, That notwith-standing 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received by abureau or office of the Department of the In-terior for fire protection rendered pursuantto 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq., protection of UnitedStates property, may be credited to the ap-propriation from which funds were expendedto provide that protection, and are availablewithout fiscal year limitation: Provided fur-ther, That using the amounts designatedunder this title of this Act, the Secretary ofthe Interior may enter into procurementcontracts, grants, or cooperative agree-ments, for hazardous fuels reduction activi-ties, and for training and monitoring associ-ated with such hazardous fuels reduction ac-tivities, on Federal land, or on adjacent non-Federal land for activities that benefit re-sources on Federal land: Provided further,That the costs of implementing any coopera-tive agreement between the Federal govern-ment and any non-Federal entity may beshared, as mutually agreed on by the af-fected parties: Provided further, That in en-tering into such grants or cooperative agree-ments, the Secretary may consider the en-hancement of local and small business em-ployment opportunities for rural commu-nities, and that in entering into procurementcontracts under this section on a best valuebasis, the Secretary may take into accountthe ability of an entity to enhance local andsmall business employment opportunities inrural communities, and that the Secretarymay award procurement contracts, grants,or cooperative agreements under this sectionto entities that include local non-profit enti-ties, Youth Conservation Corps or relatedpartnerships, or small or disadvantaged busi-nesses: Provided further, That funds appro-priated under this head may be used to reim-burse the United States Fish and WildlifeService and the National Marine FisheriesService for the costs of carrying out their re-sponsibilities under the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to consultand conference, as required by section 7 ofsuch Act in connection with wildland firemanagement activities.

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

For necessary expenses of the Departmentof the Interior and any of its component of-fices and bureaus for the remedial action, in-cluding associated activities, of hazardouswaste substances, pollutants, or contami-nants pursuant to the Comprehensive Envi-

ronmental Response, Compensation, and Li-ability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 etseq.), $9,978,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or paid bya party in advance of or as reimbursementfor remedial action or response activitiesconducted by the Department pursuant tosection 107 or 113(f) of such Act, shall becredited to this account to be available untilexpended without further appropriation: Pro-vided further, That such sums recovered fromor paid by any party are not limited to mon-etary payments and may include stocks,bonds or other personal or real property,which may be retained, liquidated, or other-wise disposed of by the Secretary and whichshall be credited to this account.

CONSTRUCTION

For construction of buildings, recreationfacilities, roads, trails, and appurtenant fa-cilities, $11,076,000, to remain available untilexpended.

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

For expenses necessary to implement theAct of October 20, 1976, as amended (31 U.S.C.6901–6907), $200,000,000, of which not to exceed$400,000 shall be available for administrativeexpenses and of which $50,000,000 is for theconservation activities defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(xiii) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act: Pro-vided, That no payment shall be made to oth-erwise eligible units of local government ifthe computed amount of the payment is lessthan $100.

LAND ACQUISITION

For expenses necessary to carry out sec-tions 205, 206, and 318(d) of Public Law 94–579,including administrative expenses and acqui-sition of lands or waters, or interests there-in, $47,686,000, to be derived from the Landand Water Conservation Fund, to remainavailable until expended, and to be for theconservation activities defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(i) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act.

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

For expenses necessary for management,protection, and development of resources andfor construction, operation, and mainte-nance of access roads, reforestation, andother improvements on the revested Oregonand California Railroad grant lands, on otherFederal lands in the Oregon and Californialand-grant counties of Oregon, and on adja-cent rights-of-way; and acquisition of landsor interests therein including existing con-necting roads on or adjacent to such grantlands; $105,165,000, to remain available untilexpended: Provided, That 25 percent of theaggregate of all receipts during the currentfiscal year from the revested Oregon andCalifornia Railroad grant lands is herebymade a charge against the Oregon and Cali-fornia land-grant fund and shall be trans-ferred to the General Fund in the Treasuryin accordance with the second paragraph ofsubsection (b) of title II of the Act of August28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS HEALTH AND RECOVERYFUND

(REVOLVING FUND, SPECIAL ACCOUNT)

In addition to the purposes authorized inPublic Law 102–381, funds made available inthe Forest Ecosystem Health and RecoveryFund can be used for the purpose of plan-ning, preparing, and monitoring salvage tim-ber sales and forest ecosystem health and re-covery activities such as release from com-peting vegetation and density control treat-ments. The Federal share of receipts (defined


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3375June 21, 2001as the portion of salvage timber receipts notpaid to the counties under 43 U.S.C. 1181f and43 U.S.C. 1181–1 et seq., and Public Law 103–66) derived from treatments funded by thisaccount shall be deposited into the ForestEcosystem Health and Recovery Fund.

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisi-tion of lands and interests therein, and im-provement of Federal rangelands pursuant tosection 401 of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), not-withstanding any other Act, sums equal to 50percent of all moneys received during theprior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 ofthe Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.)and the amount designated for range im-provements from grazing fees and mineralleasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones landstransferred to the Department of the Inte-rior pursuant to law, but not less than$10,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000shall be available for administrative ex-penses.SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

For administrative expenses and othercosts related to processing application docu-ments and other authorizations for use anddisposal of public lands and resources, forcosts of providing copies of official publicland documents, for monitoring construc-tion, operation, and termination of facilitiesin conjunction with use authorizations, andfor rehabilitation of damaged property, suchamounts as may be collected under PublicLaw 94–579, as amended, and Public Law 93–153, to remain available until expended: Pro-vided, That notwithstanding any provision tothe contrary of section 305(a) of Public Law94–579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys thathave been or will be received pursuant tothat section, whether as a result of for-feiture, compromise, or settlement, if notappropriate for refund pursuant to section305(c) of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall beavailable and may be expended under the au-thority of this Act by the Secretary to im-prove, protect, or rehabilitate any publiclands administered through the Bureau ofLand Management which have been damagedby the action of a resource developer, pur-chaser, permittee, or any unauthorized per-son, without regard to whether all moneyscollected from each such action are used onthe exact lands damaged which led to the ac-tion: Provided further, That any such moneysthat are in excess of amounts needed to re-pair damage to the exact land for whichfunds were collected may be used to repairother damaged public lands.

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

In addition to amounts authorized to beexpended under existing laws, there is herebyappropriated such amounts as may be con-tributed under section 307 of the Act of Octo-ber 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amountsas may be advanced for administrative costs,surveys, appraisals, and costs of making con-veyances of omitted lands under section211(b) of that Act, to remain available untilexpended.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Appropriations for the Bureau of LandManagement shall be available for purchase,erection, and dismantlement of temporarystructures, and alteration and maintenanceof necessary buildings and appurtenant fa-cilities to which the United States has title;up to $100,000 for payments, at the discretionof the Secretary, for information or evidenceconcerning violations of laws administeredby the Bureau; miscellaneous and emergencyexpenses of enforcement activities author-ized or approved by the Secretary and to beaccounted for solely on her certificate, not

to exceed $10,000: Provided, That notwith-standing 44 U.S.C. 501, the Bureau may,under cooperative cost-sharing and partner-ship arrangements authorized by law, pro-cure printing services from cooperators inconnection with jointly produced publica-tions for which the cooperators share thecost of printing either in cash or in services,and the Bureau determines the cooperator iscapable of meeting accepted quality stand-ards, Provided further, That sections 28f and28g of title 30, United States Code, areamended:

(1) In section 28f(a), by striking the firstsentence and inserting, ‘‘The holder of eachunpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnelsite, located pursuant to the mining laws ofthe United States, whether located before,on or after the enactment of this Act, shallpay to the Secretary of the Interior, on orbefore September 1, 2002, a claim mainte-nance fee of $100 per claim or site.’’; and

(2) In section 28g, by striking ‘‘and beforeSeptember 30, 2001’’ and inserting in lieuthereof ‘‘and before September 30, 2002’’.UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

For necessary expenses of the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service, for sci-entific and economic studies, conservation,management, investigations, protection, andutilization of fishery and wildlife resources,except whales, seals, and sea lions, mainte-nance of the herd of long-horned cattle onthe Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, gen-eral administration, and for the performanceof other authorized functions related to suchresources by direct expenditure, contracts,grants, cooperative agreements and reim-bursable agreements with public and privateentities, $839,852,000, to remain availableuntil September 30, 2003, except as otherwiseprovided herein, of which $28,000,000 is for‘‘Federal Infrastructure Improvement’’, de-fined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985, as amended, for the purposes ofsuch Act: Provided, That fiscal year 2001 bal-ances in the Federal Infrastructure Improve-ment account for the United States Fish andWildlife Service shall be transferred to andmerged with this appropriation, and shall re-main available until expended: Provided fur-ther, That not less than $2,000,000 shall beprovided to local governments in southernCalifornia for planning associated with theNatural Communities Conservation Planning(NCCP) program and shall remain availableuntil expended: Provided further, That$2,000,000 is for high priority projects whichshall be carried out by the Youth Conserva-tion Corps defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) (xii)of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def-icit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for thepurposes of such Act: Provided further, Thatnot to exceed $8,476,000 shall be used for im-plementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) ofsection 4 of the Endangered Species Act, asamended, for species that are indigenous tothe United States (except for processing peti-tions, developing and issuing proposed andfinal regulations, and taking any other stepsto implement actions described in subsection(c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)), of whichnot to exceed $6,000,000 shall be used for anyactivity regarding the designation of criticalhabitat, pursuant to subsection (a)(3), forspecies already listed pursuant to subsection(a)(1) as of the date of enactment this Act:Provided further, That of the amount avail-able for law enforcement, up to $400,000 to re-main available until expended, may at thediscretion of the Secretary, be used for pay-ment for information, rewards, or evidenceconcerning violations of laws administeredby the Service, and miscellaneous and emer-gency expenses of enforcement activity, au-

thorized or approved by the Secretary and tobe accounted for solely on her certificate:Provided further, That of the amount pro-vided for environmental contaminants, up to$1,000,000 may remain available until ex-pended for contaminant sample analyses.

CONSTRUCTION

For construction, improvement, acquisi-tion, or removal of buildings and other fa-cilities required in the conservation, man-agement, investigation, protection, and uti-lization of fishery and wildlife resources, andthe acquisition of lands and interests there-in; $48,849,000, to remain available until ex-pended.

LAND ACQUISITION

For expenses necessary to carry out theLand and Water Conservation Fund Act of1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l–4 through 11),including administrative expenses, and foracquisition of land or waters, or interesttherein, in accordance with statutory au-thority applicable to the United States Fishand Wildlife Service, $104,401,000, to be de-rived from the Land and Water ConservationFund, to remain available until expended,and to be for the conservation activities de-fined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(ii) of the Bal-anced Budget and Emergency Deficit ControlAct of 1985, as amended, for the purposes ofsuch Act: Provided, That none of the fundsappropriated for specific land acquisitionprojects can be used to pay for any adminis-trative overhead, planning or other manage-ment costs.

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

For expenses necessary to carry out theLand and Water Conservation Fund Act of1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l–4 through 11),including administrative expenses, and forprivate conservation efforts to be carried outon private lands, $50,000,000, to be derivedfrom the Land and Water ConservationFund, to remain available until expended,and to be for conservation spending categoryactivities pursuant to section 251(c) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, as amended, for the pur-poses of discretionary spending limits: Pro-vided, That, hereafter, ‘‘Fish and WildlifeService Landowner Incentive Program’’ shallbe considered to be within the ‘‘State andOther Conservation sub-category’’ in section250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended: Provided further, That the amountprovided herein is for a Landowner IncentiveProgram established by the Secretary thatprovides matching, competitively awardedgrants to States, the District of Columbia,Tribes, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. VirginIslands, the Northern Mariana Islands, andAmerican Samoa, to establish, or supple-ment existing, landowner incentive pro-grams that provide technical and financialassistance, including habitat protection andrestoration, to private landowners for theprotection and management of habitat tobenefit federally listed, proposed, or can-didate species, or other at-risk species onprivate lands.

STEWARDSHIP GRANTS

For expenses necessary to carry out theLand and Water Conservation Fund Act of1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l–4 through 11),including administrative expenses, and forprivate conservation efforts to be carried outon private lands, $10,000,000, to be derivedfrom the Land and Water ConservationFund, to remain available until expended,and to be for conservation spending categoryactivities pursuant to section 251(c) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, as amended, for the pur-poses of discretionary spending limits: Pro-vided, That hereafter, ‘‘Fish and Wildlife


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3376 June 21, 2001Service Stewardship Grants’’ shall be consid-ered to be within the ‘‘State and Other Con-servation sub-category’’ in section250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended: Provided further, That the amountprovided herein is for the Secretary to estab-lish a Private Stewardship Grants Programto provide grants and other assistance to in-dividuals and groups engaged in private con-servation efforts that benefit federally list-ed, proposed, or candidate species, or otherat-risk species.

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIESCONSERVATION FUND

For expenses necessary to carry out sec-tion 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973(16 U.S.C. 1531–1543), as amended, $107,000,000,to be derived from the Cooperative Endan-gered Species Conservation Fund, to remainavailable until expended, and to be for theconservation activities defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(v) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND

For expenses necessary to implement theAct of October 17, 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s),$16,414,000, of which $5,000,000 is for conserva-tion spending category activities pursuant tosection 251(c) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of discretionaryspending limits: Provided, That, hereafter,‘‘Fish and Wildlife Service National WildlifeRefuge Fund’’ shall be considered to be with-in the ‘‘Payments in Lieu of Taxes sub-cat-egory’’ in section 250(c)(4)(I) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985, as amended.

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATIONFUND

For expenses necessary to carry out theprovisions of the North American WetlandsConservation Act, Public Law 101–233, asamended, $45,000,000, to remain availableuntil expended, and to be for the conserva-tion activities defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(vi) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act: Pro-vided, That, notwithstanding any other pro-vision of law, amounts in excess of funds pro-vided in fiscal year 2001 shall be used only forprojects in the United States.NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

For financial assistance for projects to pro-mote the conservation of neotropical migra-tory birds in accordance with theNeotropical Migratory Bird ConservationAct, Public Law 106–247 (16 U.S.C. 6101–6109),$5,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended, and to be for conservation spendingcategory activities pursuant to section 251(c)of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def-icit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for thepurposes of discretionary spending limits:Provided, That, hereafter, ‘‘Fish and WildlifeService Neotropical Migratory Bird Con-servation’’ shall be considered to be withinthe ‘‘State and Other Conservation sub-cat-egory’’ in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Actof 1985, as amended.

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

For expenses necessary to carry out theAfrican Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.4201–4203, 4211–4213, 4221–4225, 4241–4245, and1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Actof 1997 (Public Law 105–96; 16 U.S.C. 4261–4266), the Rhinoceros and Tiger ConservationAct of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301–5306), and theGreat Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C.6301), $4,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That funds made available

under this Act, Public Law 106–291, and Pub-lic Law 106–554 and hereafter in annualapproprations acts for rhinoceros, tiger,Asian elephant, and great ape conservationprograms are exempt from any sanctions im-posed against any country under section 102of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.2799aa–1).

STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

For wildlife conservation grants to Statesand to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the NorthernMariana Islands, and American Samoa,under the provisions of the Fish and WildlifeAct of 1956 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-nation Act, for the development and imple-mentation of programs for the benefit ofwildlife and their habitat, including speciesthat are not hunted or fished, $100,000,000, tobe derived from the Land and Water Con-servation Fund, to remain available until ex-pended, and to be for the conservation activi-ties defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(vii) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, as amended, for the pur-poses of such Act: Provided, That the Sec-retary shall, after deducting administrativeexpenses, apportion the amount providedherein in the following manner: (A) to theDistrict of Columbia and to the Common-wealth of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal tonot more than one-half of 1 percent thereof:and (B) to Guam, American Samoa, the U.S.Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, each a sumequal to not more than one-fourth of 1 per-cent thereof: Provided further, That the Sec-retary shall apportion the remaining amountin the following manner: 30 percent based onthe ratio to which the land area of suchState bears to the total land area of all suchStates; and 70 percent based on the ratio towhich the population of such State bears tothe total population of the United States,based on the 2000 U.S. Census; and theamounts so apportioned shall be adjusted eq-uitably so that no State shall be apportioneda sum which is less than one percent of thetotal amount available for apportionment ormore than 10 percent: Provided further, Thatthe Federal share of planning grants shallnot exceed 75 percent of the total costs ofsuch projects and the Federal share of imple-mentation grants shall not exceed 50 percentof the total costs of such projects: Providedfurther, That the non-Federal share of suchprojects may not be derived from Federalgrant programs: Provided further, That noState, territory, or other jurisdiction shallreceive a grant unless it has developed, orcommitted to develop by October 1, 2005, acomprehensive wildlife conservation plan,consistent with criteria established by theSecretary of the Interior, that considers thebroad range of the State, territory, or otherjurisdiction’s wildlife and associated habi-tats, with appropriate priority placed onthose species with the greatest conservationneed and taking into consideration the rel-ative level of funding available for the con-servation of those species: Provided further,That any amount apportioned in 2002 to anyState, territory, or other jurisdiction thatremains unobligated as of September 30, 2003,shall be reapportioned, together with fundsappropriated in 2004, in the manner providedherein.

TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

For wildlife conservation grants to tribesunder the provisions of the Fish and WildlifeAct of 1956 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-nation Act, for the development and imple-mentation of programs for the benefit ofwildlife and their habitat, including speciesthat are not hunted or fished, $5,000,000, to bederived from the Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund and to remain available until ex-

pended, and to be for conservation spendingcategory activities pursuant to section 251(c)of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def-icit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for thepurposes of discretionary spending limits:Provided, That, hereafter, ‘‘Fish and WildlifeService Tribal Wildlife Grants’’ shall be con-sidered to be within the ‘‘State and OtherConservation sub-category’’ in section250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended.


Appropriations and funds available to theUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service shallbe available for purchase of not to exceed 74passenger motor vehicles, of which 69 are forreplacement only (including 32 for police-type use); repair of damage to public roadswithin and adjacent to reservation areascaused by operations of the Service; optionsfor the purchase of land at not to exceed $1for each option; facilities incident to suchpublic recreational uses on conservationareas as are consistent with their primarypurpose; and the maintenance and improve-ment of aquaria, buildings, and other facili-ties under the jurisdiction of the Service andto which the United States has title, andwhich are used pursuant to law in connec-tion with management and investigation offish and wildlife resources: Provided, Thatnotwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Servicemay, under cooperative cost sharing andpartnership arrangements authorized by law,procure printing services from cooperatorsin connection with jointly produced publica-tions for which the cooperators share atleast one-half the cost of printing either incash or services and the Service determinesthe cooperator is capable of meeting accept-ed quality standards: Provided further, Thatthe Service may accept donated aircraft asreplacements for existing aircraft: Providedfurther, That notwithstanding any other pro-vision of law, the Secretary of the Interiormay not spend any of the funds appropriatedin this Act for the purchase of lands or inter-ests in lands to be used in the establishmentof any new unit of the National Wildlife Ref-uge System unless the purchase is approvedin advance by the House and Senate Commit-tees on Appropriations in compliance withthe reprogramming procedures contained inSenate Report 105–56.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

For expenses necessary for the manage-ment, operation, and maintenance of areasand facilities administered by the NationalPark Service (including special road mainte-nance service to trucking permittees on a re-imbursable basis), and for the general admin-istration of the National Park Service,$1,480,336,000, of which $10,869,000 for re-search, planning and interagency coordina-tion in support of land acquisition for Ever-glades restoration shall remain availableuntil expended, and of which $75,349,000, toremain available until expended, is for main-tenance repair or rehabilitation projects forconstructed assets, operation of the NationalPark Service automated facility manage-ment software system, and comprehensivefacility condition assessments; and of which$2,000,000 is for the Youth ConservationCorps, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) ofthe Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, as amended, for the pur-poses of such Act, for high priority projects:Provided, That the only funds in this accountwhich may be made available to supportUnited States Park Police are those fundsapproved for emergency law and order inci-dents pursuant to established National ParkService procedures and those funds needed to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3377June 21, 2001maintain and repair United States Park Po-lice administrative facilities: Provided fur-ther, That park areas may reimburse theUnited States Park Police account for theunbudgeted overtime and travel costs associ-ated with special events for an amount notto exceed $10,000 per event subject to the re-view and concurrence of the Washingtonheadquarters office: Provided further, Thatnone of the funds in this or any other Actmay be used to fund a new Associate Direc-tor position for Partnerships.

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

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

CONTRIBUTION FOR ANNUITY BENEFITS

For reimbursement pursuant to provisionsof Public Law 85–157, to the District of Co-lumbia on a monthly basis, for benefit pay-ments by the District of Columbia to UnitedStates Park Police annuitants under the pro-visions of the Policeman and Fireman’s Re-tirement and Disability Act, to the extentthose payments exceed contributions madeby active Park Police members coveredunder the Act, such amounts as hereaftermay be necessary: Provided, That hereafter,appropriations made to the National ParkService shall not be available for this pur-pose.

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

For expenses necessary to carry out recre-ation programs, natural programs, culturalprograms, heritage partnership programs,environmental compliance and review, inter-national park affairs, statutory or contrac-tual aid for other activities, and grant ad-ministration, not otherwise provided for,$51,804,000.

URBAN PARK AND RECREATION FUND

For expenses necessary to carry out theprovisions of the Urban Park and RecreationRecovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.),$30,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended, and to be for the conservation activi-ties defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(x) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, as amended, for the pur-poses of such Act.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

For expenses necessary in carrying out theHistoric Preservation Act of 1966, as amend-ed (16 U.S.C. 470), and the Omnibus Parks andPublic Lands Management Act of 1996 (Pub-lic Law 104–333), $77,000,000, to be derivedfrom the Historic Preservation Fund, to re-main available until September 30, 2003, andto be for the conservation activities definedin section 250(c)(4)(E)(xi) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Con-trol Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposesof such Act: Provided, That, of the amountprovided herein, $5,000,000, to remain avail-able until expended, is for a grant for theperpetual care and maintenance of NationalTrust Historic Sites, as authorized under 16U.S.C. 470a(e)(2), to be made available in fullupon signing of a grant agreement: Providedfurther, That, notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, these funds shall be avail-able for investment with the proceeds to beused for the same purpose as set out herein:Provided further, That of the total amountprovided, $30,000,000 shall be for Save Amer-ica’s Treasures for priority preservationprojects, including preservation of intellec-tual and cultural artifacts, preservation ofhistoric structures and sites, and buildingsto house cultural and historic resources andto provide educational opportunities: Pro-vided further, That any individual SaveAmerica’s Treasures grant shall be matchedby non-Federal funds: Provided further, Thatindividual projects shall only be eligible for

one grant, and all projects to be funded shallbe approved by the House and Senate Com-mittees on Appropriations prior to the com-mitment of grant funds: Provided further,That Save America’s Treasures funds allo-cated for Federal projects shall be availableby transfer to appropriate accounts of indi-vidual agencies, after approval of suchprojects by the Secretary of the Interior:Provided further, That none of the funds pro-vided for Save America’s Treasures may beused for administrative expenses, and staff-ing for the program shall be available fromthe existing staffing levels in the NationalPark Service 2003.

CONSTRUCTION

For construction, improvements, repair orreplacement of physical facilities, includingthe modifications authorized by section 104of the Everglades National Park Protectionand Expansion Act of 1989, $349,249,000, ofwhich $50,000,000 is for ‘‘Federal Infrastruc-ture Improvement’’, defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

(RESCISSION)

The contract authority provided for fiscalyear 2002 by 16 U.S.C. 460l–10a is rescinded.

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

For expenses necessary to carry out theLand and Water Conservation Act of 1965, asamended (16 U.S.C. 460l–4 through 11), includ-ing administrative expenses, and for acquisi-tion of lands or waters, or interest therein,in accordance with the statutory authorityapplicable to the National Park Service,$261,036,000, to be derived from the Land andWater Conservation Fund, to remain avail-able until expended, and to be for the con-servation activities defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(iii) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control of 1985, as amend-ed, for the purposes of such Act, of which$154,000,000 is for the State assistance pro-gram including $4,000,000 to administer theState assistance program: Provided, That ofthe amounts provided under this heading,$16,000,000 may be for Federal grants to theState of Florida for the acquisition of landsor waters, or interests therein, within theEverglades watershed (consisting of landsand waters within the boundaries of theSouth Florida Water Management District,Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, includingthe areas known as the Frog Pond, theRocky Glades and the Eight and One-HalfSquare Mile Area) under terms and condi-tions deemed necessary by the Secretary toimprove and restore the hydrological func-tion of the Everglades watershed; and$20,000,000 may be for project modificationsauthorized by section 104 of the EvergladesNational Park Protection and ExpansionAct: Provided further, That funds providedunder this heading for assistance to theState of Florida to acquire lands within theEverglades watershed are contingent uponnew matching non-Federal funds by theState and shall be subject to an agreementthat the lands to be acquired will be man-aged in perpetuity for the restoration of theEverglades: Provided further, That none ofthe funds provided for the State Assistanceprogram may be used to establish a contin-gency fund.


Appropriations for the National Park Serv-ice shall be available for the purchase of notto exceed 315 passenger motor vehicles, ofwhich 256 shall be for replacement only, in-cluding not to exceed 237 for police-type use,11 buses, and 8 ambulances: Provided, Thatnone of the funds appropriated to the Na-

tional Park Service may be used to processany grant or contract documents which donot include the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Pro-vided further, That none of the funds appro-priated to the National Park Service may beused to implement an agreement for the re-development of the southern end of Ellis Is-land until such agreement has been sub-mitted to the Congress and shall not be im-plemented prior to the expiration of 30 cal-endar days (not including any day in whicheither House of Congress is not in session be-cause of adjournment of more than three cal-endar days to a day certain) from the receiptby the Speaker of the House of Representa-tives and the President of the Senate of afull and comprehensive report on the devel-opment of the southern end of Ellis Island,including the facts and circumstances reliedupon in support of the proposed project.

None of the funds in this Act may be spentby the National Park Service for activitiestaken in direct response to the United Na-tions Biodiversity Convention.

The National Park Service may distributeto operating units based on the safety recordof each unit the costs of programs designedto improve workplace and employee safety,and to encourage employees receiving work-ers’ compensation benefits pursuant to chap-ter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to re-turn to appropriate positions for which theyare medically able.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, the National Park Service may conveya leasehold or freehold interest in CuyahogaNP to allow for the development of utilitiesand parking needed to support the historicEverett Church in the village of Everett,Ohio.

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

For expenses necessary for the UnitedStates Geological Survey to perform sur-veys, investigations, and research coveringtopography, geology, hydrology, biology, andthe mineral and water resources of theUnited States, its territories and posses-sions, and other areas as authorized by 43U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as totheir mineral and water resources; give engi-neering supervision to power permittees andFederal Energy Regulatory Commission li-censees; administer the minerals explorationprogram (30 U.S.C. 641); and publish and dis-seminate data relative to the foregoing ac-tivities; and to conduct inquiries into theeconomic conditions affecting mining andmaterials processing industries (30 U.S.C. 3,21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and relatedpurposes as authorized by law and to publishand disseminate data; $900,489,000, of which$64,318,000 shall be available only for co-operation with States or municipalities forwater resources investigations; and of which$16,400,000 shall remain available until ex-pended for conducting inquiries into the eco-nomic conditions affecting mining and mate-rials processing industries; and of which$18,942,000 shall be available until September30, 2003 for the operation and maintenance offacilities and deferred maintenance; and ofwhich $163,461,000 shall be available untilSeptember 30, 2003 for the biological researchactivity and the operation of the CooperativeResearch Units: Provided, That none of thesefunds provided for the biological research ac-tivity shall be used to conduct new surveyson private property, unless specifically au-thorized in writing by the property owner:Provided further, That of the amount pro-vided herein, $25,000,000 is for the conserva-tion activities defined in section250(c)(4)(viii) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act: Pro-vided further, That no part of this appropria-tion shall be used to pay more than one-half


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3378 June 21, 2001the cost of topographic mapping or water re-sources data collection and investigationscarried on in cooperation with States andmunicipalities.


The amount appropriated for the UnitedStates Geological Survey shall be availablefor the purchase of not to exceed 53 pas-senger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for re-placement only; reimbursement to the Gen-eral Services Administration for securityguard services; contracting for the fur-nishing of topographic maps and for themaking of geophysical or other specializedsurveys when it is administratively deter-mined that such procedures are in the publicinterest; construction and maintenance ofnecessary buildings and appurtenant facili-ties; acquisition of lands for gauging stationsand observation wells; expenses of the UnitedStates National Committee on Geology; andpayment of compensation and expenses ofpersons on the rolls of the Survey duly ap-pointed to represent the United States in thenegotiation and administration of interstatecompacts: Provided, That activities fundedby appropriations herein made may be ac-complished through the use of contracts,grants, or cooperative agreements as definedin 31 U.S.C. 6302 et seq.

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALSMANAGEMENT

For expenses necessary for minerals leas-ing and environmental studies, regulation ofindustry operations, and collection of royal-ties, as authorized by law; for enforcing lawsand regulations applicable to oil, gas, andother minerals leases, permits, licenses andoperating contracts; and for matching grantsor cooperative agreements; including thepurchase of not to exceed eight passengermotor vehicles for replacement only,$149,867,000, of which $83,344,000, shall beavailable for royalty management activities;and an amount not to exceed $102,730,000, tobe credited to this appropriation and to re-main available until expended, from addi-tions to receipts resulting from increases torates in effect on August 5, 1993, from rateincreases to fee collections for Outer Conti-nental Shelf administrative activities per-formed by the Minerals Management Serviceover and above the rates in effect on Sep-tember 30, 1993, and from additional fees forOuter Continental Shelf administrative ac-tivities established after September 30, 1993:Provided, That to the extent $102,730,000 inadditions to receipts are not realized fromthe sources of receipts stated above, theamount needed to reach $102,730,000 shall becredited to this appropriation from receiptsresulting from rental rates for Outer Conti-nental Shelf leases in effect before August 5,1993: Provided further, That $3,000,000 for com-puter acquisitions shall remain availableuntil September 30, 2003: Provided further,That funds appropriated under this Act shallbe available for the payment of interest inaccordance with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and (d):Provided further, That not to exceed $3,000shall be available for reasonable expenses re-lated to promoting volunteer beach and ma-rine cleanup activities: Provided further,That notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, $15,000 under this heading shall be avail-able for refunds of overpayments in connec-tion with certain Indian leases in which theDirector of the Minerals Management Serv-ice (MMS) concurred with the claimed refunddue, to pay amounts owed to Indian allotteesor tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverableerroneous payments: Provided further, ThatMMS may under the royalty-in-kind pilotprogram use a portion of the revenues fromroyalty-in-kind sales, without regard to fis-

cal year limitation, to pay for transpor-tation to wholesale market centers or up-stream pooling points, and to process or oth-erwise dispose of royalty production taken inkind: Provided further, That MMS shall ana-lyze and document the expected return in ad-vance of any royalty-in-kind sales to assureto the maximum extent practicable that roy-alty income under the pilot program is equalto or greater than royalty income recognizedunder a comparable royalty-in-value pro-gram.

OIL SPILL RESEARCH

For necessary expenses to carry out title I,section 1016, title IV, sections 4202 and 4303,title VII, and title VIII, section 8201 of theOil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,105,000, whichshall be derived from the Oil Spill LiabilityTrust Fund, to remain available until ex-pended.OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND

ENFORCEMENT

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

For necessary expenses to carry out theprovisions of the Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87, asamended, including the purchase of not toexceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for re-placement only; $102,900,000: Provided, Thatthe Secretary of the Interior, pursuant toregulations, may use directly or throughgrants to States, moneys collected in fiscalyear 2002 for civil penalties assessed undersection 518 of the Surface Mining Controland Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268),to reclaim lands adversely affected by coalmining practices after August 3, 1977, to re-main available until expended: Provided fur-ther, That appropriations for the Office ofSurface Mining Reclamation and Enforce-ment may provide for the travel and perdiem expenses of State and tribal personnelattending Office of Surface Mining Reclama-tion and Enforcement sponsored training.

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

For necessary expenses to carry out titleIV of the Surface Mining Control and Rec-lamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87, asamended, including the purchase of not morethan 10 passenger motor vehicles for replace-ment only, $203,554,000, to be derived from re-ceipts of the Abandoned Mine ReclamationFund and to remain available until ex-pended; of which up to $10,000,000, to be de-rived from the Federal Expenses Share of theFund, shall be for supplemental grants toStates for the reclamation of abandonedsites with acid mine rock drainage from coalmines, and for associated activities, throughthe Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative:Provided, That grants to minimum programStates will be $1,500,000 per State in fiscalyear 2002: Provided further, That of the fundsherein provided up to $18,000,000 may be usedfor the emergency program authorized bysection 410 of Public Law 95–87, as amended,of which no more than 25 percent shall beused for emergency reclamation projects inany one State and funds for federally admin-istered emergency reclamation projectsunder this proviso shall not exceed$11,000,000: Provided further, That prior yearunobligated funds appropriated for the emer-gency reclamation program shall not be sub-ject to the 25 percent limitation per Stateand may be used without fiscal year limita-tion for emergency projects: Provided further,That pursuant to Public Law 97–365, the De-partment of the Interior is authorized to useup to 20 percent from the recovery of the de-linquent debt owed to the United States Gov-ernment to pay for contracts to collect thesedebts: Provided further, That funds madeavailable under title IV of Public Law 95–87may be used for any required non-Federalshare of the cost of projects funded by the

Federal Government for the purpose of envi-ronmental restoration related to treatmentor abatement of acid mine drainage fromabandoned mines: Provided further, That suchprojects must be consistent with the pur-poses and priorities of the Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act: Provided fur-ther, That, in addition to the amount grant-ed to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniaunder sections 402 (g)(1) and 402(g)(5) of theSurface Mining Control and ReclamationAct (Act), an additional $500,000 will be spe-cifically used for the purpose of conducting ademonstration project in accordance withsection 401(c)(6) of the Act to determine theefficacy of improving water quality by re-moving metals from eligible waters pollutedby acid mine drainage.

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

For expenses necessary for the operation ofIndian programs, as authorized by law, in-cluding the Snyder Act of November 2, 1921(25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-Determinationand Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25U.S.C. 450 et seq.), as amended, the Edu-cation Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2001–2019), and the Tribally Controlled SchoolsAct of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amend-ed, $1,790,781,000, to remain available untilSeptember 30, 2003 except as otherwise pro-vided herein, of which not to exceed$89,864,000 shall be for welfare assistance pay-ments and notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, including but not limited to theIndian Self-Determination Act of 1975, asamended, not to exceed $130,209,000 shall beavailable for payments to tribes and tribalorganizations for contract support costs as-sociated with ongoing contracts, grants,compacts, or annual funding agreements en-tered into with the Bureau prior to or duringfiscal year 2002, as authorized by such Act,except that tribes and tribal organizationsmay use their tribal priority allocations forunmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts,grants, or compacts, or annual fundingagreements and for unmet welfare assistancecosts; and up to $3,000,000 shall be for the In-dian Self-Determination Fund which shall beavailable for the transitional cost of initialor expanded tribal contracts, grants, com-pacts or cooperative agreements with theBureau under such Act; and of which not toexceed $436,427,000 for school operations costsof Bureau-funded schools and other edu-cation programs shall become available onJuly 1, 2002, and shall remain available untilSeptember 30, 2003; and of which not to ex-ceed $58,394,000 shall remain available untilexpended for housing improvement, roadmaintenance, attorney fees, litigation sup-port, the Indian Self-Determination Fund,land records improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: Provided, Thatnotwithstanding any other provision of law,including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and25 U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed $43,065,000 withinand only from such amounts made availablefor school operations shall be available totribes and tribal organizations for adminis-trative cost grants associated with the oper-ation of Bureau-funded schools: Provided fur-ther, That any forestry funds allocated to atribe which remain unobligated as of Sep-tember 30, 2003, may be transferred duringfiscal year 2004 to an Indian forest land as-sistance account established for the benefitof such tribe within the tribe’s trust fund ac-count: Provided further, That any such unob-ligated balances not so transferred shall ex-pire on September 30, 2004.

CONSTRUCTION

For construction, repair, improvement,and maintenance of irrigation and power sys-tems, buildings, utilities, and other facili-ties, including architectural and engineering


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3379June 21, 2001services by contract; acquisition of lands,and interests in lands; and preparation oflands for farming, and for construction ofthe Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursu-ant to Public Law 87–483, $357,132,000, to re-main available until expended: Provided,That such amounts as may be available forthe construction of the Navajo Indian Irriga-tion Project may be transferred to the Bu-reau of Reclamation: Provided further, Thatnot to exceed 6 percent of contract authorityavailable to the Bureau of Indian Affairsfrom the Federal Highway Trust Fund maybe used to cover the road program manage-ment costs of the Bureau: Provided further,That any funds provided for the Safety ofDams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 13 shallbe made available on a nonreimbursablebasis: Provided further, That for fiscal year2002, in implementing new construction orfacilities improvement and repair projectgrants in excess of $100,000 that are providedto tribally controlled grant schools underPublic Law 100–297, as amended, the Sec-retary of the Interior shall use the Adminis-trative and Audit Requirements and CostPrinciples for Assistance Programs con-tained in 43 CFR part 12 as the regulatory re-quirements: Provided further, That suchgrants shall not be subject to section 12.61 of43 CFR; the Secretary and the grantee shallnegotiate and determine a schedule of pay-ments for the work to be performed: Providedfurther, That in considering applications, theSecretary shall consider whether the Indiantribe or tribal organization would be defi-cient in assuring that the constructionprojects conform to applicable buildingstandards and codes and Federal, tribal, orState health and safety standards as re-quired by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with respect toorganizational and financial managementcapabilities: Provided further, That if theSecretary declines an application, the Sec-retary shall follow the requirements con-tained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided further,That any disputes between the Secretary andany grantee concerning a grant shall be sub-ject to the disputes provision in 25 U.S.C.2508(e): Provided further, That notwith-standing any other provision of law, not toexceed $450,000 in collections from settle-ments between the United States and con-tractors concerning the Dunseith Day Schoolare to be made available for school construc-tion in fiscal year 2002 and thereafter.

INDIAN LAND AND WATER CLAIM SETTLEMENTSAND MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

For miscellaneous payments to Indiantribes and individuals and for necessary ad-ministrative expenses, $60,949,000, to remainavailable until expended; of which $24,870,000shall be available for implementation of en-acted Indian land and water claim settle-ments pursuant to Public Laws 101–618 and102–575, and for implementation of other en-acted water rights settlements; of which$7,950,000 shall be available for future watersupplies facilities under Public Law 106–163;of which $21,875,000 shall be available pursu-ant to Public Laws 99–264, 100–580, 106–263,106–425, 106–554, and 106–568; and of which$6,254,000 shall be available for the consentdecree entered by the U.S. District Court,Western District of Michigan in UnitedStates v. Michigan, Case No. 2:73 CV 26.

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000,as authorized by the Indian Financing Act of1974, as amended: Provided, That such costs,including the cost of modifying such loans,shall be as defined in section 502 of the Con-gressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided fur-ther, That these funds are available to sub-sidize total loan principal, any part of whichis to be guaranteed, not to exceed $75,000,000.

In addition, for administrative expenses tocarry out the guaranteed loan programs,$486,000.


The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carryout the operation of Indian programs by di-rect expenditure, contracts, cooperativeagreements, compacts and grants, either di-rectly or in cooperation with States andother organizations.

Appropriations for the Bureau of IndianAffairs (except the revolving fund for loans,the Indian loan guarantee and insurancefund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Pro-gram account) shall be available for expensesof exhibits, and purchase of not to exceed 229passenger motor vehicles, of which not to ex-ceed 187 shall be for replacement only.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, no funds available to the Bureau of In-dian Affairs for central office operations,pooled overhead general administration (ex-cept facilities operations and maintenance),or provided to implement the recommenda-tions of the National Academy of Public Ad-ministration’s August 1999 report shall beavailable for tribal contracts, grants, com-pacts, or cooperative agreements with theBureau of Indian Affairs under the provisionsof the Indian Self-Determination Act or theTribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (PublicLaw 103–413).

In the event any tribe returns appropria-tions made available by this Act to the Bu-reau of Indian Affairs for distribution toother tribes, this action shall not diminishthe Federal Government’s trust responsi-bility to that tribe, or the government-to-government relationship between the UnitedStates and that tribe, or that tribe’s abilityto access future appropriations.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, no funds available to the Bureau, otherthan the amounts provided herein for assist-ance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 etseq., shall be available to support the oper-ation of any elementary or secondary schoolin the State of Alaska.

Appropriations made available in this orany other Act for schools funded by the Bu-reau shall be available only to the schools inthe Bureau school system as of September 1,1996. No funds available to the Bureau shallbe used to support expanded grades for anyschool or dormitory beyond the grade struc-ture in place or approved by the Secretary ofthe Interior at each school in the Bureauschool system as of October 1, 1995. Fundsmade available under this Act may not beused to establish a charter school at a Bu-reau-funded school (as that term is definedin section 1146 of the Education Amendmentsof 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a charterschool that is in existence on the date of theenactment of this Act and that has operatedat a Bureau-funded school before September1, 1999, may continue to operate during thatperiod, but only if the charter school pays tothe Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reim-burse the Bureau for the use of the real andpersonal property (including buses and vans),the funds of the charter school are kept sepa-rate and apart from Bureau funds, and theBureau does not assume any obligation forcharter school programs of the State inwhich the school is located if the charterschool loses such funding. Employees of Bu-reau-funded schools sharing a campus with acharter school and performing functions re-lated to the charter school’s operation andemployees of a charter school shall not betreated as Federal employees for purposes ofchapter 171 of title 28, United States Code(commonly known as the ‘‘Federal TortClaims Act’’).

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

INSULAR AFFAIRS

ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

For expenses necessary for assistance toterritories under the jurisdiction of the De-partment of the Interior, $72,289,000, ofwhich: (1) $67,761,000 shall be available untilexpended for technical assistance, includingmaintenance assistance, disaster assistance,insular management controls, coral reef ini-tiative activities, and brown tree snake con-trol and research; grants to the judiciary inAmerican Samoa for compensation and ex-penses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C.1661(c)); grants to the Government of Amer-ican Samoa, in addition to current local rev-enues, for construction and support of gov-ernmental functions; grants to the Govern-ment of the Virgin Islands as authorized bylaw; grants to the Government of Guam, asauthorized by law; and grants to the Govern-ment of the Northern Mariana Islands as au-thorized by law (Public Law 94–241; 90 Stat.272); and (2) $4,528,000 shall be available forsalaries and expenses of the Office of InsularAffairs: Provided, That all financial trans-actions of the territorial and local govern-ments herein provided for, including suchtransactions of all agencies or instrumental-ities established or used by such govern-ments, may be audited by the General Ac-counting Office, at its discretion, in accord-ance with chapter 35 of title 31, UnitedStates Code: Provided further, That NorthernMariana Islands Covenant grant fundingshall be provided according to those terms ofthe Agreement of the Special Representa-tives on Future United States Financial As-sistance for the Northern Mariana Islandsapproved by Public Law 104–134: Provided fur-ther, That of the funds provided herein forAmerican Samoa government operations,the Secretary is directed to use up to $20,000to increase compensation of the AmericanSamoa High Court Justices: Provided further,That of the amounts provided for technicalassistance, not to exceed $1,339,000 shall bemade available for transfer to the DisasterAssistance Direct Loan Financing Accountof the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency for the purpose of covering the costof forgiving the repayment obligation of theGovernment of the Virgin Islands on Com-munity Disaster Loan 841, as required by sec-tion 504 of the Congressional Budget Act of1974, as amended (2 U.S.C. 661c): Provided fur-ther, That to the extent that the cost of for-giving the repayment obligation exceeds the$1,339,000 provided in this Act, the Secretaryof the Interior shall transfer up to $2,161,000of unexpended appropriations for U.S. VirginIslands construction grants provided pursu-ant to Public Law 102–154 to the FederalEmergency Management Agency to meet thefull costs associated with forgiveness of theHurricane Hugo Community Disaster Loan:Provided further, That of the amounts pro-vided for technical assistance, sufficientfunding shall be made available for a grantto the Close Up Foundation: Provided further,That the funds for the program of operationsand maintenance improvement are appro-priated to institutionalize routine operationsand maintenance improvement of capital in-frastructure (with territorial participationand cost sharing to be determined by theSecretary based on the grantees commit-ment to timely maintenance of its capitalassets): Provided further, That any appropria-tion for disaster assistance under this head-ing in this Act or previous appropriationsActs may be used as non-Federal matchingfunds for the purpose of hazard mitigationgrants provided pursuant to section 404 ofthe Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief andEmergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3380 June 21, 2001COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

For economic assistance and necessary ex-penses for the Federated States of Micro-nesia and the Republic of the Marshall Is-lands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223,232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Associa-tion, and for economic assistance and nec-essary expenses for the Republic of Palau asprovided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and233 of the Compact of Free Association,$23,245,000, to remain available until ex-pended, as authorized by Public Law 99–239and Public Law 99–658.

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for management ofthe Department of the Interior, $64,177,000, ofwhich not to exceed $8,500 may be for officialreception and representation expenses, ofwhich up to $1,000,000 shall be available forworkers compensation payments and unem-ployment compensation payments associatedwith the orderly closure of the United StatesBureau of Mines.

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR


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

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


For necessary expenses of the Office of In-spector General, $30,490,000.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICANINDIANS

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

For operation of trust programs for Indi-ans by direct expenditure, contracts, cooper-ative agreements, compacts, and grants,$99,224,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That funds for trust man-agement improvements may be transferred,as needed, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs‘‘Operation of Indian Programs’’ account andto the Departmental Management ‘‘Salariesand Expenses’’ account: Provided further,That funds made available to Tribes andTribal organizations through contracts orgrants obligated during fiscal year 2002, asauthorized by the Indian Self-DeterminationAct of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall re-main available until expended by the con-tractor or grantee: Provided further, Thatnotwithstanding any other provision of law,the statute of limitations shall not com-mence to run on any claim, including anyclaim in litigation pending on the date of theenactment of this Act, concerning losses toor mismanagement of trust funds, until theaffected tribe or individual Indian has beenfurnished with an accounting of such fundsfrom which the beneficiary can determinewhether there has been a loss: Provided fur-ther, That notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, the Secretary shall not be re-quired to provide a quarterly statement ofperformance for any Indian trust accountthat has not had activity for at least 18months and has a balance of $1.00 or less:Provided further, That the Secretary shallissue an annual account statement andmaintain a record of any such accounts andshall permit the balance in each such ac-count to be withdrawn upon the express writ-ten request of the account holder.

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

For consolidation of fractional interests inIndian lands and expenses associated with re-determining and redistributing escheated in-terests in allotted lands, and for necessaryexpenses to carry out the Indian Land Con-solidation Act of 1983, as amended, by directexpenditure or cooperative agreement,$10,980,000, to remain available until ex-pended and which may be transferred to the

Bureau of Indian Affairs and DepartmentalManagement.

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENTAND RESTORATION

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND

To conduct natural resource damage as-sessment activities by the Department of theInterior necessary to carry out the provi-sions of the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act,as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), FederalWater Pollution Control Act, as amended (33U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of1990 (Public Law 101–380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 etseq.), and Public Law 101–337, as amended (16U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $5,497,000, to remainavailable until expended.


There is hereby authorized for acquisitionfrom available resources within the WorkingCapital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of which shall befor replacement and which may be obtainedby donation, purchase or through availableexcess surplus property: Provided, That not-withstanding any other provision of law, ex-isting aircraft being replaced may be sold,with proceeds derived or trade-in value usedto offset the purchase price for the replace-ment aircraft: Provided further, That no pro-grams funded with appropriated funds in the‘‘Departmental Management’’, ‘‘Office of theSolicitor’’, and ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’may be augmented through the WorkingCapital Fund or the Consolidated WorkingFund.GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIORSEC. 101. Appropriations made in this title

shall be available for expenditure or transfer(within each bureau or office), with the ap-proval of the Secretary, for the emergencyreconstruction, replacement, or repair of air-craft, buildings, utilities, or other facilitiesor equipment damaged or destroyed by fire,flood, storm, or other unavoidable causes:Provided, That no funds shall be made avail-able under this authority until funds specifi-cally made available to the Department ofthe Interior for emergencies shall have beenexhausted: Provided further, That all fundsused pursuant to this section are hereby des-ignated by Congress to be ‘‘emergency re-quirements’’ pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def-icit Control Act of 1985, and must be replen-ished by a supplemental appropriation whichmust be requested as promptly as possible.

SEC. 102. The Secretary may authorize theexpenditure or transfer of any no year appro-priation in this title, in addition to theamounts included in the budget programs ofthe several agencies, for the suppression oremergency prevention of wildland fires on orthreatening lands under the jurisdiction ofthe Department of the Interior; for the emer-gency rehabilitation of burned-over landsunder its jurisdiction; for emergency actionsrelated to potential or actual earthquakes,floods, volcanoes, storms, or other unavoid-able causes; for contingency planning subse-quent to actual oil spills; for response andnatural resource damage assessment activi-ties related to actual oil spills; for the pre-vention, suppression, and control of actualor potential grasshopper and Mormon crick-et outbreaks on lands under the jurisdictionof the Secretary, pursuant to the authorityin section 1773(b) of Public Law 99–198 (99Stat. 1658); for emergency reclamationprojects under section 410 of Public Law 95–87; and shall transfer, from any no year fundsavailable to the Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement, such funds asmay be necessary to permit assumption ofregulatory authority in the event a primacyState is not carrying out the regulatory pro-

visions of the Surface Mining Act: Provided,That appropriations made in this title forwildland fire operations shall be availablefor the payment of obligations incurred dur-ing the preceding fiscal year, and for reim-bursement to other Federal agencies for de-struction of vehicles, aircraft, or otherequipment in connection with their use forwildland fire operations, such reimburse-ment to be credited to appropriations cur-rently available at the time of receipt there-of: Provided further, That for wildland fire op-erations, no funds shall be made availableunder this authority until the Secretary de-termines that funds appropriated for‘‘wildland fire operations’’ shall be exhaustedwithin thirty days: Provided further, That allfunds used pursuant to this section are here-by designated by Congress to be ‘‘emergencyrequirements’’ pursuant to section251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, andmust be replenished by a supplemental ap-propriation which must be requested aspromptly as possible: Provided further, Thatsuch replenishment funds shall be used to re-imburse, on a pro rata basis, accounts fromwhich emergency funds were transferred.

SEC. 103. Appropriations made in this titleshall be available for operation of ware-houses, garages, shops, and similar facilities,wherever consolidation of activities will con-tribute to efficiency or economy, and saidappropriations shall be reimbursed for serv-ices rendered to any other activity in thesame manner as authorized by sections 1535and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Pro-vided, That reimbursements for costs andsupplies, materials, equipment, and for serv-ices rendered may be credited to the appro-priation current at the time such reimburse-ments are received.

SEC. 104. Appropriations made to the De-partment of the Interior in this title shall beavailable for services as authorized by 5U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the Sec-retary, in total amount not to exceed$500,000; hire, maintenance, and operation ofaircraft; hire of passenger motor vehicles;purchase of reprints; payment for telephoneservice in private residences in the field,when authorized under regulations approvedby the Secretary; and the payment of dues,when authorized by the Secretary, for li-brary membership in societies or associa-tions which issue publications to membersonly or at a price to members lower than tosubscribers who are not members.

SEC. 105. Appropriations available to theDepartment of the Interior for salaries andexpenses shall be available for uniforms orallowances therefor, as authorized by law (5U.S.C. 5901–5902 and D.C. Code 4–204).

SEC. 106. Annual appropriations made inthis title shall be available for obligation inconnection with contracts issued for servicesor rentals for periods not in excess of 12months beginning at any time during the fis-cal year.

SEC. 107. No funds provided in this titlemay be expended by the Department of theInterior for the conduct of offshore leasingand related activities placed under restric-tion in the President’s moratorium state-ment of June 12, 1998, in the areas of north-ern, central, and southern California; theNorth Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; theeastern Gulf of Mexico south of 26 degreesnorth latitude and east of 86 degrees westlongitude.

SEC. 108. No funds provided in this titlemay be expended by the Department of theInterior for the conduct of offshore oil andnatural gas preleasing, leasing, and relatedactivities, on lands within the North Aleu-tian Basin planning area.

SEC. 109. No funds provided in this titlemay be expended by the Department of the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3381June 21, 2001Interior to conduct offshore oil and naturalgas preleasing, leasing and related activitiesin the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning areafor any lands located outside Sale 181, asidentified in the final Outer ContinentalShelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program,1997–2002.

SEC. 110. No funds provided in this titlemay be expended by the Department of theInterior to conduct oil and natural gaspreleasing, leasing and related activities inthe Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic plan-ning areas.

SEC. 111. Advance payments made underthis title to Indian tribes, tribal organiza-tions, and tribal consortia pursuant to theIndian Self-Determination and EducationAssistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or theTribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by theIndian tribe, tribal organization, or consor-tium before such funds are expended for thepurposes of the grant, compact, or annualfunding agreement so long as such fundsare—

(1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal or-ganization, or consortium only in obliga-tions of the United States, or in obligationsor securities that are guaranteed or insuredby the United States, or mutual (or other)funds registered with the Securities and Ex-change Commission and which only invest inobligations of the United States or securitiesthat are guaranteed or insured by the UnitedStates; or

(2) deposited only into accounts that areinsured by an agency or instrumentality ofthe United States, or are fully collateralizedto ensure protection of the funds, even in theevent of a bank failure.

SEC. 112. Notwithstanding any other provi-sions of law, the National Park Service shallnot develop or implement a reduced entrancefee program to accommodate non-local trav-el through a unit. The Secretary may pro-vide for and regulate local non-recreationalpassage through units of the National ParkSystem, allowing each unit to develop guide-lines and permits for such activity appro-priate to that unit.

SEC. 113. Appropriations made in this Actunder the headings Bureau of Indian Affairsand Office of Special Trustee for AmericanIndians and any available unobligated bal-ances from prior appropriations Acts madeunder the same headings, shall be availablefor expenditure or transfer for Indian trustmanagement activities pursuant to theTrust Management Improvement ProjectHigh Level Implementation Plan.

SEC. 114. A grazing permit or lease that ex-pires (or is transferred) during fiscal year2002 shall be renewed under section 402 of theFederal Land Policy and Management Act of1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1752) or if applica-ble, section 510 of the California Desert Pro-tection Act (16 U.S.C. 410aaa–50). The termsand conditions contained in the expiring per-mit or lease shall continue in effect underthe new permit or lease until such time asthe Secretary of the Interior completes proc-essing of such permit or lease in compliancewith all applicable laws and regulations, atwhich time such permit or lease may be can-celed, suspended or modified, in whole or inpart, to meet the requirements of such appli-cable laws and regulations. Nothing in thissection shall be deemed to alter the Sec-retary’s statutory authority.

SEC. 115. Notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, for the purpose of reducing thebacklog of Indian probate cases in the De-partment of the Interior, the hearing re-quirements of chapter 10 of title 25, UnitedStates Code, are deemed satisfied by a pro-ceeding conducted by an Indian probatejudge, appointed by the Secretary withoutregard to the provisions of title 5, United

States Code, governing the appointments inthe competitive service, for such period oftime as the Secretary determines necessary:Provided, That the basic pay of an Indianprobate judge so appointed may be fixed bythe Secretary without regard to the provi-sions of chapter 51, and subchapter III ofchapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, gov-erning the classification and pay of GeneralSchedule employees, except that no such In-dian probate judge may be paid at a levelwhich exceeds the maximum rate payable forthe highest grade of the General Schedule,including locality pay.

SEC. 116. Notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, the Secretary of the Interior isauthorized to redistribute any Tribal Pri-ority Allocation funds, including tribal basefunds, to alleviate tribal funding inequitiesby transferring funds to address identified,unmet needs, dual enrollment, overlappingservice areas or inaccurate distributionmethodologies. No tribe shall receive a re-duction in Tribal Priority Allocation fundsof more than 10 percent in fiscal year 2002.Under circumstances of dual enrollment,overlapping service areas or inaccurate dis-tribution methodologies, the 10 percent limi-tation does not apply.

SEC. 117. None of the funds in this Act maybe used to establish a new National WildlifeRefuge in the Kankakee River basin that isinconsistent with the United States ArmyCorps of Engineers’ efforts to control flood-ing and siltation in that area. Written cer-tification of consistency shall be submittedto the House and Senate Committees on Ap-propriations prior to refuge establishment.

SEC. 118. Funds appropriated for the Bu-reau of Indian Affairs for postsecondaryschools for fiscal year 2002 shall be allocatedamong the schools proportionate to theunmet need of the schools as determined bythe Postsecondary Funding Formula adoptedby the Office of Indian Education Programs.

SEC. 119. (a) The Secretary of the Interiorshall take such action as may be necessaryto ensure that the lands comprising theHuron Cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas (asdescribed in section 123 of Public Law 106–291) are used only in accordance with thissection.

(b) The lands of the Huron Cemetery shallbe used only (1) for religious and culturaluses that are compatible with the use of thelands as a cemetery, and (2) as a burialground.

SEC. 120. No funds appropriated for the De-partment of the Interior by this Act or anyother Act shall be used to study or imple-ment any plan to drain Lake Powell or to re-duce the water level of the lake below therange of water levels required for the oper-ation of the Glen Canyon Dam.

SEC. 121. Notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, in conveying the Twin Cities Re-search Center under the authority providedby Public Law 104–134, as amended by PublicLaw 104–208, the Secretary may accept andretain land and other forms of reimburse-ment: Provided, That the Secretary may re-tain and use any such reimbursement untilexpended and without further appropriation:(1) for the benefit of the National WildlifeRefuge System within the State of Min-nesota; and (2) for all activities authorizedby Public Law 100–696; 16 U.S.C. 460zz.

SEC. 122. Section 412(b) of the NationalParks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, asamended (16 U.S.C. 5961) is amended by strik-ing ‘‘2001’’ and inserting ‘‘2002’’.

SEC. 123. Notwithstanding other provisionsof law, the National Park Service may au-thorize, through cooperative agreement, theGolden Gate National Parks Association toprovide fee-based education, interpretive andvisitor service functions within the CrissyField and Fort Point areas of the Presidio.

SEC. 124. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b),sums received by the Bureau of Land Man-agement for the sale of seeds or seedlings in-cluding those collected in fiscal year 2001,may be credited to the appropriation fromwhich funds were expended to acquire orgrow the seeds or seedlings and are availablewithout fiscal year limitation.

SEC. 125. TRIBAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTIONDEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) CONSTRUCTION.—The term ‘‘construc-tion’’, with respect to a tribally controlledschool, includes the construction or renova-tion of that school.

(2) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’has the meaning given that term in section4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination andEducation Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’means the Secretary of the Interior.

(4) TRIBALLY CONTROLLED SCHOOL.—Theterm ‘‘tribally controlled school’’ has themeaning given that term in section 5212 ofthe Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988(25 U.S.C. 2511).

(5) DEPARTMENT.—The term ‘‘Department’’means the Department of the Interior.

(6) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.—The term‘‘demonstration program’’ means the TribalSchool Construction Demonstration Pro-gram.

(b) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carryout a demonstration program to providegrants to Indian tribes for the constructionof tribally controlled schools.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the avail-ability of appropriations, in carrying out thedemonstration program under subsection (b),the Secretary shall award a grant to each In-dian tribe that submits an application thatis approved by the Secretary under para-graph (2). The Secretary shall ensure that aneligible Indian tribe currently on the Depart-ment’s priority list for construction of re-placement educational facilities receives thehighest priority for a grant under this sec-tion.

(2) GRANT APPLICATIONS.—An applicationfor a grant under the section shall—

(A) include a proposal for the constructionof a tribally controlled school of the Indiantribe that submits the application; and

(B) be in such form as the Secretary deter-mines appropriate.

(3) GRANT AGREEMENT.—As a condition toreceiving a grant under this section, the In-dian tribe shall enter into an agreement withthe Secretary that specifies—

(A) the costs of construction under thegrant;

(B) that the Indian tribe shall be requiredto contribute towards the cost of the con-struction a tribal share equal to 50 percent ofthe costs; and

(C) any other term or condition that theSecretary determines to be appropriate.

(4) ELIGIBILITY.—Grants awarded under thedemonstration program shall only be forconstruction of replacement tribally con-trolled schools.

(c) EFFECT OF GRANT.—A grant receivedunder this section shall be in addition to anyother funds received by an Indian tribe underany other provision of law. The receipt of agrant under this section shall not affect theeligibility of an Indian tribe receiving fund-ing, or the amount of funding received by theIndian tribe, under the Tribally ControlledSchools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) orthe Indian Self-Determination and Edu-cation Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.).

SEC. 126. WHITE RIVER OIL SHALE MINE,UTAH. (a) SALE.—The Administrator of Gen-eral Services (referred to in this section asthe ‘‘Administrator’’) shall sell all right,title, and interest of the United States inand to the improvements and equipment de-scribed in subsection (b) that are situated on


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3382 June 21, 2001the land described in subsection (c) (referredto in this section as the ‘‘Mine’’).

(b) DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ANDEQUIPMENT.—The improvements and equip-ment referred to in subsection (a) are the fol-lowing improvements and equipment associ-ated with the Mine:

(1) Mine Service Building.(2) Sewage Treatment Building.(3) Electrical Switchgear Building.(4) Water Treatment Building/Plant.(5) Ventilation/Fan Building.(6) Water Storage Tanks.(7) Mine Hoist Cage and Headframe.(8) Miscellaneous Mine-related equipment.(c) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land re-

ferred to in subsection (a) is the land locatedin Uintah County, Utah, known as the‘‘White River Oil Shale Mine’’ and describedas follows:

(1) T. 10 S., R. 24 E., Salt Lake Meridian,sections 12 through 14, 19 through 30, 33, and34.

(2) T. 10 S., R. 25 E., Salt Lake Meridian,sections 18 and 19.

(d) USE OF PROCEEDS.—The proceeds of thesale under subsection (a)—

(1) shall be deposited in a special accountin the Treasury of the United States; and

(2) shall be available until expended, with-out further Act of appropriation—

(A) first, to reimburse the Administratorfor the direct costs of the sale; and

(B) second, to reimburse the Bureau ofLand Management Utah State Office for thecosts of closing and rehabilitating the Mine.

(e) MINE CLOSURE AND REHABILITATION.—The closing and rehabilitation of the Mine(including closing of the mine shafts, sitegrading, and surface revegetation) shall beconducted in accordance with—

(1) the regulatory requirements of theState of Utah, the Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, and the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration; and

(2) other applicable law.

b 1045

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. POMBO:Page 17, line 24, insert before the period

the following:: Provided, That, of such funds, $1,000,000

shall be for the Banta-Carbona IrrigationDistrict Fish Screen Project in Tracy, Cali-fornia.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reservea point of order on the gentleman’samendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.ISAKSON). The gentleman reserves apoint of order.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise tooffer this amendment after which Iplan to withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment wouldredirect $1 million from the Coopera-tive Endangered Species ConservationFund to the Banta-Carbona IrrigationDistrict in Tracy, California, for a fishscreen project located at the entranceto the Banta-Carbona Irrigation Dis-trict intake channel on the San Joa-quin River.

This is a very simple amendmentwhich would provide much needed fi-nancial assistance to help defray theconstruction, operating and mainte-nance costs of this fish screen.

Let me point out that the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is required

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service toput in a fish screen facility on the SanJoaquin River to protect the deltasmelt, the steelhead, the fall run chi-nook salmon and the splittail. All ofthese fish are either endangered orthreatened species and fall under theauthority of U.S. Fish and WildlifeService or the National Marine Fish-eries Service. Without the fish screenproject, the Banta-Carbona IrrigationDistrict’s agricultural water diversionscould be shut down by these Federalagencies.

Mr. Chairman, the Banta-Carbona Ir-rigation District is facing a reduced al-location of water from the Central Val-ley Project. To make matters worse,high energy costs in California coupledwith low agricultural commodityprices have made it nearly impossiblefor the water users to pay for the cap-ital, operating and maintenance costsof a fish screen facility.

The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman,the Federal Government has requiredthe Banta-Carbona Irrigation Districtto facilitate the funding, design, andconstruction of this fish barrier screenfacility with little or no assistance.

Under the ESA, the Federal Govern-ment continues to require farmers,ranchers, landowners, irrigation dis-tricts, and local government and com-munities to spend millions of dollars toprotect endangered species. In fact, letme point out to my colleagues the mil-lions of dollars that the county hos-pital in Riverside, California, had tospend to protect a fly. And how aboutthe millions of dollars homebuildersand ranchers in my district are spend-ing to protect the fairy shrimp, a quar-ter-inch crustacean that lives in poolsof water which we normally call mudpuddles.

Mr. Chairman, this is real moneythat could be used to help individualsoffset the costs of their high utilitybills. Further, this is real money thatis being diverted away from the Stateand local government’s education, in-frastructure, and health care budgets. Iam convinced that the only speciesthat is benefiting from this process isthe cash cow, being milked by theagencies and environmental lawyers.The truth is, contrary to claims madeby the green conflict industry, peoplewho own property do care about thesurvival of valued species and thehealth of our environment.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this isanother example of why the Endan-gered Species Act is not working. Theact has failed to save species; it hascaused acrimony and gridlock, gen-erated endless litigation; it has costthe American taxpayer and private-property owner hundreds of billions ofdollars in wasted effort; and it has mis-appropriated property and lost produc-tion.

All of these problems, Mr. Chairman,and the act has not even been author-ized for nearly a decade. I simply can-not stand by quietly as farmers andranchers, families and businesses, espe-

cially those in the West who depend onnatural resources for a living, suffer forno constructive purpose. The time hascome to make human species as impor-tant as the Endangered Species Actequation.

Mr. Chairman, it is time to take backour economic and constitutionalrights. Ensuring that the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District receivesFederal assistance for the fish screenproject will do such a thing by holdingthe Federal Government accountablefor its actions. I urge my colleagues todo the right thing to correct this injus-tice.

I have worked with the gentlemanfrom New Mexico in the past severalyears on these issues. I intend to con-tinue working with him. I know that ifit were up to him totally that we wouldtake care of these problems posthaste;but in light of the situation we are inright now, I respectfully withdraw myamendment at this point.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. With-out objection, the amendment offeredby the gentleman from California (Mr.POMBO) is withdrawn.

There was no objection.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment, pursuant toclause 2(f) of rule XXI.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Isthere objection to the request of thegentlewoman from New York?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The

Clerk will report the amendment.The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Ms. SLAUGHTER:On page 49, line 22 after the number

‘‘$64,177,000’’ insert ‘‘(reduced by $9,000,000)’’.On page 69, line 12 after the number

‘‘$1,326,445,000’’ insert ‘‘(reduced by$6,000,000)’’.

On page 109, line 21 strike ‘‘$104,882,000’’and insert ‘‘$107,882,000’’.

On page 110, line 19 strike ‘‘$24,899,000’’ andinsert ‘‘$26,899,000’’.

On page 110, line 24 strike ‘‘$7,000,000’’ andinsert ‘‘$17,000,000’’.

Ms. SLAUGHTER (during the read-ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimousconsent that the amendment be consid-ered as read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Isthere objection to the request of thegentlewoman from New York?

There was no objection.Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman,

these amendments would provide afunding increase to three agencies thatmost certainly deserve it: the NationalEndowment for the Arts, the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, andthe Institute of Museum and LibraryServices.

In fiscal year 1996, the arts and hu-manities sustained massive fundingcuts. The budgets of NEA and NEHwere slashed by 40 percent. The Con-gressional Arts Caucus waged a suc-cessful battle to save both of themfrom annihilation, but neither one hasfully recovered from the cuts. Lastyear, we won the first budget increasefor the agencies in nearly a decade. The


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3383June 21, 2001fiscal year 2001 budget contained an ad-ditional $7 million for the NEA’s Chal-lenge America initiative, as well as in-creases of $5 million and $2 million forNEH and IMLS respectively. It is timeto reaffirm our Nation’s commitmentto the arts by providing another mod-est funding increase for NEA, NEH, andIMLS.

Supporting the arts is not merely amatter of being high-minded. The artsproduce very real benefits for individ-uals, for communities and for the Na-tion as a whole, with the greatest posi-tive impact on our children. For exam-ple, data from the college entranceexam board shows that students whotook 4 years or more of art and musicclasses outscored their peers on theSAT by more than 80 points in 1995,1996 and 1997. The arts are an economicboon to communities. More tickets aresold for art performances than allsports events put together and no com-munity is ever required for an artproject to build and sustain and sub-sidize an expensive stadium.

Some of our Members in this Househave expressed concern that the artsand humanities programs are not fund-ed in their districts. In fact, eventhough the budget has been depleted, Ishould state again that NEA regularlyreaches between 290 and 300 congres-sional districts and is providing a widerrange of grants thanks to programslike ArtsREACH. Last year, Congresstargeted $7 million to the NEA’s Chal-lenge America initiative whichstrengthens NEA activity in the 20States with the fewest NEA grants.That is very important that we con-tinue.

I would like to pay a tribute here tothe present chairman of the NEA, Mr.Bill Ivey, who has instituted these andmany other programs and is staying onat the NEA to make sure that his suc-cessor can have an increase in budgetso that he can increase these impor-tant program. I also want to recognizethe President of the United States,George Bush, who said recently atFord’s Theater that the arts are ex-tremely important to the UnitedStates and deserve government sup-port. I thank him for that.

Similarly, the National Endowmentfor the Humanities is playing a crucialrole in collecting, preserving, and shar-ing the Nation’s history. Just lastyear, NEH grants went to projects likerestoration of Federal War Departmentrecords which had been partially de-stroyed by fire covering 1784 to 1800;the collection of papers of suffragistsElizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B.Anthony; an analysis of artifacts fromChickasaw archaeological sites; andmany, many more. An increase in theirfunding would permit this agency toexpand its already tremendous impacton the Nation’s K to 12 humanities cur-riculum by offering more seminars forteachers and exploring greater possi-bilities to use technology in the class-room sorely needed.

The Institute of Museum and LibraryServices oversees America’s 8,000 muse-

ums and connects schools, libraries,and other institutions with the manywonderful resources within those muse-ums. In its April round of conservationproject support grants, they fundedproposals ranging from the preserva-tion of sculptures by African Americanfolk artist Felix ‘‘Fox’’ Harris in Beau-mont, Texas, to a survey of objects im-portant to the local history of Valdez,Alaska. With additional funding, theycould expand that reach to many wor-thy grant applications.

The amendments, as I said, wouldadd $10 million to the NEA, $3 millionto the NEH, and $2 million to IMLS. Itdoes so by making a minor cor-responding reduction in the adminis-trative budgets of the Department ofthe Interior and U.S. Forest Service.My colleagues may not be aware thatthe underlying bill includes more than$4 billion for salaries and many billionsmore for other administrative costssuch as travel, contracting and so on.The offset would reduce that budget byless than three-tenths of 1 percent. It isexpected that this reduction will be ab-sorbed through savings in travel, inprinting, and normal vacancy rates instaffing levels. We have worked ex-tremely hard to find an offset thatwould be reasonable and responsible. Itis my firm belief that this offset shouldbe acceptable to every Member of Con-gress.

When we think about the great civili-zations of the past, what comes tomind? The pyramids of Egypt, a spec-tacular architectural achievement; thesculptures of ancient Rome; the epicpoetry of ancient Greece; the cliff artand cave paintings of Native Ameri-cans. As opera singer Beverly Sillsnoted, ‘‘Art is the signature of civiliza-tions.’’

Let us reaffirm Congress’ commit-ment to our Nation’s artistic and cul-tural legacy by passing these amend-ments.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I appre-ciate the position of the Member onthis amendment, but I oppose thisamendment.

The committee-approved bill in-cludes the President’s request for theNEA and NEH. This is a fair amount offunding. This level sustains the in-creases the endowments received lastyear, and there is a small increase forfixed costs.

We should not cut the Interior De-partment and Forest Service oper-ations accounts. We have held these op-erations accounts down and not evenfully funded them for inflation. Fur-ther cuts would be very harmful to theadministration of the national parks,forests, refuges, and other programs.

The Interior bill has many respon-sibilities. We have a documented back-log in repairs of over $12 billion. Wehave tried to make prudent invest-ments in our land management agen-cies, in Indian programs, and in energyresearch. I ask my colleagues to joinme and oppose this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment wouldprovide an additional $10 million forthe National Endowment for the Arts,bringing their funding up to $115 mil-lion. I might point out that in 1995 wefunded the arts at approximately $170million, so there has been a dramaticreduction in funding for the arts. Iwould say that the National Endow-ment has done a great job, but it cer-tainly needs this modest increase. Wewould also increase the National En-dowment for the Humanities by $3 mil-lion, taking it up to $123 million. It wasfunded at about $170 million in 1995 aswell, so this is another one that needshelp. And, of course, the Museum andLibrary Services, we would increasethis by $2 million, taking it up to $26.8million.

Since 1996, the Endowments havebeen woefully underfunded, as I havestated. The National Endowment forthe Arts, to be precise, received $162million in 1995 and was level funded at$98 million until their small increaselast year. The Humanities were fundedat $172 million in 1995, yet only re-ceived $120 million in the fiscal year2001 bill. Even with requests from theprevious administration of $150 millionfor both agencies, we were not able toachieve more than a nominal increase.I believe it is time that these programsreceive at least a portion of this re-quest because of the value they add toour country.

The National Endowment for Human-ities supports programs that mattermost, enriching classroom teaching,developing programs for public tele-vision, supporting some of the coun-try’s finest museum exhibits, pre-serving invaluable historical materialsfrom our past, supporting new researchby scholars, and partnering with Statehumanities councils across the Nation.A small grant from either the NationalEndowment for Humanities or the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts spursnearly four times that amount of fund-ing in the private sector.

But without additional funding, im-portant programs supported by theNEH will not be available. Additionalfunding would also be used to preserveendangered recordings of folk music,jazz and blues. The National Endow-ment for Humanities works directlywith each of the State humanities or-ganizations and regional centers tosupport critical cultural programs.They also help ensure that this infor-mation is widely distributed into com-munities through technology like theInternet and CD-roms.

The National Endowment for theArts also receives an increase for thework that it does. As I mentioned, theNEA received $162 million in 1995, butonly $105 million last year. This is sim-ply inadequate.

b 1100I was extremely pleased that we were

able to reach agreement to provide thissmall increase for the NEA last year,adding an additional $7 million for theNEA’s Challenge America program.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3384 June 21, 2001The NEA should be commended for

its work to address criticism and con-cerns over their funding of controver-sial grants and for not distributinggrants in a more geographically even-handed way throughout the country.They have addressed those issues and Ithink have solved them, and much ofthe credit belongs to our sub-committee, particularly the work ofour former chairman, the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. REGULA), who was in-sistent that we emphasize quality inawarding these grants.

The Institute for Museum and Li-brary Services also deserves this smallincrease. Each year our Nation’s 15,000museums host 865 million visits, a 50percent increase from only a decadeago. For the last 25 years, the Instituteof Museum and Library Services hasused its modest Federal funds tostrengthen museum operations, im-prove care of collections, increase pro-fessional development opportunities,and enhance the community servicerole of museums.

An additional $2 million for the Insti-tute of Museum and Library Serviceswill have a real impact in our commu-nities, and I hope my colleagues willjoin me in supporting this increase. Itis my hope that a favorable vote onthis amendment will send a message tothe administration that these threeareas are greatly deserving of thesesmall increases, and we want to saythat we are pleased that the adminis-tration was at least willing to supportlast year’s efforts.

I compliment the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) for herleadership and her leadership of theArts Caucus. We are going to continuethis fight. We think it is a worthy one.We received some considerable supportin the other body. I think it is time forthis House to take a stand in favor ofsupport for these three important cul-tural institutions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theamendment offered by Ms. SLAUGHTER of NewYork and myself. The amendment seeks toraise the level of funding for the National En-dowment for the Arts, the National Endowmentof the Humanities and the Institute for Muse-ums and Library Services. The increases weare seeking for the Endowments and the IMLSwould be offset by small reductions in admin-istrative costs at the Department of the Interiorand the Department of Agriculture.

We had originally planned to offset theseamounts through a deferral of excess cleancoal funds as we did last year. Unfortunatelythe Rules Committee did not waive the rule toallow this. Instead this amendment makes avery small reduction of less than .3 percent inadministrative costs. We believe these can beabsorbed with no programmatic impact onthese agencies. The President’s budget wasgenerous in funding administrative costs in-cluding more than $160 million for the cost ofthe Federal pay raise and the committee hasadded additional funds. This amendment re-quires that approximately 10 percent of thecost of the pay raise be absorbed throughmanagement efficiencies. Historically theamount of pay costs which agencies were

asked to absorb has averaged in excess of 25percent. We believe that most of the cost willcome from a higher than expected lapse rate,the savings which occur when positions whichare assumed to be funded for all of the yearare inevitably filled more slowly with substan-tial savings. This lapse savings is inevitablyhigher than expected when there is a new Ad-ministration which fills vacancies slowly as isthe current case. In addition there may besome small reductions required in travel, print-ing and administrative contracts costs. In nocase should there be any impact on existingstaff.

The amendment would: Provide an addi-tional $10 million for the NEA, bringing themup to $115 million; provide an additional $3million for the NEH, bringing them up to $123million; and provide an additional $2 million forthe Institute for Museums and Library Services(IMLS), bringing them up to $26.8 million.

Since 1996, the Endowments have beenwoefully underfunded. The National Endow-ment for the Arts received $162 million in fis-cal year 1995, and was level funded at $98million until their small increase last year. TheHumanities were funded at $172 million in fis-cal year 1995, yet only received $120 millionin the fiscal 2001 bill. Even with requests fromthe previous Administration of $150 million forboth agencies, we were not able to achievemore than a nominal increase. I believe it istime that these programs received at least aportion of this request because of the valuethey add to our country.

The National Endowment for Humanitiessupports programs that matter most—enrich-ing classroom teaching, developing programsfor public television, supporting some of thecountry’s finest museum exhibits, preservinginvaluable historical materials from our past,supporting new research by scholars andpartnering with state humanities councilsacross the Nation.

A small grant from either the NEH or theNEA spurs nearly four times that amount inthe private sector.

But without additional funding, importantprograms supported by the NEH will not beavailable. Additional funding would also beused to preserve endangered recordings offolk music, jazz, and blues. The NEH worksdirectly with each of the state humanities orga-nizations and regional centers to support crit-ical cultural programs. They also help ensurethat this information is widely distributed intocommunities through technology like the inter-net and CD-Roms.

The NEA also deserves an increase for thework that it does. As I mentioned, the NEA re-ceived $162 million in 1995, but only $105 mil-lion last year. This simply is inadequate.

I was extremely pleased that we were ableto reach agreement to provide the small in-crease for the NEA last year, adding an addi-tional $7 million for the NEA’s ChallengeAmerican Program. The NEA should be com-mended for its work to address criticisms andconcerns over their funding of controversialgrants and for distributing grants in a moregeographically even-handed way throughoutthe country.

The Institute for Museums and Library Serv-ices also deserves this small increase. Eachyear our Nation’s 15,000 museums host 865million visits—a 50 percent increase from onlya decade ago. For the last 25 years IMLS hasused its modest Federal funds to strengthen

museum operations, improve care of collec-tions, increase professional development op-portunities and enhance the community serv-ice role of museums. An additional $2 millionfor the IMLS will have a real impact in ourcommunities, and I hope my colleagues willjoin me in supporting this increase.

It is my hope that a favorable vote on thisamendment will send a message to the Presi-dent that these three areas are greatly deserv-ing of these small increases.

I urge support of the amendment.Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of H.R. 2217, the Interior appro-priations bill for fiscal year 2002. It isconsistent with the budget resolutionas required under the CongressionalBudget Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.2217, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscalyear 2002. This bill is consistent with thebudget resolution as required under the Con-gressional Budget Act.

This is the first of 13 appropriations bills thatthe House will consider under the 302(a) allo-cation set forth in the concurrent resolution onthe budget for fiscal year 2002.

In accordance with the Budget Act, theCommittee on Appropriations subdivided thisallocation among its 13 subcommittees earlierthis week.

I am confident that the 302(b) allocationsrepresent a good faith effort by the Appropria-tions Committee and its distinguished chair-man to comply with the overall discretionarylevels agreed to as part of the budget resolu-tion.

As reported, H.R. 2217 provides $18.9 bil-lion in new budget authority and $17.8 billionin outlays for fiscal year 2002.

The bill does not designate any of the newbudget authority it provides as an emergency,not does it rescind previously enacted budgetauthority.

The bill is within the subcommittee on theInterior 302(b) allocation and therefore com-plies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act,which prohibits the consideration of appropria-tion measures that exceed the appropriatesubcommittee’s 302(b) allocation.

I would note, however, that the bill changesthe classification of four fairly small programsunder the separate spending cap that wasadopted last year.

Both the caps and the classification of pro-grams under those caps is under the jurisdic-tion of the Budget Committee. Accordingly, thebill violates section 306 of the Budget Act,which prohibits the consideration of legislationwithin the jurisdiction of the Budget Com-mittee.

I would ask the subcommittee to work withthe Budget Committee on the appropriateclassification of these programs in conferenceand on comparable measures in the future.

In summary, this bill is consistent with thebudget resolution agreed by the Congressand, on this basis, I support the bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothe Slaughter amendment, not because


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3385June 21, 2001I do not support the arts and the hu-manities or museum services, but be-cause I think we need to ask the funda-mental question in this case of thisamendment, which is, how much isenough?

The subcommittee and the full com-mittee made a conscious decision to in-crease the NEA and NEH and MuseumServices accounts for the first time Ithink that I have been in the House atthe committee level, the subcommitteelevel. Albeit small increases, they arein fact increases.

I hear my colleagues who are in sup-port of this amendment make the com-ment that $105,234,000 for NEA is notenough; that $120,504,000 for NEH is notenough; and that $24,899,000 for the Mu-seum Services is not enough. I wouldurge my colleagues and the chairmanthat it is enough. Notwithstanding thefact that there has been a higheramount in past years, it is enough aswe think about balancing this spendingamount with other spending prioritiesthat we have in this bill, and they aremany.

My concern with the Slaughteramendment, with all due respect to herand her commitment to the arts andthe humanities, the offsets come fromthe operations of the Department ofthe Interior and the Forest Service.

These accounts, in my humble opin-ion, cannot afford a reduction becausewe have already streamlined their ad-ministrative expenses in the bill. Icome from the Pacific Northwest. ThePacific Northwest was devastated inMontana and Idaho, luckily not somuch in Washington State, by forestfires last year. We are expecting an-other hot summer. We need the per-sonnel and the administrative assist-ants to meet not only the fire needs ofthe region but the other needs of theregion, to have a healthy forest servicesystem; to have an adequate protectionof our public lands in the Interior De-partment. Those are priorities as well.

I just urge my colleagues to thinkcarefully about where our prioritiesare. Why is $105 million for NEA notenough? Mr. Ivey has done a fabulousjob. Why is $120 million not enough forNEH? There can never be enough if weadvocate in this body only for the pri-orities that one sees as very important.

I happened last year to be the personinvolved in making sure that Indianhealth service funding and adequatehealth service for our Native Americanpopulations was provided in the bill.That is controversial. It was controver-sial last year. It may be controversialthis year. The point is, the President’srequest was $105 million, $120 million,and $24 million for these three respec-tive agencies. We have met the Presi-dent’s request. It is an increase in allthree accounts.

So, therefore, I just think we have tobe careful that we do not go overboardwith respect to a balance that exists inthe accounts of the Department of theInterior agencies. The arts and the hu-manities do have very important val-

ues in our country. I have been con-cerned that the arts industry has notstepped up to privately try to help theNEA raise funds. It is a $9 billion in-dustry, and we see the highest advo-cates in the entertainment industrycoming and asking for more FederalGovernment assistance, when I wouldurge that the actors and the artists ofthe world and the music folks who havedone so well through the entertain-ment industry step up and assist on theprivate side, put $1 million or $2 mil-lion or $5 million, or $10 million and $3million and $2 million in this case oftheir own money in to try to help theNEA and the NEH and the Institute ofLibrary Services.

So we have strived mightily in thesubcommittee and the full committeeto be fair to the NEA, the NEH, and theIMLS. We have done that. We havereached a balance, Mr. Chairman, thatI think meets the needs of the commu-nity.

Can we do more next year? Maybe wecan, but for this year in this bill inthese accounts that we want to keepcontrol over, that is balancing thisFederal budget and making all the pro-grams that have value fit within thatbudget, we have done a very good job.I urge a no on the Slaughter amend-ment.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urgemy colleagues to vote in favor of themodest increase in the arts and thefunding for the National Endowmentfor the Arts, the National Endowmentfor the Humanities, and the Instituteof Museum and Library Services. Dur-ing the past 5 years, our cultural agen-cies have experienced significant cutsin their budgets due to concerns thatobjectionable projects were being fund-ed with taxpayer money and that thegrants were not accessible to all com-munities.

Today, the National Endowment forthe Arts is a new institution that hasundergone significant restructuring toaddress the problems that concern usall, and the Endowment has introducednew initiatives to strengthen existingprograms.

For example, the Endowment hasbeen incredibly successful in imple-menting Challenge America, a programwhich ensures that people who live insmall rural towns or underserved urbanareas gain access to the arts by specifi-cally targeting arts education for at-risk youth.

Cultural preservation of our nationalheritage and community partnershipsto help individuals gain access to thearts, Challenge America is achievingits goals.

Furthermore, tighter reporting re-quirements for grantees have been im-plemented and subgranting and directfunding to individual artists has beeneliminated to increase accountability.

The National Endowment for the Hu-manities plays a crucial role in theeducation and cultural exposure ofAmerica’s children.

Specifically, the National Endow-ment for the Humanities providestraining for the Nation’s teachersthrough seminars and institutes; pro-tects our Nation’s heritage throughpreservation projects; supports scholar-ship in the humanities and facilitatesthe flow of research through books, ar-ticles, educational television, such asthe Public Broadcasting System andradio programs of quality.

This year, the National Endowmentfor the Humanities funding would con-tinue to focus on helping educators in-corporate technological resources intothe learning process and would targethard-to-reach communities in bothrural and urban America. I grew up inurban America and rural America.

Lastly, the Institute of Museum andLibrary Services supports the edu-cational role of various museums,aquariums and zoos, by funding hands-on opportunities for learning. Thesetypes of experiences are often the mosteffective and memorable because theyallow students to view rare manu-scripts, see marvelous paintings andexotic animals firsthand.

Institute of Museum and LibraryServices will focus new funding on in-creasing technological access to mu-seum and library resources for allAmericans, building community part-nerships by funding after-school pro-grams and building institutional exper-tise in local museums and libraries.

The National Endowment for theArts, the National Endowment for theHumanities, the Institute of Museumand Library Services work to educate,empower and provide enrichment tocommunities across America. Withoutthese crucial agencies, many wouldmiss the opportunity to experience thedelights of an opera, a symphony, aballet, or a museum. These types of op-portunities foster imagination, sparkcreativity, and broaden future ambi-tions.

We urge support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment thatincreases funding for the National En-dowment for the Arts by $10 million,the Endowment for the Humanities by$3 million, the Institute of Museumsand Library Services by $2 million.This modest, yet effective, increase inthe Interior appropriations bill willhelp continue our commitment to cul-tural and educational importance ofthe arts. Vote for that amendment andwith the small amount I cannot seeanyone would be voting against it. Thechildren of the world in K through 12,elementary and high school studentssee new opportunities and even in col-leges, they can see the rotating exhib-its. Let us vote ‘‘aye’’ on this amend-ment and educate individuals to bepart of our culture and our great his-tory as well.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that further debateon the pending amendment offered bythe gentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER), and any amendmentsthereto, be limited to 50 minutes, to be


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3386 June 21, 2001equally divided and controlled by theproponent and myself, the opponent.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.ISAKSON). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from New Mex-ico?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reservingthe right to object, I would ask thegentleman from New Mexico (Mr.SKEEN), it is 50 minutes, 25 on eachside. The gentleman will control 25 andour side will control 25?


Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, that iscorrect.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I with-draw my reservation of objection.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Theunanimous consent request was thatthe gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.SKEEN) and the gentlewoman from NewYork (Ms. SLAUGHTER) would each con-trol 25 minutes.

Is there objection to the request ofthe gentleman from New Mexico?

There was no objection.Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 3 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom California (Ms. WOOLSEY).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, whatan embarrassment. Once again, theHouse of Representatives is consideringan appropriations bill that includeslevel funding for the arts, the human-ities, museums and libraries, programsthat teach us to think; programs thatencourage us to feel and to see in a newway; to speak. The arts and the human-ities help us to grow. The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn amendment to increasefunds for the National Endowment forthe Arts and the other programs is asmall investment with a return as vastas one’s imagination.

b 1115

Last year, we increased funding forthe National Endowment for the firsttime since 1992, and this year we mustincrease the funding again.

Anyone who has ever managed abudget knows that level funding meansa decrease in funds. Opponents of theNEA cry ‘‘fiscal discipline,’’ as if therichest nation in the world need be themost culturally impoverished. The dol-lars we invest in the NEA leveragematching grants and multiply many,many times over.

The nonprofit arts industry gen-erates more than $3 billion annually. Itsupports more than 1 million jobs. Infact, the arts industry is a moneymaker, not a money taker.

In addition, funding for the NEA sup-ports programs like Challenge Amer-ica, which brings art projects to under-served areas across our Nation. It fundsprograms like Positive Alternatives forYouth, which lowers the rate of juve-nile crime by creating artist-led afterschool programs for our youth.

When we deprive the NEA, the NEH,our museums and libraries of adequatefunding, we deprive this entire Nationof an active cultural community. It isa battle as old as the stockades in Pu-ritan times, and it is just wrong-head-ed.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my col-leagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut (Mrs. JOHNSON).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Chairman, I thank RepresentativeSKEEN for yielding me time, and I ap-preciate the support that the sub-committee has shown for the NEA, theNEH and the IMLS. But I do rise insupport of this amendment, because Ithink we as a Nation need to supportthe Challenge America initiative thatthe NEA has led.

The Challenge America initiative hastwo primary goals: One, to literallypress arts dollars down to the smallcommunities. This is extraordinarilyimportant, because these communitiesare far more conscious of their culturallife than they used to be. There aremany more small theater groups devel-oping, many more chamber groups,many more instrumentalist groups andchoruses developing, and they need thehelp that small dollars can give themto organize, to publicize their concertsand to grow their position in the cul-tural life of our small communities.That is where the arts take on theirgreatest vitality.

The second thing that these dollarsdo is to help their communities beginto record and cherish and revitalizetheir own knowledge of their heritageand to use that revitalization of theircultural heritage and the revitalizationof current cultural institutions to de-velop the economy of rural areas, smallcities, and those kinds of sectors ofAmerica that too long have had no sup-port in developing the arts on a localand neighborhood and communitybasis.

The third thing that Challenge Amer-ica tries to do is to try to press thesedollars down into our schools. If youhave never stood in a school and hadsome kid tell you what a HOT schoolis, a Higher Order of Thinking schoolis, you really cannot get it, how impor-tant the arts are to developing ourchildren’s understanding of knowledgeand how powerful knowledge is in ourlives.

Math can teach you certain logicaltruths; the arts can help you develop alevel of intuitive thinking that isequally important.

So I urge support of this amendment.I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. ButI thank the committee for their gen-eral recognition of the importance ofthese institutions in our Nation’s lives.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. NADLER).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the Slaughter amendment toincrease funding for the National En-

dowment for the Arts, the National En-dowment for the Humanities, and theMuseum Services. Frankly, thisamendment is just a drop in the bucketcompared to the increase these cul-tural agencies need and deserve. But itis finally a step in the right direction.

I hope that the senseless battles overFederal funding for the arts is finallybehind us. We have debated the properrole of government in supporting thearts time and again, and the facts areclear, the NEA is a good investment forour country.

I will not rehash all the arguments infavor of Federal funding, from the eco-nomic stimulus it provides, to the pri-vate and local public money itleverages. We know about the broad ge-ographic reach of the NEA, with grantsto all 50 States. The Challenge Americainitiative is touching hundreds of ruralcommunities across the country. Weknow that NEA supports numerouseducational projects for young childrenand lifelong learners alike.

And then there are the intangiblebenefits of the arts, their ability to liftour spirits and forge a sense of commu-nity. We need only think of the stirringpresentation by Peter Yarrow of Peter,Paul and Mary at the Republican andDemocratic Caucuses this week to un-derstand the power that music has tobring people together.

So the debate is over. The question isno longer should the government sub-sidize the arts; the question is howmuch. With this amendment, we take avery modest step forward, but we mustdo much more. We must fund the NEAat a level that enables it to carry outits mission.

Today, the NEA is nearly 40 percentbelow where it was before the drasticcut of 1995, and resources are stretchedtoo thin to adequately fund worthyprojects. The average grant size hasdropped by half and will drop even fur-ther without sufficient funding. Whenwe limit funding, we also hamper theability of the NEA to continue reach-ing out to underserved areas.

Mr. Chairman, last year the NEAclosed a dark chapter in our historywhen Congress approved the first budg-et increase in nearly a decade. Todaywe must build on that important vic-tory and pass the Slaughter amend-ment. It is a minimal increase, a veryminimal increase, but it is the veryleast we can do. Let us begin a new erain which we respect and support thearts and humanities and the contribu-tion they make to our society, andback up that respect with some real re-sources.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. REGULA), the former chairman anda current valued member of the Sub-committee on Interior of the Com-mittee on Appropriations.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me time.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3387June 21, 2001Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to

compliment Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris. Ithink both Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris,and they will be leaving in the nextseveral months, have done a great jobof administering these agencies. Thefact that we are here debating theamount of money is indicative that wehave had a good administration. We arenot talking about egregious projects. Itis just a matter of priorities in the ex-penditure of Federal funds.

What I am somewhat concernedabout here is the fact that we still havea $5 billion backlog of maintenance inthe national parks. Art takes on manyforms. Art is also to go out in a na-tional park, such as the Grand Canyon,and look down in that enormous land-scape in terms of the beauty of it, or togo to Yosemite.

So I think we have to make priorityjudgments, and it is not a matter ofone art against the other. You have thevisual art, but you also have the nat-ural art that is part of our nationalparks, national forests, all these won-derful resources.

When we have a $5 billion backlog ofmaintenance, when people will nec-essarily have to be RIFed in the ParkService because there is not enoughmoney here to give them an adequatepay raise, I think probably priority-wise that we are not in a position to bespending more money on these projectsnow. As we all know, we did increaseart funding in the past year, and Ithink the gentlemen who have ledthese two agencies have done a goodjob of using the money very wisely.

But I think in terms of the prioritiesof this Nation, that our first priorityhas to be to take care of what we havein our parks and forests, to ensure thatfuture generations will have the samepleasures that we do in visiting thesefacilities.

It seems to me that before we startadding to the expenditures, and I thinkthe committee did a balanced job inmaking the priority choices, that weought to weigh carefully whether wewant to limit the amount of pay in-crease for our people that serve us inthe national parks and forests, whetherwe want to continue addressing thebacklog of maintenance. When we aretalking about maintenance, it is trails,it is roads, it is camp facilities, and Ithink probably priority-wise we shouldleave this bill as it is as far as thenumbers for the humanities and for thearts and address some of these otherneeds, because a beautiful vista in anational park or a national forest isevery bit as important as a piece of art.

I hope prospectively that the re-sources will be enough that we canmake the priority judgments to doboth. I think there is an opportunity toexpand the arts and humanities. But interms of our priorities, I believe thecommittee made the right judgment insaying, to start with, we need to em-phasize the maintenance of the facili-ties we have; we need to give these peo-ple who serve us in the national parks

and forests an adequate pay raise, be-cause they are very selfless to beginwith.

If you visit the parks and some of thefacilities that people have to live inand housing and so on, you realize thatthose that are public servants in parksand forests are truly dedicated, thatthey do this as a labor of love, and,therefore, I think it is important thatwe adequately compensate them.

I do not have any quarrel with theneed to have more money, but it is apriority choice, and I believe today weshould stay with the committee’s num-bers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

Mr. Chairman, I would remind theprevious speaker that we are talkingabout three-tenths of 1 percent, it doesnot touch salaries, and it is not verymuch. It comes out of a cushion in-serted in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield2 minutes to the gentlewoman fromConnecticut (Ms. DELAURO).

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, I risein strong support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment. Weneed to increase the funding for theNational Endowment for the Arts, theNational Endowment for the Human-ities and the Institute of Museum andLibrary Sciences. These are the agen-cies that are charged with bringing thehistory, the beauty, the wisdom of ourculture into the lives of all Americans,young and old, rich and poor, urbanand rural.

We in the Congress have said thatpreserving our national heritage andbringing the arts into the lives of moreAmericans is a goal that is worthy tosupport. Last year we made an impor-tant investment in the NEA’s newChallenge America program. This pro-gram focuses on arts education and en-richment, after school arts programsfor young people, access to the arts forunderserved communities and commu-nity arts development initiatives.

Many years ago I spent several yearsas chair of the Greater New Haven ArtsCouncil in Connecticut, and I knowfirsthand that the arts not only enrichlives, but they contribute to the eco-nomic growth of our communities.

The Federal investment in the arts isnot the only means of support for thisendeavor. Rather, our dollars, whichrepresent only a small fraction of ourannual budget, are used to leverage pri-vate funding and fuel what is really anarts industry. The industry createsjobs, increases travel and tourism andgenerates thousands of dollars for aState’s economy.

Arts have a real value in restoring ci-vility to our society, providing chil-dren and our communities with real al-ternatives. Participation in the artsprograms helps children to learn to ex-press anger appropriately and enhancetheir communication skills with adultsand peers. Youngsters who have bene-fited from these programs show better

self-esteem, an improved ability to fin-ish their tasks, less delinquent behav-ior, and a more positive attitude to-wards school.

We know that arts build our econ-omy, enrich our culture, and feed theminds of adults and children alike. Weneed to increase the opportunitythrough these organizations, to helpthem to fulfill their missions, and it istime that we gave them this support.

Vote for this amendment, preserveour heritage, make it accessible to all.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield31⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman fromMaryland (Mrs. MORELLA).

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding metime.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commendthe gentleman from New Mexico(Chairman SKEEN) and the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS) for thegreat job they have done on this Inte-rior appropriation. There is one excep-tion, however, and that is why I am ris-ing in strong support of an amendmentthat is currently being discussed, theSlaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amend-ment, which would increase funding forthe National Endowment for the Arts,for the National Endowment for theHumanities, and also for the Instituteof Museum and Library Services, notby very much money, altogether $15million.

b 1130

It is critical that we support Federalfunding for these programs. These pro-grams serve to broaden public access tothe arts and humanities for all Ameri-cans to participate in and enjoy. Thevalue of these programs lie in theirability to nurture artistic excellence ofthousands of arts organizations andartists in every corner of the country.The NEA alone awards more than 1,000grants to nonprofit arts organizationsfor projects in every State.

These programs also are a great in-vestment in our Nation’s economicgrowth. The nonprofit arts industryalone generates more than $36.8 billionannually in economic activity. It sup-ports 1.3 million jobs and returns morethan $3.4 billion to the Federal Govern-ment in income taxes.

I know that each of us in Congresscan point to numerous worthwhileprojects in our districts that are aidedby the NEA, by the NEH, by the Insti-tute of Museum and Library Services.

For instance, in my district of Mont-gomery County, Maryland the NEAprovides a grant to the Bethesda Acad-emy of Performing Arts to supporttheir Arts Access Program. This inspi-rational program exists to offer intro-ductory and integrated performing artsto children, teens and young adultswho have physical, emotional, learningor developmental disabilities. ThroughArts Access, BAPA witnesses firsthandthe incredible amount of growth anddevelopment that occurs when the artsare incorporated into lives of studentswho have special needs.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3388 June 21, 2001The NET and the Maryland Human-

ities Council, in turn, have aided insti-tutes and individuals in Maryland byproviding over $18.2 million of seedfunds over the last 5 years for projectsthat help preserve the Nation’s cul-tural heritage, foster lifelong learning,and encourage civic involvement.

On just March 24 of this year, I spokeat the awards ceremony for the Mary-land History Day district contest inMontgomery County, Maryland. TheMaryland Humanities Council conductsHistory Day in partnership with theMontgomery County Historical Societyand other cultural and educational or-ganizations throughout the State. Itwas made possible with funds from theNational Endowment for the Human-ities.

By supporting the arts and human-ities, the Federal Government has anopportunity to partner with State andlocal communities for the bettermentof our Nation with all kinds of pro-grams.

I also want to point out something Ithink is significant. Students who en-gage in arts and humanities programsover a period of time show a tremen-dous increase in their SAT scores, so ithelps them also intellectually. Boththe arts and humanities teach us whowe were, who we are and who we mightbe, and both are critical to a free anddemocratic society.

So I urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote on the Slaugh-ter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. SCHIFF).

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of this amendment proposing amodest increase in America’s artsbudget. I represent a district in Cali-fornia that lost thousands and thou-sands of jobs in the defense industrywith the defense contractordownsizings of the last couple of dec-ades, but we were fortunate. We gainedthese jobs back and many more in thehigh-tech and entertainment indus-tries.

In those industries, artistic skill andthe creative thinking skills that aredeveloped through arts education areessential, and support for the arts andsupport for arts education is as much apart of the economic infrastructure ofStates like California and many com-munities around the country as anyother industry and, indeed, more thanmany other industries. We thoughtnothing of developing the infrastruc-ture of other industries through fo-cused educational efforts. We should dono less in this critical high-tech indus-try throughout the country.

Objection is made that if this is soimportant to the entertainment indus-try or the high-tech community, whydo they not fund it? The answer is,they do. They do. In thousands of com-munities around America, the high-tech community and the entertain-ment industry do fund local theatersand symphonies and ballet companies,et cetera, but they cannot do it alone.They cannot do it alone.

Mr. Chairman, this modest increasein America’s arts budget will allow notonly the development of this industryand this economic infrastructure, butalso support the cultural well-being ofall of our communities by helpingstruggling theaters to survive andstruggling ballet companies and muse-ums and artists.

NEA grants have gone to things asvaried as, for example, the VietnamVeterans Memorial here in Wash-ington. So it is not simply for our owneconomic well-being that we shouldstrengthen our arts infrastructure inthis country, but our cultural well-being and richness as well. It is thereason many of us live in the commu-nities we live in. It is deserving of oursupport, and it is good for the heartand soul of America. I urge the contin-ued support of my colleagues.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. PETERSON), a valuedmember of the Subcommittee on theInterior.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Chairman, I rise to oppose this amend-ment. I am not going to argue that thespending is wrong, but the cuts arewrong. We heard that it was just com-ing from the cushion. There is no cush-ion in the Forest Service. There is nocushion in the Forest Service. This isan agency that has not been ade-quately funded for many years. Back-logs exist. Mr. Chairman, 250 millionpeople a year visit the Forest Servicelands, 250 million, almost equal to thePark Service.

These people depend on facilities tobe maintained, trails to be maintained,wildlife to be managed. These are theaccounts that we are going to be tak-ing this money from: recreational fa-cilities that are badly in need of main-tenance; law enforcement so that it issafe and secure for our families who aretouring these facilities. This money isbeing taken from the wrong accounts.

The Interior budget has a $12 billionbacklog in maintenance on the facili-ties that are publicly visited in thePark Service and in the Forest Serviceand on BLM lands. I say to my col-leagues, this is not taking from a cush-ion. There is no cushion. There is inad-equate funding in these departmentshistorically. The backlog is huge. Weare taking money away from wherehundreds of millions of Americans de-pend and will tour this summer and ex-pect facilities to be in shape, expecttrails to be in shape, expect wildlife tobe adequately managed and expect lawenforcement to be adequately funded;and we are taking the money awayfrom the heart and soul of the ForestService and the Department of the In-terior.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment iswrong. There was a good balance inthis bill, and I urge the defeat of thisamendment. It is not taking from acushion, it is being taken right out ofthe heart.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromOregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Iappreciate the gentlewoman’s courtesyin allowing me to speak in support ofher amendment.

I wish to just add one point to thediscussion here today. The fundingtrend that we have had ultimatelymoving upward is one that needs to becontinued, and it needs to be continuedbecause of the massive ripple effectthat this has throughout the country.

In Oregon, communities like minehave had difficulty of late, but the Fed-eral resources have enabled them tobootstrap. Portland arts groups haveobtained a 68 percent rate of return atthe box office, far ahead of the nationalaverage. It has encouraged private sec-tor business to step forward doublingtheir investment in the first 5 years ofthe last decade alone. If we were torely solely on public support, we wouldbe cutting off access to people in ourcommunities who need and deservethese opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that we willjoin together and support the gentle-woman’s amendment. It is going to bevery critical to promoting commu-nities that are livable where our fami-lies are safe, healthy and more eco-nomically secure.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reservethe balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Delaware (Mr. CASTLE).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentlewoman for yielding, and Irise in support of her amendment to in-crease funding for the National Endow-ment for the Arts, the National Endow-ment for the Humanities, and the Insti-tute of Museum and Library Services.The arts and humanities are importantboth socially and economically to ourNation as a whole.

Studies have shown students benefitfrom exposure to both the arts and hu-manities. These students have a betterchance to increase their SAT scores,develop increased self-confidence andare more likely to create multiple so-lutions to problems and work collabo-ratively with one another. These skillsare essential for their future in theAmerican workforce.

Arts and humanities funding are in-creasingly allocated to State agenciesfor grant programs that reach out tounderprivileged and smaller suburbanand rural areas that do not have thebenefits of big city arts programs. Incorrelation, 79 percent of businesses be-lieve it is important to have an activecultural community in the locale inwhich they operate. For instance, theDelaware Art Museum offers edu-cational programs which are supportedby corporate giants, the Delaware Divi-sion of the Arts and the NEA.

I have seen firsthand the impact cul-tural agencies have on communitiesproducing results that benefit all. Forexample, the Delaware Theater Com-pany, through grants provided by the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3389June 21, 2001NEA, has created a partnership withFerris School, a maximum security fa-cility for improvisational play-writingresidencies that incorporate writingskills and art for incarcerated boys be-tween the ages of 14 and 18. The NEThas also supported projects at the Uni-versity of Delaware that have bothlocal and national impact, includingpreservation and access funds for edu-cation and the conservation of mate-rial cultural collections.

It is important for us to remember asa body the collective benefits that thisdoes, not only for our districts, but forthe country as a whole. I urge all of mycolleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom Missouri (Ms. MCCARTHY).

(Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri askedand was given permission to revise andextend her remarks.)

Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentlewomanfor yielding me this time.

I rise today in strong support of theamendment offered by the gentle-woman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER) and the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS) and the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. HORN) to increaseby $15 million dollars funding for ournational arts agencies: the NationalEndowment for the Arts, the NationalEndowment for the Humanities and theInstitute for Museums and LibraryServices. These additional funds willenable children, youth, and adults tocreate, produce, learn from, and enjoyour Nation’s arts and humanities.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the Elemen-tary and Secondary Education Reau-thorization Act which we approved inthe House by a bipartisan vote author-ized numerous structural changes toassure our children would be well read,well educated, and well adjusted. As aformer educator, I value all that we didin H.R. 1.

But we must do more for our childrenthan structural changes alone. Wemust also provide opportunities fortheir creativity to flourish and forthem to gain a sense of our Nation’srich culture so that they may be thebest leaders for the future.

Even more significant, we know thatexposure to and participation in thearts reduces youth violence. H.R. 1 alsoauthorized increased funding for artseducation. This amendment, usingNEA and NEH funds, provides such op-portunities for our children.

For example, the NET is helping tofund a new project in my district, theLewis and Clark Centennial Celebra-tion. This project will be inclusive ofNative American populations living inthe region during this historic periodof exploration, and will employ expertsfrom Science City at Kansas City’sUnion Station to discuss the scientificmethods employed by Lewis and Clarkto map our frontier. This project willmake history come alive through expe-riential learning and historic represen-tations.

NEA also grants help to The Writer’sPlace to produce the Poets at Largeevent where critically acclaimed poetsfrom across the United States inspirechildren and adults to embrace thewritten word as an art form. NEA fund-ing enables children around the coun-try to explore and appreciate our indi-vidual and collective identities as bothAmericans and global citizens, helpingchildren to nurture their own love ofreading, writing poetry, creating songlyrics, and drama.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of thisamendment to increase support for thisfunding. This support sends a messagethat art and music in the classroomand the community expand and enrichour lives and make our Nation a betterplace.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromVirginia (Mr. MORAN).

b 1145

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chair-man, I wanted to respond to the pre-vious gentleman who spoke about thecut to the National Forest Service.

If we leave the forests alone, our na-tional forests, they are going to growjust fine, but if the most prosperousnation in the history of western civili-zation does not make an investment inthe arts in this country, then a wholelot of cultural initiatives are going todie on the vine. We cannot let thathappen.

Mr. Chairman, we have been beatingup and gutting the National Endow-ment for the Arts now for the last sev-eral years. Of 117,000 grants that havebeen awarded by the NEA, fewer than20 have been controversial. That is amuch lower percentage than any of theother arts granting agencies: the Pul-itzer prizes, the National Book Awards,you name it. There ought to be somecontroversy in the arts.

But the strongest argument for sup-porting this increase is our own experi-ence in our own communities. Lastweek I went to a performance of theClassica Theater in Arlington. Here area group of Russian emigres whobrought with them an invaluable expe-rience in the classical Russian theat-rical tradition.

What they are doing with a verysmall grant from the NEA is extraor-dinarily impressive. The NEA grantgave them the credibility to go out andraise substantially more money. Thenthey went to the school system, andthey found about 100 immigrant kidsfrom Somalia, Bosnia, and Afghani-stan, who were suffering from the samekind of language and cultural barriersthat they had. These kids were not suc-ceeding in school. They taught themhow to succeed through their theat-rical tradition. They brought the his-tory of Virginia to life in a play thatemployed their vocal and dramatic tal-ents.

That theater was crowded and notjust with their parents. They got a sus-tained ovation, but most importantly,

every one of those kids saw their livestransformed. They were proud of them-selves. For a few thousand bucks, wehad a wonderful artistic expression bypeople who now know that they havetremendous potential for the rest oftheir lives. That is happening in com-munities all over the country.

Mr. Chairman, this is good money. Itis a good investment. We ought to beincreasing the NEA, not bashing it.The fact is the NEA, the NEH, and ourmuseums are something we ought to beproud of all over the world. The rest ofthe world is proud. This Congress oughtto be proud and support it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. HINCHEY).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentlewoman for yieldingtime to me.

A previous speaker from the podiuma few moments ago decried the factthat this bill funds inadequately theNational Park Service, and that thisamendment takes money away fromthat very much needed program.

This is true. It is true. But the fact ofthe matter is that there are manythings that are underfunded in thisoverall budgetary program. The reasonfor that is that the majority party in-sisted on a $3 trillion tax cut earlierthis year, and that is why we do nothave enough money to do the kinds ofthings that we really ought to bedoing.

We are here today to talk about giv-ing a little bit more money to the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts and theNational Endowment for the Human-ities, one of the tiniest programs in theFederal budget, I would say much toour chagrin, much to our shame. Itought to be much bigger.

But where is that program today? Inthis budget, it is funded at $105 millionfor the National Endowment for theArts and $120 million for the NationalEndowment for the Humanities. In1995, NEA was funded at $57 millionhigher than it is today. NEH was fund-ed at $52 million, higher than it istoday in this budget.

One of the most shameful things thatthe majority party did when it cameinto power here in 1995 was to dramati-cally slash funding for the arts and thehumanities. Programs in schools allacross our country and museums allacross our country were slashed.

Now, to their credit, our previoussubcommittee chairman and ourpresent subcommittee chairman, thegentleman from New Mexico (Mr.SKEEN), have worked to try to bringthe funding level back up. I applaudthem for it. But we are still woefullybelow where we ought to be, $57 millionlower than in 1995 for the arts, $52 mil-lion lower than this 1995 for the hu-manities.

We have got to fund these programsadequately. It is shameful the way wehave treated these programs in theCongress. That is why this amendmentis so important, because it moves these


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3390 June 21, 2001funding levels up slightly, and bringsthem back in the right direction.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromNorth Carolina (Mr. BALLENGER).

(Mr. BALLENGER asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentlewoman for yielding metime to speak here.

Mr. Chairman, many critics for thenational endowments believe fundinggiven to the NEA goes only to muse-ums in big cities. As a former memberof the National Council, I can assurethe Members that rural communitiesreceive more funding than everthrough Challenge America and artseducation programs.

Challenge America is a major NEAinitiative that was newly funded byCongress in fiscal year 2001. The legis-lation provided $7 million for arts edu-cation and public outreach activities.

One of the challenges of the Chal-lenge America program is to targetareas of this country that have beenunderrepresented among NEA grant re-cipients. This year, 400 small grantswill be provided for these underservedcommunities. Of the funding appro-priated for NEA by Congress, morethan 40 percent is directed to State andregional art agencies, which in turnmake grants and offer services to com-munity-based arts organizations in ourcommunities.

I urge my colleagues to support thisamendment. I think everybody herecould get a map. This is a map of NorthCarolina, with all of the direct grantsand indirect grants that are appliedusing the National Endowment. EachState can have this map.

In North Carolina. We had ten directgrants and 75 indirect grants. One ofthe really important ones, as far as Iwas concerned, is that we brought intoHickory, North Carolina, a thing calleda Fry Street Quartet. It was helpedpaid for by the NEA.

The Hickory school system had aspring program founded by a teacherthere named Dellinger, currently thedirector of an orchestra at the Hickoryschool. Chamber music study has al-ways been part of the program at Hick-ory, North Carolina. It has been ex-panded. Currently the program has 198students in grades six to twelve.

It is unbelievable what has been usedby our community to attract new in-dustry and new jobs by the outstandingeffort by the community in developingthe National Endowment. It is hard tosay how many industries and jobs wehave brought into our community be-cause of its support of the arts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. OBEY).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there is noreason, other than an ideological one,to oppose this amendment. As has beenalready pointed out, the Endowmentfor the Arts as recently as 1995 wasfunded at $170 million level. This

amendment simply seeks to fund it at$115 million.

For those people who live in big cit-ies or for those Members of Congresswho regularly frequent Washington,D.C., any time they want they can goto the Kennedy Center, they can go tothe Folger Library, they can go to theCorcoran, they can go to many of thecultural institutions in this town.

It is a lot different if your are a childin small town America. Very often theendowment is the only thing that willintroduce children in smaller commu-nities in this country to the fine artsand to many other experiences thatcome under the rubric of the arts andhumanities.

I think of one entertainer in my dis-trict, for instance, who goes intoschools, who helps schoolchildren towrite down their thoughts about lifeand then put those thoughts to music.Then he turns that into CDs for thoselocal schools. The value in that kind ofan effort is immeasurable.

As far as I am concerned, the Endow-ment for the Arts is one of those tinyfacilities of government that helpschildren from all over this country digmuch more deeply into their own soulsthan they even know is possible. Ithink that to oppose this amendmentfor ideological grounds or on ideolog-ical grounds is shortsighted. I think itneglects the fact that the Endowmenthelps children to grow in many, manyways.

I would urge support for the amend-ment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom Illinois (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentlewoman for yieldingtime to me.

Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to joinwith many of my colleagues on bothsides of the aisle to support her amend-ment.

Economically, support for the artsand humanities just makes sense. Thearts industry contributes nearly $4 bil-lion into our economy, and providesmore than $1.3 million full-time jobs.Furthermore, the arts industry returns$3.4 billion to the Federal Governmentin taxes, and arts education improveslife skills, including self-esteem. Itcosts each American the equivalent ofa postage stamp to support the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts.

In turn, last year the NEA awardedover $83 million in grants nationwide,and over $1.7 million in my home Stateof Illinois. There we have the IllinoisArts Council and the Illinois Human-ities Council providing critical leader-ship and support and development ofprograms that touch the lives of thou-sands and thousands of Illinoisans.

For example, there is the Lyra En-semble in Chicago, the only profes-sional performing arts company spe-cializing in the performance, research,and preservation of Polish music, song,and dance. Another project is the Bea-con Street Gallery Theater, a program

that supports the uptown youth andcultural heritage preservation pro-gram.

This initiative promotes cross-cul-tural understanding, strengthensintergenerational ties, enhances lit-eracy, and builds job readiness.

These kinds of programs deserve oursupport.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that debate on thefollowing specified amendments to thebill and any amendment thereto belimited to the time specified, equallydivided and controlled by the pro-ponent and an opponent: one, anamendment to be offered by the gen-tleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS)related to payment in lieu of taxes for30 minutes; and two, an amendment tobe offered by the gentleman from WestVirginia (Mr. RAHALL) regarding theMineral Leasing Act for 30 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromNew Mexico?

Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right toobject, Mr. Chairman, as I understandit, there would be 15 minutes on eachside for both amendments?


Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman is correct.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I with-draw my reservation of objection.


There was no objection.Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to thegentleman from Georgia (Mr. KING-STON), the vice-chairman of the sub-committee.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in oppositionto this amendment, but I want to say Iam a supporter of art. I support, andhave every year since I have been inCongress, the Congressional Art Awardin my district. My father is a docent atan art museum. I have two childrenwho are artists, and one who wouldlike to continue being one in the formof acting for a career.

But Mr. Chairman, I think we in Con-gress always fall in a trap that theNEA is the arts statement for America.I would like to speak about that.

First of all, I want to say to the pro-ponents of this that I am glad that theNEA has reformed somewhat. Theyhave eliminated a lot of the art thatwas so controversial, the Mapplethorpeexhibits, the watermelon women, andthe things that caused so much con-troversy. I am glad that they have re-duced that.

I will point out that they did it veryreluctantly. It was a Supreme Courtdecision that said if the Federal gov-ernment is funding art, then the artistdoes give up some freedom of expres-sion and has to work as a contractor


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3391June 21, 2001for the taxpayers. So there has beenprogress made, for whatever reason.

One area they have not made anyprogress in, as so many of the pro-ponents have pointed out, is that in1975, the funding for the arts was about$150 million. It has been reduced, andthat vacuum, that void, should havebeen replaced by private dollars. Wehave done this in lots of other FederalGovernment programs, and it was thejob of the NEA to go out and seek al-ternative funds. I think they have donea little bit of that, but they certainlyhave a long way to go.

b 1200

Does the Federal Government sup-port art beyond the NEA, which everyyear we hear, oh, this is what sophisti-cated countries do? They take themoney out of the people who work inpaper mills. They take the paycheckfrom the guy who works in the chickenfactory.

They take the paycheck from the guywho is out there driving a long-haultruck right now and spend it on art andthat is the sign of a sophisticated andcompassionate country.

Mr. Chairman, we, in America, spenda lot of money on art education on ourState level and on our Federal levels,teaching kids in all levels of schoolabout art. We also have tremendoustax advantages, billions of dollars forwrite-offs if you donate to art muse-ums or give generously.

In my town, in Savannah, Georgia,we have one of the largest private artcolleges in the country, the SavannahCollege of Art and Design. It is notonly one of the largest ones, but it isprivately funded and one of the mostsuccessful ones, turning out hundredsof artists into our society from all overthe country every year.

And, thirdly, our Federal Govern-ment does a lot of art purchasing. Webuy objects of arts to put on the wallsin Federal buildings and to put on theplazas, and we are major purchasers ofarts and there is no ban against that.

Fourth, we fund lots of art beyondthis and lots of museums.

I will give my colleagues an example.The Smithsonian alone gets nearly $500million from this bill, and peopleshould realize that we are very com-mitted to cultural history.

Finally, let me talk about art versusnature. It is as the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. REGULA) has said, art andbeauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ifwe look at the Grand Canyon or if welook at the forest, is it not art, maybemade by God versus made by man, butit certainly is art.

What we are doing here is we are tak-ing money out of one resource and put-ting it into this man-made resource. Ihave to say there are some provincialpolitics driving this. It is interestingthe disproportion of speakers who havespoken today who are from New York.Well, there is a reason for that. For theNEA, 70 percent of their money is spentin New York.

I know that is where lots of the artand theater companies are, but theycome down South or they come downto the heartland of America, dustingoff their halo and they put on an exhi-bition during the summertime andthey feel good about themselves andthen they go back home and we appre-ciate the visit. The reality is, 70 per-cent of the money for the NEA goes toNew York.

Where are they getting the moneyfrom? They are getting it from fire. Isthere anybody in the U.S. Congressthat does not know about the fires thatwe suffered throughout the West? Thismoney comes out of fire suppressionaccounts.

It comes from hazardous fuel ac-counts, facility backlogs, rehabilita-tion and restoration accounts, jointfire science so that we can prevent for-est fire and volunteer fire services sothat people in small rural areas canfight forest fires. That is where thismoney comes from.

Let us talk about needs versus wants.In my opinion, we need firefighting. Wemight want NEA, but we do not need tohave it; and we certainly do not needto have this increase.

Mr. Chairman, lots of Members ofthis Congress would eliminate the NEAif it was up to them, but we are not onthe committee doing that. We arekeeping the funding level, and it is oddthat a friend on the other side of theaisle has said that level funding inWashington means a cut. Well, maybeit is time to go back home and bouncethat off your kid, because my daugh-ter, Ann, who is 13 years old, she gets$3 a week allowance if she does herchores. I do not consider myself cut-ting her allowance 1 week to the nextwhen I give her $3 on one Sunday and$3 on the next Sunday.

That is what we have been told.Level funding is a cut; go sell that tothe taxpayers back home. Again, theseare the people who drive trucks, whowork in paper mills, who work infarms, who work in chicken factories.They are the ones who are paying forthis. This is not Congress’ money. Thisis not Washington’s money. This is notgovernment’s money.

This is hard-earned taxpayers’money, and we need to be very carefulhow we spend it. It is 12 o’clock in theEastern Standard Time zone. Thatmeans that there are a bunch of folksright now who are wearing hardhatswho will be taking them off for 30 min-utes to eat a lunch out of a lunch pail,and then at 12:30 they will be back,they will punch the timeclock and theywill be back.

Mr. Chairman, they are the ones pay-ing for this, not Washington, not theDepartment of the Interior; and I sug-gest, Mr. Chairman, we should paythem the honor that they deserve forthe hard work that they are doing, andwe should reject this amendment andstick with what the committee hasworked out under a careful com-promise.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromWashington State (Mr. DICKS), theranking member of the Subcommitteeon Interior.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want tocompliment all of our speakers heretoday. They have done an outstandingjob of presenting a strong case for avery modest amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what we are talkingabout is increasing the funding for theNational Endowment for the Arts by$10 million, $3 million for the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, and $2million for library services.

I have served on this subcommitteefor 25 years, and I can remember whenI was first on this committee we hadtwo significant challenge grants for theState of Washington, and we saw ourPacific Northwest Ballet grow into amajor institution.

We saw our symphony grow. We sawthe theaters in Seattle grow, and peo-ple talk about this all being New Yorkand Chicago. I can tell my colleaguesthat the work of the Endowment hashelped spread the arts throughout thecountry. Sometimes we have to accepta win.

The committee has insisted that theEndowments emphasize quality; theydo. The grants that are going out todayare for the best art, the best human-ities in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say, Ithink it helps our country to have thisdiversity. I bet a lot of people go downto Georgia to attend the performingarts just like they do in the Northwestor for the Shakespeare Festival in Or-egon.

Each community is proud of its artinstitutions, and I can tell my col-leagues that the young people in mydistrict enjoy being in the symphony,enjoy being members of their theatergroup; and I think for our children giv-ing them a chance to have somethingto do after school, to be involved, likethe kids are at the Middle School inTacoma that help develop ‘‘Chihuly’sGlass.’’

These are the kind of importantthings that will help our kids through-out their entire lives. Let us vote forthis amendment. If there is any dif-ficulty with the offset, we will workthat out in the conference. Everybodyknows that. This is a chance to supportthe arts, the humanities, and our mu-seums.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewomanfrom New York (Mrs. SLAUGHTER) has30 seconds remaining and the gen-tleman from New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN)has the right to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say tomy colleagues who just simply love artbut do not want to fund any of it, seehow important it would be, I wouldlike to challenge them to go back intotheir districts and talk to the art pro-grams that are there, see how many ofthem are seed money from the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts and see


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3392 June 21, 2001when those troops come through andbuy tickets in their areas, how muchthat adds to the local economy.

Mr. Chairman, if they want to makethese programs available to more peo-ple in the country then pass this smallamount of money, the truck drivers onthe long hauls who enjoy the goodmusic at night, then, will be gratefulas will the country.

The vast majority of Americans ap-prove of this and want it, and I urgethe adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-ance of my time.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield tothe gentleman from Georgia (Mr. KING-STON) the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from New Mexico(Mr. SKEEN) for the time, and I wantedto also join with the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) in compli-menting everybody who has partici-pated in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to say tothe gentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER), my good friend, that thatis one of the problems with the NEAand the rest of the country. As I goaround to my art community, Savan-nah, Georgia, is blessed with a greatand a very strong active art commu-nity; but there is no NEA presencethere whatsoever.

I would just say, again, if I was fromNew York.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Would the gen-tleman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. Actually, I have notyielded to the gentlewoman from NewYork, but I did overhear the statement.Let me say this: again, that is one ofthe situations with the NEA that it isdisproportionately spent in New York.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iwould say that this is one of the prob-lems, and I would urge the NEA intheir own distribution to go out to therest of the country and make the theirpresence known. I can say this, we donot get any letters. Yes, let us dosomething for the NEA back home, be-cause they are invisible.

We get lots of art, locally State-fund-ed stuff, privately funded. We have agreat symphony. We have a great artmuseum, a huge fund-raiser and lots ofgood things going on.

But one of the big vision differenceshere, Mr. Chairman, is that there arethose who believe that government hasto be the only funder and the only pro-vider of things. Then there are otherswho think that funding as much as pos-sible whenever possible should be driv-en by the private sector and locally.

I am going to support NEA funding,and I will support the committee mark,as I did at the subcommittee and thefull committee level; but I will not sup-port an increase.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman,I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter/Dicks Amendment and to highlight the impor-tance of NEA and IMLS funding for the small-er towns in my own district.

Last year’s NEA funding increase createdthe Challenge America program, to help small-

er communities gain access to the arts. TheArts Council of Snohomish Country in myhome district was one of the first organizationsto receive this grant. This organization offersweekly art classes to juvenile offenders, manyof which have no adult role models in theirlives, and provides them with opportunities toexpress creatively and interact in a forum out-side of a detention center. Without this grant,the program would have had to cut back dras-tically or even be eliminated. That would betruly unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because it isprograms like these where the arts can pro-vide hope and opportunity for troubled youth.Challenge America is doing great things foryouth in my district, yet this program would notexist if the NEA did not receive increasedfunding last Congress.

I would also like to offer my support forIMLS, which also funds key services in mydistrict. The Museum of Northwest Art in LaConner—a town of 900—received a key grantfrom the IMLS to help attract more tourists tothe Skagit Valley region in my district. Be-cause of the IMLS grant, La Conner brings inmany more visitors who come to experiencethe Skagit Valley, thereby boosting their econ-omy. Unfortunately, other museums in my dis-trict do not receive funding because of thelack of IMLS funding. The executive director ofthe Whatcom Museum contacted me earlierthis year to share his frustration that theWhatcom Museum and Bellingham Librarywere denied important funding, not because oftheir qualifications, but because of the lack offunding for the IMLS. The Slaughter/Dicksamendment will provide key funding increasesfor the IMLS, and help small libraries and mu-seums in districts like mine continue to flourishand reach out to the community.

Mr. Chairman, let’s continue to show oursupport for the arts, the humanities and ourmuseums and libraries by supporting theSlaughter/Dicks amendment. Thank you.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongsupport of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-JohnsonAmendment, to make important increases tothe NEA, NEH, and the Institute of Museumand Library Services.

We know that the arts are crucial to the de-velopment of our culture and our economy,and beneficial to all our citizens. As a recentmember of the National Council on the Arts, Ihave seen first-hand the grant selection proc-ess, and I applaud the NEA for successfullyincreasing all Americans’ access to the arts,through programs such as ‘‘Challenge Amer-ica.’’

I was very proud last year, when for the firsttime since 1992, we increased funding yearafter year, and had repeatedly battled threatsto the very existence of this important pro-gram.

We must recognize, however, that lastyear’s funding increase was not the conclusionof a struggle, but rather, a first step towardfunding the arts and humanities at levels ap-propriate for the importance we place on themin our society. A $10 million increase to theNEA budget would not only support extraor-dinary artistic work, but would also generatefederal revenue and foster local economic ac-tivity.

Let’s use this opportunity to continue pro-viding a level of resources to the NEA and theNEH of which we can all be proud.

My colleagues, I urge you to support theSlaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to express my strong support forthe Slaughter/Dicks amendment to the FY02Department of the Interior Appropriations bill(HR 2217) to increase funding for the NationalEndowments for the Arts and the Humanitiesand the Institute of Museum and Library Serv-ices (IMLS).

A small investment in these agencies willprovide our nation with limitless cultural, edu-cational, and economic returns. Yet, each hasbeen subject to massive budget cuts over thepast six years, with the NEA receiving its firstbudget increase last year since 1992. Themodest increases proposed by this amend-ment represent a step in the right direction to-ward ensuring that the arts and humanitieshave the increased funding they richly needand deserve.

The mission of these agencies is to provideaccess to the arts for all Americans, thus nur-turing our nation’s diversity and creativity, fos-tering community spirit, educating our citizens,and helping our struggling youth. The artsteach us to think, encourage us to feel, chal-lenge us to see the world from different per-spectives, and help us to grow. They improvethe critical thinking skills and raise the self-es-teem of our children through highly successfularts in schools and after-school arts programs.They reach into underserved areas, exposingsmaller communities to the many intangiblebenefits the arts have to offer. That is whywhen we deprive our arts, humanities, andmuseums agencies of necessary funding, weare really depriving the heart and soul of thisentire nation.

And investment in the arts and humanitiesjust makes ‘‘cents.’’ The NEA budget rep-resents less than one-hundreth of one percent(0.01%) of the Federal budget and costs eachAmerican the equivalent of one postage stampper year. Each year, the nonprofit arts industryreturns $3.4 billion to the federal treasury,generates $36.8 billion in economic activity,and supports at least 1.3 million jobs. Withouta doubt, the arts contribute to the economichealth and growth both of our communitiesand of the nation as a whole.

The Central Coast of California has a vi-brant arts community, and I want to ensurethat our well-loved cultural traditions—like theMonterey Jazz Festival, the Cabrillo MusicFestival, and the Kuumbwa Jazz Society—continue to thrive and are accessible to all.We must increase funding for the NEA, NEHand IMLS and ensure that they have the re-sources to help our diverse local arts commu-nity continue to shine.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly supportthis amendment to add much-needed funds tothe National Endowment of the Arts, the Na-tional Endowment for the Humanities and theInstitute for Museum Services.

The National Endowment for the Arts andthe National Endowment for the Humanitiesplay crucial roles in American cultural life.Since 1965, the NEA has provided over111,000 grants for projects ranging from the-ater and film festivals, to poetry readings andworkshops, to radio and TV broadcasts, tomuseum exhibitions, to city design and down-town renewal. NEA funds often help to bringexcellent performances and exhibitions be-yond big cities to small towns and rural areasthroughout the United States. Also, togetherwith the state arts agencies, the NEA providessome $30 million in annual support for more


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3393June 21, 2001than 7,800 arts education projects in morethan 2,400 communities.

The NEH serves to advance the nation’sscholarly and cultural life. The additional fund-ing contained in this amendment would enableNEH to improve the quality of humanities edu-cation to America’s school children and col-lege students, offer lifelong learning opportuni-ties through a range of public programs, andsupport new projects that encourage Ameri-cans to discover their wonderful American her-itage.

The IMLS supports museums, including art,history, science, as well as zoos and aquar-iums. Increased funding in this area wouldhelp reinforce museum’s educational role, en-courage public access, and enable museumsto care for our national treasures.

In central New Jersey, the NEA has sup-ported arts opportunities for local residents inplaces like Lambertville, where a grant is help-ing support the annual New Jersey Teen ArtsFestival and in New Brunswick where the NEAis helping the George Street Playhouse stagewriting workshops for seventh to 12th gradestudents in local schools. The NEH and the In-stitute for Museum Services help support otherimportant cultural opportunities for citizensthroughout the state of New Jersey.

As a former teacher, I can tell you, arts edu-cation helps children be better students andhelps them learn critical thinking skills. This isa long overdue, modest funding increase tobuild programs that use the strength of thearts and our nation’s cultural life to enhancecommunities in every state of America.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supportthe Slaughter amendment.

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today instrong support of the Slaughter/Dicks/Horn/Johnson amendment. I believe that the NEAfunds extremely valuable and important edu-cational programs and worthwhile events. TheNEA provides funding for many programs inTennessee, including the Nashville SymphonyAssociation, Fisk University, and the Ten-nessee Arts Commission. I believe it is impor-tant to ensure that adequate funding for theseprograms continues.

NEH has also funded numerous worthwhileprograms in my district and across the state—from Vanderbilt University’s Robert Penn War-ren Center for the Humanities to the Ten-nessee Performing Arts Center’s HumanitiesOutreach programs to the Southern Festival ofBooks. NEH funding has allowed outstandingK–12 humanities teachers to conduct researchthat enhance their classroom lessons. AndNEH grants have permitted the Tennessee Lit-eracy Coalition to promote their adult edu-cation classes.

Mr. Chairman, this is just a small samplingof what NEA and NEH have done in my state.But the need is so much larger than the fundsavailable. For every worthwhile request thatreceives funding, many other equally worth-while proposals are rejected simply for a lackof available funds. I urge my colleagues tosupport the cultural events that these agenciessupport. These programs preserve and pro-vide access to cultural and educational re-sources to our citizens. They provide opportu-nities for lifelong learning in arts and human-ities. And they strengthen teaching and learn-ing in history, literature, language and arts inschools, colleges and the surrounding commu-nities.

Just as we need to continue to fund sci-entific research, we must continue to fund the

arts and humanities. A world without the artsand humanities would be devoid of culturalmeaning. Research shows that the arts andhumanities benefit our nation’s young peopleby improving reading, writing, speaking andlistening skills and by helping to develop prob-lem-solving and decision-making abilities es-sential in today’s global marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to support this amend-ment and enhance the arts and humanitiesacross our great country.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in supportof the Slaughter-Dicks-Johnson-Horn amend-ment which calls for increases of $10 millionfor the National Endowment for the Arts, $3million for the National Endowment for the Hu-manities, and $2 million for the Institute forMuseums and Library Services. Over the past30 years, our quality of life has been improvedby the arts. Support for the arts and federalfunding for the NEA illustrates our Nation’scommitment to freedom of expression, one ofthe basic principles on which our nation isfounded. Cutting funding for the arts will denycitizens this freedom, and detract from thequality of life in our nation as a whole.

Recent reports have made several rec-ommendations about the need to strengthensupport for culture in our country. In additionto applauding our American spirit, and observ-ing that an energetic cultural life contributes toa strong democracy, these reports also high-lighted the United States’ unique tradition ofphilantrophy. However, it was also noted thatthe ‘‘Baby-Boomer’’ generation, and newAmerican corporations, are not fulfilling thisstandard of giving. It saddens me that some-thing as important as the Arts, which has beenso integral to our American heritage, is beingcast aside by our younger generations assomething of little value.

By eliminating funding for the Arts, our na-tion would be the first among cultured nationsto eliminate the Arts from our priorities. AsChairman Emeritus of the International Rela-tions Committee, I recognize the importance ofthe Arts internationally, as they help foster acommon appreciation of history and culturethat are so essential to our humanity. If weeliminate the NEA, we would be erasing partof our civilization.

Moreover, let us consider the importance ofthe Arts on our nation’s children. Whether it ismusic or drama or dance, children are drawnto the Arts. Many after school programs givechildren the opportunity to express themselvesin a positive venue, away from the temptationsof drugs and violence. By giving childrensomething to be proud of and passionateabout, they can make good choices and avoidfollowing the crowd down dark paths. How-ever, many children are not able to enjoy thefeeling of pride that comes with performing orcreating because their schools are cutting artsprogramming or not offering it altogether. Weneed to ensure that this does not continue tohappen. I am doing my part by introducinglegislation to encourage the development ofafter school programs at schools around thecountry that not only offer sports and aca-demic programming, but also music and artsactivities. Increasing children’s access to theArts will benefit this country as a whole.

It is our responsibility to ensure that our chil-dren have access to the Arts. I strongly sup-port increased funding for the NEA and I urgemy colleagues to oppose any amendmentswhich seek to decrease NEA funding and I

support the Slaughter-Dick-Johnson-Hornamendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongsupport of the Slaughter/Dicks amendmentwhich calls for increased funding for the NEA/NEH and IMLS.

I commend Mr. DICKS, the ranking Memberof the Interior Subcommittee, for his support ofthis important priority and Ms. SLAUGHTER forher leadership as Chair of the Arts Caucus.We owe a debt of gratitude to LOUISE for thetime and energy she has given to promotingthe arts on behalf of her colleagues and onbehalf of the citizens of this country and toNORM for his continued steadfast support.

National Endowment for the Arts ChairmanBill Ivey envisions ‘‘An America where the artsplay a central role in the lives of all Ameri-cans,’’ and the NEA has indeed had greatsuccess in bringing the arts to the center ofcommunity life. Through its Challenge Americainitiative, the NEA has been focusing on ac-cess to the arts, cultural heritage preservationand alternatives for at-risk youth. An increasein funding is critical for ensuring access to thearts for citizens of all economic backgroundsand in all regions of the country. The NEA hassubstantially increased arts activity in everystate in the country but it is imperative that wedo more to ensure that art is reaching allAmericans in communities across the nation.

The arts are important for our economy andyield major economic benefits: the industrygenerates $3.86 billion annually, supports $1.3million jobs and returns $3.4 billion in incometaxes to the federal government. The NEArepresents less than one-hundredth of onepercent of the federal budget and costs eachAmerican the equivalent of one postage stampper year.

More importantly, the arts are important forour children. Research continues to show thatstudents exposed to the arts often performbetter in school. The confidence children findthrough the arts better equips them to faceboth academic and other life challenges moreeffectively.

But the founding fathers of our country knewthis without the benefit of research. In a letterwritten to Abigail Adams, our second Presi-dent, John Adams, wrote:

‘‘I must study politics and war that mysons may have liberty to study mathematicsand philosophy. My sons ought to studymathematics and philosophy, geography,natural history, naval architecture, naviga-tion, commerce, and agriculture in order togive their children a right to study painting,poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tap-estry, and porcelain.’’

Let’s fund the arts so that we can guaranteeour children the right to develop their creativityand imagination in order to express them-selves freely while gaining confidence.

The Poet Shelley once wrote that ‘‘thegreatest force for moral good is imagination.’’With all the challenges facing our nation’s chil-dren, it is clear that we need all of the imagi-nation they can muster. We must encourage achild’s creativity for its own sake and for theconfidence it engenders in the child.

Support creativity, support imagination, sup-port the Slaughter/Dicks amendment.

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the amendment offered by thegentlelady from New York, and Representa-tives HORN, JOHNSON and DICKS.

I am a strong supporter of the NEA, theNEH and the IMLS. This amendment provides


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3394 June 21, 2001for a very modest increase in funding for theseimportant programs.

Yesterday we found several billion dollars toincrease funding for the Pentagon.

Today, we need to support our school, li-braries, museums, and artistic programs, pro-grams that make our communities more liv-able and our children more likely to succeed.

I would like to point out that schools in mycongressional district, in Attleboro, Foxboro,Worcester, Wrentham and Fall River, have allbenefited from NEA grants and NEA-fundedprograms just in this last year.

The NEA brought performing artists andcompanies to communities across the country,including Worcester and Fall River, Massachu-setts.

I have spoken before on this floor about theprograms funded by the NEH and the Institutefor Museum and Library Services program thathave helped preserve history and protect im-portant collections in my district. The arts,scholarship, research, collaboration—theseare the fundamental services provided bythese programs.

I believe it is important to protect and pro-mote our artistic and historical heritage. I be-lieve it is a fundamental obligation for govern-ment at all levels—federal, state and munic-ipal—to support these efforts.

I fully support this amendment and urge mycolleagues to vote in support of this modestincrease.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair-man, I would like to voice my strong supportfor this amendment which will add additionalfunding for the National Endowment for theArts, the National Endowment for the Human-ities, and the Institute of Museum and LibraryServices.

Mr. Chairman, the NEA serves a vital role inbenefitting our communities, our children, andour economy. By providing grants to localcommunities, millions of children are exposedto the rich rewards of the arts. Studies haveshown that children who experience the artsdevelop improved reading, writing, speaking,and listening skills, and are more likely to stayout of trouble.

Aside from the benefits to young people, wecannot overlook the tremendous economicvalue that the arts provide.

The creative industries reap more than $60billion annually in overseas sales, and rep-resent our nation’s leading export.

Additionally, the arts employ millions ofAmericans who depend upon this critical fed-eral funding for their livelihoods.

The Congress took an important step lastyear in approving a $7 million increase for theNEA, the first increase since 1992. We mustcontinue this trend, and I urge all of my col-leagues to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Mem-ber rises in support of the amendment offeredby the distinguished gentlelady from New York(Ms. SLAUGHTER) and the distinguished gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS). Theamendment would increase funding for theNational Endowment for the Arts (NEA) by$10 million, the National Endowment for theHumanities (NEH) by $3 million and the Insti-tute for Museums and Library Services by $2million. The funds would be taken from theClean Coal Technology Program and whichwould not be available until September 29,2002.

Nebraska is extremely well-served by theNebraska Arts Council. For FY2001, theCouncil received a total of $522,600, from theformula NEA grant and additional competitivegrants. This Member has been particularlysupportive of the Nebraska Arts Council effortsto provide arts education and artists visits torural schools, where there would be little or noaccess to arts education without the Council’sinvolvement. Additionally, as part of a state-wide effort, the Nebraska Arts Council is hop-ing to have sufficient resources to providefunding for a series of murals in Nebraska Cityto commemorate the bicentennial of the Lewisand Clark Corps of Discovery expedition. Thiseffort will contribute to the success of theLewis and Clark events scheduled in Ne-braska City and will enhance the experienceof those visiting for the Lewis and Clark bicen-tennial.

Federal funding for the arts allows smalltowns and communities across Nebraska tobring dancers and poets to schools, and lec-tures on Impressionist painting to town halls inthe Sandhills. Federal support of the artsmeans that Lincoln, Nebraska, has a CivicSymphony and Omaha, Nebraska, a children’stheater. These programs and institutions en-rich all Nebraskans and are deserving of ourwholehearted and enthusiastic support.

In addition, this Member is strongly sup-portive of the excellent work done by the Ne-braska Council on the Humanities. In an ear-lier statement today, this Member mentioned,as an example, the Humanities involvement inthe Lewis and Clark bicentennial.

In addition to the Teacher Institute, whichwill be held over the next few years, the Ne-braska Humanities Council has many otherprograms that are related to the Lewis andClark commemorations in Nebraska. There isa scholar-in-residence program, in which a na-tionally known expert share his knowledge andenthusiasm with students in six to ten schoolsover several years. Several annual Chautau-quas will be devoted to the Lewis and Clarkbicentennial through 2005. There will beteacher seminars and lectures in addition tothe continuing availability of the existingspeakers bureau.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urgeshis colleagues to support the Slaughter/Dicksamendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urgeyou today to vote in favor of the bi-partisanamendment introduced by RepresentativesSLAUGHTER, HORN, DICKS and JOHNSON. Theamendment will increase funding for the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts, the NationalHumanities Council and the Office of MuseumServices by $15 million, of which $10 millionwill go to the NEA.

This increase would take the NEA budget to$120 million. Though not the $150 million theagency requested to fully support the Chal-lenge America initiative, it makes important in-roads into funding the arts in parts of ourcountry which have not received NEA supportbefore. In a community like my own, thesenew monies will reach out to community orga-nizations and cultural groups, previously un-funded, working to bring the arts to our chil-dren in after school programs.

Challenge America is designed to strength-en communities through the creation of part-nerships that support arts programs. This pro-gram funds projects serving arts education,access for underserved areas, youth-at-risk,

cultural heritage preservation and communityarts partnerships. These partnerships rep-resent what the arts do so well. Arts organiza-tions working with schools, libraries, local busi-nesses to make the arts available for every-one.

There are numerous studies that point tothe benefits of art experience and instruction.The arts increase the ability of students to per-form better in all areas of education. There arenumerous studies that point out the economicimpact of the arts in communities small andlarge. And we all know that quality of life isenhanced when the arts are a central part ofa community’s life.

The NEA has for over 30 years been a part-ner in those partnerships. Challenge Americawill being federal dollars into more commu-nities to help more children and families. Iurge you to support the Slaughter amendmentand increase the budget of the federal culturalagencies by $15 million.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldback the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gentle-woman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER).

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the noes ap-peared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demanda recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 221, noes 193,answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting 18, asfollows:

[Roll No. 177]

AYES—221

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBairdBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrettBassBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)CastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCoyneCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)

Davis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis, TomDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFilnerFoleyFordFossellaFrankFrostGephardtGilmanGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GreenwoodGrucciGutierrezHall (OH)HarmanHastings (FL)HillHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHoyer

InsleeIsraelJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (IL)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKellyKennedy (RI)KildeeKind (WI)KirkKleczkaKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLangevinLantosLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LeachLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcHugh


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3395June 21, 2001McKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosi

Peterson (MN)PomeroyPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRogers (MI)RossRothmanRoukemaSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchakowskySchiffScottSerranoShaysShermanSimmonsSlaughter

Smith (WA)SnyderSolisSprattStarkStricklandStupakTauscherThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezViscloskyWatersWatson (CA)Watt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (PA)WexlerWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—193

AkinArmeyBakerBarrBartlettBartonBilirakisBluntBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCannonCantorCapitoChabotChamblissCobleCollinsCombestCookseyCostelloCraneCrenshawCulbersonCunninghamDavis, Jo AnnDealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonEnglishFergusonFlakeFletcherFrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGossGrahamGrangerGravesGreen (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)Hansen

HartHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIssaIstookJenkinsJohnJohnson, SamJones (NC)KellerKennedy (MN)KernsKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)ManzulloMathesonMcCreryMcIntyreMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOsborneOseOtterOxleyPaulPencePeterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPlattsPomboPortmanPutnam

RadanovichRegulaRehbergReynoldsRogers (KY)Ros-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SaxtonScarboroughSchafferSchrockSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuSweeneyTancredoTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTiberiToomeyTraficantTurnerUptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkins (OK)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

DeFazio

NOT VOTING—18

AderholtBacaBachusCallahanCoxCramer

CubinDingellEverettFattahHoughtonKaptur

KilpatrickMcInnisRileyRohrabacherRoybal-AllardRush

b 1234

Messrs. HUNTER, SHUSTER,HUTCHINSON, HILLEARY and GUT-KNECHT changed their vote from‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

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

as above recorded.Stated for:Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I regret that due to

a physician’s appointment I was unable to casta vote on the Slaughter amendment to H.R.2217 (Roll 177), to increase funding for theNational Endowment for the Arts, the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, and the Insti-tute of Museum and Library Services by $15million.

Had I been present, I would have voted‘‘aye.’’

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word. Iwould like to engage the distinguishedchairman of the subcommittee in a col-loquy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank thegentleman from New Mexico for hishard work and leadership on the inte-rior appropriations bill and mentionthat it is not the same on the agri-culture appropriations bill without thegentleman’s presence.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address anissue concerning a devastating disease.It is called the sudden oak death syn-drome; and as the gentleman knows,sudden oak death has left miles of deadtanoaks and oaks in woodlands acrossCalifornia. In addition to its forest im-pacts, this disease has a potential im-pact on interstate and internationaltrade. Both Canada and the State ofOregon have issued emergency quar-antines banning the importation ofnursery stock such as rhododendrons,azaleas and huckleberries.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned thatthis bill does not include the resourcesnecessary to address the lack of funda-mental knowledge and tools for effec-tive eradication or containment of sud-den oak death.

I am prepared to offer an amendmentto increase the funding for the ForestService and Range Land Research Ac-count. However, I am encouraged tohear by the gentleman’s efforts that hehas agreed to work with me; and will,therefore, withhold offering my amend-ment at this time.


Mr. FARR of California. I yield tothe gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for his kind words, andI assure the gentleman that I will workin conference to address his concernsregarding the search for funds for sud-den oak death.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chair-man, I thank the gentleman. I look for-

ward to working with him in solvingthis problem in much of the West.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the lastword. I rise to enter into a colloquywith the gentleman from New Mexico(Mr. SKEEN), the chairman of the sub-committee, as well as the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS), theranking member.

Mr. Chairman, it was my initial in-tention to offer an amendment to in-crease funding for the Indian HealthServices Loan Repayment Program by$17 million. The Indian Loan Repay-ment Program is designed as a recruit-ment and retention tool for health careprofessionals who are willing to servein the American Indian and AlaskanNative communities in exchange for re-lief from their substantial loan bur-dens.

As my colleagues from New Mexicoand Washington know, the state ofhealth care in Indian country is farfrom ideal. American Indians and Alas-kan Natives have incidences that are950 percent higher for diabetes, 630 per-cent higher with respect to tuber-culosis, and 350 percent higher when itcomes to diabetes when compared totheir non-Native counterparts.

In the area of mental health, the in-cidence of suicide among Native Amer-icans is 72 percent higher, and greaterthan the rate for all other races in theUnited States.

As a new member of the Committeeon Appropriations, let me commendthe gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.SKEEN) and the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS) for increasing theoverall Indian Health Services budgetby $124 million, for a total of almost$2.4 billion. I have been witness to thedifficult budget decisions that the gen-tlemen must have made; and given theaccounts in this bill, I appreciate theirconsideration on this issue. I think weall can agree that historical fundinglevels for IHS have represented only afraction of the resources necessary toequalize the health care between Na-tive and non-Native communities.

I believe that the subcommittee hasapproached the pressing need of Indianhealth with the utmost sincerity, andto this point has made the most ofwhat has been allocated. For this rea-son I have decided not to offer myamendment, instead opting to ask thatthe gentleman from New Mexico andthe gentleman from Washington pro-ceed to conference with the UnitedStates Senate so they can consider in-creasing the allocation for the loan re-payment program.


Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Iyield to the gentleman from New Mex-ico.

Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentlemanfor his comments. As a strong pro-ponent for programs of American Indi-ans and Alaskan Native people, I sharehis concerns about the condition ofhealth care in Indian country. I want


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3396 June 21, 2001to assure the gentleman that fundingfor the Indian Health Service remains atop priority. I look forward to workingwith the gentleman to try and increaseIHS funding as the process moves for-ward.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Iyield to the gentleman from Wash-ington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I join mycolleagues in their assertion that theIHS needs more resources to addressthe health care disparities within In-dian country. The health care needs ofmany American Indian and AlaskanNatives are not being met. Clearly it isour responsibility to address thesehealth disparities. I appreciate the gen-tleman’s efforts, and look forward toworking with him as we complete thefiscal year 2002 budget process. I appre-ciate his leadership on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Chairman, I thank the ranking memberand the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the last word. I would like toenter into a colloquy with the chair-man of the Subcommittee On Interiorof the Committee On Appropriations.

Much of the land within the RachelCarson National Wildlife Refuge inMaine is protected today. However,several in-holdings and other areas ofcritical concern are not. The RachelCarson Wildlife Refuge consists of tidalcreeks, coastal uplands, sandy dunes,salt ponds, and various types of wet-lands that provide precious nesting andfeeding habitat for a variety of migra-tory waterfowl, and a nursery for manyshellfish and fin fish.

The refuge also serves our commu-nities by providing countless individ-uals and school groups the opportunityto gain firsthand knowledge of the crit-ical and unusual nature of Maine’scoastal habitats.

Mr. Chairman, there is an oppor-tunity in fiscal year 2002 to purchaseproperties for the Rachel Carson Na-tional Wildlife Refuge. Southern Maineis witnessing rapid development. With-out preservation, coastal and wetlandhabitats are at great risk. I ask for thegentleman’s assistance to identifyfunding for a $3 million appropriationfrom the Land and Water ConservationFund. This would ensure that the op-portunity to protect these properties isnot lost.


Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentlemanfrom New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for bringing this projectto the committee’s attention; and wewill give his request serious consider-ation as we move to conference.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman.

(Mr. MANZULLO asked and wasgiven permission to speak out oforder.)

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, lastnight I should have voted ‘‘yes’’ as op-

posed to ‘‘no’’ on the final passage ofthe supplemental appropriations bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanneeds to make his unanimous consentrequest when the body sits in theHouse, not the Committee of theWhole.

AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. SANDERS:Page 7, line 11, insert ‘‘(increased by

$12,000,000)’’ after ‘‘$200,000,000’’.Page 87, line 13, insert ‘‘(reduced by

$52,000,000)’’ after ‘‘$579,000,000’’.Page 89, line 5, insert ‘‘(increased by



$24,000,000)’’ after ‘‘$249,000,000’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to theorder of the Committee of today, thegentleman from Vermont (Mr. SAND-ERS) and a Member opposed each willcontrol 15 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offerthis tripartisan amendment which iscosponsored by the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. QUINN), the gentlemanfrom Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), thegentleman from New York (Mr. GIL-MAN), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.BLUMENAUER), and the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. KIND).

This amendment is similar in manyways to an amendment that was passedby voice vote last year, and that passedwith 248 votes 2 years ago. This amend-ment is also supported by a broad coa-lition of environmental and public in-terest groups, including the League ofConservation Voters, the Sierra Club,the Natural Resources Defense Council,Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Re-search Group, and the National Asso-ciation of State Energy Officials.

b 1245

This amendment accomplishes threeprimary goals. First, in the midst ofthe worst energy crisis that this coun-try has faced in 25 years, this amend-ment adds $24 million to the very suc-cessful weatherization program. Allover this country, lower income peopleand senior citizens are wasting hugeamounts of energy because their homesare inadequately insulated. While I ap-preciate the good work of RankingMembers OBEY and DICKS and Chair-men YOUNG and SKEEN to increasefunding for this program from lastyear, it is still not enough. In fact, the$249 million provided in this bill forweatherization is $24 million less thanthe President’s budget request. Inother words, all that we are doing hereis funding the weatherization programat the same level the President has re-quested. I should tell Members that I

have been very critical of the Presi-dent’s funding for energy in general.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, thisamendment provides an additional $12million for a number of other energyconservation programs. The variousprograms have been highly successfulin leveraging State and private fundsin terms of reducing the energy used byhomeowners, schools, hospitals, farm-ers and others. No one denies that ourcountry can do much more in a widerange of energy conservation efforts,and this additional funding will providesome help in that direction.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this amend-ment also increases the payments inlieu of taxes program by $12 million,something that I and many other Mem-bers have been deeply interested in fora number of years. Mr. Chairman, thePILT program was established to ad-dress the fact that the Federal Govern-ment does not pay taxes on the landthat it owns. These Federal lands caninclude national forests, nationalparks, fish and wildlife refuges andland owned by the Bureau of LandManagement. Like local propertytaxes, PILT payments are used to payfor school budgets, law enforcement,search and rescue, fire fighting, parksand recreation and other municipal ex-penses. The PILT program benefits1,789 counties in 49 States throughoutthe country. I appreciate the commit-tee’s increasing funding for this pro-gram. They have. But once again be-cause of woefully inadequate funding inrecent years, we have got a long way togo. We cannot talk about respect forlocal government and then not paythem the amounts of money that wehave to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. GILMAN).

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

I rise in support of the Sanders-Quinn-Kind amendment. This amend-ment to the fiscal year 2002 Interior ap-propriations bill increases funding toprovide $48 million for the weatheriza-tion assistance program, for PILT andfor energy conservation. The weather-ization assistance program has beenhighly successful and helped so manyof our constituents. Increasing theweatherization assistance program by$24 million raises funding to the levelthat President Bush has requested inhis fiscal year 2002 budget, as the gen-tleman from Vermont has pointed out.

Mr. Chairman, weatherization doeswork. It is a vital program that im-proves the energy efficiency for low-in-come families throughout our greatNation. These programs assist thosemost in need, those least able to affordthe high cost of energy. This beneficialprogram saves our low-income con-stituents about $200 a year in heatingcosts. That is $200 more that our hard-working families can now spend onfood, clothing, housing costs and forother necessities.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3397June 21, 2001Mr. Chairman, in this energy crisis,

energy conservation is and should beon everyone’s mind. The energy con-servation program has a proven trackrecord. This program assists our hos-pitals, our farmers, our homeowners,our schools and others to be able to re-duce their cost of energy. The savingson energy allow our hospitals andschools to use the funds that wouldhave gone towards energy costs to gotowards education and medical care.One reason for the success of the en-ergy conservation program is the effec-tive leveraging of significant amountsof State and private funds.

Mr. Chairman, the exorbitant costsof gasoline and other sources of energyhave been devastating to our smallbusinesses, to our truckers and somany of our constituents. In order toremedy this energy crisis and to miti-gate its effects on the future, we needto invest in energy efficient tech-nologies. We need these technologiesnow. We must invest in our future andin the future of our children.

Mr. Chairman, another importantprovision of the Sanders-Quinn-Kindweatherization/PILT amendment is the$12 million allocated towards paymentsin lieu of taxes which provides ourcounties and towns with welcome relieffrom the burden of supporting non-taxable Federal lands. I have a goodportion of those lands in my district.In addition, through PILT, the FederalGovernment has the opportunity togive back to the communities for theservices they provide to the lands. Mycongressional district is among the1,789 counties throughout 49 Statesthat benefit from PILT.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, in the faceof this energy crisis, we need to beproactive in order to combat the highprices for energy and to create energy-saving and energy-efficient tech-nologies. The Sanders-Kind-Quinnamendment is proactive and laudable.Accordingly, I urge my colleagues tosupport this amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iclaim the time in opposition to theamendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Georgia will be recognized for 15minutes.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. OBEY).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no one inthis House has been a more long-standing supporter of the weatheriza-tion program than I have, but thisamendment deserves to be defeated. Ioppose it on two grounds: First of all,we had a major victory in the com-mittee on the issue of weatherization.This bill includes $311 million. That isa 63 percent increase over last year.The committee’s original number was$60 million lower. We negotiated it upto double that amount.

The gentleman mentions the $24 mil-lion by which it is below the President.That is only because that $24 millionwas used to insulate schools and hos-

pitals which is an equally deserving re-quirement. None of us should beashamed of doing that.

Secondly, I would point out that thisamendment actually reduces funds forfossil energy research. We need a bal-anced research program in all areas ofenergy research. That includes re-search on more efficient power plantsand distributed generation tech-nologies which are part of the fossil en-ergy program that this amendmentseeks to cut. In fact, the Democraticminority in the committee supportedan amendment by the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. HINCHEY) to increasefossil fuel energy research along withenergy conservation by $200 million. Ithink it would be foolish for us to sup-port an amendment today which re-duces funding for any energy researchprogram.

This amendment seeks to increase afund which we have already increasedby 63 percent by cutting further a fundwhich is already $4 million below lastyear. That makes no sense if we aretrying to achieve a balanced program.

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this amend-ment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the gentleman’s amend-ment. No one in the House is a biggersupporter of the weatherization pro-gram than this Member. Weatheriza-tion funds are critical to lower incomefamilies who look for long-term sav-ings in the cost of home energythrough conservation, in particular in-sulating their homes.

I oppose this amendment, however,for two important reasons. First, thechairman and the committee have beenextremely generous, as the gentlemanfrom Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) has pointedout, to the weatherization program inthe committee bill. The bill includes$311 million for weatherization andState energy assistance. This is a $120million, 63 percent increase over lastyear. Yes, the gentleman is correct, thecommittee has allocated $24 million ofthis increase to programs to insulateschools and hospitals. I personally be-lieve that this is a reasonable accom-modation given the energy use of thesefacilities. The bottom line is that Iwant to support the chairman in hisoverall generosity to these programs.

Second and equally important, I can-not support an amendment which re-duces funding for fossil energy re-search. I believe that the lesson of thecurrent energy crisis is that we need alarger and a balanced research programin all areas of energy research. This in-cludes research on more efficient powerplants and distributed generation tech-nologies, which are part of the fossilenergy program. The minority sup-ported an amendment by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. HINCHEY)in committee to increase fossil energyalong with energy conservation re-search by $200 million. I do not think

we should support an amendmenttoday which reduces funding for energyresearch programs. Therefore, I rise invery strong opposition to this amend-ment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

My friends, of course, are right. Wedo take money from the fossil fuel en-ergy research and development pro-gram in order to fund weatherization,in order to fund energy conservation,in order to fund the long overdue ef-forts to bring PILT payments to wherethey should be.

Mr. Chairman, regarding the fossilfuel energy research and developmentprogram, let me quote from the reportof the fiscal year 1997 Republican budg-et resolution:

‘‘The Department of Energy hasspent billions of dollars on researchand development since the oil crisis in1973 triggered this activity. Returns onthis investment have not been cost ef-fective, particularly for applied re-search and development which industryhas ample incentive to undertake.Some of this activity is simply cor-porate welfare for the oil, gas and util-ity industries. Much of it duplicateswhat industry is already doing. Somehas gone to fund technology in whichthe market has no interest.’’

That is the Republican budget resolu-tion of 1997, not BERNIE SANDERS.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.KIND).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman foryielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of this amendment. First of all, weappreciate the work that is being donein the Committee on Appropriationsbetween the chairman and the rankingmember and the subcommittee chair-man and ranking member, but thefight is not here with this amendment.The fight is with an administrationthat submitted a budget that dras-tically reduced energy research pro-grams by between 48 and 52 percentacross the board, whether it was alter-native or renewable energy sources. Itis also an administration that claimsthat they will restore funding to theseprograms but only after they collectoil royalties from drilling up in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge. Ifthere is a skewing of priorities here, Iwould submit it is with the administra-tion in their energy plan and the budg-et that they had submitted.

This weatherization program is im-portant to people across the country,not only in my district in western Wis-consin but throughout the UnitedStates. In light of the fact that we justpassed a large tax cut about a monthago which disproportionately benefitsthe wealthiest of the wealthy in thiscountry, this weatherization programassists low-income families in order toweatherize their homes and businesses


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3398 June 21, 2001so that they can better deal with therising energy costs that are sweepingacross the country right now.

Just a couple of short months afterthe Vice President’s now infamousstatement that conservation may be anoble value but it is not any real un-derpinning of a sensible energy policy,the State of California has reducedtheir energy consumption by 11 per-cent, which shows you the value of con-servation and increased energy effi-ciency in this country.

That is all this amendment is tryingto do, bolster those types of programsin energy conservation, in energy effi-ciency for low-income families, as wellas provide some much needed revenuerelief back to local districts with thePILT program who are financing thenontaxable Federal property that ex-ists in their local communities. That iswhy we feel that this amendment iseminently fair, why we need to makethis investment. I appreciate my friendfrom Vermont highlighting some of thedifficulties a lot of analysts have re-vealed in regard to the coal researchprogram, which I think needs furtherexploration.

Mr. Chairman, much of the focus on ourcurrent energy crisis has been the rising priceof gasoline. But in my district and throughoutthe country, the price of heating oil has risenas much as 40 percent in the past year. Con-servation efforts such as the WeatherizationAssistance Program go a long way to helpingus become less dependent on foreign oil.

The Weatherization Assistance Programhelps correct the disproportionate energy bur-den faced by low-income Americans. The pro-gram has helped make over five million homesmore energy efficient and the average homehas seen heating savings of 23 percent. Withmany low-income households spending over$1,100 on energy costs annually, this energyefficiency savings can further help these fami-lies afford the basic necessities of life. Mr.Chairman, we do not want any of our citizenshaving to make the difficult choice betweenfood and fuel. I urge my colleagues to supportthis measure.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA), thepast chairman of the subcommitteeand an active and current member.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime. I want to associate myself withthe remarks of the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. OBEY) and the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS). Ido not want to be repetitive, they hadit exactly right.

There are a couple of other things Iwould like to point out and, that is,this takes money from research onpipelines. Last year, in connectionwith the Northeast heating oil pro-gram, we put tanks in New York Har-bor because there are not enough pipe-lines in the Northeast to deliver fuel.Here we have a chance to do researchon putting these pipelines in withoutdisturbing the surface. That programof research is cut.

Something else I want to point out,and that is that in the LIHEAP pro-

gram, which is in the Labor, Health,Human Services and Education bill, 15percent of the LIHEAP money goes toweatherization. So the effect of the$300 million that we added in the sup-plemental this week actually provides45 million additional dollars for weath-erization.

What we are talking about heretoday in effect is a double dip. I thinkthis is a bad amendment. It takesmoney from research that is vitallyimportant for fuel cells and for otherforms of alternative fuels.

b 1300As we face an energy crisis, one of

the great hopes we have is to developalternative ways of providing fuel rath-er than to just scatter this in otherprograms. For all the reasons, and par-ticularly as they were outlined by thegentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY)and the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS), it is a bad amendment interms of our overall energy policy; andI urge a strong ‘‘no’’ vote on this.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Or-egon (Mr. DEFAZIO).

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Vermont (Mr.SANDERS) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, it is true, this wouldtake some money from fossil energy.For instance, Chevron, whose profitslast year were $5.2 billion, up from $2billion in 1999, that is a $3 billion 1-year increase, they will get $5 millionor more under this bill as they did lastyear. The Phillips Petroleum, profits1999 only $700 million, last year $1.9 bil-lion. They got $7 million from this pro-gram last year.

Am I being told that Phillips Petro-leum and Chevron will not make theseinvestments themselves, and they can-not afford to make it themselves? Thatis not true. There are millions of Amer-icans who cannot afford to make evenmore cost-effective investments them-selves in weatherization. We can getthree or four times as many kilowattswith weatherization for the price in to-day’s market. We can get three or fourtimes more with conservation pro-grams than we can in the most effi-cient fossil-fired fuel plants in thiscountry.

This amendment makes sense for in-dividual Americans and for residentialratepayers; but it does not, I mustadmit my colleagues are right, it doesnot make sense for Westinghouse, Phil-lips Petroleum, GE, and other compa-nies that just cannot afford to makethese investments on their own.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.MURTHA).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, wehave 600 years of coal reserves under-neath the ground. Even in my districtpeople want to burn coal cleanly, andin order to burn coal cleanly we haveto have research to do that. It is abso-lutely essential to my district, as wellas western Pennsylvania.

We have lost 10,000 or 12,000 coal min-ers in western Pennsylvania in the last20 years. The thing that worries us isthat if we do not do the research, in theend we will not be able to burn the coalcleanly.

Every year, we try to balance in thisbill all the agencies that need money.We increased weatherization. We in-creased fossil research. The gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. HINCHEY) offeredthe amendment. We supported theamendment. Now that we are goingthrough an energy crisis, when 52 per-cent of our electricity is produced bycoal production, it would be foolish forus to eliminate this resource.

So I would urge all the Members inthe House to vote against this amend-ment. It is essential to the future ofthis country to have a consistent, low-cost energy resource. So I would hopethat we would vote against this amend-ment and get on with the bill.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. NETHERCUTT), a mem-ber of the committee.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Georgia(Mr. KINGSTON) very much for yieldingme this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothe Sanders amendment. I want tooffer a little different perspective. Cer-tainly we can acknowledge that the in-crease in the weatherization has beensubstantial, 64 percent I think it is inthe committee, and yet we have re-duced the energy research account aswell; but now the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS) wants to re-duce it even more. I think that is amistake.

My perspective is this: energy re-search on fossil fuels, oil and gas andcoal in this country, is conducted pri-marily by small outfits, small inde-pendent companies that have eitherfamily owned or small entrepreneurialoperations that have small numbers ofemployees. So this is not a big oil-and-gas reduction attempt. This is going tohurt small companies and jobs insmaller communities that will add tothe research that we need to make surethat we do achieve greater independ-ence in the years ahead on fossil fuels.Whether we like it or not, we are de-pendent on fossil fuels in this country;52 percent coal dependent, substantialoil and gas dependence.

What we do not want to do is be de-pendent for our national security inter-ests on foreign imports from countriesaround the world. That is dangerous forour country. This energy fossil fuel re-search and technology developmentwill allow us to be more independent inthe coming years, and it is criticallyimportant that we do that research tobecome more independent and becometechnologically adept at meeting thechallenges of energy supply.

I am one who favors PILT, increasein the PILT account; but I think under


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3399June 21, 2001this circumstance it is a balanced ap-proach that we have adopted, and Iurge a rejection of the amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. DOYLE).

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong opposition to the amendmentoffered by the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS). At a timewhen the entire country’s attention isfocused on the need for a national en-ergy policy which is comprehensive,balanced and improves the overall na-tional security by reducing our depend-ency on foreign sources, I believe amove to slash $52 million from energyR&D will produce unwarranted anddetrimental effects that will onlymake the current situation worse. Nowis not the time to be short-sighted inmaking our funding decisions.

We have heard the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. OBEY) and the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS)speak eloquently to the fact that bothof these programs, which we all sup-port, PILT and weatherization, havebeen adequately funded in this bill. Thegentleman from Vermont (Mr. SAND-ERS) talks about the benefit of energyR&D research. If Members do take timeto do a brief cost-benefit analysis, theywill find that supporting energy R&Defforts is the most efficient, effective,and timely investment we can make;and for those Members who think thatslashing $52 million from fossil energyresearch, that they are somehow goingto improve the environment, theyshould think again about that dis-jointed logic of such a conclusion.

Consider the following that has oc-curred as a result of energy R&D: wenow see the possibility of zero-emissionpower plants using coal, natural gas,municipal waste and biomass; and re-search is under way to capture and se-quester carbon dioxide. DOE’s FE re-search program has a solid record ofsuccess. We have over $9 billion of com-mercial sales, of fluidized bed combus-tors that have been made, a commer-cial return of over $9 for every $1 ofDOE investment. More than 200 com-mercial fuel cells operate in the UnitedStates and overseas and the most effi-cient, cleanest gas turbine in the worldhas ‘‘Made in America’’ stamped on it.

Without question, FE R&D is a lotmore than just coal and fossil energyresearch, and development does morethan one might have imagined to helpall of our constituents meet their needswhen it comes to paying their energyneeds. Please defeat this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, my friends talk aboutslashing fossil fuel research. If ouramendment passes, it would representan increase of $58 million more thanthe President wanted and $75 millionmore than fiscal year 2001. That is notexactly slashing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2 minutes tothe gentleman from Illinois (Mr.DAVIS).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,I rise in strong support of this amend-ment, and I do so with the full under-standing and appreciation for the in-crease in the weatherization program. Iappreciate that, but the realty is thatif there is not enough in the pot tobegin with, we cannot get out of itwhat is not there.

I come from an environment where itis always too hot or too cold, always. Ihave more than 165,000 low-income con-sumers who live at or below the pov-erty level in a high-priced economicmarket. All of the time, every day oftheir lives, they are always moaning,groaning, crying about the inability tohave a comfortable environment inwhich to live.

While I appreciate research, am astrong proponent of it, we know thatweatherization works. We know that itworks. I support this amendment andwould urge its passage to give relief tothose individuals who need it now be-cause we know that weatherizationdoes work.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. HOLDEN).

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong opposition to the amendmentoffered by the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS), not because ofthe programs that he wishes to fund,but from where he is taking the moneyfrom.

We are in an energy crisis, and weneed to take full advantage of all ofour own natural resources. We shouldbe increasing investment in researchand development, not decreasing it.

I represent the androcyte coal fieldsof Pennsylvania, and there is a DOE-funded program there taking advan-tage of a decades’ old technology ofconverting coal and waste coal intogasoline.

We need to do that. We are too de-pendent upon foreign oil.

I had the opportunity to visit PennState University a few months ago andlook at the noncombustible applica-tions that are being done there in theirresearch and development, where theycan convert coal and waste coal againinto graphite, which is strong andlight; and the automobile industry andthe aircraft industry are looking at itfor applications there because of itsstrength and how light it is.

We need to up our investment in re-search and development of fossil fuels,not decrease it. I urge all of my col-leagues to vote against this amend-ment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just make acouple of points. According to the Re-publican Committee on the Budget, thefossil fuel research program is largelycorporate welfare and ineffective. Ac-cording to the CBO, let me quote, ‘‘Theappropriateness of Federal Government

funding for such research and develop-ment is questionable,’’ CBO.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand whysome of my good friends want to seethis research, fossil fuel research, ex-panded. Thirty-eight percent of themoney goes to two States. Weatheriza-tion goes to 50 States. The bottom line,Mr. Chairman, is that we are increas-ing funding for weatherization des-perately needed. Hundreds of thousandsof Americans cannot get into a pro-gram which saves them money and pro-tects the environment. We are expand-ing money for other energy conserva-tion programs, and we are puttingmore money in to programs that com-pensate local governments when theFederal Government is using theirproperty, the PILT program.

Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst ofa major energy crisis, the worst crisisthis country has experienced in over 25years. Let us stand with lower-incomepeople all over this country. Let ushelp them weatherize the homes inwhich they are living. Let us standwith small communities all over thiscountry who deserve fair PILT funding.Let us stand with those people who saywe are doing nowhere near enough interms of energy conservation.

This is a good amendment, and I urgeits passage.


Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 30 seconds to the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. OBEY), because I knowhe had some points he wanted to make.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Georgia (Mr. KING-STON) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again,this amendment increases a programwhich we have already increased by 63percent. It cuts fossil fuels which wehave already cut by 4 percent. There isnothing wrong with research for moreefficient power plants or distributedgeneration technologies or pipeline im-provement. Those are some of the pro-grams this amendment would cut. Thisamendment is well meaning but it is illadvised and ill targeted.

I have defended weatherizationlonger than any other person in thisChamber, and I stand here today urg-ing a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I might con-sume.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this,again summarizing our bipartisan op-position to this amendment, that PILTis funded at the historically high levelin this bill of $200 million. That is $50million above the budget request.

b 1315

Weatherization programs receive a 70percent increase in funding above lastyear.

Here we are in an energy crisis, andenergy conservation research fundinghas been restored to last year’s histori-cally high level, which is a good in-crease. But we need to continue that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3400 June 21, 2001research. We need to keep the commit-ment. Fossil energy research after de-ducting the President’s clean coalpower initiative is below last year’slevel. Further cuts would be foolhardy.

This amendment is bad for our en-ergy security, bad for the consumerwho purchases energy, and bad for theeconomy. We need to continue our re-search. We need to vote no on thisamendment.

Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongsupport of the Sanders-Quinn-Kind amend-ment to increase funding for low-incomeweatherization and energy efficiency.

What we do in this amendment is fairly sim-ple. Most significantly, we increase weather-ization by $24 million which would bring over-all funding up to the Bush administration re-quested level of $273 million. Weatherizationis a program that is proven and really worksto increase energy conservation.

Through this program, low income familiessave $200 a year in heating costs, and thesemodest savings can be used for other impor-tant family needs such as food, clothing, hous-ing and other basic necessities of life.

In addition, we increase overall state con-servation programs by $12 million, and in-creases the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)program by $12 million.

We would offset these increases by cuttingthe Fossil Fuel R&D program by $52 million.

Last year’s amendment on this issuepassed by a voice vote, and I hope that thisyear we will have a similar level of supportfrom this Body. I urge Members to pass theSanders-Quinn amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.WHITFIELD). The question is on theamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).


Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS)will be postponed.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. MALONEY OFNEW YORK

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr.Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mrs. MALONEY of

New York:Page 36, beginning at line 1, strike ‘‘under

a comparable royalty-in-value program’’ andinsert ‘‘under the existing royalty-in-valueprogram, including the royalty valuationprocedures established by the final rule pub-lished by the Minerals Management Serviceon March 15, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 14022 et seq.)’’.

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York askedand was given permission to revise andextend her remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr.Chairman, I would like to thank theranking member and the Chair forworking with me on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amend-ment in an attempt to stop giving cor-porate welfare to America’s oil compa-nies. This amendment simply clarifiesthat royalty-in-kind must earn at least

as much money for the Federal Govern-ment as a royalty-in-value program op-erating under the new rules put in ef-fect last year.

For too long, major oil companieswere paying fees to the Federal Gov-ernment based on prices that werelower than market value. Basically theoil companies kept two sets of books;one which they paid each other basedon market value, and one which wasmuch lower that they paid to the Fed-eral Government and the Americantaxpayers. Now, it is one thing for oilto be slick; it is quite another for oilcompanies to be slick at the expense ofthe American taxpayer.

In a bipartisan way, the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. HORN) and I heldhearings to investigate money thatmajor oil companies owed the FederalGovernment. Our hearings showed thatmany of these companies were under-paying fees, costing the American tax-payer nearly $100 million a year.

Many companies were sued by theFederal Government for deliberate un-derpayment of fees. Most have electedto settle, and to date over $425 millionhas been collected. Combined withState and private lawsuits, the oil in-dustry has reluctantly paid to the gov-ernment close to $5 billion to settlethese underpayment claims.

The Interior Department’s new oilvaluation rule, which was announcedlast year, will save taxpayers at least$67 million each year by ensuring thatoil companies pay the fair marketvalue for the oil that is taken fromFederal lands.

Now that we have finally put a stopto the industry’s secret scheme and arecollecting a fair amount for fees for theAmerican taxpayer, we are now beingasked to examine an entirely new sys-tem of fee collection. Now the oil in-dustry is telling us that they do notwant to pay in money, they want topay in oil.

The last I heard, money was still thecurrency of the United States, and theAmerican taxpayer should demand noless. The oil companies call it a newway to pay; I call it a new way to stiffAmerica’s taxpayers.

Today I offer an amendment to guar-antee that the industry fees, the so-called royalty-in-kind program, earnsat least fair market value or more.Why the need for this amendment?Independent analysis shows that in al-most all cases, the government, underthe oil industry plan, would have lostrevenue compared to actual marketprices. In fact, the government actu-ally lost almost $3 million when youcompare what was received via roy-alty-in-kind with what would havebeen collected with fair market value.

Mr. Chairman, the royalty-in-kindprogram puts the Federal Governmentinto the oil business; not because itwill save taxpayers money. It will ac-tually cost them more. Not because itis more efficient; that has not beenshown. No, we are asking the FederalGovernment to enter into the oil busi-

ness because big oil can no longer getaway with cheating taxpayers out oftheir fair share of royalties receivedfor value. That is the only reason thatI have seen to support this particularprogram.

Today, all we are asking is that ifyou are going to move ahead with thisprogram, we should make sure that itis not costing taxpayers money, that itin fact is tied to fair market value.

I hope that my colleagues will sup-port in a bipartisan way this amend-ment.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will thegentlewoman yield?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yieldto the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have noobjection to the gentlewoman’s amend-ment. My reading of the amendment isit just codifies the current program.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will thegentlewoman yield?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yieldto the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want tosay to the gentleman from New Mexico(Chairman SKEEN) that we appreciatehis willingness to accept the amend-ment, and compliment the gentle-woman for her hard work on this issue.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr.Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thankthe gentleman from New Mexico(Chairman SKEEN) and the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS).

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thequestion is on the amendment offeredby the gentlewoman from New York(Mrs. MALONEY).

The amendment was agreed to.Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that title II be con-sidered as read, printed in the RECORDand open to amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Isthere objection to the request of thegentleman from New Mexico?

There was no objection.The text of title II is as follows:

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIESDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

For necessary expenses of forest and range-land research as authorized by law,$236,979,000, to remain available until ex-pended.

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

For necessary expenses of cooperating withand providing technical and financial assist-ance to States, territories, possessions, andothers, and for forest health management,cooperative forestry, and education and landconservation activities and conducting aninternational program as authorized,$277,771,000, to remain available until ex-pended, as authorized by law, of which$60,000,000 is for the Forest Legacy Program,$8,000,000 is for the Stewardship IncentivesProgram, and $36,000,000 is for the Urban andCommunity Forestry Program, defined insection 250(c)(4)(E)(ix) of the Balanced Budg-et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of1985, as amended, for the purposes of suchAct: Provided, That, hereafter, ‘‘Forest Serv-ice State and Private Forestry, StewardshipIncentives Program’’ shall be considered tobe within the ‘‘State and Other Conservation


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3401June 21, 2001sub-category’’ in section 250(c)(4)(G) of theBalanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985, as amended: Provided fur-ther, That none of the funds provided underthis heading for the acquisition of lands orinterests in lands shall be available until theHouse Committee on Appropriations and theSenate Committee on Appropriations pro-vide to the Secretary, in writing, a list ofspecific acquisitions to be undertaken withsuch funds.

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

For necessary expenses of the Forest Serv-ice, not otherwise provided, for management,protection, improvement, and utilization ofthe National Forest System, $1,326,445,000, toremain available until expended, which shallinclude 50 percent of all moneys receivedduring prior fiscal years as fees collectedunder the Land and Water ConservationFund Act of 1965, as amended, in accordancewith section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balancesavailable at the start of fiscal year 2002 shallbe displayed by budget line item in the fiscalyear 2003 budget justification: Provided fur-ther, That the Secretary may authorize theexpenditure or transfer of such sums as nec-essary to the Department of the Interior, Bu-reau of Land Management for removal, prep-aration, and adoption of excess wild horsesand burros from National Forest Systemlands.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

For necessary expenses for forest firepresuppression activities on National ForestSystem lands, for emergency fire suppressionon or adjacent to such lands or other landsunder fire protection agreement, and foremergency rehabilitation of burned-over Na-tional Forest System lands and water,$1,402,305,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That such funds includingunobligated balances under this head, areavailable for repayment of advances fromother appropriations accounts previouslytransferred for such purposes: Provided fur-ther, That not less than 50 percent of any un-obligated balances remaining (exclusive ofamounts for hazardous fuels reduction) atthe end of fiscal year 2000 shall be trans-ferred, as repayment for past advances thathave not been repaid, to the fund establishedpursuant to section 3 of Public Law 71–319 (16U.S.C. 576 et seq.): Provided further, That not-withstanding any other provision of law,$8,000,000 of funds appropriated under this ap-propriation shall be used for Fire ScienceResearch in support of the Joint FireScience Program: Provided further, That allauthorities for the use of funds, includingthe use of contracts, grants, and cooperativeagreements, available to execute the Forestand Rangeland Research appropriation, arealso available in the utilization of thesefunds for Fire Science Research: Providedfurther, That funds provided shall be avail-able for emergency rehabilitation and res-toration, hazard reduction activities in theurban-wildland interface, support to federalemergency response, and wildfire suppres-sion activities of the Forest Service; Pro-vided further, That of the funds provided,$227,010,000 is for hazardous fuel treatment,$81,000,000 is for rehabilitation and restora-tion, $38,000,000 is for capital improvementand maintenance of fire facilities, $27,265,000is for research activities and to make com-petitive research grants pursuant to the For-est and Rangeland Renewable Resources Re-search Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1641 etseq.), $50,383,000 is for state fire assistance,$8,262,000 is for volunteer fire assistance,$11,974,000 is for forest health activities onstate, private, and federal lands, and$12,472,000 is for economic action programs:Provided further, That amounts in this para-

graph may be transferred to the ‘‘State andPrivate Forestry’’, ‘‘National Forest Sys-tem’’, ‘‘Forest and Rangeland Research’’,and ‘‘Capital Improvement and Mainte-nance’’ accounts to fund state fire assist-ance, volunteer fire assistance, and foresthealth management, vegetation and water-shed management, heritage site rehabilita-tion, wildlife and fish habitat management,trails and facilities maintenance and res-toration: Provided further, That transfers ofany amounts in excess of those authorized inthis paragraph, shall require approval of theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions in compliance with reprogrammingprocedures contained in House Report No.105–163: Provided further, That the costs ofimplementing any cooperative agreement be-tween the Federal government and any non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutuallyagreed on by the affected parties: Providedfurther, That in entering into such grants orcooperative agreements, the Secretary mayconsider the enhancement of local and smallbusiness employment opportunities for ruralcommunities, and that in entering into pro-curement contracts under this section on abest value basis, the Secretary may takeinto account the ability of an entity to en-hance local and small business employmentopportunities in rural communities, and thatthe Secretary may award procurement con-tracts, grants, or cooperative agreementsunder this section to entities that includelocal non-profit entities, Youth ConservationCorps or related partnerships with State,local or non-profit youth groups, or small ordisadvantaged businesses: Provided further,That:

(1) In expending the funds provided with re-spect to this Act for hazardous fuels reduc-tion, the Secretary of the Interior and theSecretary of Agriculture may conduct fuelreduction treatments on Federal lands usingall contracting and hiring authorities avail-able to the Secretaries applicable to haz-ardous fuel reduction activities under thewildland fire management accounts. Not-withstanding Federal government procure-ment and contracting laws, the Secretariesmay conduct fuel reduction treatments onFederal lands using grants and cooperativeagreements. Notwithstanding Federal gov-ernment procurement and contracting laws,in order to provide employment and trainingopportunities to people in rural commu-nities, the Secretaries may award contracts,including contracts for monitoring activi-ties, to—

(A) local private, nonprofit, or cooperativeentities;

(B) Youth Conservation Corps crews or re-lated partnerships, with State, local andnon-profit youth groups;

(C) small or micro-businesses; or(D) other entities that will hire or train a

significant percentage of local people tocomplete such contracts. The authorities de-scribed above relating to contracts, grants,and cooperative agreements are availableuntil all funds provided in this title for haz-ardous fuels reduction activities in the urbanwildland interface are obligated.

(2)(A) The Secretary of Agriculture maytransfer or reimburse funds to the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service of the De-partment of the Interior, or the NationalMarine Fisheries Service of the Departmentof Commerce, for the costs of carrying outtheir responsibilities under the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) toconsult and conference as required by sec-tion 7 of such Act in connection withwildland fire management activities in fiscalyears 2001 and 2002.

(B) Only those funds appropriated for fiscalyears 2001 and 2002 to Forest Service (USDA)for wildland fire management are available

to the Secretary of Agriculture for suchtransfer or reimbursement.

(C) The amount of the transfer or reim-bursement shall be as mutually agreed bythe Secretary of Agriculture and the Sec-retary of the Interior or Secretary of Com-merce, as applicable, or their designees. Theamount shall in no case exceed the actualcosts of consultation and conferencing inconnection with wildland fire managementactivities affecting National Forest Systemlands.

For an additional amount, to liquidate ob-ligations previously incurred, $274,147,000.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

For necessary expenses of the Forest Serv-ice, not otherwise provided for, $535,513,000,to remain available until expended for con-struction, reconstruction, maintenance andacquisition of buildings and other facilities,and for construction, reconstruction, repairand maintenance of forest roads and trailsby the Forest Service as authorized by 16U.S.C. 532–538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205, ofwhich $50,000,000 is for ‘‘Federal Infrastruc-ture Improvement’’, defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act: Pro-vided, That fiscal year 2001 balances in theFederal Infrastructure Improvement accountfor the Forest Service shall be transferred toand merged with this appropriation, andshall remain available until expended: Pro-vided further, That up to $15,000,000 of thefunds provided herein for road maintenanceshall be available for the decommissioning ofroads, including unauthorized roads not partof the transportation system, which are nolonger needed: Provided further, That nofunds shall be expended to decommission anysystem road until notice and an opportunityfor public comment has been provided oneach decommissioning project.

LAND ACQUISITION

For expenses necessary to carry out theprovisions of the Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C.460l–4 through 11), including administrativeexpenses, and for acquisition of land or wa-ters, or interest therein, in accordance withstatutory authority applicable to the ForestService, $130,877,000 to be derived from theLand and Water Conservation Fund, to re-main available until expended, and to be forthe conservation activities defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(iv) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act.ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS

SPECIAL ACTS

For acquisition of lands within the exte-rior boundaries of the Cache, Uinta, andWasatch National Forests, Utah; the ToiyabeNational Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles,San Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland Na-tional Forests, California, as authorized bylaw, $1,069,000, to be derived from forest re-ceipts.

ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LANDEXCHANGES

For acquisition of lands, such sums, to bederived from funds deposited by State, coun-ty, or municipal governments, public schooldistricts, or other public school authoritiespursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, asamended (16 U.S.C. 484a), to remain availableuntil expended.

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

For necessary expenses of range rehabilita-tion, protection, and improvement, 50 per-cent of all moneys received during the priorfiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic live-stock on lands in National Forests in the 16Western States, pursuant to section 401(b)(1)


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3402 June 21, 2001of Public Law 94–579, as amended, to remainavailable until expended, of which not to ex-ceed 6 percent shall be available for adminis-trative expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, andimprovements.

GIFTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS FOR FORESTAND RANGELAND RESEARCH

For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C.1643(b), $92,000, to remain available until ex-pended, to be derived from the fund estab-lished pursuant to the above Act.MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS FOR

SUBSISTENCE USES

For necessary expenses of the Forest Serv-ice to manage federal lands in Alaska forsubsistence uses under title VIII of the Alas-ka National Interest Lands Conservation Act(Public Law 96–487), $5,488,000, to remainavailable until expended.ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

Appropriations to the Forest Service forthe current fiscal year shall be available for:(1) purchase of not to exceed 132 passengermotor vehicles of which eight will be usedprimarily for law enforcement purposes andof which 130 shall be for replacement; acqui-sition of 25 passenger motor vehicles fromexcess sources, and hire of such vehicles; op-eration and maintenance of aircraft, the pur-chase of not to exceed seven for replacementonly, and acquisition of sufficient aircraftfrom excess sources to maintain the operablefleet at 195 aircraft for use in Forest Servicewildland fire programs and other ForestService programs; notwithstanding otherprovisions of law, existing aircraft being re-placed may be sold, with proceeds derived ortrade-in value used to offset the purchaseprice for the replacement aircraft; (2) serv-ices pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to ex-ceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C.3109; (3) purchase, erection, and alteration ofbuildings and other public improvements (7U.S.C. 2250); (4) for expenses pursuant to theVolunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972(16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (5) thecost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C.5901–5902; and (6) for debt collection con-tracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).

Any appropriations or funds available tothe Secretary may be transferred to theWildland Fire Management appropriation forforest firefighting, emergency rehabilitationof burned-over or damaged lands or watersunder its jurisdiction, and fire preparednessdue to severe burning conditions if and onlyif all previously appropriated emergencycontingent funds under the heading‘‘Wildland Fire Management’’ have been re-leased by the President and apportioned.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available for assistance to orthrough the Agency for International Devel-opment and the Foreign Agricultural Servicein connection with forest and rangeland re-search, technical information, and assist-ance in foreign countries, and shall be avail-able to support forestry and related naturalresource activities outside the United Statesand its territories and possessions, includingtechnical assistance, education and training,and cooperation with United States andinternational organizations.

None of the funds made available to theForest Service under this Act shall be sub-ject to transfer under the provisions of sec-tion 702(b) of the Department of AgricultureOrganic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C.147b unless the proposed transfer is approvedin advance by the House and Senate Commit-tees on Appropriations in compliance withthe reprogramming procedures contained inHouse Report No. 105–163.

None of the funds available to the ForestService may be reprogrammed without the

advance approval of the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations in accordancewith the procedures contained in House Re-port No. 105–163.

No funds available to the Forest Serviceshall be transferred to the Working CapitalFund of the Department of Agriculture thatexceed the total amount transferred duringfiscal year 2000 for such purposes without theadvance approval of the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations.

Funds available to the Forest Service shallbe available to conduct a program of not lessthan $2,000,000 for high priority projectswithin the scope of the approved budgetwhich shall be carried out by the Youth Con-servation Corps, defined in section250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, asamended, for the purposes of such Act.

Of the funds available to the Forest Serv-ice, $2,500 is available to the Chief of the For-est Service for official reception and rep-resentation expenses.

Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) ofPublic Law 101–593, of the funds available tothe Forest Service, up to $2,250,000 may beadvanced in a lump sum as Federal financialassistance to the National Forest Founda-tion, without regard to when the Foundationincurs expenses, for administrative expensesor projects on or benefitting National ForestSystem lands or related to Forest Serviceprograms: Provided, That of the Federalfunds made available to the Foundation, nomore than $300,000 shall be available for ad-ministrative expenses: Provided further, Thatthe Foundation shall obtain, by the end ofthe period of Federal financial assistance,private contributions to match on at leastone-for-one basis funds made available bythe Forest Service: Provided further, That theFoundation may transfer Federal funds to anon-Federal recipient for a project at thesame rate that the recipient has obtainedthe non-Federal matching funds: Providedfurther, That hereafter, the National ForestFoundation may hold Federal funds madeavailable but not immediately disbursed andmay use any interest or other investment in-come earned (before, on, or after the date ofthe enactment of this Act) on Federal fundsto carry out the purposes of Public Law 101–593: Provided further, That such investmentsmay be made only in interest-bearing obliga-tions of the United States or in obligationsguaranteed as to both principal and interestby the United States.

Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law98–244, $2,650,000 of the funds available to theForest Service shall be available for match-ing funds to the National Fish and WildlifeFoundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701–3709, and may be advanced in a lump sum asFederal financial assistance, without regardto when expenses are incurred, for projectson or benefitting National Forest Systemlands or related to Forest Service programs:Provided, That the Foundation shall obtain,by the end of the period of Federal financialassistance, private contributions to matchon at least one-for-one basis funds advancedby the Forest Service: Provided further, Thatthe Foundation may transfer Federal fundsto a non-Federal recipient for a project atthe same rate that the recipient has ob-tained the non-Federal matching funds.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available for interactions with andproviding technical assistance to rural com-munities for sustainable rural developmentpurposes.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, 80 percent of the funds appropriated tothe Forest Service in the ‘‘National ForestSystem’’ and ‘‘Capital Improvement andMaintenance’’ accounts and planned to be al-located to activities under the ‘‘Jobs in the

Woods’’ program for projects on NationalForest land in the State of Washington maybe granted directly to the Washington StateDepartment of Fish and Wildlife for accom-plishment of planned projects. Twenty per-cent of said funds shall be retained by theForest Service for planning and admin-istering projects. Project selection andprioritization shall be accomplished by theForest Service with such consultation withthe State of Washington as the Forest Serv-ice deems appropriate.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available for payments to countieswithin the Columbia River Gorge NationalScenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and(2), and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99–663.

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorizedto enter into grants, contracts, and coopera-tive agreements as appropriate with the Pin-chot Institute for Conservation, as well aswith public and other private agencies, orga-nizations, institutions, and individuals, toprovide for the development, administration,maintenance, or restoration of land, facili-ties, or Forest Service programs, at the GreyTowers National Historic Landmark: Pro-vided, That, subject to such terms and condi-tions as the Secretary of Agriculture mayprescribe, any such public or private agency,organization, institution, or individual maysolicit, accept, and administer private giftsof money and real or personal property forthe benefit of, or in connection with, the ac-tivities and services at the Grey Towers Na-tional Historic Landmark: Provided further,That such gifts may be accepted notwith-standing the fact that a donor conducts busi-ness with the Department of Agriculture inany capacity.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available, as determined by the Sec-retary, for payments to Del Norte County,California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and 14of the Smith River National Recreation AreaAct (Public Law 101–612).

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, any appropriations or funds available tothe Forest Service not to exceed $500,000 maybe used to reimburse the Office of the Gen-eral Counsel (OGC), Department of Agri-culture, for travel and related expenses in-curred as a result of OGC assistance or par-ticipation requested by the Forest Service atmeetings, training sessions, management re-views, land purchase negotiations and simi-lar non-litigation related matters. Futurebudget justifications for both the ForestService and the Department of Agricultureshould clearly display the sums previouslytransferred and the requested funding trans-fers.

No employee of the Department of Agri-culture may be detailed or assigned from anagency or office funded by this Act to anyother agency or office of the department formore than 30 days unless the individual’semploying agency or office is fully reim-bursed by the receiving agency or office forthe salary and expenses of the employee forthe period of assignment.

The Forest Service shall fund indirect ex-penses, that is expenses not directly relatedto specific programs or to the accomplish-ment of specific work on-the-ground, fromany funds available to the Forest Service:Provided, That the Forest Service shall im-plement and adhere to the definitions of in-direct expenditures established pursuant toPublic Law 105–277 on a nationwide basiswithout flexibility for modification by anyorganizational level except the WashingtonOffice, and when changed by the WashingtonOffice, such changes in definition shall be re-ported in budget requests submitted by theForest Service: Provided further, That theForest Service shall provide in all future


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3403June 21, 2001budget justifications, planned indirect ex-penditures in accordance with the defini-tions, summarized and displayed to the Re-gional, Station, Area, and detached unit of-fice level. The justification shall display theestimated source and amount of indirect ex-penditures, by expanded budget line item, offunds in the agency’s annual budget jus-tification. The display shall include appro-priated funds and the Knutson-Vandenberg,Brush Disposal, Cooperative Work-Other,and Salvage Sale funds. Changes between es-timated and actual indirect expendituresshall be reported in subsequent budget jus-tifications: Provided, That during fiscal year2002 the Secretary shall limit total annualindirect obligations from the Brush Disposal,Knutson-Vandenberg, Reforestation, SalvageSale, and Roads and Trails funds to 20 per-cent of the total obligations from each fund.Obligations in excess of 20 percent whichwould otherwise be charged to the abovefunds may be charged to appropriated fundsavailable to the Forest Service subject to no-tification of the Committees on Appropria-tions of the House and Senate.

Any appropriations or funds available tothe Forest Service may be used for necessaryexpenses in the event of law enforcementemergencies as necessary to protect naturalresources and public or employee safety: Pro-vided, That such amounts shall not exceed$750,000.

The Secretary of Agriculture may author-ize the sale of excess buildings, facilities,and other properties owned by the ForestService and located on the Green MountainNational Forest, the revenues of which shallbe retained by the Forest Service and avail-able to the Secretary without further appro-priation and until expended for maintenanceand rehabilitation activities on the GreenMountain National Forest.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

For necessary expenses in carrying out fos-sil energy research and development activi-ties, under the authority of the Departmentof Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95–91), including the acquisition of interest, in-cluding defeasible and equitable interests inany real property or any facility or for plantor facility acquisition or expansion, and forconducting inquiries, technological inves-tigations and research concerning the ex-traction, processing, use, and disposal ofmineral substances without objectionable so-cial and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3,1602, and 1603), $579,000,000, to remain avail-able until expended, of which $150,000,000 isto be available, after coordination with theprivate sector, for a request for proposals fora Clean Coal Power Initiative providing forcompetitively-awarded research, develop-ment and demonstration of commercial scaletechnologies to reduce the barriers to con-tinued and expanded coal use: Provided, Thatall awards shall be cost-shared with industryparticipants: Provided further, That in orderto enhance the return to the taxpayer, provi-sions for royalties from commercializationof funded technologies shall be included inthe program solicitation, including provi-sions for reasonable royalties from sale or li-censing of technologies from both domesticand foreign transactions: Provided further,That no part of the sum herein made avail-able shall be used for the field testing of nu-clear explosives in the recovery of oil andgas: Provided further, That up to 4 percent ofprogram direction funds available to the Na-tional Energy Technology Laboratory maybe used to support Department of Energy ac-tivities not included in this account.

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

For expenses necessary to carry out engi-neering studies to determine thecost of de-

velopment, the predicted rate and quantityof petroleum recovery, the methodology, andthe equipment specifications for develop-ment of Shannon Formation at Naval Petro-leum Reserve Numbered 3, utilizing a below-the-reservoir production method, $17,371,000,to remain available until expended: Provided,That, notwithstanding any other provisionof law, unobligated funds remaining fromprior years shall be available for all navalpetroleum and oil shale reserve activities.

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses in fulfilling install-ment payments under the Settlement Agree-ment entered into by the United States andthe State of California on October 11, 1996, asauthorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104–106, $36,000,000, to be derived by transfer fromfunds appropriated in prior years under theheading ‘‘Clean Coal Technology’’.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

For necessary expenses in carrying out en-ergy conservation activities, $940,805,000 toremain available until expended: Provided,That $311,000,000 shall be for use in energyconservation grant programs as defined insection 3008(3) of Public Law 99–509 (15 U.S.C.4507): Provided further, That notwithstandingsection 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99–509, suchsums shall be allocated to the eligible pro-grams as follows: $249,000,000 for weatheriza-tion assistance grants and $62,000,000 forState energy conservation grants: Providedfurther, That notwithstanding any other pro-vision of law, in fiscal year 2002 and there-after sums appropriated for weatherizationassistance grants shall be contingent on anon-Federal cost share of 25 percent by eachparticipating State or other qualified partic-ipant: Provided further, That the Secretary ofEnergy may waive up to fifty percent of thecost-sharing requirement for weatherizationassistance for a State which he finds to beexperiencing fiscal hardship or majorchanges in energy markets or suppliers orother temporary limitations on its ability toprovide matching funds, provided that theState is demonstrably engaged in continuingactivities to secure non-Federal resourcesand that such waiver is limited to one fiscalyear and that no State may be granted suchwaiver more than twice: Provided further,That, hereafter, Indian tribal direct granteesof weatherization assistance shall not be re-quired to provide matching funds.

ECONOMIC REGULATION

For necessary expenses in carrying out theactivities of the Office of Hearings and Ap-peals, $1,996,000, to remain available until ex-pended.

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

For necessary expenses for Strategic Pe-troleum Reserve facility development andoperations and program management activi-ties pursuant to the Energy Policy and Con-servation Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C.6201 et seq.), $179,009,000, to remain availableuntil expended, of which $8,000,000 shall beavailable for maintenance of a NortheastHome Heating Oil Reserve.

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

For necessary expenses in carrying out theactivities of the Energy Information Admin-istration, $78,499,000, to remain availableuntil expended.ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

Appropriations under this Act for the cur-rent fiscal year shall be available for hire ofpassenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance,and operation of aircraft; purchase, repair,and cleaning of uniforms; and reimburse-ment to the General Services Administrationfor security guard services.

From appropriations under this Act, trans-fers of sums may be made to other agenciesof the Government for the performance ofwork for which the appropriation is made.

None of the funds made available to theDepartment of Energy under this Act shallbe used to implement or finance authorizedprice support or loan guarantee programsunless specific provision is made for suchprograms in an appropriations Act.

The Secretary is authorized to acceptlands, buildings, equipment, and other con-tributions from public and private sourcesand to prosecute projects in cooperationwith other agencies, Federal, State, privateor foreign: Provided, That revenues and othermoneys received by or for the account of theDepartment of Energy or otherwise gen-erated by sale of products in connection withprojects of the Department appropriatedunder this Act may be retained by the Sec-retary of Energy, to be available until ex-pended, and used only for plant construction,operation, costs, and payments to cost-shar-ing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing contracts or agreements: Providedfurther, That the remainder of revenues afterthe making of such payments shall be cov-ered into the Treasury as miscellaneous re-ceipts: Provided further, That any contract,agreement, or provision thereof entered intoby the Secretary pursuant to this authorityshall not be executed prior to the expirationof 30 calendar days (not including any day inwhich either House of Congress is not in ses-sion because of adjournment of more thanthree calendar days to a day certain) fromthe receipt by the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives and the President of theSenate of a full comprehensive report onsuch project, including the facts and cir-cumstances relied upon in support of the pro-posed project.

No funds provided in this Act may be ex-pended by the Department of Energy to pre-pare, issue, or process procurement docu-ments for programs or projects for which ap-propriations have not been made.

In addition to other authorities set forthin this Act, the Secretary may accept feesand contributions from public and privatesources, to be deposited in a contributedfunds account, and prosecute projects usingsuch fees and contributions in cooperationwith other Federal, State or private agenciesor concerns.DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICESINDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

For expenses necessary to carry out theAct of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), the IndianSelf-Determination Act, the Indian HealthCare Improvement Act, and titles II and IIIof the Public Health Service Act with re-spect to the Indian Health Service,$2,390,014,000, together with payments re-ceived during the fiscal year pursuant to 42U.S.C. 238(b) for services furnished by the In-dian Health Service: Provided, That fundsmade available to tribes and tribal organiza-tions through contracts, grant agreements,or any other agreements or compacts au-thorized by the Indian Self-Determinationand Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25U.S.C. 450), shall be deemed to be obligatedat the time of the grant or contract awardand thereafter shall remain available to thetribe or tribal organization without fiscalyear limitation: Provided further, That$15,000,000 shall remain available until ex-pended, for the Indian Catastrophic HealthEmergency Fund: Provided further, That$445,776,000 for contract medical care shallremain available for obligation until Sep-tember 30, 2003: Provided further, That of thefunds provided, up to $22,000,000 shall be used


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3404 June 21, 2001to carry out the loan repayment programunder section 108 of the Indian Health CareImprovement Act: Provided further, Thatfunds provided in this Act may be used forone-year contracts and grants which are tobe performed in two fiscal years, so long asthe total obligation is recorded in the yearfor which the funds are appropriated: Pro-vided further, That the amounts collected bythe Secretary of Health and Human Servicesunder the authority of title IV of the IndianHealth Care Improvement Act shall remainavailable until expended for the purpose ofachieving compliance with the applicableconditions and requirements of titles XVIIIand XIX of the Social Security Act (exclu-sive of planning, design, or construction ofnew facilities): Provided further, That fundingcontained herein, and in any earlier appro-priations Acts for scholarship programsunder the Indian Health Care ImprovementAct (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available forobligation until September 30, 2003: Providedfurther, That amounts received by tribes andtribal organizations under title IV of the In-dian Health Care Improvement Act shall bereported and accounted for and available tothe receiving tribes and tribal organizationsuntil expended: Provided further, That, not-withstanding any other provision of law, ofthe amounts provided herein, not to exceed$268,234,000 shall be for payments to tribesand tribal organizations for contract orgrant support costs associated with con-tracts, grants, self-governance compacts orannual funding agreements between the In-dian Health Service and a tribe or tribal or-ganization pursuant to the Indian Self-De-termination Act of 1975, as amended, prior toor during fiscal year 2002, of which not to ex-ceed $20,000,000 may be used for contract sup-port costs associated with new or expandedself-determination contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual fundingagreements: Provided further, That such costsshould be paid at a rate commensurate withexisting contracts and no new or expandedself-determination contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual fundingagreements shall be entered into once the$20,000,000 has been committed: Provided fur-ther, That no existing self-determinationcontract, grant, self-governance compact orannual funding agreement shall receive di-rect contract support costs in excess of theamount received in fiscal year 2001 for suchcosts: Provided further, That funds availablefor the Indian Health Care ImprovementFund may be used, as needed, to carry outactivities typically funded under the IndianHealth Facilities account.

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

For construction, repair, maintenance, im-provement, and equipment of health and re-lated auxiliary facilities, including quartersfor personnel; preparation of plans, specifica-tions, and drawings; acquisition of sites, pur-chase and erection of modular buildings, andpurchases of trailers; and for provision of do-mestic and community sanitation facilitiesfor Indians, as authorized by section 7 of theAct of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the In-dian Self-Determination Act, and the IndianHealth Care Improvement Act, and for ex-penses necessary to carry out such Acts andtitles II and III of the Public Health ServiceAct with respect to environmental healthand facilities support activities of the IndianHealth Service, $369,795,000, to remain avail-able until expended: Provided, That notwith-standing any other provision of law, fundsappropriated for the planning, design, con-struction or renovation of health facilitiesfor the benefit of an Indian tribe or tribesmay be used to purchase land for sites toconstruct, improve, or enlarge health or re-lated facilities: Provided further, That from

the funds appropriated herein, $5,000,000 shallbe designated by the Indian Health Serviceas a contribution to the Yukon-KuskokwimHealth Corporation (YKHC) to start a pri-ority project for the acquisition of land,planning, design and construction of 79 staffquarters at Bethel, Alaska, subject to a ne-gotiated project agreement between theYKHC and the Indian Health Service: Pro-vided further, That this project shall not besubject to the construction provisions of theIndian Self-Determination and EducationAssistance Act and shall be removed fromthe Indian Health Service priority list uponcompletion: Provided further, That the Fed-eral Government shall not be liable for anyproperty damages or other constructionclaims that may arise from YKHC under-taking this project: Provided further, Thatthe land shall be owned or leased by theYKHC and title to quarters shall remainvested with the YKHC: Provided further, That$5,000,000 shall remain available until ex-pended for the purpose of funding up to twojoint venture health care facility projectsauthorized under the Indian Health Care Im-provement Act, as amended: Provided further,That priority, by rank order, shall be givento tribes with outpatient projects on the ex-isting Indian Health Services priority listthat have Service-approved planning docu-ments, and can demonstrate by March 1,2002, the financial capability necessary toprovide an appropriate facility: Provided fur-ther, That joint venture funds unallocatedafter March 1, 2002, shall be made availablefor joint venture projects on a competitivebasis giving priority to tribes that currentlyhave no existing Federally-owned healthcare facility, have planning documents meet-ing Indian Health Service requirements pre-pared for approval by the Service and candemonstrate the financial capability neededto provide an appropriate facility: Providedfurther, That the Indian Health Service shallrequest additional staffing, operation andmaintenance funds for these facilities in fu-ture budget requests: Provided further, Thatnot to exceed $500,000 shall be used by the In-dian Health Service to purchase TRANSAMequipment from the Department of Defensefor distribution to the Indian Health Serviceand tribal facilities: Provided further, Thatnot to exceed $500,000 shall be used by the In-dian Health Service to obtain ambulances forthe Indian Health Service and tribal facili-ties in conjunction with an existing inter-agency agreement between the Indian HealthService and the General Services Adminis-tration: Provided further, That not to exceed$500,000 shall be placed in a Demolition Fund,available until expended, to be used by theIndian Health Service for demolition of Fed-eral buildings: Provided further, That not-withstanding the provisions of title III, sec-tion 306, of the Indian Health Care Improve-ment Act (Public Law 94–437, as amended),construction contracts authorized undertitle I of the Indian Self-Determination andEducation Assistance Act of 1975, as amend-ed, may be used rather than grants to fundsmall ambulatory facility constructionprojects: Provided further, That if a contractis used, the IHS is authorized to improve mu-nicipal, private, or tribal lands, and that atno time, during construction or after com-pletion of the project will the Federal Gov-ernment have any rights or title to any realor personal property acquired as a part ofthe contract.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, INDIAN HEALTHSERVICE

Appropriations in this Act to the IndianHealth Service shall be available for servicesas authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at ratesnot to exceed the per diem rate equivalent tothe maximum rate payable for senior-level

positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of pas-senger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchaseof medical equipment; purchase of reprints;purchase, renovation and erection of mod-ular buildings and renovation of existing fa-cilities; payments for telephone service inprivate residences in the field, when author-ized under regulations approved by the Sec-retary; and for uniforms or allowances there-fore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901–5902; andfor expenses of attendance at meetings whichare concerned with the functions or activi-ties for which the appropriation is made orwhich will contribute to improved conduct,supervision, or management of those func-tions or activities.

In accordance with the provisions of theIndian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health careat all tribally administered or Indian HealthService facilities, subject to charges, and theproceeds along with funds recovered underthe Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42U.S.C. 2651–2653) shall be credited to the ac-count of the facility providing the serviceand shall be available without fiscal yearlimitation. Notwithstanding any other lawor regulation, funds transferred from the De-partment of Housing and Urban Developmentto the Indian Health Service shall be admin-istered under Public Law 86–121 (the IndianSanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law93–638, as amended.

Funds appropriated to the Indian HealthService in this Act, except those used for ad-ministrative and program direction pur-poses, shall not be subject to limitations di-rected at curtailing Federal travel and trans-portation.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, funds previously or herein made avail-able to a tribe or tribal organization througha contract, grant, or agreement authorizedby title I or title III of the Indian Self-Deter-mination and Education Assistance Act of1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated andreobligated to a self-determination contractunder title I, or a self-governance agreementunder title III of such Act and thereaftershall remain available to the tribe or tribalorganization without fiscal year limitation.

None of the funds made available to the In-dian Health Service in this Act shall be usedto implement the final rule published in theFederal Register on September 16, 1987, bythe Department of Health and Human Serv-ices, relating to the eligibility for the healthcare services of the Indian Health Serviceuntil the Indian Health Service has sub-mitted a budget request reflecting the in-creased costs associated with the proposedfinal rule, and such request has been in-cluded in an appropriations Act and enactedinto law.

Funds made available in this Act are to beapportioned to the Indian Health Service asappropriated in this Act, and accounted forin the appropriation structure set forth inthis Act.

With respect to functions transferred bythe Indian Health Service to tribes or tribalorganizations, the Indian Health Service isauthorized to provide goods and services tothose entities, on a reimbursable basis, in-cluding payment in advance with subsequentadjustment. The reimbursements receivedtherefrom, along with the funds receivedfrom those entities pursuant to the IndianSelf-Determination Act, may be credited tothe same or subsequent appropriation ac-count which provided the funding. Suchamounts shall remain available until ex-pended.

Reimbursements for training, technical as-sistance, or services provided by the IndianHealth Service will contain total costs, in-cluding direct, administrative, and overheadassociated with the provision of goods, serv-ices, or technical assistance.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3405June 21, 2001The appropriation structure for the Indian

Health Service may not be altered withoutadvance approval of the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations.

OTHER RELATED AGENCIESOFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN

RELOCATION


For necessary expenses of the Office ofNavajo and Hopi Indian Relocation as au-thorized by Public Law 93–531, $15,148,000, toremain available until expended: Provided,That funds provided in this or any other ap-propriations Act are to be used to relocateeligible individuals and groups includingevictees from District 6, Hopi-partitionedlands residents, those in significantly sub-standard housing, and all others certified aseligible and not included in the precedingcategories: Provided further, That none of thefunds contained in this or any other Act maybe used by the Office of Navajo and Hopi In-dian Relocation to evict any single Navajo orNavajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,was physically domiciled on the lands parti-tioned to the Hopi Tribe unless a new or re-placement home is provided for such house-hold: Provided further, That no relocatee willbe provided with more than one new or re-placement home: Provided further, That theOffice shall relocate any certified eligiblerelocatees who have selected and received anapproved homesite on the Navajo reservationor selected a replacement residence off theNavajo reservation or on the land acquiredpursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d–10.INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKANATIVE CULTURE AND ARTS DEVELOPMENT

PAYMENT TO THE INSTITUTE

For payment to the Institute of AmericanIndian and Alaska Native Culture and ArtsDevelopment, as authorized by title XV ofPublic Law 99–498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56part A), $4,490,000.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION


For necessary expenses of the SmithsonianInstitution, as authorized by law, includingresearch in the fields of art, science, and his-tory; development, preservation, and docu-mentation of the National Collections; pres-entation of public exhibits and perform-ances; collection, preparation, dissemina-tion, and exchange of information and publi-cations; conduct of education, training, andmuseum assistance programs; maintenance,alteration, operation, lease (for terms not toexceed 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 vehi-cles; purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning ofuniforms for employees, $396,200,000, of whichnot to exceed $53,030,000 is for the instrumen-tation program, collections acquisition, Mu-seum Support Center equipment and move,exhibition reinstallation, the National Mu-seum of the American Indian, the repatri-ation of skeletal remains program, researchequipment, information management,Latino programming, and outreach, and in-cluding such funds as may be necessary tosupport American overseas research centersand a total of $125,000 for the Council ofAmerican Overseas Research Centers: Pro-vided, That funds appropriated herein areavailable for advance payments to inde-pendent contractors performing researchservices or participating in official Smithso-nian presentations: Provided further, Thatthe Smithsonian Institution may expendFederal appropriations designated in thisAct for lease or rent payments for long termand swing space, as rent payable to theSmithsonian Institution, and such rent pay-

ments may be deposited into the generaltrust funds of the Institution to the extentthat federally supported activities arehoused in the 900 H Street, N.W. building inthe District of Columbia: Provided further,That this use of Federal appropriations shallnot be construed as debt service, a Federalguarantee of, a transfer of risk to, or an obli-gation of the Federal Government: Providedfurther, That no appropriated funds may beused to service debt which is incurred to fi-nance the costs of acquiring the 900 H Streetbuilding or of planning, designing, and con-structing improvements to such building.

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND ALTERATION OFFACILITIES

For necessary expenses of maintenance, re-pair, restoration, and alteration of facilitiesowned or occupied by the Smithsonian Insti-tution, by contract or otherwise, as author-ized by section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949(63 Stat. 623), including not to exceed $10,000for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,$67,900,000, to remain available until ex-pended, of which $10,000,000 is provided formaintenance, repair, rehabilitation and al-teration of facilities at the National Zoolog-ical Park: Provided, That contracts awardedfor environmental systems, protection sys-tems, and repair or restoration of facilitiesof the Smithsonian Institution may be nego-tiated with selected contractors and awardedon the basis of contractor qualifications aswell as price.

CONSTRUCTION

For necessary expenses for construction,$30,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, SMITHSONIANINSTITUTION

None of the funds in this or any other Actmay be used to make any changes to the ex-isting Smithsonian science programs includ-ing closure of facilities, relocation of staff orredirection of functions and programs with-out approval by the Board of Regents of rec-ommendations received from the ScienceCommission.

None of the funds in this or any other Actmay be used to initiate the design for anyproposed expansion of current space or newfacility without consultation with the Houseand Senate Appropriations Committees.

None of the funds in this or any other Actmay be used for the Holt House located atthe National Zoological Park in Washington,D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimizewater damage, monitor structure movement,or provide interim structural support.

None of the funds available to the Smith-sonian may be reprogrammed without theadvance written approval of the House andSenate Committees on Appropriations in ac-cordance with the procedures contained inHouse Report No. 105–163.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART


For the upkeep and operations of the Na-tional Gallery of Art, the protection andcare of the works of art therein, and admin-istrative expenses incident thereto, as au-thorized by the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat.51), as amended by the public resolution ofApril 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as author-ized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advancewhen authorized by the treasurer of the Gal-lery for membership in library, museum, andart associations or societies whose publica-tions or services are available to membersonly, or to members at a price lower than tothe general public; purchase, repair, andcleaning of uniforms for guards, and uni-forms, or allowances therefor, for other em-ployees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901–

5902); purchase or rental of devices and serv-ices for protecting buildings and contentsthereof, and maintenance, alteration, im-provement, and repair of buildings, ap-proaches, and grounds; and purchase of serv-ices for restoration and repair of works ofart for the National Gallery of Art by con-tracts made, without advertising, with indi-viduals, firms, or organizations at such ratesor prices and under such terms and condi-tions as the Gallery may deem proper,$68,967,000, of which not to exceed $3,026,000for the special exhibition program shall re-main available until expended.

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OFBUILDINGS

For necessary expenses of repair, restora-tion and renovation of buildings, groundsand facilities owned or occupied by the Na-tional Gallery of Art, by contract or other-wise, as authorized, $14,220,000, to remainavailable until expended: Provided, That con-tracts awarded for environmental systems,protection systems, and exterior repair orrenovation of buildings of the National Gal-lery of Art may be negotiated with selectedcontractors and awarded on the basis of con-tractor qualifications as well as price.

JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THEPERFORMING ARTS

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

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

CONSTRUCTION

For necessary expenses for capital repairand restoration of the existing features ofthe building and site of the John F. KennedyCenter for the Performing Arts, $19,000,000,to remain available until expended.WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR

SCHOLARS


For expenses necessary in carrying out theprovisions of the Woodrow Wilson MemorialAct of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) including hire ofpassenger vehicles and services as authorizedby 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,796,000.NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE

HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

For necessary expenses to carry out theNational Foundation on the Arts and the Hu-manities Act of 1965, as amended, $98,234,000,shall be available to the National Endow-ment for the Arts for the support of projectsand productions in the arts through assist-ance to organizations and individuals pursu-ant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, forprogram support, and for administering thefunctions of the Act, to remain availableuntil expended: Provided, That funds pre-viously appropriated to the National Endow-ment for the Arts ‘‘Matching Grants’’ ac-count may be transferred to and merged withthis account.

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES


For necessary expenses to carry out theNational Foundation on the Arts and the Hu-manities Act of 1965, as amended, $104,882,000,shall be available to the National Endow-ment for the Humanities for support of ac-tivities in the humanities, pursuant to sec-tion 7(c) of the Act, and for administeringthe functions of the Act, to remain availableuntil expended.

MATCHING GRANTS

To carry out the provisions of section10(a)(2) of the National Foundation on theArts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3406 June 21, 2001amended, $15,622,000, to remain availableuntil expended, of which $11,622,000 shall beavailable to the National Endowment for theHumanities for the purposes of section 7(h):Provided, That this appropriation shall beavailable for obligation only in suchamounts as may be equal to the totalamounts of gifts, bequests, and devises ofmoney, and other property accepted by thechairman or by grantees of the Endowmentunder the provisions of subsections11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the currentand preceding fiscal years for which equalamounts have not previously been appro-priated.INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES

OFFICE OF MUSEUM SERVICES


For carrying out subtitle C of the Museumand Library Services Act of 1996, as amend-ed, $24,899,000, to remain available until ex-pended.

CHALLENGE AMERICA ARTS FUND

CHALLENGE AMERICA GRANTS

For necessary expenses as authorized byPublic Law 89–209, as amended, $7,000,000, forsupport for arts education and public out-reach activities to be administered by theNational Endowment for the Arts, to remainavailable until expended.


None of the funds appropriated to the Na-tional Foundation on the Arts and the Hu-manities may be used to process any grantor contract documents which do not includethe text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That noneof the funds appropriated to the NationalFoundation on the Arts and the Humanitiesmay be used for official reception and rep-resentation expenses: Provided further, Thatfunds from nonappropriated sources may beused as necessary for official reception andrepresentation expenses.

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


For expenses made necessary by the Actestablishing a Commission of Fine Arts (40U.S.C. 104), $1,274,000: Provided, That theCommission is authorized to charge fees tocover the full costs of its publications, andsuch fees shall be credited to this account asan offsetting collection, to remain availableuntil expended without further appropria-tion.

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURALAFFAIRS

For necessary expenses as authorized byPublic Law 99–190 (20 U.S.C. 956(a)), asamended, $7,000,000.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORICPRESERVATION


For necessary expenses of the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation (PublicLaw 89–665, as amended), $3,400,000: Provided,That none of these funds shall be availablefor compensation of level V of the ExecutiveSchedule or higher positions.

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION


For necessary expenses, as authorized bythe National Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40U.S.C. 71–71i), including services as author-ized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,253,000: Provided,That all appointed members of the Commis-sion will be compensated at a rate not to ex-ceed the daily equivalent of the annual rateof pay for positions at level IV of the Execu-tive Schedule for each day such member isengaged in the actual performance of duties.

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIALCOUNCIL

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

For expenses of the Holocaust MemorialMuseum, as authorized by Public Law 96–388

(36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended (36 U.S.C. 2301–2310), $36,028,000, of which $1,900,000 for themuseum’s repair and rehabilitation programand $1,264,000 for the museum’s exhibitionsprogram shall remain available until ex-pended.

PRESIDIO TRUST

PRESIDIO TRUST FUND

For necessary expenses to carry out title Iof the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Man-agement Act of 1996, $22,427,000, shall beavailable to the Presidio Trust, to remainavailable until expended.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Arethere any points of order against theprovisions of title II?

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr.Chairman, I make a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thegentleman will state it.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr.Chairman, I raise a point of order thatthe language beginning with the words‘‘provided further’’ appearing on page89, line 13, and following through thewords ‘‘qualified participants’’ on line18 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of therules of the House of Representativesprohibiting legislation on an appropria-tions bill.

The language in question directlycontradicts current law by makingweatherization assistance grants con-tingent on a 25 percent matching sharefrom recipients. The Energy, Conserva-tion and Production Act imposes nosuch requirement. Accordingly, thelanguage changes current laws andconstitutes a violation of clause 2 ofrule XXI, and I must regrettably insiston my point of order.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Doesany other Member wish to speak on thepoint of order?

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I concedethe point of order.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thegentleman concedes the point of order.

The Chair finds that this provisionexplicitly supersedes existing law. Theprovision therefore constitutes legisla-tion in violation of clause 2 of ruleXXI.

The point of order of the gentlemanfrom North Carolina is sustained, andthe provision is stricken from the bill.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word forthe purpose of engaging the gentlemanfrom New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) in a col-loquy.

Mr. Chairman, last March the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service published arule designating critical habitat for theArkansas River shiner. The designatedareas include 300 feet on either side ofmore than 1,100 miles of river in fourStates, including Oklahoma. This crit-ical habitat for the Arkansas Rivershiner was designated as a result of alawsuit filed by the Center for Biologi-cal Diversity.

Recently, the Tenth Circuit Court ofAppeals ruled that the way the Fishand Wildlife Service conducts economicanalysis for critical habitat designa-tions does not comply with the Endan-

gered Species Act and the court setaside the designation for critical habi-tat for the Southwestern willowflycatcher. The same type of analysisinvalidated in that case was used in theArkansas River shiner habitat designa-tion.

This recent court decision casts ashadow of doubt on all recent criticalhabitat designations. The original in-tent of the Endangered Species Act hasbeen lost as designations of criticalhabitat have gotten completely out ofhand, while true endangered species re-covery efforts are ignored.

Mr. Chairman, if I had my way, wewould prohibit any finding in this billto be used for the implementation ofthe critical habitat for the ArkansasRiver shiner. However, I know this de-bate is greater than just one species.

I would challenge my colleagues tojoin me in calling for much needed re-form of the Endangered Species Act. Ifwe do not do something soon, then itwill be our farmers and landowners im-pacted by these designations that willbecome extinct.


Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield tothe gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, Iempathize fully with the gentleman’sfrustration with the Endangered Spe-cies Act and critical habitat designa-tion requirements. The gentleman isexactly right in calling for reform ofthe act, and I look forward to workingwith him and the legislative com-mittee of jurisdiction to see if we canaddress this problem in the 107th Con-gress.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring atten-tion to an issue that is of concern tothe people of Guam and within this In-terior appropriations bill.

I believe an increase in funding forCompact Impact to Guam can be ac-complished through an overall increasein funding for the Office of Insular Af-fairs. This issue is basically one of fair-ness for the people of Guam. In thepast couple of years we have receivedfunding, in fiscal year 2000 for $7.58 mil-lion, and in fiscal year 2001, the currentyear, we are receiving $9.58 million.The President’s request is $4.58 million.I appreciate the subcommittee adding$800,000 to that.

However, the government of Guamhas indicated that this kind of assist-ance, which is assistance that is givento the people of Guam as recompense,as reimbursement for the unrestrictedmigration from the Compacts of FreeAssociation, is actually costing thegovernment of Guam anywhere be-tween $15 million and $25 million annu-ally to provide educational and socialservices for these migrants.

I must point out to the House and tothe American people that these are theonly citizens of foreign countries thatare allowed to freely migrate into theUnited States unmonitored and with-out restriction, and, by and large, thevast majority of them end up in Guam.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3407June 21, 2001Even the Department of Interior ac-

knowledges that best estimates arethat annually the people of Guamspend at least $12.8 million for CompactImpact costs to Guam directly, and wehave, for the record, a letter from Sec-retary of Interior Gale Norton detail-ing how the Department of Interior ar-rived at this calculation.

Regardless of the differences betweenthe government of Guam and the De-partment of Interior, it is clear thatthe current funding level of $5.38 mil-lion, as recommended by the com-mittee, is inadequate. We will continueto work on this in conference, andhopefully Members of both the major-ity and the minority, as well as Mem-bers in the other body, will see fit toincrease the amounts for Compact Im-pact Aid assistance to Guam.

This is an issue of fairness, it is do-able, and the people of Guam deserveit.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Arethere further amendments to title II?

If not, the Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONSSEC. 301. The expenditure of any appropria-

tion under this Act for any consulting serv-ice through procurement contract, pursuantto 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to thosecontracts where such expenditures are amatter of public record and available forpublic inspection, except where otherwiseprovided under existing law, or under exist-ing Executive Order issued pursuant to exist-ing law.

SEC. 302. No part of any appropriation con-tained in this Act shall be available for anyactivity or the publication or distribution ofliterature that in any way tends to promotepublic support or opposition to any legisla-tive proposal on which congressional actionis not complete.

SEC. 303. No part of any appropriation con-tained in this Act shall remain available forobligation beyond the current fiscal year un-less expressly so provided herein.

SEC. 304. None of the funds provided in thisAct to any department or agency shall be ob-ligated or expended to provide a personalcook, chauffeur, or other personal servantsto any officer or employee of such depart-ment or agency except as otherwise providedby law.

SEC. 305. No assessments may be leviedagainst any program, budget activity, sub-activity, or project funded by this Act unlessadvance notice of such assessments and thebasis therefor are presented to the Commit-tees on Appropriations and are approved bysuch committees.

SEC. 306. None of the funds in this Act maybe used to plan, prepare, or offer for sale tim-ber from trees classified as giant sequoia(Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are lo-cated on National Forest System or Bureauof Land Management lands in a manner dif-ferent than such sales were conducted in fis-cal year 2001.

SEC. 307. None of the funds made availableby this Act may be obligated or expended bythe National Park Service to enter into orimplement a concession contract which per-mits or requires the removal of the under-ground lunchroom at the Carlsbad CavernsNational Park.

SEC. 308. None of the funds made availablein this Act may be used: (1) to demolish thebridge between Jersey City, New Jersey, andEllis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian useof such bridge, when it is made known to the

Federal official having authority to obligateor expend such funds that such pedestrianuse is consistent with generally acceptedsafety standards.

SEC. 309. (a) LIMITATION OF FUNDS.—None ofthe funds appropriated or otherwise madeavailable pursuant to this Act shall be obli-gated or expended to accept or process appli-cations for a patent for any mining or millsite claim located under the general mininglaws.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—The provisions of sub-section (a) shall not apply if the Secretary ofthe Interior determines that, for the claimconcerned: (1) a patent application was filedwith the Secretary on or before September30, 1994; and (2) all requirements establishedunder sections 2325 and 2326 of the RevisedStatutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lodeclaims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and37) for placer claims, and section 2337 of theRevised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill siteclaims, as the case may be, were fully com-plied with by the applicant by that date.

(c) REPORT.—On September 30, 2002, theSecretary of the Interior shall file with theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions and the Committee on Resources of theHouse of Representatives and the Committeeon Energy and Natural Resources of the Sen-ate a report on actions taken by the Depart-ment under the plan submitted pursuant tosection 314(c) of the Department of the Inte-rior and Related Agencies AppropriationsAct, 1997 (Public Law 104–208).

(d) MINERAL EXAMINATIONS.—In order toprocess patent applications in a timely andresponsible manner, upon the request of apatent applicant, the Secretary of the Inte-rior shall allow the applicant to fund a quali-fied third-party contractor to be selected bythe Bureau of Land Management to conducta mineral examination of the mining claimsor mill sites contained in a patent applica-tion as set forth in subsection (b). The Bu-reau of Land Management shall have the soleresponsibility to choose and pay the third-party contractor in accordance with thestandard procedures employed by the Bureauof Land Management in the retention ofthird-party contractors.

SEC. 310. Notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, amounts appropriated to or ear-marked in Committee reports for the Bureauof Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Serv-ice by Public Laws 103–138, 103–332, 104–134,104–208, 105–83, 105–277, 106–113, and 106–291 forpayments to tribes and tribal organizationsfor contract support costs associated withself-determination or self-governance con-tracts, grants, compacts, or annual fundingagreements with the Bureau of Indian Af-fairs or the Indian Health Service as fundedby such Acts, are the total amounts avail-able for fiscal years 1994 through 2001 forsuch purposes, except that, for the Bureau ofIndian Affairs, tribes and tribal organiza-tions may use their tribal priority alloca-tions for unmet indirect costs of ongoingcontracts, grants, self-governance compactsor annual funding agreements.

SEC. 311. Notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, for fiscal year 2002 the Secre-taries of Agriculture and the Interior are au-thorized to limit competition for watershedrestoration project contracts as part of the‘‘Jobs in the Woods’’ Program established inRegion 10 of the Forest Service to individ-uals and entities in historically timber-de-pendent areas in the States of Washington,Oregon, northern California and Alaska thathave been affected by reduced timber har-vesting on Federal lands. The Secretariesshall consider the benefits to the local econ-omy in evaluating bids and designing pro-curements which create economic opportuni-ties for local contractors.

SEC. 312. (a) RECREATIONAL FEE DEM-ONSTRATION PROGRAM.—Subsection (f) of sec-tion 315 of the Department of the Interiorand Related Agencies Appropriations Act,1996 (as contained in section 101(c) of PublicLaw 104–134; 110 Stat. 1321–200; 16 U.S.C. 460l–6a note), is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘commence on October 1,1995, and end on September 30, 2002’’ and in-serting ‘‘end on September 30, 2006’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2005’’ and in-serting ‘‘September 30, 2009’’.

(b) EXPANSION OF PROGRAM.—Subsection(b) of such section is amended by striking‘‘no fewer than 10, but as many as 100,’’.

(c) REVENUE SHARING.—Subsection (d)(1) ofsuch section is amended by inserting ‘‘theSecure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note),’’ before ‘‘and anyother provision’’.

(d) DISCOUNTED FEES.—Subsection (b)(2) ofsuch section is amended by inserting after‘‘testing’’ the following: ‘‘, including the pro-vision of discounted or free admission or useas the Secretary considers appropriate’’.

(e) SPECIAL USE PERMITS.—Subsection (b)of such section is amended—

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ atthe end of the paragraph;

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the periodat the end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘;and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following newparagraph:

‘‘(6) in fiscal year 2003 and thereafter mayretain, for distribution and use as providedin subsection (c), fees imposed by the ForestService for the issuance of recreation specialuse authorizations not exceeding one yearunder any provision of law.’’.

(f) CAPITAL PROJECTS.—Subsection (c)(2) ofsuch section is amended by adding at the endthe following new subparagraph:

‘‘(D) None of the funds collected under thissection may be used to plan, design, or con-struct a visitor center or any other perma-nent structure without prior approval of theCommittee on Appropriations of the Houseof Representatives and the Committee onAppropriations of the Senate if the esti-mated total cost of the structure exceeds$500,000.’’.

b 1330

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. DEFAZIO

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.



Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DEFAZIO:Page 118, line 3, strike ‘‘2006’’ and insert

‘‘2003’’.Page 118, line 5, strike ‘‘2009’’ and insert

‘‘2006’’.Page 118, strike lines 6 though 8 (and redes-

ignate the subsequent subsections accord-ingly).

Page 118, strike line 18 and all that followsthrough page 119, line 5 (and redesignate thesubsequent subsection accordingly).

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I amattempting here to craft what I wouldsee as a reasonable compromise on thecontentious issue of the continued au-thorization of the so-called RecreationFee Demonstration Program withoutany consideration, without one mo-ment’s consideration, by the author-izing committee on which I sit.

Now, this is a tax on the Americanpeople, plain and simple. We all agreethat for years we have been charging to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3408 June 21, 2001access parks, to access developed campgrounds, special fee use areas; thosethings have ongoing maintenance coststhat are directly attributable to theusers. There is no issue over that andmy amendment does not touch that au-thority.

However, the special new authorityin the Recreation Fee DemonstrationProgram allows the United States For-est Service and the Bureau of LandManagement to charge people to driveon Forest Service logging roads paidfor by tax dollars to roadside areas,pull-offs, or the end of the road andhave to pay a fee to do that.

Now, I represent many communitiesthat are surrounded by national forestsand for the people in those commu-nities to recreate, they have to buy apass to go out and hunt or picnic withtheir kids, drive the roads and park thecar if they want to get out. Now, thatis by any measure a tax on Americans,on average Americans who use our pub-lic lands. We essentially have created anew king’s domain here: you can usethe lands if you pay your fee.

Now, the rationale is we do not haveenough money in the budget to pay forrecreation use on these lands, eventhough these people may not be incur-ring any costs since they are using al-ready developed Forest Service roads,turnouts, parking areas, whatever.These are already there; they do notrequire any maintenance that is paidfor out of this program. So the ques-tion becomes, should we continue toassess this fee without having a delib-eration and a consideration.

Now, on October 1 of this year, theGAO will render a new, updated reporton the Recreation Fee Demo Program.I believe that that will point to a direc-tion for some changes that are sorelyneeded. It will also point out how themoney is being spent or has been spent.

In their first report, we find out thatit generated $31.9 million on ForestService lands. It cost almost $5 billionto collect that $31.9 million, so 18 per-cent of the revenue went to collectionon the Forest Service, 18 percent wentto administration over and above that.For the whole program, 21 percentwent to collection costs. In addition tothat, there is a general fund appropria-tion to subsidize the collection costs of$1.5 million, not a very efficient way toraise funds and, obviously, a very smallamount of money, a tiny fraction ofmany of the giveaways in the recenttax bill.

So the question would be, why are weassessing this tax on tens of thousandsof individual Americans, many of mod-est means, many of whom will be eligi-ble for nothing in the tax bill becausetheir incomes are so low, they are re-tired, they are not paying Federal in-come taxes; they may only be payingFICA taxes if they are still working,they are going to have to pay morethan they are going to get back be-cause we are saying we cannot affordto pay for these services.

So the compromise I offer is, sincethe then-subcommittee chairman, the

now full committee chairman assuredme 2 years ago when I did not ask fora recorded vote on this amendmentthat it would go through the proper au-thorizing process. It would actuallyhave, God forbid, hearings; we wouldactually, God forbid, invite in the pub-lic; we might even go to some of theareas affected and hold a hearing, al-though that might be going a little far,and then we would actually act to au-thorize any future extension in theshape of this program and the levyingof this tax on the American people.

This bill, without a single hearing,without a moment’s hearing, will ex-tend it for 4 years. My compromisewould be to extend it for 1 year, receivethe GAO report, and give the author-izing committee the opportunity tohold hearings and mark up a proper au-thorization. If we want a long-term au-thorization, I believe it should gothrough the authorizing committeeand the proper process. If the com-mittee cannot accept that amendment,we will then move on to my amend-ment to strike this provision all to-gether. But in the interests of comityand time of the body, I would be will-ing, after we hear from at least oneother speaker in support, to offer thisas a compromise. If the committee isunwilling to accept it, we will thenproceed to the debate and a recordedvote on a total repeal of this program.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to this amendment.

The Recreation Fee DemonstrationProgram has come a long way and it isimproving. Through fiscal year 2002, itwill have raised over $900 million tohelp fix the huge backlog in deferredmaintenance in our national parks, for-ests, refuges, and public lands. Yes,there have been a few problems alongthe way, but we have provided congres-sional oversight and have improved theprogram every year.

The President has requested a 4-yearextension and that is what I support aswell. Similar amendments have beensoundly defeated by the House in thepast, and I ask the Members to defeatthis amendment as well.

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the last word.

I rise today in support of the DeFazioamendment. For centuries, our forestshave remained free and open to thepublic. So when Congress decided tostart charging families for the right topark their car on the side of the road inorder just to walk their dog or catch asunset, it did not seem right. When Iam told that the fee is not much, I can-not help but think of the familiesstruggling to make it by month tomonth. Our public lands are a way theycan share valued time off without theworries of being able to afford it.

Mr. Chairman, I am a great supporterof the national forest system and itspersonnel. The U.S. Forest Servicestaff are dedicated individuals forwhom I have the utmost amount of re-spect, and I realize they do not operatewith enough resources. However, I be-

lieve that the forests are for the entireNation and should be supportedthrough the traditional funding proc-esses like most all other Federal Gov-ernment programs.

This amendment seeks to extend theAdventure Pass program for only ayear, because that would give Congressan opportunity to review the GAO re-port on this issue due out this fall. Themore facts we have about this program,the better we are able to address it. Letus give ourselves a chance to learnmore and maybe even improve on thisprogram without making our constitu-ents pay for it.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto support the DeFazio amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO).

The amendment was rejected.AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. DEFAZIO

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.



Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. DEFAZIO:Page 117, beginning on line 18, strike sec-

tion 312 (relating to recreational fee dem-onstration program).

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, here weare again. We are about to extend a taxwhich nicks the American people leastable to afford it, people living in ruralareas; certainly, some people whorecreate on Federal lands can affordthe $35, but many whom I represent indepressed logging communities andformer mill communities cannot. Tosay that somehow we should extract$35 from each family so they can takethe kids out, park the car by the sideof a logging road and swim in their fa-vorite stream that they have beenswimming in for generations, or to gohunting for rocks or go hunting in thefall.

This is extraordinary to me. Theseare public lands. These are not devel-oped areas. These do not require recur-ring costs to the Federal Government.We are creating a new king’s domain. Imean let us be straight about it here.Let us admit we are charging theAmerican people for something theyhave already paid for in their tax dol-lars. We are charging them to use log-ging roads and turnouts that were sub-sidized by their tax dollars. We arecharging them to drive on public landsand park their car, public lands thatare paid for and maintained out of thegeneral fund of the United States interms of forest firefighting and otherissues.

Should those people be charged andbe caused to bear those costs? I thinknot. This is not a fair fee or a fair tax.

The amendment I am offering, sincethe committee has turned down a rea-sonable proposal; I suppose perhapsthere is something to hide here. Per-haps we do not want to go through theregular authorizing process as the sub-committee chairman promised me we


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3409June 21, 2001would do 2 years ago; perhaps we do notwant to hold hearings in areas that areaffected by this tax. Perhaps we areworried about the outcome. Perhapsthe people on the Committee on Re-sources on which I sit, who representpeople in the areas which are most af-fected, might not be totally receptiveto this. Perhaps it would be a risk. Per-haps the program would be modified,changed, or maybe it would not evenget through. That would be a true leg-islative process. Instead, buried deep inan appropriations bill without a singlehearing is a 4-year extension of a newtax created in 1996. That is not right. Itis not fair.

If my colleagues have confidence inthis, because I heard in the debate lastyear, oh, people love this program. Ofcourse, the Forest Service says some-thing different. The people who are try-ing to enforce it are being abused andthreatened. They have had more van-dalism of the signs for this programthan anything else. A lot of people donot even know where to pay the fee.The sign does not tell you. You get tothe end of the logging road, this hashappened to me, and there is a signthere saying, you must pay a fee to usethe site. It is too far from anywhere forthem to put one of those dead-mankind of collection things because some-one will pull it out and take the moneyout of it. So it just says, you have topay this fee somewhere, somehow,some time, or you are going to get aticket if you park here. People do noteven know where to go.

Yes, the program has been slightlysimplified. No longer do you have tohave 50 or 60 different passes to drivethroughout forests in the Western U.S.In the Northwest, you can get awaywith just a couple. That is $70. Seventybucks is a lot of money for an averageworking family. I know it does notnick people in this place too much, butit certainly does the people who I rep-resent.

It is not fair to do this and it is notright to do this without going throughthe authorizing process, without hold-ing hearings, without taking publictestimony, without assessing the nextGAO report on how much of this isgoing to administrative costs and col-lection costs because in the first cut,almost 40 percent of this program wasgoing to administration costs and col-lection costs. Forty percent of a newtax. So every American family paying$35 is contributing 40 percent of thatfor bureaucracy and maybe the other 60percent goes to something they careabout. Since this money is not cen-trally controlled or not spent accord-ing to any plan, it is up to the discre-tion of the local forests. Some forestshave done better than others in spend-ing these excess funds out of this newtax. Others have not. They spend it inways that the people who paid it do notwant to see it happen.

So I urge my colleagues to supportthis amendment, to strike this sectionfrom the bill. It would still run for 1

year from next October, even if this isstruck from the bill, and that wouldgive the Committee on Resources ayear to read and digest the GAO report,report an authorization, and take it upbefore the entire House. That is theway we normally do things aroundhere, except when we have somethingto hide, and I guess in this case wehave something to hide: an unfair taxon the American people that has neverbeen properly authorized or com-mented upon.

b 1345Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theDeFazio amendment on recreation fees.At the height of summer recreationseason when tens of millions of Ameri-cans most enjoy their national parksand other public lands, the bill beforeus expands the recreation fees that arefinancially unfair to seniors, families,and children.

After just passing a tax cut, there arethose who want to give money with theone hand and take it back with theother.

I am concerned with the scope andnature of the recreation fees beingcharged, and the fees’ impact on seniorcitizens, families, and other rec-reational users. I am especially dis-turbed by the fact that while rec-reational trail users of our Federallands are being asked to bear an in-creased financial burden for the man-agement of these lands, the same is notbeing asked of many subsidized individ-uals, businesses, and industries whoseconsumptive use of Federal lands havefar more impact.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, thatproponents propose substantial in-creases in recreation fees at the heightof the summer recreation season, yethave been unwilling to reduce the gen-erous subsidy corporations receivefrom the use of public resources.

It is regrettable that proponents ap-parently believe that only private citi-zens, not the corporations that profitfrom the resources of this Nation,should be called upon to pay more. Howmuch additional revenue can the ma-jority expect to squeeze out of familiesand senior citizens?

Our national shrines and the nationalheritage embodied in our public landsprovide an exceptional and uniqueplace in which to instill a solid valuesystem in our children. We should beencouraging this family value, not hin-dering it. It will be a sad day whenfamilies and other visitors have to lookin their wallets to see if they can af-ford to use our great system of na-tional parks, forests, and public landsin which they, the public, share owner-ship.

Mr. Chairman, I support the DeFazioamendment. I do not believe it is rightthat our constituents should have topay to simply walk in our national for-ests or watch a sunset on our publiclands.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of the elimination of this amend-ment. The fee program has worked ex-tremely well. It has raised about $400million that has been used to improvecampsites, repair sanitation facilities,roads, bridges, and safety.

I heard this characterized as a tax. Itis a user fee, and the people that paythe fee get the benefit. If one does notuse the facilities, they are not payingfor them.

We know that the backlog of mainte-nance in the national parks is about $5billion, maybe $10 billion, no oneknows for sure. But when we do nothave maintenance, this means that thevisitors do not have an opportunity toenjoy these facilities, as has been de-scribed.

By having a very modest fee, andusually the fee for a whole carload ofpeople is about the price of one ticketto Disneyland, or maybe even less thanthat, they have the benefit of thetrails, the campsites, the sanitation fa-cilities, the enhancement of visitor lo-cations.

Thus far, we have raised over $600million. Under the language, thismoney has to be on top of the base sup-port of the park program in the bill.This is not a substitute for what wewould be normally spending. Therefore,the money is used to enhance the visi-tors’ experience.

When I talk to the superintendents,they say that the vast majority, thevast majority of the people are happyto pay a fee. In fact, oftentimes theywill contribute extra if they have a boxfor contributions. People appreciatethe parks and forests and the rec-reational opportunities afforded tothem, and they are perfectly willing inmost cases to pay a very modest fee.

This program over the next year oryear and a half will produce a total ofover $900 million. Members can imag-ine what that means in fixing up run-down campgrounds and picnic sites,and fixing cultural parks that are partof our great parks and forest system.

Sometimes campgrounds are closedbecause they do not have the money tomaintain them. By having the fee pro-gram, they have an opportunity toopen these campgrounds and give morevisitors a chance to use the facilities.

One other thing I am told by parkand forest superintendents is that van-dalism is substantially reduced, be-cause when people pay a certain smallfee they have a greater appreciation ofthe facility, plus the fact that they donot go in there in a careless way.

I still remember visiting the AngelosNational Forest, where they built abeautiful picnic area with slides andcharcoal burners and picnic tables. Ob-viously, what had happened the nightbefore we were there, someone with oneof these vehicles with huge tires hadcome into this facility and just droveover it, drove over the gate, smashed


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3410 June 21, 2001everything in sight. Had they paid a feethey would not have done that, becausethey would have known that somebodyat the gate knew they were in there.But at that time, there was no fee pro-gram.

This is just one example of how van-dalism would be reduced under thisprogram.

I think if we talk to park and forestsuperintendents, if we talk to the vastmajority of people who use the parksand forests for recreation, they will bevery supportive of this program. It hasworked well. A lot of the facilities arein far better condition than they wouldbe otherwise, had there not been theprogram of modest fees.

I think this is a bad thing, thisamendment, it is a bad thing for theparks and forests. It would take awayfrom them an opportunity to workwith the visitors in improving their ex-perience when they do use our parksand recreation facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong novote on this amendment.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gen-tleman from Oregon.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman has always been gracious indealing with our disagreements overthis, and I appreciate it.

I would just like to clarify, the gen-tleman kept saying parks and park su-perintendents. This amendment appliesonly to the Forest Service and theBLM, so the parks and park super-intendents are not at issue here. Theywould still be allowed to go there.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA) hasexpired.

(On request of Mr. DICKS, and byunanimous consent, Mr. REGULA wasallowed to proceed for 1 additionalminute.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in themind of the public, the forests andparks are oftentimes indistinguishable.

I might say, the forests are a veryrapidly growing source of recreation.In fact, what used to a source of woodfiber is now a source of recreation, andI think the gentleman will find in thisbill a lot of commitment of money toenhancing the recreation dimension ofthe national forests. So obviously thefee program works there as effectively,and will, as it does in the parks.


Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gen-tleman from Oregon.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman admits this will not affect thePark Service, it is only the ForestService and the BLM.

Mr. REGULA. The committee intheir wisdom chose to structure it thatway.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant op-position to the amendment of myfriend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.

DEFAZIO). I frankly believe, based onmy own visits to the parks, that theAmerican people are delighted. Not ev-eryone is delighted, obviously, but thevast majority are willing to make asmall contribution for the maintenanceof the parks, which, as we all know, issomething that has been underfunded.

Last year, when I offered the con-servation amendment with the gen-tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), oneof the things we had in it was a lot ofadditional money for maintenance. Werecognized that our parks, our nationalforests, our recreation areas, need addi-tional maintenance.

Under this program, 80 percent of themoney that is collected stays at thatlocal park, and when people see thesigns about the improvements that arebeing made on the trails, in the hous-ing for the workers, in the facilities,we have all kind of these facilities thatare very, very old that need to havetheir sewers repaired, that need tohave their septic tanks repaired, needto have work done on the water sys-tems, many of which are old. People Ithink are willing to make this con-tribution.

The authorizing committees havehad a lot of time here. This has been inplace now for several years. They havetime to have acted, and they have notacted. I think one of the reasons theyhave not acted is because they basi-cally believe, as I do, that this programis working.

I want to commend the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. REGULA). He put thistogether. I supported him. I think it isworking. We are doing better on main-tenance, we are keeping these facilitiesin better condition, and the other 20percent goes to the lesser parks, thelesser facilities. I think that alsomakes sense.

We are not substituting the money.Where in the past the money was sentback to Washington and then theywould get the 80 percent locally butthey would cut the amount of moneythat goes to that park, they are notdoing that.


Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Oregon.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I askthe gentleman to consider this.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I havetried to help the gentleman with meet-ings with the Forest Service to try toclear up the problems in the gentle-man’s area.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I appreciate that theprogram is better than when it started,and we do not need 15 different forestpasses in Oregon again.

But the gentleman from Washingtonand the gentleman from Ohio keep re-ferring to parks. There is a huge infra-structure backlog in the parks. Thisamendment does not go to the parks, itgoes to undeveloped recreation sites,off-logging roads, in the national for-ests and on BLM land.

If I could, one further point, the gen-tleman who preceded the gentleman, I

would disagree with what he said, thatpeople do not differentiate betweenparks and Forest Service land.

I am certain that the people in Or-egon, as they do in Washington, dis-criminate between the parks and theforest lands. No one is contestingcharging park fees. We are talkingabout a new fee on using Forest Serv-ice lands and BLM lands.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate that, Mr.Chairman.

I would point out to the gentleman,however, that in terms of recreationalopportunity, that our National Forestlands have more recreational oppor-tunity than do our national parks. Wehave to keep and maintain those Na-tional Forest campgrounds and hikingsites.

I look forward to continuing to workwith the gentleman from Oregon, but Ithink we should defeat his amendmenthere today and keep this bill movingforward to final passage before we haveto leave today.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose thisamendment. A statement was made afew moments ago of the poverty insawmill towns. That is one part of thestatement from a previous speakerthat I will agree with. He has been suc-cessful at helping create a lot of pov-erty in sawmill towns.

But when we go beyond that, we ownone-third of America. The backlog onthe Forest Service, the Fish and Wild-life Service, and the BLM is $12 billionto $15 billion, forgetting the Park Serv-ice, $12 billion to $15 billion.

Hearings were held. There were manychances to be heard. Let us look at theprogram and how it has worked. Visi-tors to the Forest Service and BLM areup. Why are they up? When we have thefunds to maintain the trails, get theold logs out of there where trees havefallen, to maintain the facilities, tomaintain and open new parking areasso people can come in, that is good.

I hear complaints where sometimesthere are not enough parking areas,places to park and access our publicland. It costs money for water andsewer and buildings and trails androads. It costs a lot of money. Have weadequately put the money behind all ofthe land we purchased? No, we havenot. In fact, we have taken money thatshould go to maintenance and we keepbuying more land in all of these juris-dictions.

Trails have been reopened and im-proved with the demonstration feemoney. Facilities have been updated.Boating areas have been expanded.Roads have been improved. Parkingareas have been improved, and waterand sewer made available. These arethe things that the people need whenthey are out there.

Yes, the poor people of America useour parks, the working people of Amer-ica use our parks. A little bit ago wehad an amendment that took that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3411June 21, 2001money away and gave it to some of therichest in America, the arts folks.Those are the richest people in Amer-ica. The working people of America useour parks, and the vast majority sup-port this program. There will be somethat will not, but the vast majority ofthe people support this program be-cause it works. They see what is hap-pening. They see better roads. They seebetter facilities. They see better boat-ing areas. The proof is in the pudding.


Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Iyield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So I would ask thegentleman, Mr. Chairman, he wants tocharge for users of public lands?

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania.Only in limited areas.

Mr. DEFAZIO. If the gentleman willcontinue to yield, Mr. Chairman, Iwould ask him, how about oil, gas,mining, and mineral extraction? Wouldthe gentleman be agreeable to a fee formineral extraction from Federal lands?

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania.Mineral extraction is big, it is paid for.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mineral extraction isnot paid for, there is no royalty. It is$3.50 cents an acre under the 1872 min-ing law.

I am glad the gentleman will supporta fee on mining. I will have a bill tohim in the near future.

b 1400Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Chairman, reclaiming my time, thisprogram has benefited the people ofAmerica. Our facilities, we own a thirdof it, it ought to be accessible. Our fa-cilities ought to be good. Our roadsought to be decent and safe. Our waterand sewer facilities ought to be there.

We ought to make it accessible and afun experience for all of those whowant to use it. Mr. Chairman, I urgethe continuation. If it needs altering,we will alter it. It has been a dem-onstration project. It is only on se-lected sites.

I have the Allegheny National Forestin my district, and they have somefees. I have not had complaints onthose fees. People want to see thoseareas more accessible, brought up todate and where the experience is a goodexperience.

We, as a Congress, have historicallynot been willing to invest the money inthe investment we have made in own-ing a third of America. This helps us dothat. I urge a continuation. Should wealter it down the road? Probably.

But let us let this project move for-ward. It is the only hope of the publicland having good facilities, well main-tained, is having a fee schedule thathelps us do that, because this Congresshas been unwilling to put the dollarswhere their land is.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO).


Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO) willbe postponed.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that the remainderof title III be considered as read, print-ed in the RECORD, and open to amend-ment at any point.


There was no objection.The text of the remainder of title III

is as follows:SEC. 313. All interests created under leases,

concessions, permits and other agreementsassociated with the properties administeredby the Presidio Trust, hereafter shall be ex-empt from all taxes and special assessmentsof every kind by the State of California andits political subdivisions.

SEC. 314. None of the funds made availablein this or any other Act for any fiscal yearmay be used to designate, or to post any signdesignating, any portion of Canaveral Na-tional Seashore in Brevard County, Florida,as a clothing-optional area or as an area inwhich public nudity is permitted, if such des-ignation would be contrary to county ordi-nance.

SEC. 315. Of the funds provided to the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts—

(1) The Chairperson shall only award agrant to an individual if such grant is award-ed to such individual for a literature fellow-ship, National Heritage Fellowship, or Amer-ican Jazz Masters Fellowship.

(2) The Chairperson shall establish proce-dures to ensure that no funding providedthrough a grant, except a grant made to aState or local arts agency, or regional group,may be used to make a grant to any otherorganization or individual to conduct activ-ity independent of the direct grant recipient.Nothing in this subsection shall prohibitpayments made in exchange for goods andservices.

(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal sup-port to a group, unless the application is spe-cific to the contents of the season, includingidentified programs and/or projects.

SEC. 316. The National Endowment for theArts and the National Endowment for theHumanities are authorized to solicit, accept,receive, and invest in the name of the UnitedStates, gifts, bequests, or devises of moneyand other property or services and to usesuch in furtherance of the functions of theNational Endowment for the Arts and theNational Endowment for the Humanities.Any proceeds from such gifts, bequests, ordevises, after acceptance by the National En-dowment for the Arts or the National En-dowment for the Humanities, shall be paidby the donor or the representative of thedonor to the Chairman. The Chairman shallenter the proceeds in a special interest-bear-ing account to the credit of the appropriateendowment for the purposes specified in eachcase.

SEC. 317. (a) In providing services or award-ing financial assistance under the NationalFoundation on the Arts and the HumanitiesAct of 1965 from funds appropriated underthis Act, the Chairperson of the National En-dowment for the Arts shall ensure that pri-ority is given to providing services or award-ing financial assistance for projects, produc-tions, workshops, or programs that serve un-derserved populations.

(b) In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘underserved population’’means a population of individuals, includingurban minorities, who have historically beenoutside the purview of arts and humanitiesprograms due to factors such as a high inci-dence of income below the poverty line or togeographic isolation.

(2) The term ‘‘poverty line’’ means the pov-erty line (as defined by the Office of Manage-ment and Budget, and revised annually in ac-cordance with section 673(2) of the Commu-nity Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size in-volved.

(c) In providing services and awarding fi-nancial assistance under the National Foun-dation on the Arts and Humanities Act of1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, theChairperson of the National Endowment forthe Arts shall ensure that priority is givento providing services or awarding financialassistance for projects, productions, work-shops, or programs that will encourage pub-lic knowledge, education, understanding, andappreciation of the arts.

(d) With funds appropriated by this Act tocarry out section 5 of the National Founda-tion on the Arts and Humanities Act of1965—

(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grantcategory for projects, productions, work-shops, or programs that are of national im-pact or availability or are able to tour sev-eral States;

(2) the Chairperson shall not make grantsexceeding 15 percent, in the aggregate, ofsuch funds to any single State, excludinggrants made under the authority of para-graph (1);

(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Con-gress annually and by State, on grantsawarded by the Chairperson in each grantcategory under section 5 of such Act; and

(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the useof grants to improve and support commu-nity-based music performance and edu-cation.

SEC. 318. None of the funds in this Act maybe used to support Government-wide admin-istrative functions unless such functions arejustified in the budget process and funding isapproved by the House and Senate Commit-tees on Appropriations.

SEC. 319. Notwithstanding any other provi-sion of law, none of the funds in this Actmay be used for GSA TelecommunicationCenters.

SEC. 320. None of the funds in this Act maybe used for planning, design or constructionof improvements to Pennsylvania Avenue infront of the White House without the ad-vance approval of the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations.

SEC. 321. Amounts deposited during fiscalyear 2001 in the roads and trails fund pro-vided for in the fourteenth paragraph underthe heading ‘‘FOREST SERVICE’’ of the Actof March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501),shall be used by the Secretary of Agri-culture, without regard to the State inwhich the amounts were derived, to repair orreconstruct roads, bridges, and trails on Na-tional Forest System lands or to carry outand administer projects to improve foresthealth conditions, which may include the re-pair or reconstruction of roads, bridges, andtrails on National Forest System lands inthe wildland-community interface wherethere is an abnormally high risk of fire. Theprojects shall emphasize reducing risks tohuman safety and public health and propertyand enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest productivity, and biological in-tegrity. The projects may be completed in asubsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not beexpended under this section to replace fundswhich would otherwise appropriately be ex-pended from the timber salvage sale fund.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3412 June 21, 2001Nothing in this section shall be construed toexempt any project from any environmentallaw.

SEC. 322. Other than in emergency situa-tions, none of the funds in this Act may beused to operate telephone answering ma-chines during core business hours unlesssuch answering machines include an optionthat enables callers to reach promptly an in-dividual on-duty with the agency being con-tacted.

SEC. 323. No timber sale in Region 10 shallbe advertised if the indicated rate is deficitwhen appraised under the transaction evi-dence appraisal system using domestic Alas-ka values for western red cedar: Provided,That sales which are deficit when appraisedunder the transaction evidence appraisal sys-tem using domestic Alaska values for west-ern red cedar may be advertised upon receiptof a written request by a prospective, in-formed bidder, who has the opportunity toreview the Forest Service’s cruise and har-vest cost estimate for that timber. Programaccomplishments shall be based on volumesold. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year2001, the annual average portion of thedecadal allowable sale quantity called for inthe current Tongass Land Management Planin sales which are not deficit when appraisedunder the transaction evidence appraisal sys-tem using domestic Alaska values for west-ern red cedar, all of the western red cedartimber from those sales which is surplus tothe needs of domestic processors in Alaska,shall be made available to domestic proc-essors in the contiguous 48 United States atprevailing domestic prices. Should Region 10sell, in fiscal year 2001, less than the annualaverage portion of the decadal allowable salequantity called for in the current TongassLand Management Plan in sales which arenot deficit when appraised under the trans-action evidence appraisal system using do-mestic Alaska values for western red cedar,the volume of western red cedar timberavailable to domestic processors at pre-vailing domestic prices in the contiguous 48United States shall be that volume: (i) whichis surplus to the needs of domestic proc-essors in Alaska; and (ii) is that percent ofthe surplus western red cedar volume deter-mined by calculating the ratio of the totaltimber volume which has been sold on theTongass to the annual average portion of thedecadal allowable sale quantity called for inthe current Tongass Land Management Plan.The percentage shall be calculated by Region10 on a rolling basis as each sale is sold (forpurposes of this amendment, a ‘‘rollingbasis’’ shall mean that the determination ofhow much western red cedar is eligible forsale to various markets shall be made at thetime each sale is awarded). Western redcedar shall be deemed ‘‘surplus to the needsof domestic processors in Alaska’’ when thetimber sale holder has presented to the For-est Service documentation of the inability tosell western red cedar logs from a given saleto domestic Alaska processors at price equalto or greater than the log selling value stat-ed in the contract. All additional western redcedar volume not sold to Alaska or contig-uous 48 United States domestic processorsmay be exported to foreign markets at theelection of the timber sale holder. All Alaskayellow cedar may be sold at prevailing ex-port prices at the election of the timber saleholder.

SEC. 324. The Forest Service, in consulta-tion with the Department of Labor, shall re-view Forest Service campground concessionspolicy to determine if modifications can bemade to Forest Service contracts for camp-grounds so that such concessions fall withinthe regulatory exemption of 29 CFR 4.122(b).The Forest Service shall offer in fiscal year2002 such concession prospectuses under the

regulatory exemption, except that, any pro-spectus that does not meet the requirementsof the regulatory exemption shall be offeredas a service contract in accordance with therequirements of 41 U.S.C. 351–358.

SEC. 325. A project undertaken by the For-est Service under the Recreation Fee Dem-onstration Program as authorized by section315 of the Department of the Interior and Re-lated Agencies Appropriations Act for FiscalYear 1996, as amended, shall not result in—

(1) displacement of the holder of an author-ization to provide commercial recreationservices on Federal lands. Prior to initiatingany project, the Secretary shall consult withpotentially affected holders to determinewhat impacts the project may have on theholders. Any modifications to the authoriza-tion shall be made within the terms and con-ditions of the authorization and authoritiesof the impacted agency.

(2) the return of a commercial recreationservice to the Secretary for operation whensuch services have been provided in the pastby a private sector provider, except when—

(A) the private sector provider fails to bidon such opportunities;

(B) the private sector provider terminatesits relationship with the agency; or

(C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with the terms and conditions ofthe authorization.

In such cases, the agency may use theRecreation Fee Demonstration Program toprovide for operations until a subsequent op-erator can be found through the offering of anew prospectus.

SEC. 326. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, theSecretary of Agriculture is authorized tolimit competition for fire and fuel treatmentand watershed restoration contracts in theGiant Sequoia National Monument and theSequoia National Forest. Preference for em-ployment shall be given to dislocated anddisplaced workers in Tulare, Kern and Fres-no Counties, California, for work associatedwith the establishment of the Giant SequoiaNational Monument.

SEC. 327. EXPEDITIOUS TREATMENT OF FOR-EST PLAN REVISIONS.—The Secretary of Agri-culture shall complete revisions to all landand resource management plans to manage aunit of the National Forest System pursuantto Section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Re-newable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16U.S.C. 1604) as expeditiously as practicableusing the funds provided for that purpose bythis Act.

SEC. 328. Until September 30, 2003, the au-thority of the Secretary of Agriculture toenter into a cooperative agreement underthe first section of Public Law 94–148 (16U.S.C. 565a–1) for a purpose described in suchsection includes the authority to use thatlegal instrument when the principal purposeof the resulting relationship is to the mutu-ally significant benefit of the Forest Serviceand the other party or parties to the agree-ment, including nonprofit entities.

SEC. 329. (a) PILOT PROGRAM AUTHORIZINGCONVEYANCE OF EXCESS FOREST SERVICESTRUCTURES.—The Secretary of Agriculturemay convey, by sale or exchange, any or allright, title, and interest of the United Statesin and to excess buildings and other struc-tures located on National Forest Systemlands and under the jurisdiction of the For-est Service. The conveyance may include theland on which the building or other struc-ture is located and such other land imme-diately adjacent to the building or structureas the Secretary considers necessary.

(b) LIMITATION.—Not more than 10 convey-ances may be made under the authority ofthis section, and the Secretary of Agri-culture shall obtain the concurrence of theCommittee on Appropriations of the Houseof Representatives and the Committee on

Appropriations of the Senate in advance ofeach conveyance.

(c) USE OF PROCEEDS.—The proceeds de-rived from the sale of a building or otherstructure under this section shall be retainedby the Secretary of Agriculture and shall beavailable to the Secretary, without furtherappropriation until expended, for mainte-nance and rehabilitation activities withinthe Forest Service Region in which thebuilding or structure is located.

(d) DURATION OF AUTHORITY.—The author-ity provided by this section expires on Sep-tember 30, 2005.

SEC. 330. Section 551(c) of the Land Be-tween the Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (16U.S.C. 460lll–61(c)) is amended by striking‘‘2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2004’’.

SEC. 331. Section 323(a) of the Departmentof the Interior and Related Agencies Appro-priations Act, 1999, as included in Public Law105–277, Div. A, section 101(e) is amended byinserting ‘‘and fiscal years 2002 through2005,’’ before ‘‘to the extent funds are other-wise available’’.

AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. TRAFICANT

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment.



Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. TRAFI-CANT:

SEC. . No funds made available under thisAct shall be made available to any person orentity who has been convicted of violatingthe Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a–10c,popularly known as the ‘‘Buy AmericanAct’’).

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, thisis standard ‘‘buy American’’ languagethat has been placed on appropriationbills.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gen-tleman from New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN),the distinguished chairman of the Sub-committee on the Interior.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I acceptthe Traficant amendment.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I acceptthe Traficant amendment.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, Iwould just hope that we continue tofocus on buying American goods andproducts wherever we can. I appreciatethe fine work of the gentleman fromNew Mexico (Chairman SKEEN), hisconsideration, and the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS), ranking mem-ber of the Subcommittee on the Inte-rior. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ayevote.


The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Ohio (Mr. TRAFICANT).

The amendment was agreed to.Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,

I move to strike the last word.Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage

in a colloquy with the gentleman fromNew Mexico (Mr. SKEEN), the chairmanof the Subcommittee on the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, the administration in-cluded a land acquisition request for


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3413June 21, 2001several tracts of land along the Chat-tahoochee River within the Chattahoo-chee National Forest in my Ninth Con-gressional District of Georgia.

This particular acquisition rankedthird on the Forest Service’s fiscalyear 2002 national land acquisition pri-ority list. Recently, I was informedthat the owners of these tracts havedelayed their decision to sell theirproperties.

Fortunately, there are other land-owners in the area with similarly im-portant tracts of land who wish to con-vey them to the Forest Service. Theland now available will provide habitatand watershed protection, as well asrecreation opportunities.

The committee report provides $1million for the Forest Service to ac-quire lands along the ChattahoocheeRiver within the Chattahoochee Na-tional Forest.

Given the recent changes with landavailability, I ask that the gentlemanwork with me in conference to removethe report language in the Forest Serv-ice land acquisition table referring tothe Chattahoochee River and simplyappropriate the $1 million to the Chat-tahoochee National Forest so they maypurchase the key tracts now available.


Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to thegentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. We have consulted withthe Forest Service and the gentlemanfrom Georgia (Mr. DEAL) is correct thatthe original tracts of land requested bythe administration are no longer avail-able. However, new tracts of land havebecome available that will help the for-est to meet its management objectives.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy towork with the gentleman as this billmoves forward to conference.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the gen-tleman from New Mexico (ChairmanSKEEN) earlier was referring to theMaloney amendment and it was accept-ed, but I have some concerns with it;and I hope that in conference com-mittee, the gentleman will considerthese concerns.

The amendment wrongfully sub-stitutes the use of ‘‘spot’’ prices as anindex for the oil and gas value for roy-alty purposes in all cases.

The Clinton administration, whenpublishing the final oil valuation rulein March 2000, agreed with the RockyMountain producers that the use ofspot prices was not an appropriatemeasure of the value. In fact, the cur-rent rule allows the use of comparablearm’s-length sales of crude oil in thefield to establish that value.

What the Maloney amendment reallydoes is have Congress endorse the‘‘duty-to-market’’ concept in the oiland gas valuation rules. It wrongfullyrequires lessees to pay royalties basedon downstream value-added system,rather than the ‘‘wellhead’’ valuewhich is required by existing leases andcurrent mineral leases statutes.

This amendment seeks to preventfurther royalty-in-kind crude oil pilotprojects like in Wyoming, despite theanalysis by the Minerals ManagementService and the State of Wyoming,that the government received 45 centsper barrel more in revenue than it hadreceived under the original or the cur-rent royalty-in-value system.

Saved administrative costs shouldnot be ignored as a policy matter, andthe royalty-in-kind involves far lessadministration by the Department ofthe Interior than the royalty in value.

The materials management servicepilot project increasingly shows thatthe royalty-in-kind works. And in myhome State of Texas, we have had asuccessful royalty-in-kind program fora number of years, and it can and doeswork very well.

The minerals management service re-cently completed its evaluation of theWyoming royalty-in-kind pilot projectand published that report in the Fed-eral Register for public comment, andyet there were no objections submittedby the public.

The minerals management servicebased its Wyoming pilot on the criteriathat to be successful the pilot mustprovide simplicity, accuracy, and cer-tainty for leases and the government.

The revenue should be revenue neu-tral or better for the government andmust reduce the administrative burdenfor leases and the government.

The Wyoming pilot met these cri-teria. Royalty-in-kind receipts exceed-ed comparable in-value royalties by ap-proximately $810,000. In addition, theroyalty-in-kind streamlined processeshave established a foundation for ad-ministrative savings for the mineralsmanagement service and also the in-dustry.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the mineralsmanagement has made it clear thatthey would not force any Federal landsinto the royalty-in-kind and Stateswhere the State is not a partner, andthere is no mandatory royalty-in-kindprogram or mandatory expansion.

The minerals management serviceshould be allowed to manage the min-erals and have the choice to use roy-alty-in-value or royalty-in-kind as al-lowed by the lease conditions, the mar-ket and the Federal statutes.

At this critical point, we need to ad-dress our Nation’s energy needs. Weshould not restrict or limit the govern-ment’s ability to conduct programsthat benefit us all, particularly thetaxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto look at this amendment in con-ference committee, so it will benefitthe taxpayers and also the producers.


Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to thegentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I under-stand the gentleman’s concerns, and wewill definitely take a look at this dur-ing the conference with the House andthe Senate.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into acolloquy with the gentleman from NewMexico (Chairman SKEEN). The land ac-quisition that I would like to bring tothe gentleman’s attention today is5,988 acres which is in-holding calledThunder Mountain. Thunder Mountainis located in the Payette National For-est in West Central Idaho and is lo-cated in the heart of the FrankChurch-River of No Return Wildernessarea.

This area is home to five listed spe-cies and large populations of game,large game including elk, deer, moose,and bighorn sheep. The purchase of thisland would allow the Forest Service toprotect the critical areas that are nec-essary for generations to come.

I offer my appreciation to the gen-tleman from New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN)in advance for the gentleman’s sincereconsideration of this effort.


Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentlemanfrom New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for bringing this landacquisition request to our attentionand for making his interests known.There were many worthy land acquisi-tion projects requested for fiscal year2002.

We tried to fund as many as wecould; nevertheless, we will closely ex-amine this request should the oppor-tunity arise in conference.

Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentlemanfor his comments.


Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I havebeen in that area that the gentleman istalking about, and I think it is some-thing we ought to look at very closely.

We appreciate the concern of the gen-tleman from Idaho for endangered spe-cies. That is kind of a new thing fromIdaho, and we appreciate it.

Mr. OTTER. Reclaiming my time,Mr. Chairman, I want to say to thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) I appreciate his concern forthose of us in Idaho who are becomingmore endangered every year.

AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. RAHALL:At the end of the bill, insert after the last

section (preceding the short title) the fol-lowing new section:

SEC. ll. No funds provided in this Actmay be expended to conduct preleasing, leas-ing and related activities under either theMineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) orthe Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) within the boundaries ofa National Monument established pursuantto the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 etseq.) as such boundary existed on January 20,2001, except where such activities are allowedunder the Presidential proclamation estab-lishing such monument.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3414 June 21, 2001Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

order of the Committee of today, thegentleman from West Virginia (Mr. RA-HALL) and a Member opposed each willcontrol 15 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom West Virginia (Mr. RAHALL).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, America’s nationalmonuments are under siege. Under theguise of an energy crisis, both thePresident and his Interior Secretaryhave publicly suggested that some ofour national monuments might bepretty nice places for oil and gas drill-ing or perhaps even a coal mine.

In my view, this is not what Americais about. Americans are rightfully con-cerned about energy security, but I donot think that the majority of Ameri-cans believe that we are in such a sorrystate of affairs that we must unleashbig oil onto some of our most cherishedand sacred public lands.

Make no mistake about it, some ofthe oil and gas companies have beenhankering to get into these areas foryears. They are salivating over thethought that these monuments mightbe opened.

Mr. Chairman, I maintain that ournational monuments, our national her-itage must not be sacrificed on thealter of greed and profit.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment wouldsimply prohibit the issuance of new en-ergy leases in designated nationalmonuments.

It would not, it would not vanquishany valid existing right, nor would itprevent leasing in any situation wherethat activity was authorized when themonument was established. Establish-ment of a national monument is an au-thority vested with the Presidentunder what is known as the AntiquitiesAct.

Beginning with that great Repub-lican conservative Teddy Roosevelt, 14of the 17 Presidents who served since1906 have used this power. In all, theyhave established 122 national monu-ments, with Congress subsequently re-designating 30 of them as nationalparks.

We are talking about places like theCalifornia Coastal National Monumentand the Giant Sequoia National Monu-ment in California. The Craters of theMoon National Monument in Idaho andVermillion Cliffs National Monumentin Arizona.


Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wantedto ask the gentleman from West Vir-ginia (Mr. RAHALL) a question. I didnot want to interrupt the gentleman,and I will be glad to give him some ad-ditional time.

I say to the gentleman, is it not truethat before these became monuments,these were all Federal lands? Mr.Chairman, sometimes people thinkthat Presidents go out and create just

out of whole cloth wilderness or what-ever area, but the monument has tohave been Federal land before it be-came a monument; is that not correct?

Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time,the gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS), the distinguished rankingmember, is exactly right.

Mr. Chairman, I yield further to thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I justwanted to point that out to my col-leagues.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gen-tleman from West Virginia be grantedan additional minute due to my inter-ruption.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unableto grant that request unless there is aunanimous consent request that eachside get an additional minute, becausethis is a controlled-time debate.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, these places I justmentioned, they are incredible treas-ures. They are incredible treasures;from the Atlantic to the Pacific, his-toric sites, glacial fjords, toweringmountains and fragile deserts. Indeed,they are a lasting legacy that we asAmericans can hand down for genera-tions to come.

Are we really that desperate that wewill allow coal mining or oil and gasdrilling in these national monuments?I do not believe so. Yet there are some,there are some who see things dif-ferently.

Under the Bush administration, theInterior Department has conducted anew analysis of the energy potential ofnational monument lands, not allmonuments, mind you, not an analysisof all monuments, just those it so hap-pened were designated by PresidentClinton.

What a surprise. This new analysisfound that a number of our nationalmonuments may contain some oil andgas and coal resources. These areas ap-parently now represent the administra-tion’s monument hit list. So the ques-tion comes down to this: 95 percent ofBLM lands in the western energy-pro-ducing States are already open to oil,gas and coal leasing; 95 percent BLMlands are already open to oil, gas andcoal leasing.

b 1415Must we now sacrifice the remaining

5 percent of protected areas, our wil-derness, our historic sites, our wildlifepreserves? Must they now be subjectedto exploitation and speculation? I sayno, and I sincerely hope that this bodysays no as well.

Vote for our heritage. Vote for ourlegacy. Vote for our future genera-tions. Vote for American values. Andvote for this amendment.


Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the gentleman’s amend-ment.

This amendment would put in place amoratorium, stopping any new energy

development within the current bound-aries of the newly created nationalmonuments without regard to the en-ergy needs of the Nation. Passage ofthis amendment would limit the De-partment’s capability to consider ac-tions through the land planning proc-ess that could be in our Nation’s inter-est. If after extensive consultationwith all parties the President deter-mines that it is in the best interest ofthe American people to modify a monu-ment boundary, while still maintainingthe integrity of our precious nationalmonuments, he should not be prohib-ited from doing so.

Members have been rightfully con-cerned about the electricity situationin California and the rest of the Westright now, and about supply and priceproblems of various energy fuels. Thisamendment sends the wrong message.It says regardless of the energy situa-tion, we are going to place certainlands off limits, even if the Presidentdetermines that leasing of those landswill not interfere with their nationalmonument significance.

Therefore, I must ask for my col-leagues’ support in defeating thisamendment.


Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. GEORGE MILLER), theranking member of the House Com-mittee on Education and the Workforceand a former ranking member of theCommittee on Resources.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemanfor yielding me this time, and we mustsupport this amendment. We must sup-port this amendment so the energy cri-sis in California and the West Coast isnot allowed to be used as a batteringram by this administration to batterdown the designation of nationalmonuments and some of the most valu-able and most prized and most beau-tiful and sacred lands in this entirecountry.

This administration now wants tocome in, after all the effort was madeto delineate and to make determina-tions about the values of these lands interms of their cultural and historic sig-nificance, and after the designation ofthe monument has been given in thename of the people of the United Statesof America, this administration wouldtry to batter down those designationsat the very time when millions ofAmericans are taking their childrenand other members of their family andtraveling across this country visitingmonuments of this country, recog-nizing the historical importance ofthese, the cultural importance of theselands, the Craters of the Moon, the Ef-figy Mounds, the Little Bighorn Battle-field, Scotts Bluff, the Statute of Lib-erty, Bandelier National Monument,Gila Cliff Dwellings, White Sands, Gov-ernor’s Island, Oregon Caves. These areall different. In the West we have some


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3415June 21, 2001monuments, in the East we have dif-ferent monuments, but this is aboutthe culture of this Nation.

You tried to use the energy crisis inCalifornia to batter the California con-sumers, Mr. President, and that did notwork. And now we see finally you aretaking some actions to help those con-sumers. You should not use this energycrisis to batter down the designation ofthese lands. These lands belong to thepeople of the United States. And whenyour Secretary of the Interior sends aletter suggesting to consult with justlocal officials, these are not localparks, these are not local districts,these are national monuments. Whyare we not consulting with all the peo-ple of this Nation? That is what Presi-dent Clinton did before he made thedesignation. There were public hear-ings, there was a process, because weknew the significance and the impor-tance of a monument designation.

We should not cower behind our en-ergy problems in California to try tochange the status of these great publiclands.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would re-mind all Members that remarks duringdebate should be directed to the Chair.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Idaho(Mr. OTTER).

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, first ofall, the amendment is nothing morethan an attempt by the Democrats tocongressionally legitimize those ac-tions taken by President Clinton dur-ing the last hours, without adequatepublic input, in the dead of night.

These proclamations, of course,clearly abused the letter and the spiritof the Antiquities Act of 1906, whenthey knew what they were doing. TheAntiquities Act, among other things,mandates that when a President de-clares a monument it ‘‘shall be con-fined to the smallest area available,compatible with the proper care andmanagement of the objects to be pro-tected.’’ Now, I know that that meanswe must question ourselves as to whatwe mean by objects or what we mightmean by protected. However, as we allknow, President Clinton blatantly usedthis act solely for political purposeslike no other before him.

Mr. Chairman, passing this amend-ment would in effect put a congres-sional rubber stamp on those actionsand those boundaries taken by theseill-considered proclamations. Secondly,if the boundaries of the national monu-ments do change, this amendment tothe bill today is totally unnecessary.Most, if not all, the proclamationswithdraw the lands from all forms ofmineral entry, including oil and gasleasing, except when subject to validand existing rights. This amendmentkeeps the exemption for valid and ex-isting rights, thus actually does noth-ing at all, Mr. Chairman, for the monu-ment boundaries if they are never ad-justed.

Lastly, and however very important,by agreeing to this amendment we also

prevent future oil and gas leasing inthese areas that would not be with-drawn as a national monument if theboundaries ever did change. If theboundaries are to be adjusted to meetthe real intent of the 1906 AntiquitiesAct and the real intent of protectingthe object of significance contained inthose monuments, then the areas with-drawn, which would not contain anysignificant objects, could be open togas and oil and other exploration.

Eliminating future options for ourcountry’s resources is simply not ac-ceptable, and I submit that the otherside cannot have it both ways. Youcannot suck and blow in the samebreath, and, Mr. Chairman, that is pre-cisely what they are doing.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Wis-consin (Mr. KIND), a valued member ofour committee and the ranking mem-ber on the Subcommittee Committeeon Energy and Mineral Resources.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank theranking member of the Committee onResources for yielding me this time. Asranking member on the Subcommitteeon Energy and Mineral Resources, Irise in strong support of the Rahallamendment that prohibits funding fornew leasing for oil and gas explorationin our national monuments.

Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt mustbe rolling in his grave right now. Agreat Republican conservationist, hewas the first President to use his pow-ers of the Antiquities Act to designatenational monuments throughout thecountry. Now, 100 years later, a Repub-lican President is suggesting openingup these same very precious lands tooil and gas exploration. Our nationalmonuments should be the last placeopen for energy development, not thefirst. We should instead be focusing oneffectively managing the millions ofacres of Federal land that are alreadyavailable for energy development.

In fact, the work we have been doingin the Subcommittee on Energy andMineral Resources, the gentlewomanfrom Wyoming (Mrs. CUBIN) and I havedemonstrated that 95 percent of theavailable Federal lands are already ac-cessible to oil and gas exploration. Weshould be keeping our focus on thatrather than the remaining 5 percentthat is not. Granted, there may besome permitting problems that havecome out during the course of thesehearings that we need to work through,but there is sufficient Federal lands al-ready for the oil and gas energy needsthat this country faces.

Rather than opening our nationalmonuments to oil drilling, we shouldinstead bring balance to our nationalenergy policy by developing renewableand alternative energy sources, such assolar, wind, and biomass. We should beincreasing our funding for those pro-grams instead of cutting them, as theadministration now proposes.

We should also be encouraging thedevelopment of hybrid cars in thiscountry. The big three in this countryhave fallen behind the competitivescale when it comes to developingthese hybrids, which are more energyefficient and more environmentallyfriendly. We have waiting lines acrossthe country of consumers wanting tobuy the foreign-made hybrid cars. Sothere is a market demand for this, Mr.Chairman.

Clearly, the American people wouldlike to see more fuel efficient, environ-mentally friendly vehicles, not moredrilling in the national monuments,and so I would encourage my col-leagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that debate on thefollowing specified amendments to thebill, and any amendments thereto, belimited to the time specified, equallydivided and controlled by the pro-ponent and an opponent.

An amendment to be offered by thegentleman from Florida (Mr. DAVIS) re-lated to oil and gas leasing in Floridafor 30 minutes; an amendment to be of-fered by the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. INSLEE) regarding hardrockmining for 30 minutes; an amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Florida(Mr. DEUTSCH) regarding Biscayne Na-tional Park for 10 minutes; and anamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. STEARNS) regardingthe National Endowment for the Artsfor 10 minutes.


Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reservingthe right to object, I want to make cer-tain on the Stearns amendment that Iwould have the 5 minutes in opposi-tion; if we could just have that under-standing.

Mr. SKEEN. I will yield that.The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman fromNew Mexico?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous

consent agreement is agreed to.Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the gentleman from Utah(Mr. HANSEN).

(Mr. HANSEN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is avery interesting debate we are in. Mygood friend from West Virginia, I amafraid I am going to have to go to theother side on this one, and I want toexplain why, because I have great re-spect for him and the ability he has.

I noticed when I read his statementthis morning, he talked about thecrown jewels that we were going toprotect under this amendment. I wouldagree with that, if they were the crownjewels. If we go back to the 1906 Antiq-uities Law and carry it out and findout where we are going, those originalones truly did fit that category, theGrand Canyon, the Zion, the Bryce,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3416 June 21, 2001and the others, they are the crown jew-els, and we compliment Teddy Roo-sevelt for taking the time, the initia-tive, and having the enlightenment tocome up with the idea of taking care ofthose crown jewels.

But now we find ourselves in an en-tirely different situation today. Whatdo we have on these crown jewels? Letme point out, Mr. Chairman, that wehave a whole group of energy problems.I do not think there is any intelligentperson in America that does not realizewe are going to have a tremendous en-ergy problem. It is going to be coal, itis going to be natural gas. We are talk-ing about alternative sources, and weget 2 percent, that huge amount of 2percent of alternative sources that ev-erybody is talking about, and then wehave got coal at 52 percent.

Now let me talk about one of thesecrown jewels my good friend from WestVirginia talked about. On September16, 1996, standing safely on the southrim of the Grand Canyon, PresidentClinton got up and he declared that hewas going to put 1.7 million acres intoone of these crown jewels. The inter-esting thing about it is that PresidentClinton had never been there. When hewas asked where it was, he put it in Ne-vada, though that is immaterial. Thatis a little different than someone likeTeddy Roosevelt, who had lived on theground, who had been to the GrandCanyon, who had hunted in the GrandCanyon, had floated in the river, hadhiked those canyons. He knew it fromone inch to the other.

Now, do my colleagues know whatthe law says? I thought we were boundby the law. I thought it was necessarywe follow the law. We are a Nation oflaws. Yet this President comes alongand he talks about the three things weare supposed to name in the 1906 Antiq-uities Law.

b 1430

What are they? One is a scientificsite. Another is an archeological sitelike Rainbow Bridge, obviously one.Another one is an historic site wherethe two trains came together. That isobviously an historic site.

This is the first President, and I havesat on this committee and chaired theSubcommittee on Parks and Lands,and now I am the chairman of the Com-mittee on Resources, I cannot find aPresident who has violated that up tothis point. This President did not stateany one of the three. Not one.

What is the next thing that the lawsays, the law that we put our hand tothe square and said, we will uphold thislaw. And the next part says this. Itsays, and he shall use the smallestacreage available to protect that site.In the first place, my colleagues, Presi-dent Clinton did not name the site. Inthe second place, he gives us 1.7 millionacres.

Mr. Chairman, let me go back to theidea of energy. What is in this area? Iasked John Leshy, the solicitor for theDepartment of Interior, explain this

beautiful area that President Clinton istaking care of. He did not know whathe was talking about, and I say that re-spectfully, because he said where thereis 1 trillion tons, get that word ‘‘tril-lion,’’ 1 trillion tons of low sulfur coal,the best in the world, right in theKaiparowits Plateau.

Mr. Chairman, have any of my col-leagues been there? It amazes me, weare so good about talking about places,but often my colleagues have neverbeen there. Well, I have been there. Mydad had mines on it. As a private pilot,I put airplanes down in the craziestplaces, I repent for doing that, but allthrough that area, and I can tell mycolleagues without any equivocation, ifmy colleagues like rolling hills of sage-brush and nothing else but hot, dryland with bugs flying around, that istwo-thirds of the Grand StaircaseEscalante. Two-thirds of it is nothingbut sagebrush. But there is a trilliontons of low sulfur coal.

Now we are talking about PresidentCarter who says our ace in the hole iscoal; and yet we say we cannot do thatunder the gentleman’s amendment. Wecannot take care of that.

What I have heard on some of theseother 18 crown jewels that came about:fossil fuels, natural gas. All of thesethings, and these are not, my friends,the crown jewels that my good friendof West Virginia talked about. Theseare areas put in there, obviously abus-ing the 1906 antiquity law, obviouslythere for political reasons. In fact, wesubpoenaed the papers and we wrote apamphlet called ‘‘Behind ClosedDoors.’’ I do not have the quotes here,I was at another meeting and just ranover, and so I quote from memory,‘‘These grounds do not deserve protec-tion.’’ Kathleen McGinty, working forPresident Clinton and Al Gore, ‘‘Thesegrounds do not deserve protection,’’yet we say they are crown jewels. Giveme a break.

Why are we doing this anyway? An-other thing between the Department ofInterior and the White House, anotherstatement, ‘‘These grounds do not de-serve that kind of protection.’’ Yettoday, we are here saying we have anenergy crisis on our hands and we can-not handle it, so let us close up areas ofrolling sagebrush.

The Grand Staircase Escalante doesnot deserve that protection.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon(Mr. BLUMENAUER).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Iappreciate the gentleman’s courtesy inallowing me to speak in support of hisamendment.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with mycolleague from Idaho who talked aboutsneaking this in the last hours in thedead of night. I am speaking just toone monument in the State of Oregon,the Cascade-Siskiyous, where approxi-mately a year ago 52,000 acres wereprotected. I would suggest that there issignificant support in our State, andthe notion that this would be an area

where we should open up to mineral ex-ploration, energy exploration, is some-thing that would be opposed by thepeople in our community.

Mr. Chairman, we may disagree overissues that deal with energy. I am surewe will have spirited debate, but Iwould hope that this is one area wherewe could step back and recognize thatthese are areas that deserve protection.

If the Congress wants to overturn thePresidential designation, if there is onethat is inappropriate, by all meanscome forward and we will have the de-bate, have Members vote them up ordown. But unless and until my col-leagues are willing to step forward andshow where they think it is not worthyof protection, I think we ought to sup-port the gentleman’s amendment, and Iknow that the people in Oregon appre-ciate it.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Alaska(Mr. YOUNG).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I have been in my office listeningto the debate on the gentleman’samendment, and I have never heard somuch energy wasted on an amendmentthat very frankly does damage to thisNation and not to the monuments.When I hear people talk about theStatute of Liberty and the Grand Can-yon, they are full of it. That is really,in fact, not what this is all about.

Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues wantto know what it is about, read this re-port called ‘‘A Monumental Abuse: TheClinton Administration’s Campaign ofMisinformation in the Establishmentof the Grand Staircase Escalante Na-tional Monument.’’ I have it right here.This was passed by the Committee onResources. Read it. It is the greatestblatant political piece of trash that ad-ministration did. There was no dangerto that area of the Escalante, but be-cause the environmentalists wanted itand Kathleen McGinty wanted it, theyset this vast area of land, without con-sulting with the governor and withoutconsulting with the local representa-tive, and by the way he lost, becausethere was a huge coal deposit there andthey did not want that coal deposit de-veloped. Read your record. Do not votefor this amendment. It is nothing but abunch of hot air.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon(Mr. DEFAZIO).

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as faras the debate earlier on the recreationfee demo amendments, they are some-thing that should be subject to theCommittee on Resources, on which Iserve, which is a tax on the averageAmerican people. It is hidden in thisbill to avoid accountability and respon-sibility.

Now here hidden in this bill is the au-thority to go into and drill on nationalmonuments. If my colleagues want toundo the national monuments, have


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3417June 21, 2001the courage of their convictions. Intro-duce legislation. Hold hearings. Have adebate. Bring it to the floor. Have avote. See if it can be gotten out of theHouse of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that isgoing to happen. I do not believe thisbody is going to undo formally anymonuments. So do not have this sub-terranean subterfuge of drilling. Behonest. If my colleagues want to undothe monuments, introduce the legisla-tion and let us have a vote on it up ordown.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Mon-tana (Mr. REHBERG).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, Icould not agree more with the lastspeaker when he says introduce legisla-tion if Members want to change it, donot do it through a rider.

Mr. Chairman, I had a hearing inLewistown, Montana a couple of weeksago. I had just short of 300 peoplethere. It took 8 hours. There is not con-sensus on this.

When I came to Congress, I made thedetermination I would try and changethe rhetoric when it came to naturalresources policy so we do not dig our-selves into corners and then have tolitigate our way back out.

The President dropped a bad piece inour laps. We are trying to pick up thepieces. We will do the best we can. Wewant full disclosure and full debate,but let us not close the door to a rea-sonable conclusion to something thatis very emotional in my State of Mon-tana.

Over 80,000 acres of private propertywere included in this monument. Whatreasonable President, if he had gonethrough the appropriate process of de-bate and consideration, would have al-lowed that to happen?

Secretary Norton recently sent out aletter to over 200 local officials askingtheir opinion. She has stated the posi-tion that she will not make changeswithout adequate consideration anddue process. There is only one reasonthis amendment has been introduced,and that is to shut the door further onwhat we believe the President did inthe first place.

Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagueswill vote against this amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield3 minutes to the gentleman from Mas-sachusetts (Mr. MARKEY).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I risein support of the amendment offered bythe gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.RAHALL).

Mr. Chairman, this amendment willprohibit oil and gas leasing andpreleasing in our national monuments.Without this amendment, we may haveto rename some of our national monu-ments to reflect their new status. TheStatute of Liberty National Monu-ment, for example, could become the‘‘Statue of Fossil Fuels Production Na-tional Monument,’’ with an actualflame burning at the top of the torch.Of course, we will have to change theinscription to read:

Give me your drill bits, your rigs,Your huddled oil companies yearning to

drill free,To dump their wretched refuse on our pris-

tine shores,Send these, your well-heeled executives to

me:I lift my lamp besides their golden doors.

Of course, there are other types ofnational monuments in our country.Here is a photograph from the UpperMissouri River Breaks National Monu-ment. It is beautiful. But perhaps theoil industry could improve upon theview? Bam. Oil rigs in the nationalmonument. How much oil would we re-trieve from the Upper Missouri RiverBreaks? One hour’s worth of our na-tional consumption. One hour. Whatthis amendment says is that one hourof our oil use in the United States isworth despoiling this pristine view for-ever.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot condonethis wanton disregard of our respon-sibilities to succeeding generations.Our national monuments represent themost unique, most irreplaceable, themost breathtaking of all of the naturalwonders in this great land. All we areasking is that we meet our energyneeds outside the boundaries of thesespecial treasures, not on top of them.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committeeto adopt the Rahall amendment. First,let us make SUVs and air conditionersand refrigerators more efficient beforewe tell every succeeding generation ofAmericans that we had no other optionbut to take the national monumentsand to despoil them for one hour’sworth of energy, and to damage thempermanently.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman from Idaho (Mr. SIMPSON).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, afterlistening to the last few speakers, Ihave to tell my colleagues, if rhetoricwere fast food, Members would have towalk through golden arches to enterthis floor, because I have never heardso much rhetoric as I have just heardfrom the gentleman from Massachu-setts who just spoke. He talks aboutthe beauty of these things, and manyare beautiful.

But some of them, my colleaguesought to come to Idaho and look at theexpansion of the Craters of the Moon.It is a bunch of lava rock. And we arestill trying to figure out what the im-minent threat was to the Craters of theMoon when they designated it as a na-tional monument, yet they decidedthey had to do it. It was under no im-minent threat. That is the reality.

Mr. Chairman, clearly my colleagueson the other side of the aisle are pas-sionate about national monuments. Soam I; and so is anybody on this side ofthe aisle. We all love our public landsand want to protect them, but look atwhat this amendment does. What thisamendment does is say that we cannothave any preleasing, any leasing, orany related activities on a nationalmonument as it existed prior to Janu-ary 20, 2001.

Now, the gentleman from Oregonthat spoke said we are not going tochange any of those things. If Memberswant to change any of those things,bring them to the floor. We have donethat in this Congress. Many of my col-leagues voted for it because it went bysuspension. We changed a nationalmonument in Idaho to a national pre-serve, so we do change them occasion-ally and we need to look at that.

Mr. Chairman, the reality is the realpurpose of the Rahall amendment is tofreeze the dozens of monuments thatPresident Clinton declared during thewaning days of his administration andprohibit mineral leasing activities inthese areas. That is the intent of thisamendment. This would occur even ifCongress enacted a law which adjusteda boundary to a national monument orif President Bush reduced the size of amonument by administrative order.

b 1445

The effect of the Rahall amendmentwill be to lock up acres of coal, gas, oiland other much needed energy re-sources at a time the United Statesneeds these domestic resources to averta further energy crisis. The House ofRepresentatives, as I have said, has al-ready changed one to a national pre-serve, so the reality is we do look atthem, we do change them, we dochange the boundaries. But under cur-rent law, 30 United States Code section181, mineral leasing cannot take placeon national monuments. If you look atmost of the national monument des-ignations that have been made, theyprevent mineral leasing in the designa-tion.

I would bet the gentleman from Or-egon that spoke earlier about the beau-ty of the national monument in hisState if he would look at the designa-tion would see that it is prevented inthe designation of that national monu-ment. So we are not going to go outand drill in these areas, Mr. Chairman.We should not tie Congress’ hands andthe President’s hands with this ill-ad-vised, unnecessary, silly amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the people on this sideof the aisle care as much about ourpublic lands and our national monu-ments as they do. That is why we livethere, because we love the beauty ofour rivers and mountains and streams.That is what we want to preserve. Butyes, there are legitimate reasons tolook at our national monuments forother purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto not adopt this amendment. It is sillyand unnecessary.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the distinguished gen-tleman from Colorado (Mr. UDALL).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chair-man, I thank the gentleman for yield-ing time. As a Rocky Mountain west-erner, I rise in support of this amend-ment and I share the sentiments of thegentleman from Idaho (Mr. SIMPSON)that we do love these lands in theWest. I have been dismayed, though, to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3418 June 21, 2001some extent to hear my colleagues de-scribe these lands as sagebrush androlling hills and nothing but black lavarock. But as we know, those lands pro-vide us with solitude and greatviewscapes, clean air, and clean water.They are God’s creation. We should setthem aside in perpetuity as PresidentClinton had the wisdom to do.

In our State, rapid population growthis putting increased pressure on all ourFederal lands. We have become awareof the need to preserve and protectthose lands. That is simply what Presi-dent Clinton has done. But PresidentBush seems to be going the other way.In fact, I am tempted to borrow an oldphrase and suggest that maybe we areon the verge of a ‘‘war on the West.’’

Unless we restore some balance, thisenergy policy will be a war on wilder-ness, a war on wildlife, a war on ouropen spaces, and ultimately a war onour economy which is dependent nowon these open spaces and the clean airand the clean water.

This amendment will limit the po-tential of that potential attack. I hopeit will be unnecessary. I hope that thePresident will pull back and not openour national monuments to drilling,but let us be safe rather than sorry. Iurge support of this important amend-ment by the gentleman from West Vir-ginia.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Secretary Norton has written a seriesof letters to various State and local of-ficials encouraging reassessments ofexisting national monuments. I wouldlike to quote directly from the Sec-retary’s March 28 letter to the Gov-ernor of Arizona:

I would like to hear from you about whatrole these monuments should play in Ari-zona. Are there boundary adjustments thatthe Department of Interior should considerrecommending? Are there existing uses in-side these monuments that we should accom-modate?

Mr. Chairman, I think this clearlyshows that our monuments are underthreat. The President, on March 13, ad-ditionally said, and I quote, ‘‘there areparts of monuments where we can ex-plore.’’

Vote for this amendment. Protectour heritage. Protect our nationalmonuments.

Mr HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I support theamendment offered by my colleague from thestate of West Virginia, Congressman RAHALL,to protect National Monuments from energyand mineral development. National monumentstatus designation has been used to protectsome of our most unique and significant nat-ural and historic areas. In the last 95 years,122 national monuments have been des-ignated through the use of the Antiquities Act.Clearly, presidents from the time of TheodoreRoosevelt have realized the wisdom of pro-tecting sensitive public lands, already ownedby the public, from natural resource exploi-tation.

The designation of national monuments fol-lows a serious and deliberate process, includ-ing extensive study and involvement by the

public. The process relies heavily on the inputof local officials and citizens, those who will bemost directly affected by the designations. Im-pacts are weighed in light of the benefits thatwill be enjoyed by the American public and thefact that a natural resources legacy has beencreated for future generations.

Some coal, natural gas, and oil does under-lie a number of our national monument lands.However, the significance of these resourceswhen compared to our overall energy supplywas part of the consideration before themonument status was bestowed. Ninety-fivepercent of the public land managed by the Bu-reau of Land Management already is open toenergy leasing. This amounts to millions ofacres of federal land. We should be focusedon doing a better job managing and devel-oping fuels from the lands already availablefor leasing rather than looking at the remainingfive percent for further exploitation.

The high cost of electricity and the risingcosts of gasoline and home heating oil will notbe reduced by drilling on national monumentlands. The amount of energy resources onthese lands is only a small fraction of what isavailable elsewhere. Our monuments must beprotected against the forces of commercializa-tion that would use them to enrich a few at theexpense of the many by sacrificing our mostspectacular and prized natural landscapes andhistorical sites. I urge you to join me and sup-port the Rahall amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from West Virginia (Mr. RA-HALL).


Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from West Virginia (Mr. RA-HALL) will be postponed.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the last word for the purposeof entering into a very brief colloquywith the chairman on a matter of im-portance to my State.

As chairman of the House Interiorappropriations subcommittee, I knowthe gentleman from New Mexico isfaced with many funding requests andfaces a difficult task in balancing com-peting demands.

As the gentleman may know, Dela-ware has a rich heritage in the under-ground railroad. There are 18 under-ground railroad sites in Delaware, in-cluding the Governor’s house atWoodburn where I lived, the court-house where abolitionist Thomas Gar-rett was tried, and numerous othersites utilized by the principal under-ground railroad conductor Harriet Tub-man.

Sadly, there is more informationabout Delaware’s role in the under-ground railroad in the museum shop atFord’s Theater in Washington, D.C.than in Delaware’s museums. Delawareis rallying to correct this oversight byfilming a documentary about the un-derground railroad and sponsoring alecture series at Delaware State Uni-versity.

Pursuant to the National Under-ground Railroad Network to FreedomAct of 1998, the Delaware UndergroundRailroad Coalition is seeking $250,000to develop a heritage plan to highlightDelaware’s role in the undergroundrailroad.

I seek the gentleman’s support inworking to provide funding for thisheritage plan as the fiscal year 2002 In-terior appropriations bill moves for-ward.


Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gen-tleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SKEEN. It is true the committeeviews funding the National Under-ground Railroad Network to FreedomAct of 1998 as a priority. I pledge towork with the gentleman from Dela-ware as this legislation moves forwardto accommodate this request if the op-portunity for additional funding arises.

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentlemanand I appreciate his support.

SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEEOF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will nowresume on those amendments on whichfurther proceedings were postponed inthe following order: amendment No. 6offered by the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS); amendmentNo. 1 offered by the gentleman fromOregon (Mr. DEFAZIO); and amendmentNo. 5 offered by the gentleman fromWest Virginia (Mr. RAHALL).

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutesthe time for any electronic vote afterthe first vote in this series.

AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS)on which further proceedings werepostponed and on which the noes pre-vailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate theamendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amend-ment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote hasbeen demanded.


vice, and there were—ayes 153, noes 262,not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 178]

AYES—153

AbercrombieAckermanAndrewsBairdBaldwinBarrettBassBecerraBereuterBermanBerryBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoswellBrown (OH)Cannon

CapuanoCarson (IN)CastleConyersCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (IL)Davis, TomDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeutschDingellDoggettEmersonEngel

EshooEtheridgeFarrFergusonFilnerFordFrankGanskeGephardtGilmanGreen (WI)GrucciGutierrezHall (OH)HansenHarmanHinojosa


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3419June 21, 2001HoltHondaHooleyHulshofInsleeJackson (IL)JeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (IL)Jones (OH)KellyKennedy (MN)KildeeKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLangevinLantosLarson (CT)LeachLeeLevinLipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLutherMarkeyMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermott

McGovernMcHughMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMooreMorellaNadlerNapolitanoNussleOwensPallonePascrellPaulPaynePeterson (MN)PetriPlattsQuinnRamstadRangelRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoukemaRyan (WI)Sanchez

SandersSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchakowskySensenbrennerShaysSherwoodSimmonsSlaughterSmith (NJ)SolisStarkSununuSweeneyTannerThompson (CA)TierneyTownsUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezWalshWatersWatson (CA)Watt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (PA)WellerWexlerWoolseyWu

NOES—262

AkinAllenArmeyBacaBakerBaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBartlettBartonBentsenBerkleyBiggertBilirakisBishopBluntBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCantorCapitoCappsCardinCarson (OK)ChabotChamblissClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCollinsCombestConditCookseyCostelloCoyneCraneCrenshawCulbersonCunninghamDavis (FL)Davis, Jo AnnDealDeLauroDeLayDeMint

Diaz-BalartDicksDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEnglishEvansFattahFlakeFletcherFoleyFossellaFrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGordonGossGrahamGrangerGravesGreen (TX)GreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)HartHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHornHostettlerHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIssaIstookJackson-Lee

(TX)

JenkinsJohnJohnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJones (NC)KanjorskiKellerKennedy (RI)KernsKilpatrickKingstonKirkKnollenbergKolbeLampsonLargentLarsen (WA)LathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLofgrenLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)Maloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMascaraMathesonMcCreryMcKeonMeek (FL)MicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMollohanMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MurthaMyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOsborneOseOtterOxleyPastorPelosiPencePeterson (PA)PhelpsPickeringPittsPomboPomeroy

PortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)PutnamRadanovichRahallRegulaRehbergReyesReynoldsRogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRossRoybal-AllardRoyceRyun (KS)SaboSandlinSchafferSchiffSchrockScottSessionsShadegg

ShawShermanShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSouderSpenceSprattStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpStupakTancredoTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)Terry

ThomasThompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTiberiToomeyTraficantTurnerUptonViscloskyVitterWaldenWampWatkins (OK)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)WhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—17

AderholtBachusCallahanCoxCramerCubin

EverettHergerHoughtonIsraelKapturLewis (GA)

McInnisNealRileyRushSerrano

b 1514

Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. MEEK of Flor-ida, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms.GRANGER and Mrs. TAUSCHERchanged their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Messrs. QUINN, SHAYS, HONDA,BERRY, KING, ROTHMAN, WELDONof Pennsylvania, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii,Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon and Ms.MILLENDER-MCDONALD changedtheir vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announcesthat he will reduce to a minimum of 5minutes the period of time withinwhich a vote by electronic device willbe taken on each amendment on whichthe Chair has postponed further pro-ceedings.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. DEFAZIO

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon amendment No. 1 offered by the gen-tleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO) onwhich further proceedings were post-poned and on which the noes prevailedby a voice vote.



RECORDED VOTE


A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-

minute vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-


[Roll No. 179]

AYES—129

AckermanAllenBaldacci

BarciaBassBecerra

BerkleyBlagojevichBlumenauer

BonoBoswellBoucherBrady (PA)CappsCapuanoCarson (IN)Carson (OK)ChabotClayClaytonConyersCoyneCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDeutschDoggettDoolittleDreierEmersonEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFergusonFilnerFlakeGalleglyGephardtGravesGutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)HayworthHergerHill

HincheyHoltHondaHooleyHulshofHunterInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnson (IL)Jones (NC)Jones (OH)KildeeKucinichLaFalceLangevinLarsen (WA)LeeLewis (CA)LipinskiLoBiondoLutherMaloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMcCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcKinneyMcNultyMeeks (NY)MenendezMinkMoran (KS)NadlerNapolitanoNeyOwensPallone

PascrellPaulPaynePeterson (MN)RahallRamstadRangelRothmanRoybal-AllardSandersSaxtonSchakowskySchiffSessionsShadeggShermanShowsSlaughterSmith (NJ)SolisStarkStricklandStumpSununuTancredoTaylor (MS)TerryThompson (CA)TownsUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezWaldenWatersWatt (NC)WexlerWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—287

AbercrombieAkinAndrewsArmeyBacaBairdBakerBaldwinBallengerBarrBarrettBartlettBartonBentsenBereuterBermanBerryBiggertBilirakisBishopBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBorskiBoydBrady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCannonCantorCapitoCardinCastleChamblissClementClyburnCobleCollinsCombestConditCookseyCostelloCraneCrenshawCrowleyCulbersonCunningham

Davis (FL)Davis, Jo AnnDavis, TomDealDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDooleyDoyleDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEnglishFletcherFoleyFordFossellaFrankFrelinghuysenFrostGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreen (TX)Green (WI)GreenwoodGrucciGutknechtHansenHarmanHartHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHefleyHillearyHilliardHinojosaHobsonHoeffel

HoekstraHoldenHornHostettlerHoyerHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIssaIstookJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamKanjorskiKellerKellyKennedy (MN)Kennedy (RI)KernsKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKirkKleczkaKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLarson (CT)LathamLaTouretteLeachLevinLewis (KY)LinderLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)Maloney (CT)MascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCreryMcHughMcIntyreMcKeonMeehanMeek (FL)


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3420 June 21, 2001MicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNethercuttNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOsborneOseOtterOxleyPastorPelosiPencePeterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPlattsPomboPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)PutnamQuinn

RadanovichRegulaRehbergReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRoemerRogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRossRoukemaRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SaboSanchezSandlinSawyerScarboroughSchafferSchrockScottSensenbrennerShawShaysSherwoodShimkusShusterSimmonsSimpsonSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSouder

SpenceSprattStearnsStenholmStupakSweeneyTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (NC)ThomasThompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTiberiTierneyToomeyTraficantTurnerUptonViscloskyVitterWalshWampWatkins (OK)Watson (CA)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—16

AderholtBachusCallahanCoxCramerCubin

EverettHoughtonIsraelKapturLewis (GA)McInnis

NealRileyRushSerrano

b 1523


as above recorded.AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. RAHALL

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon Amendment No. 5 offered by thegentleman from West Virginia (Mr. RA-HALL) on which further proceedingswere postponed, and on which the noesprevailed by a voice vote.



RECORDED VOTE





[Roll No. 180]

AYES—242

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrettBartlettBassBentsenBerkley

BermanBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)

CapitoCappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)CastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostello

CoyneCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis, Jo AnnDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFergusonFilnerFordFossellaFrankFrelinghuysenFrostGanskeGephardtGillmorGilmanGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GreenwoodGrucciGutierrezHall (OH)HarmanHastings (FL)HillHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHoyerHydeInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (IL)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKelly

Kennedy (MN)Kennedy (RI)KildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KirkKleczkaKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLangevinLantosLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LathamLeachLeeLevinLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoNeyNorthupNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPayne

PelosiPeterson (MN)PetriPhelpsPomeroyPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRossRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchakowskySchiffScottShaysShermanSimmonsSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SnyderSolisSprattStarkStricklandStupakSununuTauscherThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyWalshWatersWatson (CA)Watt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (PA)WexlerWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—173

AkinArmeyBakerBallengerBarrBartonBereuterBerryBiggertBluntBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCannonCantorChabotChamblissCobleCollinsCombestCooksey

CraneCrenshawCulbersonCunninghamDavis, TomDealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonEnglishFlakeFletcherFoleyGalleglyGekasGibbonsGilchrestGoodeGoodlatteGossGrahamGrangerGraves

Green (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHartHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonIsaksonIssaIstookJenkinsJohnJohnson, SamJones (NC)KellerKernsKingstonKnollenbergKolbe

LargentLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLucas (OK)ManzulloMcCreryMcKeonMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNorwoodOsborneOseOtterOxleyPaulPencePeterson (PA)PickeringPittsPlattsPomboPortmanPutnam

RadanovichRegulaRehbergReynoldsRogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SchafferSchrockSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholm

StumpSweeneyTancredoTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTiberiToomeyTraficantVitterWaldenWampWatkins (OK)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—17

AderholtBachusBecerraCallahanCoxCramer

CubinEverettHoughtonIsraelKapturLewis (GA)

McInnisNealRileyRushSerrano

b 1532So the amendment was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

b 1530Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman,

I move to strike the last word.(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was

given permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman,I would like to enter into a colloquywith the chairman of the sub-committee and with the ranking mem-ber with respect to what I believe to bean oversight in this legislation.

Years ago, in 1986, the Compact ofFree Association was entered into be-tween various entities in Micronesia,the Marshall Islands, and with Palau.It provided citizens of the Freely Asso-ciated States certain rights and privi-leges. One of the rights and privilegeswas free access to the United States.The 1986 Compact allowed citizens ofthe Free Associated States from theMarshalls, Micronesia, Palau and otherplaces, unrestricted entry into theUnited States and access to residence,education, employment and all of thevarious services. Hawaii was always amajor destination for these migrants.

Congress provided, in the legislationat that time, that beginning from Sep-tember 30, 1985, such sums as may benecessary to cover the costs incurredby the State of Hawaii, the Territoriesof Guam and American Samoa result-ing from the increased demand; theproblem was the increased entry fromthese entities into Hawaii and Guamthat has caused very serious additionalexpenses upon my State and Guam spe-cifically. The costs to Hawaii since 1986exceeds $64 million, $10 million just inthe year 2000. Many of the Compact mi-grants who come to Hawaii have sig-nificant health problems, including


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3421June 21, 2001Hansen’s Disease, hepatitis, tuber-culosis and so forth, and they increasethe costs of my State.

The intent of Congress and the legis-lation was to compensate the State ofHawaii and Guam and others for theseadditional expenses. So we had hopedthat the committee would take thisinto consideration. All of us from theState of Hawaii and from Guam wrotethe committee.

My purpose in raising this issuetoday, because this was not covered inthe legislation, is to ask the chairmanand the ranking member if they wouldcomment on the reasons for noninclu-sion. Is there a legal restriction frombeing able to qualify for the moniesthat were intended to come to ourState? But since the very beginning, in1986, we have not been considered at allfor compensation under this legisla-tion. I would hope that I might get avery encouraging response from eitherthe ranking member or the chairmanof this committee. I yield to the gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentlewoman for yielding,and let me just say this. We appreciatethe gentlewoman’s concern on it, andwe will see if there is anything, but itis a question of funding and just a lim-ited bill and lots of choices. But we areearly in the process and the gentle-woman is showing a lot of concern, andwe will just have to see. I am sorry Icannot be more specific.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman,I yield to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appre-ciate the gentlewoman’s hard work onthis issue. I know this is a major con-cern. I want to work with the gentle-woman on this, and hopefully we canhave a meeting before the conferenceand go through the details of this andtry to work with our friends in theother body who now are chairmen ofmajor committees that might be ableto help us find some solutions to this.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman,I thank the gentleman for his words ofencouragement. There is every indica-tion that the Senate will comply withthis request, and I am hopeful that theconferees from this body will agree tothose additions to the legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there furtheramendments to the bill?

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DAVIS OFFLORIDA

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. DAVIS of Flor-

ida:On page 131 after line 4 insert the following

new section:SEC. . NONE OF THE FUNDS IN THIS ACT MAY

BE USED TO EXECUTE A FINAL LEASE AGREE-MENT FOR OIL OR GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THEAREA OF THE GULF OF MEXICO KNOWN ASLEASE SALE 181 PRIOR TO APRIL 1, 2002.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to theorder of the Committee of today, thegentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis)

and a Member opposed each will con-trol 15 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. DAVIS).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield myself such time as I may con-sume.

I am offering this amendment todaywith the gentleman from Florida (Mr.SCARBOROUGH). The effect of theamendment, which has been read in itsentirety, is to prohibit the Secretary ofInterior from signing any new leasesoff the coast of Florida that wouldallow oil and gas drilling to proceed forthe first 6 months of the next fiscalyear.

The reason the amendment is nec-essary is because the Interior Sec-retary has expressed her intention tocontinue with a process which couldwell result in the issuance of oil andgas leases within 30 miles of Pensacola,with some of the most pristine beaches,not just in the State of Florida, but Iwould submit in the United States andthe world, and 200 miles off the coast ofthe Tampa Bay area, my home.

I remember as a small child whathappened when the last oil spill oc-curred in Tampa Bay. It took us yearsto recover from that. We in Florida donot want to see that happen again.This amendment will assure that whatoccurred in Tampa Bay some years agoand, unfortunately, has happened inother parts of the United States, doesnot happen to our precious coastline.

Our coastline is not just somethingthat is precious to Floridians, becausewe cherish our environment and it isintegral to our economy. This is trulya national treasure. I would urge all ofmy colleagues, Democrats and Repub-licans, to think about where their con-stituents are headed this summer.They are headed south. They are head-ed to our beaches, because they arebeautiful beaches. We want to protectthose beaches.

We are against quick fixes to solveour energy problems. We do not wantto see oil drilling right off the coast ofFlorida at the expense of Floridians.


Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the amendment, and Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

Mr. Chairman, this sale was includedin the Mineral Management Service’s5-year plan, and the Congress has votedspecifically to exclude sale 181 from thecurrent leasing moratorium for thepast 6 years. More importantly, it isnecessary that the sale of 181 may holdas much as 7.8 trillion cubic feet of nat-ural gas. This is enough natural gas tosupply 4.6 million households for 20years. This sale represents one of theNation’s best short-term hopes for in-creasing much-needed natural gas sup-plies.

Energy issues have dominated the de-bate lately, especially as they relate toboth prices and supply of energy fuels.This amendment sends the wrong mes-

sage. It says, regardless of the energysituation, we are going to place certainlands off limits. We cannot continue tolock up the Nation’s energy resourcesand then expect to let our energy prob-lems simply solve themselves. That iswhy we ask for our colleagues’ supportin opposing this amendment.


Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH), thecosponsor of this amendment,

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman,I thank the gentleman from Florida,and I would like to stand beside himand other Members from Florida andacross the country who support theDavis-Scarborough amendment.

As the gentleman from Florida said,we do have some of the most pristinebeaches, not only in Florida or theUnited States, but, in fact, they arerecognized as some of the most pristinebeaches across the world, and are con-sistently rated at the top of every listthat comes out. Yet, lease sale 181would allow drilling and explorationless than 20 miles off of our shores.

We certainly do welcome touristsfrom across the country, across theworld, and I disagree that this amend-ment sends the wrong message. I thinkit sends the right message. It recog-nizes that the people of the State ofFlorida, the Republicans and Demo-crats alike, the Republican GovernorJeb Bush, and all of us oppose oil andgas exploration less than 20 miles offthe shore.

I applaud the gentleman from Florida(Mr. YOUNG) and the gentleman fromFlorida (Mr. GOSS) and other peoplethat have led on this issue year in andyear out. It is important to rememberthat this amendment will simply pro-hibit the Minerals Management Serv-ice from finalizing the lease sale onarea 181, which is less than 17 miles offthe coast of my district.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr.YOUNG) once again spearheaded theamendment that has kept Florida’s wa-ters rig-free for the past decade. Thisamendment builds on the chairman’slanguage to include the 181 lease sale,and I commend the gentleman fromFlorida (Mr. GOSS) and the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. DAVIS) and severalothers for supporting it. It is impor-tant. It is important not only to north-west Florida, it is important to theState and it is important that thecountry recognize, recognize the de-sires of the people of the State of Flor-ida. In my home district, we do notwant exploration less than 20 miles offof our shores.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Mis-sissippi (Mr. WICKER) a member of thecommittee.

b 1545Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.I have a map which I think will be

helpful to our colleagues. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in strong opposition to the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3422 June 21, 2001amendment offered by my friend, thegentleman from Florida, and supportedby many of my friends from Florida.

I would think that we would realizewe are now in an energy crisis in theUnited States of America. We are in-creasingly dependent on foreignsources of oil, but the one product inabundance we have here in the UnitedStates in North America is natural gas.That is what we are talking about pri-marily here, natural gas in lease sale181.

This amendment would cripple one ofthe largest sources of natural gas wehave in North America. As the chair-man said, it is $7.8 trillion cubic feet ofnatural gas. My friend, the gentlemanfrom Florida, when he introduced thisamendment, said we do not need aquick fix in this area. My goodness gra-cious, this has been under review for 5years, Mr. Chairman, an exhaustive re-view process. It began in 1996. For 5years, sale 181 has been subjected tocareful review and study to ensure allconcerns are addressed.

In fact, then Governor Lawton Chilesexpressed his appreciation to the De-partment of the Interior for recog-nizing his request to exclude any tractswithin 100 miles of the Florida coast.

What are we talking about here? Ifmy friends can look at the map, andthose on the other side, I would appre-ciate it if they would come over here,we are talking about an area here thatis 213 miles from Tampa, 108 miles fromthe coastline near Panama City. Thislittle part that goes up near Pensacola,that is Alabama territory. Alabamagets to make the choice there. That iswhy it comes so close to Pensacola, be-cause it is Alabama offshore territory.

It is true that the previous adminis-tration called for a moratorium on theexploration and drilling in the easternGulf of Members, but not for lease sale181, not even the previous administra-tion. Even this Congress took action toimpose a moratorium on drilling in theeastern Gulf, except for lease area 181.

The last administration and thisCongress have both recognized the crit-ical importance of lease sale 181 inmeeting our natural gas demand. I re-peat, we are talking about 7.8 trillioncubic feet of sale of natural gas, one ofthe cleanest types of energy we couldproduce, during the time of an energycrisis.

With production declining over herein the western area and in the centralarea of the Gulf of Mexico, this part ofthe eastern section, just sale 181, hun-dreds of miles out in the Gulf of Mex-ico, is crucial to meeting our nationalenergy needs. The sale of 181 is criticalto that effort.

Mr. Chairman, with the current en-ergy crisis, you would think our politi-cians might have learned their lessonabout restricting the production ofneeded and environmentally-friendlyenergy sources.

I urge the defeat of this amendment.This may be one of the most importantvotes we take this summer.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 45 seconds to the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH).

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman,I thank the gentleman for yieldingtime to me.

The gentleman from Mississippi iscorrect, it may be a couple hundredsmiles away from Tampa, but it is onlyabout 15 miles away from the beachesof northwest Florida, where the gen-tleman from Mississippi and his familycome to vacation every summer.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom Florida (Mrs. THURMAN).

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

I thank the gentleman for bringingthis issue to the forefront, and for hiscontinued efforts on behalf of Florida.

I would say to the gentleman fromMississippi, 181, it does not matter, itcould be down in the Keys next, itcould be someplace near Tampa. It isjust the fact and idea that we do notwant this open at all in Florida. Iwould say to the gentleman that thisamendment is about Floridians andtheir wants; or, in this case, what theydo not want. They do not want drillingoff the coast of Florida.

Governor Jeb Bush has said that he,and I would say that 94 percent of thepeople who have contacted me from thenature coast, oppose further oil and gasdrilling off the coast of Florida. Flor-ida’s economy and general welfare de-pend on a healthy marine environment,including clean beaches. An offshoreaccident of any size seriously threatensnot only our shoreline, but it also willhurt our seafood and fishing beds.Clearly we must do all we can to pro-tect Florida’s sensitive seacoast.

What Floridians do want, though,what I have advocated, and so havemany others on this floor, is a prudent,responsible energy policy that includessafe, clean supplies and reduced de-mand through conservation and energyefficiency.

Up to now, we have done too little inthese areas. Renewable resources, suchas solar and wind, I have to tell theMembers, these energies could be pro-viding energy today if we would justuse the technology. We could be welldown the road to a sensible energy pol-icy if the majority had only consideredin 1999 or 2000 the energy tax credit billthat my Democratic colleagues and Isupported.

Instead of funding and using sourceswe now have, we again are debatingissues that should have been settled bynow. Years ago Congress first imposedthe moratorium on expanded drilling inthe Gulf. The past administration ac-cepted the ban on drilling. The currentadministration does not.

If the administration forgets aboutoil drilling near Florida and if Congresswould restore Bush budget cuts for en-ergy efficiency and renewable energyprograms, we can move forward to anenergy policy that serves all Ameri-

cans and does not include drilling offthe coast of Florida. I support theDavis amendment.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield21⁄2 minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY).

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, in these times thisamendment makes no sense, and it isthe height of irresponsibility. Thislease is not off the coast of Florida, itis in the Gulf of Mexico. It is off thecoast of Louisiana and Mississippi.This amendment makes about as muchsense as shutting down all explorationin the Gulf of Mexico. It weakens ourenergy security.

Our long-term energy security, par-ticularly at this time, requires us toseek out new sources of oil and naturalgas. America is growing increasinglydependent on foreign sources of oil.That trend endangers our national se-curity. When the proportion of oil weimport from a volatile region rises, av-erage Americans grow more vulnerableto supply interruptions and inter-national conflicts.

When we have an opportunity to re-verse this trend, we need to seize uponit. We need to take responsible steps todecrease our dependence on foreignsources, and when we discover a prom-ising domestic reserve of natural gasand oil, we need to move forward byopening that area to safe exploration.

Lease sale 181 has the potential toplay a very important role in strength-ening our energy security. It couldhold trillions of cubic feet of naturalgas and billions of barrels of oil. Nat-ural gas and oil produced at home low-ers the sway that potentially hostileforeign leaders would hold over averageAmericans.

Recently we have seen fluctuationsin the price of natural gas because sup-plies have run short. This clean-burn-ing fuel is becoming an increasinglyimportant source of energy. Each addi-tional source adds to the supply andcan offset new demand for natural gas.Lease sale 181 can make natural gasprices lower and more stable.

Now, some Members oppose explo-ration in this area because they areconcerned about environmental risks.That is a radical notion, because whatwe think is a reasonable and under-standable concern is not a concern atall. We do not face an either/or propo-sition. Lease sale 181 can be exploredsafely. Today advances in technologylet drilling platforms probe much larg-er areas. Sophisticated new drilling de-vices provide multiple protectionsagainst oil spills.

We can add these resources to our en-ergy supply without compromising en-vironmental standards. I say to thegentlewoman from Florida, the bestfishing in the world is around theseplatforms, if the gentlewoman has evertaken the time to visit one. Over thepast 20 years, oil exploration firms op-erating in the Gulf have built a solidtrack record of environmental steward-ship.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3423June 21, 2001Defeat this amendment.Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. KUCINICH).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Chairman, I would say respect-fully to my dear friend, the gentlemanfrom Texas, that perhaps the people ofFlorida would much rather have artifi-cial reefs around which their fishingcan be improved instead of oil plat-forms.

In addition to that, while we mightsay that it is radical to protect our en-vironment, perhaps more and moreAmericans are becoming radical be-cause, to look at the polls in this coun-try, the American people strongly de-fend their environment. I do not thinkthe American people want drilling offthe coast of one of the most pristineareas in this country, because it be-longs not only to Florida, it belongs tothe people of my State in Ohio, it be-longs to the people all over this coun-try.

There are people who want to drill inthe Great Lakes, which represent 20percent of the fresh water supply ofAmerica. When do we stop trying totrade the treasure of this Nation to in-dustries which are gouging the public,which are raising prices to unconscion-able levels, which are withholding sup-plies?

We are going to put our trust in thegas and oil industry and forfeit ournatural treasures? I think not. SupportScarborough-Davis.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Lou-isiana (Mr. TAUZIN).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe chairman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, section 181 is located64 miles from my district. It is muchcloser to my district in Louisiana, andmuch closer, by the way, to Alabamaand Mississippi than it is to Florida.That is point number one.

Point number two, right adjacent tosection 181 BP just discovered 1.5 bil-lion barrels of oil. There are huge re-serves there, 7.8 trillion feet of naturalgas probably in section 181. Section 181is under a 5-year plan approved byPresident Clinton in his executiveorder 98, signed off by Florida and theother States of the area, that in factrespects the rights of Florida not tohave drilling within 100 miles of itscoast.

Section 181 can help us through a ter-rible crisis we are about to face. It isnot moratorium, it is in the 5-yearleasing plan, and it needs to be devel-oped.

Ninety-two percent of the new elec-tric power plants that are planned tobe built in this country are beingplanned to be built with natural gas.Yet, we produce 14 percent less naturalgas in this country than we did in 1973.

Section 181 is critical. It has, on bestestimates, 7.8 trillion cubic feet of nat-ural gas available for this country. We

are not going to drill it? We are nottalking about moratoriumed areas, weare not talking about monuments, weare talking about an area in the Gulf ofMexico right next to an area in Lou-isiana that is currently being drilled,currently being processed, for oil andgas for our country. It is an area richin oil and gas for a nation that des-perately need natural gas.

Seven out of twelve fertilizer plantsin Louisiana were shut down this yearbecause we could not afford the naturalgas to process fertilizer for the rest ofthis country. Do Members want to seemore problems? Shut down section 181and we will begin to shut down Amer-ica’s farm belt. We will begin to shutdown clean power for America. We lit-erally predict a crisis that will cometrue.

Defeat this amendment for the goodof the country.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 1 minute to the gentleman fromOrlando, Florida (Mr. KELLER).

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time to me.

I rise today in strong support of theDavis amendment. We need oil rigs offthe Florida beaches about as much aswe need crackhouses next to ourchurches.

Florida is home to this Nation’s fin-est beaches. We have a tourism-basedeconomy. The last thing we need is oildrilling 17 miles off the shores of ourPensacola beaches in north Florida.

I represented the world’s number onevacation destination. I get to meetthousands of tourists every year. Ihave never yet heard a child to me say,‘‘I want to see Mickey Mouse, Shamu,and wouldn’t it be great to see a coupleoil rigs off the beaches?″

Reasonable people surely can differon this issue. It genuinely is a risk-versus-benefits analysis, but in thecase of Florida, in light of our econ-omy, the risks outweigh the benefits.

b 1600

To the extent we need more energysupply, and we do, let us start withplaces that actually want the oildrillings and not the Florida beaches.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. GREEN).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I thank the gentleman from New Mex-ico (Mr. SKEEN), the chairman of theSubcommittee of the Interior, foryielding me the time.

I am proud to follow some of my col-leagues. As a country, we cannot enjoya growing and cleaner economy with-out more domestic production of nat-ural gas. It is clear that our Nation’sdemand for natural gas is growing sig-nificantly.

If our Nation is to meet its growingdemand, then we have to have access togas-prone areas like Sale 181, which isreally closer to other States than it isto Florida.

We cannot set aside Florida. I wonderabout my colleagues who want to have

a vacation destination. People will notbe able to drive there to enjoy MickeyMouse unless we have production do-mestically.

We cannot have it both ways. Wecannot demand lower energy prices andcontinued reliability and at the sametime discourage domestic production.Exploration and production of domes-tic energy sources are keys to stayingin front of our energy needs.

Sure, we need to conserve. Sure, weneed to have alternatives, but con-servation and alternatives will not sat-isfy the demands of the American peo-ple. We have to have production, par-ticularly from natural gas, to fuel allof these cleaner-burning power plantsthat are on the drawing boards and ac-tually being built.

Mr. Chairman, Sale 181 actually dur-ing the last administration was left outof President Clinton’s executive orderin 1998 because it was agreed to by allthe States, including Florida. In fact,the sale was specifically excluded fromthe current leasing moratorium lan-guage.

Key stakeholders including Alabama,Florida and the Department of Defensewere consulted on the 5-year plan. Thesale of the area was drawn to ensure itwas consistent with Florida’s requestfor no oil and gas activities within 100miles, but what we are talking about iswithin the Alabama border, and that iswhy we need this production.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom Miami, Florida (Mrs. MEEK).

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chair-man, when are people going to get it intheir minds that the people of Floridado not want oil and gas drilling in thesea bed of the Gulf of Mexico? It doesnot take a Ph.D. to figure that out. Itis simple. Why is it my colleagues can-not figure that out?

Our Governor, Jeb Bush, has made itexplicitly clear even to his brotherthat he does not want this to happen.Why can we not listen to those peoplewho know what the deleterious effectswill be of this in Florida? Within 30miles of Perdido Key you want to drill.Sixteen million Americans residing inthe State of Florida do not want it.

Mr. Chairman, I will repeat it again,I do not have much time, the people ofFlorida do not want it. The Governordoes not wanted it. So do not push thePresident into wanting it. Please re-member we do not want it. Do my col-leagues want to ruin our beaches? Mycolleagues want to turn us into an-other Planet of the Apes.

We do not want it, the toxic pollu-tion, offshore oil drillings, air pollu-tion, spills. These things will happen.Why would we want to put our naturalsystem at risk? We have Evergladeshere. We have the beauty that God hasgiven us. Let us keep it. It is not thatimportant.

We are not going to stand for it. Weare not going to allow it to happen. Wewill not allow Bush I or II and theirbest friends to destroy this beautiful


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3424 June 21, 2001natural system. Let us protect Flor-ida’s coastline and beaches. Supportthe Davis amendment.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromLouisiana (Mr. VITTER).

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, we facea real energy crisis in this countrywhich is only going to grow; and tomeet that crisis, we need a balancedlong-term approach.

We are not going to drill our way outof the crisis, nor are we going to con-serve our way out of the crisis, nor arewe going to work our way out of thecrisis through pure energy efficiency.

The bottom line is that clearly wehave to do all of these things. Theproblem with this amendment is ittakes safe, clear opportunity for do-mestic oil and gas production off thetable, and we have been doing that for30 years, taking more and more off thetable.

That is exactly the sort of not-in-my-backyard mentality which has uswhere we are today. That is exactlywhat we have to get beyond if we aregoing to have a balanced comprehen-sive approach to meeting our Nation’senergy needs.

The most ironic thing about this not-in-my-backyard argument, it is noteven in their backyard. In fact, it is inFederal territory, and it is more in thebackyards of Alabama and Mississippiand Louisiana than it is in their back-yard.

Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues wantto be so parochial in their approach,then maybe we could make a deal withthem: I will not go to Florida beachesfor a while. I will just go to GulfShores in Alabama, but my colleaguesshould not demand that and should notuse energy from the rest of the countryincluding everything that we exploreand drill for and produce in Louisiana.

Obviously, we need to get beyondthat narrow-mindedness and that paro-chialism and have a balanced approach,including producing this clean, safe en-ergy.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 1 minute to the gentleman fromPalm Beach, Florida (Mr. FOLEY).

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I wantpeople to focus a little bit on the de-bate for a moment. It is very, very sim-ple. We have heard people from otherStates, Texas, Louisiana, all say theyare for oil drilling. You can have allyou want. You can do it in your homeState. You can do it off your shores.

Florida is making a very simple andspecific request, leave us out of yourdialogue and leave us out of your draw-ings. We believe strongly in having acohesive environmental policy. In fact,in the 1970s I worked in a Shell gas sta-tion, and I remember having people an-tagonized over the fact they could notfill their tanks; but since the 1970s wehave done very little to have a com-prehensive energy policy. But just sug-gesting that we start putting pipes inthe ground is not a solution.

A lot of people are paying attentionand wanting to know when can we set

the rigs. Florida is simply saying notin our backyard. We are delighted tosay it and proud to say it.

Democrats and Republicans in thedelegation joined together trying tourge Congress to leave us out of this.Have it in Alabama. Have it in Lou-isiana. Go to Texas. Go to California,and even in Alaska if you want. Yes, itmay be controversial, but the sov-ereign right of that State should beheard. Our sovereign right is express-ing opposition, and I urge my col-leagues to join us in this initiative.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman from California (Mr. THOMAS).

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, actu-ally, this would be a lot more fun if itwas real. It is the phoniest debate Ihave heard in a long, long time.

If we look at the amendment, thissignificant move on the part of Floridais going to last until April 1, 2002;maybe April 2001 is more appropriatethan 2002. The fact of the matter is ifthey were serious, they would havemade it permanent. They did not makeit permanent because it costs money.

We have heard about this particulararea. It is in the Gulf of Mexico. Thearea looks like this. Why does it havethis long neck? Because Florida saidthey did not want any drilling overthere within 100 miles of their coast-line. Frankly, most of the natural gasis probably in this area. So there wasan agreement between Florida and theother States.

Mr. Chairman, this literally is 200miles from Florida there and 100 milesfrom Florida there. But here is thedirty little secret that no one in Flor-ida will tell you. Guess what this lineis right across the gulf? That is an al-ready-agreed-upon pipeline 740 miles tosupply oil and gas to Florida. No, theydo not want to drill near you, but theywant the oil and gas to use.

How hypocritical can you be? Howfar is 100 miles? It is from New YorkCity to Scranton, Pennsylvania. It isfrom Madison, Wisconsin, to Waterloo,Iowa. And if we cannot drill in an al-ready-approved area in which the Stateof Florida was a negotiator and thelines were drawn to fit them, it reallywill be our Waterloo when we are try-ing to be self-sufficient for energy.

Here is the question, Members, whenmy colleagues vote: If it was worthfighting for oil and gas in the PersianGulf, why is it not worth looking for inthe gulf near America?

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 1 minute to the gentlewomanfrom Miami, Florida (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman,I rise to strongly support the Scar-borough-Davis amendment that wouldprohibit the Secretary of the Interiorfrom executing a final lease agreementfor oil or gas development in the areaof the Gulf of Mexico known as LeaseSale 181.

The beaches on the gulf coast of Flor-ida are comprised of some of the mostpristine and beautiful areas that wouldbe devastated by an oil spill in the Gulfof Mexico. Our tourism and fishing in-dustries would also be devastated bysuch a spill.

Many of my congressional colleagueshave told me recently that they will bevisiting this area of Florida during theJuly 4th holiday.

People come to Florida for the beach-es. So please join the citizens of theState of Florida who overwhelminglyand in a bipartisan way oppose drillingoff of our waters.

We are talking about 17 miles off ofPensacola Florida. Florida’s whitesand, clear waters, and gorgeous sun-sets have truly not only become atreasure for our State, but they are atreasure for our Nation and the mil-lions of tourists who visit Florida’sbeaches every year.

Please join the State of Florida inprotecting our beaches and crystal bluewaters by opposing offshore drilling.All of our constituents will thank youfor it.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 1 minute to the gentleman fromIndiana (Mr. ROEMER).

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I risein strong support of the amendment of-fered by the gentleman from Florida(Mr. DAVIS), the bipartisan amend-ment. Certainly, Members from Lou-isiana and Texas and Florida and evenIndiana and Ohio have every right tospeak on this amendment.

Sixteen million Floridians do notwant drilling off their shore. Tens ofthousands of people from Indiana andOhio and Illinois that go down to FortLauderdale, Long Key, Sanibel Island,also enjoy the tourism, the fishing, theenvironmental areas down there; andwe want to see that protected.

There is an old saying that you can-not have it both ways. The problemwith the Bush administration’s energypolicy is in energy you need to have itboth ways. You need to have produc-tion and conservation. They only em-phasize production and drilling andmore drilling and drilling in Alaska.

We need to make sure we have a bal-anced approach to protect our environ-ment. We need to make sure we en-hance the new technologies out thereto drill in prior areas and get more outof those areas rather than going intopristine environmental areas.

Support the Davis amendment. Sup-port bipartisan environmental con-cerns and support going toward a bal-anced energy policy.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield 15 seconds to the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH), a co-sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman,I just wanted to give another point ofreference to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. THOMAS), who was talkingabout 100 miles or 200 miles from Wa-terloo to whatever. We are talkingabout 17 miles which will not get you


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3425June 21, 2001from the United States capitol to theairport. Seventeen miles is what we aretalking about, that will not even getyou to Washington’s airport at Dullesso you can fly home to California.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I yield myself such time as I may con-sume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to re-spond to some of the statements thatwere made. Let us go back to the facts.Nobody has questioned the statementof the gentleman from Florida (Mr.SCARBOROUGH) that this is 17 milesfrom the coast of Florida.

Let us be perfectly clear. This isdrilling for oil, crude oil, as well as gas;and there are 21 days of crude oil inSale 181. If we raise fuel efficiencystandards by 16 miles per hour, thatachieves 10 times more result than pro-ceeding with Sale 181.

Mr. Chairman, with the exception ofthe gentleman from California (Mr.THOMAS), every Member of Congressthat told Florida that we should putour coastline at risk is from an oil-pro-ducing State, and they do not have toapologize for protecting jobs in theirStates. But our tourists do not wash upon their beaches, and we do not wanttheir oil washing up on ours.

Let me just further say, with respectto the gentleman from Texas (Mr.DELAY), if being against the risk of oilspills in Florida makes us radical byTexas’ environmental standards, thenwe proudly wear that label.

The point is, as the gentleman fromIndiana (Mr. ROEMER) said, we need abalance here; and we support solutionsto our energy problem. But let us havea thoughtful debate. Let us not engagein quick fixes at the expense of Florid-ians. We have suffered oil spills before.I saw one when I was a small child inTampa Bay. I do not want my childrenor grandchildren to see that again.

b 1615

This is in Florida’s waters. This issomething we are entitled to protect.We can do better. Let us adopt thisamendment. Let us slow this down for6 months and find a balanced solutionto the energy challenges that face ourcountry and not do so at the expense ofFlorida and its coastline.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanyields back the balance of his time.

The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.SKEEN) has 45 seconds remaining.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Tennessee (Mr. WAMP).

(Mr. WAMP asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the entireAlabama delegation is on record sup-porting Sale 181. Unfortunately, thedelegation is in Alabama with thePresident of the United States and willbe unable to vote. I submit for theRECORD herewith the delegation lettersin support of Sale 181.

UNITED STATES SENATE,Washington, DC, April 9, 2001.

Hon. George W. Bush,President of the United States, The White

House, Washington, DC.

DEAR PRESIDENT BUSH: We are writing toendorse the State of Alabama’s strong sup-port for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) LeaseSale 181 scheduled for December 2001. H.J.Res. 13, as passed by the Alabama Legisla-ture and signed by Governor Siegelman un-equivocally recognizes the positive benefitsof Sale 181. We agree with the Governor’sstated position supporting the proposed saleso long as no blocks are leased within 15miles of the Alabama coast and safety meas-ures are ensured.

We agree this sale is a crucial componentof a strategy to develop new, diverse suppliesof oil and natural gas to meet the ever-in-creasing energy demands of our nation’s neweconomy. As production declines in the west-ern and central portions of the Gulf of Mex-ico, there is a growing recognition of theneed for the vast resources contained in thiseastern segment of the Gulf. Importantly, allof Sale 181’s tracts are outside the areas thatare off-limits to exploration and productionunder the mandated federal moratoriumarea. The Gulf Of Mexico now provides about24% of U.S. oil production and about 26% ofU.S. natural gas production. The resourcescontained in this sale area are estimated tohold approximately 7.8 trillion cubic feet ofgas and 1.9 billion barrels of oil.

The oil and natural gas industry has beengood for Alabama, providing fuel and em-ployment, to thousands of our state’s resi-dents, contributing to our economy and de-positing millions of dollars into our state’streasury. It is estimated the oil and gas in-dustry spends over $50 million annually onAlabama and Mississippi products and serv-ices. State funds derived from lease agree-ments in the Gulf of Mexico are utilized toimprove our environment and protect uniquecoastal and estuarine habitats. The success-ful and timely continuation of Sale 181 wouldonly further enhance these benefits to ourstate.

Alabama and the offshore industry havecoexisted to the mutual benefit of both fordecades. As you know, the oil and naturalgas industry has an outstanding record foroperating safety on the more than 3,800 off-shore platform, which are subject to ex-tremely rigorous environment standards. Itis anticipated this excellent record will con-tinue to improve as new technology allowsthe extraction of more oil and gas fromwider areas using fewer wells and platformprotecting seabeds and marine life.

Like other Gulf of Mexico states, Alabamahas a thriving and expanding tourism busi-ness. The oil and natural gas activities off-shore have not discouraged visitors to ourbeaches and other recreational areas alongour coast.

We urge you to continue your support ofresponsible development of our domestic re-sources, including the Sale 181 area. Ala-bama is proud of our contribution to na-tional energy security and economic growththrough the prudent and environmentallysound development of our offshore energy re-sources.

With kind regards, we areSincerely,

Richard Shelby, U.S.S., Sonny Callahan,M.C., Spencer Bachus, M.C., TerryEverett, M.C., Bob Riley, M.C., JeffSessions, U.S.S., Robert Aderholt, M.C.Robert E. ‘‘Bud’’ Cramer, M.C., EarlHilliard, M.C.

PROPOSED LEASE SALE 181,DON SIEGELMAN, GOVERNOR,

April 24, 2001.President Bush asked me to help with this

proposed lease sale and I am pleased to lendmy support as long as there are no blockssold within 15 miles of the Alabama coastand safety measures are ensured. I believethis is in the country’s and Alabama’s bestlong-term interest. Because Alabama is anenergy producing state, this proposed leasesale will help Alabama propel its economicdevelopment effort. It is my hope that thiswould help increase supply and reduce pricesfor consumers. At my request, we will meetwith the Mineral Management Service onMay 7th, to ensure that all safety measuresare in place before moving forward with thelease sale. If I am satisfied that the nec-essary precautions are in place, I look for-ward to proceeding with proposed lease sale181.

DON SIEGELMAN, GOVERNOR,State of Alabama, January 24, 2001.

DEAR MR. OYNES: With respect to your let-ter of December 1, 2000, concerning the draftenvironmental Impact Statement for pro-posed Eastern Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 181,we offer the following comments.

I am pleased the Minerals ManagementService is not offering any blocks in pro-posed Lease Sale 181 within 15 miles of theAlabama coast. The Interior secretary’s deci-sion to delete blocks within 15 miles offshoreBaldwin County in the eastern Gulf of Mex-ico serves to mitigate the concerns of Ala-bama’s residents regarding visual impactsfrom new natural gas structures in the areasof Gulf Shores and Orange Beach. In the fu-ture, I will continue to oppose the leasing ofany unleased blocks southward and within 15miles of the Baldwin County coast. We recog-nize that new natural gas structures may beinstalled on currently leased federal blocks,and we support and appreciate MMS’s effortsto work cooperatively with the industry andthe state of Alabama to minimize the visualimpacts of new natural gas structures off-shore Baldwin County. I request that youcontinue to work with the Geological Sur-vey/State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama tofind realistic methods for addressing thisviewshed issue.

As you are aware, the state of Alabamaconsistently has supported protection forlive bottoms, pinnacle reefs, chemosyntheticcommunities and other sensitive environ-ments of offshore Alabama in the CentralGulf of Mexico Planning Area. We certainlysupport these same types of protection forLease Sale 181 in the Eastern Gulf of MexicoPlanning Area.

We continue to support MMS’s nonenergyminerals program. It is important that MMScontinue to gather geological and environ-mental information regarding Outer Conti-nental Shelf sand resources that may be re-quired for coastal erosion management. Weappreciate MMS’s interaction with the stateof Alabama to identify these resources whichmay have both short- and long-term utility.

We have concerns regarding statements onpage IV–128 of the DEIS which indicate thatcoastal Alabama has the highest probabilityof contact if a large offshore spill occurred inthe area for proposed Lease Sale 181. In addi-tion, we have concerns regarding the numberof new pipeline landfalls (page IV–221), newgas processing plants (page IV–238), new oilpipeline shore facilities (page IV–238), andadverse impacts to air quality (page IV–287).These matters are of particular concern,given that the vast majority of blocks avail-able for lease in proposed Lease Sale 181 arelocated offshore Florida. It would appear


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3426 June 21, 2001that the coastal Alabama area could be sig-nificantly impacted by OCS activities occur-ring offshore Florida as a result of the pro-posed sale. I request that MMS meet withrepresentatives of the Geological Survey/State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama and dis-cuss all of these matters in detail in the nearfuture.

The state of Alabama supports a balancedand reasonable Outer Continental Shelf(OCS) leasing program that leads to explo-ration, development and production, withthe stipulation that all OCS activities becarried out in full compliance with relevantAlabama laws, rules, and regulations, and beconsistent with our Coastal Zone Manage-ment Program.

We appreciate the opportunity to commenton the Draft Environmental Impact State-ment for proposed Eastern Gulf of MexicoLease Sale 181 and look forward to workingcooperatively with MMS in the successfuland safe development of the hydrocarbon re-sources located offshore Alabama and insharing in the benefits of OCS leasing andproduction activities.

Sincerely,Don Siegelman, Governor.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

Whereas, Alabama annual natural gas pro-duction from onshore and offshore wells,combined, is 433 billion cubic feet, of which217 billion cubic feet come from offshorewells; and

Whereas, Alabama Gulf Coast and DauphinIsland tourism economy co-exist in harmonythrough mutual use of Alabama’s natural re-sources with Alabama offshore natural gasproduction operations; and

Whereas, Alabama’s recreational fishingand commercial fishing industry co-exist inharmony through mutual use of Alabama’snatural resources with Alabama offshorenatural gas production operations; and

Whereas, Alabama benefits from offshorenatural gas operations in many ways, includ-ing, but not limited to, local and state reve-nues from severance taxes, and state reve-nues from Trust Fund interest, includingroyalty state payments, federal 8(g) royal-ties, and lease sale proceeds; and

Whereas, Alabama jobs, income taxes, andother positive economic benefits have beencreated by Alabama’s offshore natural gasdevelopments, including exploration anddrilling, platform fabrication and installa-tion, pipeline contracting and construction,onshore gas treatment plant construction,operation, and maintenance, and goods, serv-ices, and supplies purchased; and

Whereas, Additional positive economicbenefits related to Alabama offshore naturalgas developments include direct effects suchas direct purchases, indirect effects such aspurchases by contractors and suppliers, andinduced effects such as the re-circulation ofwages, salaries, and profits; and

Whereas, Alabama offshore natural gas de-velopments and operations have performedin a safe and environmentally-sensitive man-ner, with benefits to Alabama citizens faroutweighing any/all perceived risks; and

Whereas, Alabama citizens and industries,and individual natural gas consumers and in-dustries outside Alabama continue to useand need more clean-burning natural gassupplies; and

Whereas, areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mex-ico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 25 milesand further south of Alabama’s and Florida’scoastlines represent a major prospect fordrilling and producing future supplies ofclean-burning natural gas; and

Whereas, two eastern Gulf of Mexico OuterContinental Shelf (OCS) areas, specificallyan area known as the Destin Dome and Fed-eral Lease Sale 181 Area, if drilled in a safe

and environmentally-sensitive manner, arepredicted to hold large natural gas reserves;and

Whereas, Coastal Alabama is the likelynatural gas infrastructure area to take newreserves to market, increasing Alabama’seconomic benefits directly related to newnatural gas production from the EasternGulf of Mexico; now therefore, be it

Resolved by the legislature of Alabama, bothhouses thereof Concurring, That we expressour support for natural gas drilling and de-velopment in the federal Outer Continentalshelf (OCS) Eastern Gulf of Mexico areas ofthe Destin Dome and Federal Lease Sale 181Area. Be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution besent to each member of Alabama’s U.S. Con-gressional Delegation and to President Clin-ton, Secretary of Commerce William Daley,The Minerals Management Service, the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, the Department of Energy, and the en-vironmental Protection Agency.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. PETER-SON), a valued member of the Sub-committee on Interior.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Chairman, I yield to the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. THOMAS).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tellmy friends briefly, in terms of a re-sponse, it is only 6 months, and thelines that are on the map are the linesthat the Floridians agreed to. It is 100miles from the Florida border, asagreed to by Florida’s governor. So Iunderstand my colleagues’ concern, butas a matter of fact, what is going to beput in that pipeline? It is going to besome other State’s gas. Come on.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Re-claiming my time, Mr. Chairman, inconclusion, gas prices last year dou-bled. We have put a huge amount ofelectric generation on this year, allnatural gas. Next year home heatingnatural gas costs could double againand our energy sensitive businesses aregoing to be priced right out of business.

When my colleagues’ seniors cannotafford to heat their homes next year,when they get the second year in a rowwith high natural gas prices, and lookat any of the curves, the natural gasuses for electric generation exceedsany new gas coming out of the ground,My colleagues’ seniors are going to bevery angry with this decision.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ex-press my support for an amendment offeredby my colleagues from Florida, Representa-tives DAVIS and SCARBOROUGH, to prohibit oiland gas exploration and development off thecoast of Florida. The issue at hand is the saleof Lease Sale 181 in the Gulf of Mexico, al-though offshore drilling threatens all coastalcommunities, including those of New Jersey.We in New Jersey thought we had put to restthe idea of drilling off the New Jersey coast,but recently we have begun to wonder.

Sale 181 contains 5.9 million acres of anoffshore area in the Gulf, in water rangingfrom 108 to over 10,000 feet deep. The saleis scheduled for December, 2001. Althoughboth the past administration and the presentgovernor of Florida support a ban on oil andgas development within 100 miles of the coastof Florida, part of Sale 181 come to within 15miles of the Alabama coast.

I see this sale as a potential threat to theeconomy and environment of the gulf states.Although cleaner than in the past, oil and gasexploration cannot be done without threat-ening our natural resources, commercial fish-ing industries, tourism, and marine ecology.Nearly 90 percent of the reef fish resources ofthe Gulf of Mexico are caught on the WestFlorida Shelf. Oil and gas development wouldthreaten the shallow, clean water marine com-munities found on the Florida outer continentalshelf. Ecology and environment are central tothe economy of Florida. Damage to the envi-ronment would threaten the tourism industryupon which much of their economy is based.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that drill-ing in Lease 181 would have a significant im-pact on our energy supply. Increased con-servation and efficiency would do more tomeet our country’s energy needs than drillingoff of the coast of Florida, and the impact ofconservation would be immediate with little en-vironmental cost.

I endorse this amendment as a strong mes-sage to Secretary Norton to maintain the mor-atorium on offshore drilling and not to sacrificeour marine ecosystem in an attempt to satisfyour energy demands. I strongly support thisamendment to prohibit the sale of the Sale181 area and I urge my colleagues, particu-larly those who represent coastal states, tojoin me.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. DAVIS).


RECORDED VOTE

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman,I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. DAVIS) willbe postponed.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. INSLEE:At the end of the bill, insert after the last

section (preceding the short title) the fol-lowing new section:

SEC. . None of the funds made available inthis Act may be used to suspend or revise thefinal regulations published in the FederalRegister on November 21, 2000, that amendedpart 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regula-tions.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that, notwith-standing the unanimous consent agree-ment that was previously reached, welimit this amendment to 20 minutes, 10minutes on each side.

The CHAIRMAN. And all amend-ments thereto?

Mr. DICKS. And all amendmentsthereto.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromWashington?

There was no objection.Mr. SKEEN. We approve.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

order of the Committee of today, thegentleman from Washington (Mr. INS-LEE) and a Member opposed each willcontrol 10 minutes.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3427June 21, 2001The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Washington (Mr. INSLEE).Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.This is a bipartisan amendment of-

fered by the gentleman from California(Mr. HORN) and myself. It is a bipar-tisan amendment intended to main-tain, maintain, existing environmentalprotections. It is about arsenic, it isabout cyanide, it is about sulfuric acid,it is about making sure that we do notroll back existing rules in place todaythat have been implemented to preventthe discharge of arsenic and cyanideand other toxics into our streams andrivers.

Mr. Chairman, here is why thisamendment is necessary. Before theadoption of these rules, we had a scan-dalous situation in mining and releaseof toxics. Twelve thousand miles ofstreams in the West are polluted frommining tailings, 40 percent of streamsin the West. Ninety-six percent of all ofthe arsenic compounds artificially re-leased in the environment have beenfrom the mining industry, withoutthese rules that have now been imple-mented; 600 million pounds of arsenicand arsenic compounds a year from themining industry.

Mr. Chairman, we need to make surein this appropriation bill that no handis taken to reduce the effectiveness orrepeal these rules that have beenadopted after 4 years and 35,000 piecesof input from the American public.

Now, let me tell my colleagues, thereare three things at risk here: Numberone, the existing rules adopted by rule.Number one has environmental per-formance standards, standards thatevery mining operation has to meet toprevent the discharge of cyanide. Andbecause of the implementation of cya-nide heap leach mining, this is ex-tremely important.

Number two, we have got to have away for local communities to haveinput in these decisions of siting, andwe do not want to allow any hand toremove the ability to have local com-munities where there is substantial ir-reparable harm to a local community.This is a local control issue.

Number three, we want to make surethe mines put up adequate bonding ca-pability. Under this rule, the adminis-tration, to its credit, has said they willkeep this part, this one-third of thebill, and this is the part we want tomake sure we keep the administrationpolicy in hand.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a bipar-tisan bill, and so we seek bipartisansupport. It is a strong problem that de-serves that we keep the status quo forthe environment.


The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlemanfrom New Mexico seek time in opposi-tion?

Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is

recognized for 10 minutes.Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support thegentleman’s amendment. I see nothingwrong with the Department of Interiorreevaluating regulations that were fi-nalized in the last days of the past ad-ministration. In fact, it is my under-standing that this type of review iscommonplace during the changes of ad-ministration.

We should allow the rulemakingprocess to continue and not preemptthe process by establishing yet anothermoratorium on this bill. The Interiorbill is not the appropriate place to ad-dress the changes in the Mining Law of1872. This is best left to the authorizingcommittee which has jurisdiction overthis issue.

After reviewing the National Re-search Council report on hardrock min-ing on Federal lands, it is obvious tome that the previous administrationwent too far in amending the miningregulations. It is my opinion that theserules will have a significant economicimpact on the mining sector. However,while I personally would like to limitany changes to these regulations to theregulatory gaps identified by the Na-tional Research Council, I have re-frained from doing so because we havean appropriate rulemaking process inplace to address this issue.

I therefore ask for my colleagues’support in opposing this amendment.Amen.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. HORN), the cosponsor of thisamendment.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

I rise today to urge my colleagues tosupport this amendment, which seeksto continue our commitment to respon-sible public land management. Envi-ronmental mining rules, also known as3809 regulations, provide critical Fed-eral oversight specifically for hardrockmining on lands managed by the Bu-reau of Land Management.

The current regulations were enactedbecause the old regulations failed tokeep pace with modern mining tech-niques. The current rule is critical be-cause it requires mining companies topay for the full cost of environmentalcleanup rather than being able to shiftthose costs to taxpayers. Right now,because of the old mining rules, tax-payers are on the hook for $1 billion incleanup costs just at currently oper-ating mines.

The current rule puts strong environ-mental standards in place to protectwater supplies from excessive contami-nation of arsenic and other heavy met-als by directing mining operators toprotect surface and groundwater re-sources. As of the year 2000, the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency esti-mated that 40 percent of the head-waters of all the western watershedsare polluted by mining. This is due inpart to the fact that the old miningrules had no environmental perform-ance standards.

This amendment simply states thatno funds shall be used to suspend or re-vise the final regulations published inthe Federal Register on November 21,2000. This will ensure the protection ofour waters from arsenic, cyanide andother toxic pollutants and give cer-tainty that the taxpayers are protectedas well.

I again urge my colleagues to supportthis amendment and keep the currentrule in place.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Ari-zona (Mr. HAYWORTH).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from New Mexico,the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposi-tion to this rider on an appropriationbill. I listened with interest, Mr. Chair-man, to my good friend from Wash-ington State, because in a previousCongress, both on October 4 of 1999 andOctober 21 of 1999, he told us how hor-rible it was to have riders added to ap-propriation bills. In fact, he likenedthem to fleas.

Well, I will tell my colleague what isgoing to flee. With the passage of someof these anti-mining and anti-jobs rid-ers, say good-bye to the jobs. If my col-leagues care about endangered species,I wish we cared one whit about the peo-ple of America who earn a solid, de-cent, honest living from mining. Butwe can laugh and watch the othercountries put up help wanted signs andkiss off another industry, when thefact is that already on the books thereis effective regulation that has endedthe scourge of environmental harm.The industry has changed.

Look, all we are saying is let the cur-rent administration have the samecourtesy the previous administrationdid. Let a reexamination of section 3809take place, rules that took effect in thelast nanosecond of the previous admin-istration on January 20. Why not havea situation where we can review them?

This body has twice directed the De-partment of the Interior to not promul-gate rules inconsistent with the rec-ommendations of a congressionallymandated study of hardrock mining onFederal lands by the National ResearchCouncil of the National Academy ofSciences. We hear so much about theNAS and its studies, we hear so muchlip service paid to science, yet when wehave a provision here that says let usstand up for sound science, we want toabandon it, and with it the jobs of thisindustry, to make headlines in terms ofwhat some deem to be politically cor-rect.

What this amendment will do is setthe precedent my friend from Wash-ington State was so concerned about in1999. This will unfurl a cascade of rid-ers for the remainder of this appropria-tions process. And what again this willdo, and this is the tragedy of the situa-tion, Mr. Chairman, we will add moreregulation and cost more jobs. For myfriend from California, who is inter-ested in high-tech, I wonder how his


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3428 June 21, 2001computers are going to work when wedo not have the copper wiring anymore.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume torespond that we seek to maintain theexisting regulation, which is fully con-sistent with the NAS study that con-cluded we needed better regulationsagainst arsenic and cyanide in our wa-ters.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to thegentleman from New Jersey (Mr.PASCRELL).

(Mr. Pascrell asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I risein support of the amendment by my es-teemed colleague, the gentleman fromWashington, (Mr. INSLEE), to keepstandards in place that protect ourwater resources from mining pollution.

Clean water is the most fundamentalquality of life issue we have in thiscountry. That is why I support fundingthe U.S. Geological Survey’s waterscience programs and its 54 StateWater Institutes in the amount rec-ommended by the Subcommittee on In-terior.

b 1630We cannot live without clean water.

This amendment will strengthen thecommittee’s wise decision to fund theUSGS water programs by adding envi-ronmental safeguards to protect ourwater resources from pollution causedby mining. The USGS mission from itsinception has focused on water re-sources. They must remain focused onour water resources in order to pre-serve the health of every American.

In New Jersey alone, our percentageof impaired waters have worsened from50 percent of our streams and rivers in1993 to 65 percent today. Changing theUSGS focus away from these crucialwater programs in order to protect anyindustry is the very last thing weshould be allowing.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for total supportof this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theamendment by my esteemed colleague fromWashington, Mr. INSLEE, to keep standards inplace that protect our water resources frommining pollution.

Clear water is the most fundamental quality-of-life issue we have in this country. That iswhy I support funding the US Geological Sur-vey’s water science programs and its 54 StateWater Institutes in the amount recommendedby the Interior Subcommittee of Appropria-tions—We cannot live without clean water!

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strength-en the Committee’s wise decision to fund theUSGS water programs, by adding environ-mental safeguards to protect our water re-sources from pollution caused by mining.

The Department of the Interior proposes tochange the mission of the US GeologicalServices away from water in order to focusmore on mining. But focusing on mining at theexpense of our water science and clean waterprotection is the wrong approach!

The USGS mission, from its inception, hascorrectly focused on water resources—and it

must remain focused on our water resources,in order to preserve the health of very Amer-ican!

Without the US Geological Survey’s waterprograms and USGS State University Insti-tutes—including our own Rugers Institute—wecannot assess the quality of our water, or trainour future water professionals. These pro-grams are the core of the USGS! The Geo-logical Survey must remain much more thansimple mining protection!

The USGS ability to track and map prob-lems with our water is a vital component inhelping our state environmental agencies, sowe can visualize problems while solutions arestill doable and still cost effective.

In New Jersey alone, our percentage of ‘‘im-paired’’ waters has worsened from 50% of ourstreams and rivers in 1993, to 65% today, ac-cording to the most recent study.

In our state, data from USGS has helped ussee that worsening pollution follows our‘‘sprawl line’’—and I know that in every statethe causes of pollution may differ, whether itis sprawl, or acid rain, or mining, or somecombination of pollutants.

But Mr. Chairman, it is only with these im-portant USGS tolls that we can learn aboutthese pollutants, and learn what does not workin the way we manage our water resourcesand land use! Changing the USGS focus awayfrom these crucial water programs, in order toprotect the mining industry, is the very lastthing we should allow, if we want to continuepreserving our water and our health!

Mr. INSLEE’s amendment is exactly what isneeded to help protect these threatened re-sources, by allowing our communities andland management agencies to protect ourwater from pollution.

Our communities already struggle to keepour fragile watersheds pure—as we well knowin New Jersey. So I want to commend theChair and Ranking Member of the InteriorSubcommittee, and all of my Appropriationscolleagues, for supporting our water scienceprograms, and voting unanimously to restoremore than $90 million in funding to the USGS.

And I want to thank my many colleagues onboth sides of the aisle for helping me to cham-pion the USGS water science programs—theHonorable ASA HUTCHINSON, and MICHAELBILIRAKIS; and my colleagues Mr. GIBBONS,and Mr. GREEN and Mr. BOEHLERT, as well asmany of my Republican colleagues.

I also want to thank my esteemed col-leagues form this side of the aisle—Mr. KIND,Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Mrs. MALONEY; Mr.BLUMENAUER and Mr. PAYNE, Mrs. MINK andMr. PALLONE—and many, many others of youwho have recognized—as I do—the impor-tance of the USGS water programs to our na-tion’s health.

Mr. Chairman, I know, and my esteemedcolleagues know that the USGS is our ‘‘earlywarning system’’ in the battle against deadlytoxins and pollution in our water. We must nottolerate the dismantling of these vital pro-grams or a change in the USGS mission awayfrom water, to focus on mining.

I urge all of my colleagues to support thefull funding that was appropriated for all U.S.Geological Survey water programs, and tosupport Mr. INSLEE’s amendment protectingour water resources from deadly mining pollu-tion.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Nevada(Mr. GIBBONS).

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I wantto respond, and I want to oppose theamendment of the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. INSLEE).

Mr. Chairman, the National Academyof Sciences indicated prior to theissuance of the regulations that we arequestioning today, the 3809 changes bythe Clinton administration, the Na-tional Academy of Sciences issued a re-port prior to the existence of those reg-ulations that the current 3809 regula-tions on hardrock mining on publiclands, stated that the ‘‘existing arrayof Federal and State laws regulatingmining is effective in protecting theenvironment.’’ They did not say weneeded additional regulations for that.They said the existing array of regula-tions are effective in protecting the en-vironment.

What we have here, Mr. Chairman, isan attack on the mining industry. I amproud to say that America’s mining in-dustry is the world’s most modern,technically advanced and environ-mentally responsible mining industry,and I am proud as an American to havethe mining industry especially in ourState, the State of Nevada.

Mr. Chairman, this regulatorychange that is being attempted hereobviously goes to addressing the issueof whether or not this administrationhas the right to address regulations.We are going about it by saying if leg-islative fiat is what we are after tochange and stop an administrativeability to change regulations, thenthat is what we should be doing. Butthen let us do it in all cases as well,and let us take away the administra-tive power for making changes to regu-latory action, which is in the realmand the authority of the administra-tion.

Let me say that the mining industrytoday is already responsible for and ap-plicable to the Clean Water Act. It can-not pollute the water and not be re-sponsible for it. That is a myth that isbeing propagated out there. It is al-ready responsible for the Clean AirAct. It cannot pollute the air and notbe responsible for it.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this gentle-man’s amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if I mayinquire as to the time remaining?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. INSLEE) has 41⁄4minutes remaining. The gentlemanfrom New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) has 4minutes remaining.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I note that the argu-ment just propounded essentially wasrejected in a lawsuit which refused tostay implementation of these rules sev-eral weeks ago.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.RAHALL).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe cosponsor of this amendment, the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3429June 21, 2001gentleman from Washington (Mr. INS-LEE) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, normally I would haveoffered this type of amendment, beingthe usual suspect, because I have along history on the issue that it touch-es upon. I have invested a great deal oftime, indeed years, in an effort to re-form the Mining Law of 1872.

To be clear, I fully support thisamendment. It represents a type of pol-icy that should be in place. At thesame time, it is far past time to bedoing piecemeal reform of the MiningLaw of 1872. The solution is, without adoubt, comprehensive reform, not thispiecemeal fashion that we have beendoing. I have stood on this floor withamendments and bills on this issue, yetthe hard heads in the hardrock miningindustry just do not get it. They havenot gotten it yet. Their allies in thisbody, although in a minority, are in aposition to block comprehensive re-form measures from being consideredin committee; so we are forced to cometo the floor with amendments of thisnature or amendments that I have of-fered in the past on efforts to stop thepatenting of mining claims and to up-hold the millsite decision. This willcontinue until the mining industrycomes to the table.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the industry,come to the table. Negotiate. Com-promise. My door is open. We will findcommon ground. Not ground sold for$2.50 an acre under a 19th century law.No, not that common ground. Notground from the public’s gold and sil-ver that is mined with no royalty paidto the true owners of the land, theAmerican people.

I believe we can reach a sensibleagreement on how to address issueswhich swirl around this industry andplague this industry in its investmentdecisions, and I understand the needfor stability and certainty before mak-ing those types of investment in largeequipment that is needed to mine ourNation’s resources.

Mr. Chairman, there is new leader-ship at the National Mining Associa-tion. I have told them my door is open.Let us work together to restore thepublic faith and interest in this mat-ter.

In the meantime, I urge a ‘‘yes’’ voteon the Inslee amendment. I say to mycolleague, the gentleman from Arizona,who described these regulations as pro-mulgated by the last administration inthe last nanosecond, that is because aRepublican Congress for five times hasdelayed through appropriations ridersthese regulations.


Mr. Chairman, just to expand on thecomments of the gentleman from WestVirginia (Mr. RAHALL), for 4–5 years,the administration could not act eventhough 35,000 people had impact on thisdecision. Now it is time for us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I stronglysupport the Inslee amendment. Thegentleman from Arizona said let thelaw stand. That is what we are tryingto do here. We are trying to let section3809, which was the law, the regula-tions properly adopted, we would liketo see those sustained. The Bush ad-ministration has suspended the 3809rule and intends to revise the rule. Re-member, this is just on BLM lands. TheClinton administration also grantedBLM the authority to deny permits toirresponsible mines in places wherethey would cause substantial, irrep-arable harm to environmental and cul-tural resources. The mining industryopposed both of those provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Insleeamendment is called for; and I intendto support it.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Mon-tana (Mr. REHBERG).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, this isnot a rollback of environmental laws.Critics of the mining industry chargethat reviewing the Clinton-Babbitt 3809regulations constitutes a rollback ofenvironmental laws. This is not true.The industry is not fighting to lessenany necessary environmental regula-tions governing hardrock mining onFederal lands. In fact, it supports andcomplies with all existing environ-mental statutes and supports the addi-tion of any new rules consistent withthe recommendations of the study onhardrock mining on Federal lands com-pleted for Congress by the NationalAcademy of Sciences.

The new 3809 regulations are ex-tremely burdensome, complex andcounterproductive, and contradict theNAS report. They go far beyond fillingthe narrow regulatory gaps identifiedby the report and add onerous regu-latory burdens that will deter mineralexploration in mining activity in thewestern United States.

Unnecessarily strict new perform-ance standards and expanded liabilitiesare created under the new regulationsthat the amendment before the Housewould keep in place. This would great-ly disrupt the preexisting coordinationbetween the Bureau of Land Manage-ment and the western States regardingthe environmental regulations of min-ing. A number of new performancestandards are prescriptive, one-size-fits-all requirements which are incon-sistent with the Academy’s rec-ommendations that mining regulationsshould be based on site-specific per-formance standards.

There are strong environmental lawsin effect that will not be rolled back orlessened in any way by suspending thenew 3809 regulations. For instance, thedisposal of mining wastes is strictlyregulated on Federal, State and privatelands through the Resource Conserva-tion and Recovery Act and the CleanWater Act, as well as numerous Statelaws and regulations protectinggroundwater resources. All facets ofmining are covered by equally com-prehensive legal frameworks.

The mining industry pays millions ofdollars each year to comply with lawsto ensure the protection of the environ-ment. That is hardly the mark of an in-dustry trying to flout its responsibilityby fighting to roll back environmentallaws.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. INSLEE) has 1minute remaining. The gentlemanfrom New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) has 2minutes remaining, and the right toclose.


Mr. Chairman, when there was a dis-cussion about rolling back arsenicstandards some time ago, the Americanpeople went into basic revulsion. If wereject this amendment today, we willbe heading in the same direction, roll-ing back standards designed to keep ar-senic out of our streams and rivers, cy-anide out of our streams and rivers,sulfuric acid out of our streams andrivers.

I believe the American public madetheir position very clear on this duringthe last several months while people inthis town were discussing going back-wards on the environment. I stand heretoday to say that in this appropriationprocess, we should not go backwards onarsenic. We should not go backwardson cyanide. That history has given us12,000 miles of polluted rivers and aproblem with arsenic in our water.That is why the League of Conserva-tion Voters is so keenly interested inthis vote. That is why I hope we standtogether on a bipartisan basis andmake sure that we adhere to the exist-ing standards on arsenic.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman from Idaho (Mr. OTTER).

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, we haveheard much about how old this law isand how unnecessary it is in this dayand age. I suspect that is consistentwith what we have heard today forquite awhile. Mr. Chairman, it seemswe forget that there was also a lawwritten in the late 1700s. We call it theConstitution today; yet that law hassustained us pretty well because, forthe most part, we have tried to adhereto it.

Mr. Chairman, that law written in1872 was written in the best of timesfor mining because it was one of themost important economies to theUnited States. But I would also remindmy colleagues, consistent, I suspectwith the inconsistency that we hearhere that one day it is a good idea toput a rider on the bill and the next dayit is not.

I am confused by all of this admit-tedly, Mr. Chairman, and I have onlybeen here 165 days, but I am beginningto learn; and I am beginning to learnthat what the people feel about Con-gress being out of touch, Americansout in the country that feel that Con-gress is no longer representative ofthem, now I understand.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3430 June 21, 2001There is no need to be consistent up

here, Mr. Chairman. I have seen it hap-pen. I have seen it happen to my col-leagues that have been here far beyondmy days and far beyond my years. Be-cause not only do they not rememberwhat they said yesterday, they do notremember that it is the very govern-ment that they now want to com-pletely entrust in this day and agewith the safeguards of our environ-ment, was the very government thatwent to the Coeur d’Alene mining dis-trict during World War I and WorldWar II and said forget about what youmight do to the rivers and lakes, weneed those minerals for the defense ofthat very Constitution, and we needthese minerals for the very defense ofthis country.

So if I cannot ask for anything else,I would ask my more learned col-leagues who maybe are more learnedbecause they have been here longer tobe consistent, if nothing else, and berepresentative of the law that waswritten in the 1700s as well as 1872.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ex-press my support for an amendment offeredby my two colleagues, Representatives INSLEEand HORN, regarding the Bureau of Land Man-agement hard rock mining rules. New miningregulations were put into place at the end ofthe Clinton Administration, after a four-yearperiod of intense public comment, hearings,and Congressional input. These new regula-tions are a vast improvement over the oldBLM rules under the 1872 Mining Law. Theold rules did not protect the public from the fi-nancial burden of failed mining ventures—leaving a legacy of thousands of abandonedmines, and the risk of a further billion dollarsfor potential clean up of ongoing operations.Furthermore, the old regulations did not pro-tect the public from the massive pollution po-tential at modern large-scale mines.

The new mining regulations provide theseprotections, and I believe that they ought to bepreserved. They require mining companies topay the full cost of environmental cleanup,rather than shifting the cost to the taxpayer.The new rules put into place standards to pro-tect surface and ground water from harmfulmine drainage. EPA estimates that 40 percentof the western watersheds are polluted frommine drainage and leaching. Finally, the newrules prevent mining companies from staking aclaim on public lands without regard to envi-ronmental and archeological resources or con-sideration of local communities.

The Inslee/Horn amendment will protectpublic lands and local communities by ensur-ing that the new mining regulations are kept inplace. We can not afford to retreat on environ-mental and public health safeguards by weak-ening protective standards. The values of the1800s no longer apply to the mining industryof today and the old rules do not offer the pro-tection that is needed. Too much is at stakefor us to allow mining companies to contami-nate our water supply or lands. This amend-ment is the best way we have to protect ourcommunities from outdated and harmful prac-tices. I urge my colleagues to support thisamendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. INSLEE).


Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. INSLEE)will be postponed.

b 1645

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. DEUTSCH:Insert before the short title at the end the

following new section:SEC. ll. (a) LIMITATION.—None of the

funds appropriated or otherwise made avail-able in this Act may be used to pay the sala-ries or expenses of personnel of the Depart-ment of the Interior to extend the leases,any standstill agreement, or the terms of thesettlement agreement that took effectMarch 30, 2001, concerning the holders of in-terests in seven campsite leases in BiscayneNational Park, Florida, identified as camp-site leases 2173A, 2146A, 2167A, 2159A, 2213A,2157A, and 2303A and collectively known as‘‘Stiltsville’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to theprevious order of the Committee oftoday, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.DEUTSCH) and the gentleman from NewMexico (Mr. SKEEN) each will control 5minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH).

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a limitingamendment to prevent the implemen-tation of rules that the Secretary of In-terior has overturned of the previousadministration dealing with sevenleasehold parcels in Biscayne NationalPark, parcels whose leases ran out 3years ago, six of whom were subsequentleaseholders who purchased thoseleases from the original leaseholders atfair market value. So we have sevenleaseholders who have not paid rent for3 years.

Under the prior administration, regu-lations were in place to develop a man-agement plan. The Secretary of the In-terior overturned that regulation uponher assumption of that office. This isreally not just an issue about theseseven leaseholders. This is really anissue about private use of a nationalpark or public lands. That is what thisissue is about. This happened in mydistrict, in my area. I represent 90 per-cent of Biscayne National Park. Butthis could happen tomorrow in any ofthe national parks, the 400 nationalparks in the United States of America.

I urge my colleagues to overwhelm-ingly and sincerely support thisamendment to prevent this from hap-pening.


Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman fromFlorida (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman,I rise in strong opposition to theDeutsch amendment introduced at the11th hour affecting a very importantarea in my congressional district.Stiltsville is in my congressional dis-trict, miles away from the district ofthe gentleman from Florida (Mr.DEUTSCH). Stiltsville is a group ofseven homes located south of Key Bis-cayne in my district that has been partof the landscape and seascape of ouryoung community since the 1930s.

This amendment prevents the Sec-retary of the Interior from extendingany further standstill agreements.After much negotiation betweenStiltsville homeowners and the ParkService, a standstill agreement wasreached earlier this year that expireson March 31, 2002. This agreement iscrucial because it prevents both partiesfrom acting against each other and al-lows time for constructive negotiationsand prevents the houses from being un-fairly torn down. The Deutsch amend-ment ties the Secretary’s hands and al-lows the clock to run out on furthertalks, putting Stiltsville owners at anegotiating disadvantage.

The Deutsch amendment is an under-handed attempt at tearing down thesehistoric homes without coming out andsaying so. The houses that make upStiltsville are internationally knownas the place that has that little villagein the middle of the bay.

And who supports Stiltsville? Gov-ernor Jeb Bush. Who else supportsStiltsville? The Florida House of Rep-resentatives that passed a unanimousresolution in support of preservingStiltsville. The Miami-Dade CountyCommission supports Stiltsville. Thecity of Miami. Let me tell my col-leagues the cities that have said wewant to support these homes: the Cityof Miami; the City of Miami Beach; theCity of Coral Gables; the City of Hia-leah Gardens; Homestead; MiamiSprings; South Miami; West Miami;Key Biscayne, Key Biscayne that isjust miles from these beautiful homes;Sweetwater; Virginia Gardens. I couldgo on and on.

It is incredible that the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH) wouldcome here and present this amendmentwhen literally thousands of home-owners support the preservation ofStiltsville.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 30 seconds just to respond tosome specific points.

First of all, I represent 90 percent ofBiscayne National Park. My district isliterally feet, not miles, fromStiltsville. My colleague represents 10percent of the park. It so happens thesestructures are there. But I think thecritical distinction that we need tomake, number one, I supportStiltsville. This is not aboutStiltsville. What this is about is free-loaders in a national park. My col-league said owners. These people arenot owners. These are leaseholders.The people that own that property is


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3431June 21, 2001us, the people of the United States ofAmerica, not the seven leaseholders.There is a difference between lease-holders and owners. We, as the owners,deserve to do what we want, which is tokeep Stiltsville but use it for publicpurpose, not private gain.


Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Florida(Mr. DIAZ-BALART).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, Italked to my son Danny today. He is 16years old. He is no owner of one ofthese houses. He and his friends, how-ever, through the generosity and thecourtesy of the folks that lease here,they go out there and they fish andthey swim. I talked to Danny today. Isaid, ‘‘Danny, there is going to be anamendment to, in effect, knock thesehouses down. What should I tell mycolleagues?’’

He said, ‘‘Dad, that’s a Florida tradi-tion. Nature is taking care of that.’’

So why should now Congress inter-vene and knock down these homes?This is a really unfortunate amend-ment that our colleague from the otherside of the aisle has brought forward.Let the kids go out there and swim andfish.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. HINCHEY).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1980this Congress created Biscayne Na-tional Park, a park for all the people ofthe entire country. At that time therewere seven leaseholders in the parkwho held campsites by lease. They weregiven a period of time to remove them-selves from the national park. In 1990,they asked for an extension. That ex-tension was given to them, and theyhad until 1999. They have had 20 yearsnow for these leaseholders to get out ofa national park. They are denying ac-cess to the public by holding theseleases. This is a park that has been des-ignated by the Congress for the enjoy-ment of all the people of the country.Anyone should be able to go there.They should not be able to be stoppedby people who have illegal leaseholds.That is precisely what this is.

The issue here is a very simple one.In a national park, are we going toallow private people who are intruders,who are violating the law, who haveoverstayed their welcome, to continueto be there and prevent the rest of thepublic from using that public land ap-propriately as the Congress has des-ignated? That is the issue.

I think that most people here wouldsay no to that. We want the nationalparks to be used for the right purpose,to be used by all people, not by a fewwho have special interests, who havethe ear of the Governor, or who havethe ear of one of us Members of theCongress. I do not think any of us wantto uphold that kind of a policy for pub-lic lands. A national park is there forall the people of the country. Let usmake sure that this national park, Bis-

cayne National Park, finally achievesthat status and these people who haveoverstayed their welcome can finallyleave quietly so that the rest of thepublic can enjoy that national park ap-propriately.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldthe balance of my time to the gen-tleman from Utah (Mr. HANSEN), thedistinguished chairman of the Com-mittee on Resources.

(Mr. HANSEN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thinkthis is a very interesting debate. I findthis interesting because I took thetime to go down there. I held a hearingon it as chairman of the Subcommitteeon National Parks and Public Lands afew years back. We could not find anyproblems at all with any of the sci-entists we brought up of hurting any ofthe environment.

A lot of people have said they haveoverstayed their welcome. I find thatvery interesting because these homeswere there 50 years before the park.Who overstayed their welcome? Whowas there first?

Another thing my colleagues mayfind interesting on this, I come fromUtah. We do not have big pieces of Bis-cayne Bay. But what we do have, wehave these beautiful cabins that arescattered all over the Forest Serviceand BLM and they are leased to thoseareas. What do those folks do withthem? They go up there, they hold BoyScout things, they teach young kidshow to be good Americans, they usethem and they take awfully good careof them. I wondered, what can they doin Florida with that old flat land downthere? I cannot believe it.

Then I went down with the gentle-woman. What did I find down there? Ifound that exactly the same thing wasgoing on. They take Boy Scouts outthere. I got in this power boat withsome guys and we went out and lookedat that thing. They have Boy Scouts,people go out, they enjoy it. It turnsout to be one of the things that theyare very proud of.

Now, my colleagues worry aboutthat. I think a few hurricanes maytake care of it but right now it is oneof the beautiful things they have got inthat area. This is part of their herit-age. This is part of something theylove and believe in. I did not talk to asoul and when we held the hearings ev-erybody that came up there said welove this area, we like Stiltsville.

What this amendment would do, Mr.Chairman, is in effect say, the heckwith Stiltsville, it is gone. And one ofthe best parts that America can havein Florida will go with it. Why do youwant to go away with that heritage?Why do we want to take away thethings that people have built? Why,this would be like taking TempleSquare out of Salt Lake City.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gen-tleman from Florida.

Mr. SHAW. I would like to congratu-late the gentleman on his statementand also express the appreciation ofthose who have lived in south Florida,I for my entire life, in going down andseeing that unique little village thatwe have, and it is not even a villageanymore. It is not doing any harm. Itis part of our heritage. Let us leave italone. Some day a hurricane will takeit out, but until then let us leave italone and let us let it continue as it is.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. GEORGE MILLER).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagueson the other side of the aisle havemade the case for this amendment.This is a great area, everybody loves it,everybody uses it, everybody likes itthe way it is, except that it is not opento the public. That is the agreementthat we made with the people that hadthese leases. They got a 25-year lease,the lease is now at the end, and now wehave had some political intervention sothey do not have to vacate the lease-hold so that in fact all of the publiccan use it.

I will grant that one of the peopleleasing these properties let a Congress-man’s son come go fishing there, butwhat about other people that want togo fishing there? It is nice that they letsome Boy Scouts in. The whole purposeof this is open up these leaseholds forpublic uses and public purposes so thatwhether it is the Boy Scouts or otherorganizations can come and use thesefacilities. There is a planning processthat is going on so that this in fact canbe a public facility of which it is. Be-cause the original leaseholders made adecision, they have sold their interest,they entered into those leases, thoseleases have expired, and now it is justa question of whether you are going touse the power and the might of theUnited States Congress or the Sec-retary of Interior’s office so she canclose out the public so that seven enti-ties get to continue to control what ev-erybody says here is a wonderful assetthat the public would love to use.

We ought to support the Deutsch-Hinchey amendment on this and openit up in fact to the public like all na-tional parks.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

I support Stiltsville. I thinkStiltsville is a wonderful part of ourcommunity of south Florida. I live insouth Florida. My family was raisedthere. I want to stay there for the restof my life and hopefully for generationsafter. But again this is literally privateuse of public lands. These are lease-holds that ran out 3 years ago. Six ofthe seven people bought those leases atfair market value from the originalleaseholders. They ran out 3 years,they have not paid anything, on us theowners. They have not paid anythingto us as the owners, the people of theUnited States of America, for the last3 years. They have been freeloading. If


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3432 June 21, 2001it can happen in Biscayne NationalPark, it can happen anywhere. Let usstop this policy of the Secretary of theInterior.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH).


Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH)will be postponed.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. STEARNS:At the end of the bill, preceding the short

title, insert the following:SEC. . The amounts otherwise provided by

this Act—(1) for ‘‘CHALLENGE AMERICAN ARTS

FUND—CHALLENGE AMERICA GRANTS’’are hereby reduced by, and

(2) for ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—EN-ERGY CONSERVATION’’ are hereby supple-mented by an additional appropriation forenergy conservation grant programs as de-fined in section 3008(3) of Public Law 99–509(15 U.S.C. 4507) in the amount of,$10,000,000 each.

Mr. STEARNS (during the reading).Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-sent that the amendment be consideredas read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromFlorida?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

previous order of the Committee oftoday, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.STEARNS) and the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) each will con-trol 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. STEARNS).

Mr. STEARNS. I ask my colleague, isthere any way we can get more timethan that?

Mr. DICKS. No. This is the end ofthis bill. The gentleman is having thesecond shot at this.

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous con-sent, Mr. Chairman, I request 10 min-utes apiece.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an

amendment which would basically dosomething very simple. As many of mycolleagues know, this morning wepassed an increase for the National En-dowment for the Arts by another, I be-lieve it was $10 million. All my amend-ment does is quite simple, is reducethat $10 million back to level funding.

b 1700

So it is not a cut. So a lot of peoplewho come on the floor who will be vot-ing for my amendment should realize

this is not about cutting the NationalEndowment for the Arts. This is basi-cally keeping level funding for thisprogram and, in fact, taking the $10million which was added on to this pro-gram and using it for the Departmentof Energy; more specifically, for energyconservation for grant programs tohelp across this Nation for people whoneed increased amount of energy and ina larger sense to help low-income peo-ple in weatherization of their homes.

So I ask my colleagues to considerthe priority of the two, increasing $10million for the National Endowmentfor the Arts or increasing the Depart-ment of Energy’s energy conservationprogram.

Now, this debate used to be about re-ducing or, as that side would say, cut-ting the NEA; but this is not a debateabout that. So I want to take that offthe table, and I hope that side will re-alize that the debate and focus haschanged.

Mr. Ivey, who is head of the depart-ment of National Endowment for theArts, has made a great effort to changethe image of the National Endowmentfor the Arts, and I applaud him for hisefforts. I think at this point he hasbeen successful so that our debatetoday is more about should we increasethat program at the expense of energyconservation.

Now let me just take my colleagueson a little, small journey on what wecould do with this money. Items fundedunder this program include researchand development projects that developnew and improved existing tech-nologies; Federal energy management;low-income weatherization assistance;and State energy program grants.

Through these projects and research,we can continue to sustain future eco-nomic growth while at the same time,Mr. Chairman, increasing America’sawareness of new energy efficiency.

In my home State of Florida we ex-pect to need about 10,000 to 15,000megawatts of new generation to keeppace with demand. Florida is one of theforemost populous States, increasingby over 20 percent last year since 1990in population. In addition, we are thesixth highest in energy consumption.

The need for energy conservation isclear. We need to focus funds where theneed is. We are not in a position wherewe can say we are not in a crisis, be-cause we are. We could have rollingblackouts across this country. Arts isimportant, I know it is, but energy isalso important. So surely, Mr. Chair-man, the money provided for energyconservation under this amendmentwill serve the taxpayers, I believe, in amuch more satisfactory manner.


Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the distinguished gentle-woman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER), in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment isbeing offered for one purpose and onepurpose only: to squash a fair and hard-fought victory that we had 4 hours agoto increase funds for the National En-dowment for the Arts and other cul-tural agencies.

Similar to our debate last year, someMembers have resorted to last minuteshenanigans to reverse support for artsfunding and to wrongfully deny theNEA, a most worthy agency, from re-ceiving the funds it justly deserves.

At the last minute, without warning,the gentleman from Florida (Mr.STEARNS) has designed an amendmentto eliminate the entire amount that wehad granted the NEA, a modest boostof $10 million. The amendment is anobvious attempt to sabotage this, thefirst clean, overwhelming positive votethat we have had on NEA in years.

Witnessing our amendment win fairand square, some Members have gottennervous and put forth yet anothercheap tactic to deny this agency thesmall pot of money that it deserves.With today’s vote of 221 to 193 in favorof increasing funds for the culturalagencies, the House has taken its standin support of them.

It is ludicrous and unconscionable toconsider this amendment on the heelsof this victory and a great disservice tothose Members and the constituentsthey represent to go back on theirword. I urge a no vote.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the distinguished gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.STEARNS) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong sup-port of this. This amendment simplyputs the NEA back to the funding levelthat it should be at, and the fundinglevel that was passed on a bipartisanlevel by the committee. More impor-tantly than that, it invests the moneyin energy conservation.

Here are some of the things that theNEA does: promotes poetry, promotespuppetry, promotes jazz. All thesethings are very important. These arethings they do in my area; and frankly,my folks can do this without the NEA’shelp. Given the choice between a pup-pet show and gas selling at $1.50 a gal-lon versus $1.20 a gallon, we wouldrather have gas at $1.20 a gallon, andthen we would write our own checks topromote art locally.

I believe we need heat for hospitals,light for learning and gas for goingplaces; and that is what the Stearnsamendment does. It puts money intoenergy conservation so there will bemore energy, more source of energy forall of us; and I believe that this is a farmore needed expenditure than spendingadditional money on the NEA at thistime.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentleman from Wis-consin (Mr. OBEY), the distinguishedranking member of the Committee onAppropriations.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3433June 21, 2001Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this

amendment has as much to do with en-ergy as it has to do with my dead dog.All it is is an effort to try to get a sec-ond kick at the cat and thereby elimi-nate a fairly won decision to increasefunding for the arts.

For those of you who are interestedin seeing this bill completed today, Isimply want to remind you, if this dou-ble-backed maneuver were to succeed,and I do not believe it will, but if itwere to succeed, and if this amendmentwould be adopted, that would requireyet another revolt in the full House,again further delaying the adjourn-ment of this House tonight.

I do not think you want to do that. Ialso do not think that you want tohave to explain another vote reversal.So I think for the good of all con-cerned, I would advise you to stickwith your final vote. It is consistent; itis fair; and it is a whole lot easier toexplain to the folks back home.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from New York (Mr. HINCHEY),a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, whatwe have learned this afternoon is thatsome Members in the majority partyhere hate the National Endowment forthe Arts more than they hate energyconservation. If they really liked en-ergy conservation, they had an oppor-tunity to pass some responsible amend-ments to this bill, both in the Com-mittee on Appropriations where it wasdefeated by a party line vote and outhere on the full floor where they deniedus the opportunity to have a vote on abill that would have brought about $200million in energy conservation.

We are talking real energy conserva-tion, not this little bit that the gen-tleman is talking about here. The gen-tleman does not want any energy con-servation. He just cannot stand the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts morethan he cannot stand energy conserva-tion. He says it is not a cut. His billgives us $57 million less for the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts than wehad for it in 1995, and now we have a $10million increase making us still $47million lower than we had in 1995; andthe gentleman wants to take that $10million away. He ought to be ashamedof himself.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30seconds to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. HORN), a cosponsor of ouramendment.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I am dis-appointed with this further attack onthe NEA and the NEH and the Instituteof Museums and Libraries. I cannot be-lieve that. When little kids in ruralAmerica and urban America need toget this type of culture and music and

this great history of this Nation, I can-not believe it when individuals startand say let us get rid of people thatstudy history or everything else. It isjust plain wrong.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield25 seconds to the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. PITTS).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, whenGeorge Bush became President, hepromised the American people fiscaldiscipline; that he would limit the sizeof government; that they would getsome of their money back in tax cutsand we would pay down the public debt.So far Congress has kept faith with thePresident, and we want to limit thesize of government. Why are we gettingsuch a huge increase to NEA? This con-troversial agency has not had a fundingincrease that big in almost 20 years.This is $10 million more than the Presi-dent asked for. I urge my colleagues todo the right thing for fiscal restraintand support this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by just say-ing this is not about cutting the NEA.This is continuing the level of fundingand moving the money that we in-creased to energy conservation, a pri-ority between energy conservation andincreasing the NEA.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 1 minute to close.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that mycolleagues would not do what we didlast year when we reversed this vote. Iwould ask everyone to use good com-mon sense. This amendment was of-fered. We had a good hour debate. Ev-erybody had a chance to present theirpoint of view and clearly the people ofthis House, by a good majority, 221 to193, voted to give modest increases tothe National Endowment for the Arts,for the Humanities and Museum Serv-ices. Now the gentleman from Florida(Mr. STEARNS) comes in and tries to re-verse that decision. We increased thebudget for energy programs by over$300 million. So the budget is not lack-ing in funding for energy conservation,where the gentleman tries to add themoney. So this is done strictly for apolitical purpose. I would say let usstay with this. This is a good decision.It is a modest increase. This House hassent a strong message to the NEA andthey have responded. They are nowmaking grants that are quality grants,and so I think this is a vote that we donot want to have to repeat in theHouse. Let us just vote no and sustainthe position in the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for debatehas expired. The question is on theamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. STEARNS).


Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS)will be postponed.

Are there further amendments to thebill?

The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department

of the Interior and Related Agencies Appro-priations Act, 2002’’.

SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEEOF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will nowresume on those amendments on whichfurther proceedings were postponed inthe following order: an amendment bythe gentleman from Florida (Mr.DAVIS); an amendment by the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. INSLEE);an amendment by the gentleman fromFlorida (Mr. DEUTSCH); and an amend-ment by the gentleman from Florida(Mr. STEARNS).

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutesthe time for any electronic vote afterthe first vote in this series.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DAVIS OFFLORIDA

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. DAVIS) onwhich further proceedings were post-poned and on which the noes prevailedby a voice vote.

The Clerk will designate the amend-ment.

The Clerk designated the amend-ment.

RECORDED VOTE




[Roll No. 181]

AYES—247

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrettBartlettBecerraBerkleyBerryBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CampCapitoCappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)CastleChabotClayClayton

ClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCrenshawCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis, TomDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDoyleDunnEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFergusonFilnerFoleyFordFossella

FrankFrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGephardtGilchrestGilmanGordonGossGrahamGreen (WI)GreenwoodGutierrezHall (OH)HarmanHastings (FL)HillHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHoyerHutchinsonInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)Johnson (CT)Johnson (IL)


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3434 June 21, 2001Johnson, E. B.Jones (NC)Jones (OH)KanjorskiKellerKellyKennedy (RI)KernsKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLangevinLantosLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LeachLeeLevinLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeek (FL)MenendezMillender-

McDonald

Miller (FL)Miller, GeorgeMinkMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNeyOberstarObeyOlverOseOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaulPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PetriPhelpsPlattsPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)PutnamQuinnRahallRamstadRangelRiversRoemerRogers (MI)Ros-LehtinenRossRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRyan (WI)SaboSanchezSandersSawyer

SaxtonScarboroughSchakowskySchiffScottShawShaysShermanSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SnyderSolisSprattStarkStearnsStricklandStupakSununuSweeneyTannerTauscherThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyWalshWatersWatson (CA)Watt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWoolseyWuWynnYoung (FL)

NOES—164

AkinArmeyBakerBallengerBarrBartonBassBentsenBereuterBiggertBluntBoehnerBonillaBonoBoswellBrady (TX)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCannonCantorCarson (OK)ChamblissCobleCollinsCombestCookseyCraneCulbersonCunninghamDavis, Jo AnnDealDeLayDeMintDingellDoggettDooleyDoolittleDreierDuncanEdwardsEmersonFlakeFletcherGekasGibbonsGillmorGonzalez

GoodeGoodlatteGrangerGravesGreen (TX)GrucciGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHartHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillearyHobsonHostettlerHulshofHunterHydeIsaksonIssaIstookJeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson, SamKennedy (MN)King (NY)KingstonKirkKnollenbergKolbeLampsonLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LipinskiLucas (OK)McCreryMcKeonMicaMiller, GaryMollohanMoran (KS)NethercuttNorthup

NorwoodNussleOrtizOsborneOtterOxleyPencePeterson (PA)PickeringPittsPomboPryce (OH)RadanovichRegulaRehbergReyesReynoldsRodriguezRogers (KY)RohrabacherRoyceRyun (KS)SandlinSchafferSchrockSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimmonsSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStenholmStumpTancredoTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrt

TiberiToomeyTraficantTurnerVitter

WaldenWampWatkins (OK)Watts (OK)Whitfield

WickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NOT VOTING—21

AderholtBachusBermanCallahanCalvertCoxCramer

CubinEverettHoughtonIsraelKapturLewis (GA)Linder

McInnisMeehanMeeks (NY)NealRileyRushSerrano

b 1736

Messrs. ENGLISH, SWEENEY,HUTCHINSON, NEY and STRICKLANDchanged their votes from ‘‘no’’ to‘‘aye.’’


as above recorded.ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause6 of rule XXVIII, the Chair announcesthat he will reduce to a minimum of 5minutes the period of time withinwhich a vote by electronic device maybe taken on each additional amend-ment on which the Chair has postponedfurther proceedings.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. INSLEE

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. INSLEE)on which further proceedings werepostponed and on which the noes pre-vailed by voice vote.



RECORDED VOTE



vice, and there were—ayes 216 noes 194,not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 182]

AYES—216

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrettBassBecerraBentsenBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)CastleClayClaytonClement

ClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFergusonFilnerFordFrankFrelinghuysen

FrostGanskeGephardtGilmanGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GreenwoodGutierrezHall (OH)HarmanHastings (FL)HillHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoltHondaHooleyHornHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnson (IL)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKellyKennedy (RI)Kildee

KilpatrickKind (WI)KirkKleczkaKucinichLaFalceLampsonLangevinLantosLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LeachLeeLevinLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, George

MinkMooreMoran (VA)MorellaNadlerNapolitanoOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PomeroyPrice (NC)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardSaboSanchezSandersSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchakowskySchiffScottShays

ShermanShowsSimmonsSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SnyderSolisSprattStarkStricklandStupakSununuTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyWatersWatson (CA)Watt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (PA)WellerWexlerWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—194

AkinArmeyBallengerBarrBartlettBartonBereuterBerkleyBerryBiggertBilirakisBluntBonillaBonoBrady (TX)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCampCannonCantorCapitoChabotChamblissCobleCollinsCombestCookseyCraneCrenshawCulbersonCunninghamDavis, Jo AnnDavis, TomDealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonFlakeFletcherFoleyFossellaGalleglyGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGoss

GrahamGrangerGravesGreen (WI)GrucciGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHartHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHoldenHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIssaIstookJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KellerKennedy (MN)KernsKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)ManzulloMcCreryMcHughMcKeonMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMollohanMoran (KS)MurthaMyrick

NethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOsborneOseOtterOxleyPaulPencePeterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPlattsPomboPortmanPryce (OH)PutnamRadanovichRegulaRehbergReynoldsRogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRossRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SandlinSchafferSchrockSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShusterSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSweeneyTancredoTannerTauzinTaylor (NC)Terry


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3435June 21, 2001ThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTiberiToomeyTraficant

VitterWaldenWalshWampWatkins (OK)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)

WhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—22

AderholtBachusBakerBermanBoehnerCallahanCalvertCox

CramerCubinEverettHoughtonIsraelKapturLewis (GA)McInnis

MeehanNealRileyRoukemaRushSerrano

b 1744

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr.ENGLISH and Mr. SHOWS changedtheir vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’


as above recorded.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DEUTSCH

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. DEUTSCH) onwhich further proceedings were post-poned and on which the noes prevailedby voice vote.



RECORDED VOTE




[Roll No. 183]

AYES—187

AckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrettBecerraBentsenBerkleyBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoucherBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)ClayClaytonClementConyersCostelloCoyneCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDoggett

DooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerFordFrankFrostGephardtGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)HarmanHillHincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKennedy (RI)KildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)Kleczka

KucinichLaFalceLampsonLangevinLantosLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LeeLevinLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)MarkeyMascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMollohanMooreMoran (VA)NadlerNapolitanoOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallone

PascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPomeroyPrice (NC)RahallRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardSaboSanchezSanders

SawyerSchakowskySchiffScottShaysShermanShowsSkeltonSlaughterSmith (WA)SnyderSolisSprattStarkStenholmStricklandStupakTannerTauscher

Taylor (MS)Thompson (CA)TierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezViscloskyWatersWatson (CA)Watt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWoolseyWuWynnYoung (FL)

NOES—222

AbercrombieAkinArmeyBallengerBarrBartlettBartonBassBereuterBerryBiggertBilirakisBishopBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBoswellBoydBrady (TX)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCampCannonCantorCapitoCastleChabotChamblissClyburnCobleCollinsCombestConditCookseyCraneCrenshawCulbersonCunninghamDavis, Jo AnnDavis, TomDealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishFergusonFlakeFletcherFoleyFossellaFrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGossGranger

GravesGreen (WI)GreenwoodGrucciGutknechtHansenHartHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillearyHilliardHobsonHoekstraHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIssaIstookJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (IL)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KellerKellyKennedy (MN)KernsKing (NY)KingstonKirkKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLoBiondoLucas (OK)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMcCreryMcHughMcKeonMeek (FL)MicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MorellaMurthaMyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOsborneOseOtterOxleyPaulPence

Peterson (PA)PetriPickeringPlattsPomboPortmanPryce (OH)PutnamQuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaRehbergReynoldsRogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRossRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SandlinSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSchrockSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShusterSimmonsSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuSweeneyTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTiberiToomeyTraficantUptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkins (OK)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NOT VOTING—23

AderholtBachus

BakerBerman

CallahanCalvert

CoxCramerCubinEverettGrahamHoughton

IsraelKapturLewis (GA)McInnisMeehanNeal

PittsRileyRoukemaRushSerrano

b 1751

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed hisvote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’


as above recorded.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS) onwhich further proceedings were post-poned and on which the noes prevailedby voice vote.



RECORDED VOTE





[Roll No. 184]

AYES—145

AkinArmeyBarrBartlettBartonBilirakisBluntBoehnerBonillaBrady (TX)Brown (SC)BryantBurtonBuyerCampCannonCantorChabotChamblissCobleCollinsCombestCookseyCraneCrenshawCulbersonCunninghamDavis, Jo AnnDealDeLayDeMintDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEmersonFlakeFletcherGanskeGibbonsGoodeGoodlatteGrahamGravesGreen (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastings (WA)

HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillearyHoekstraHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIssaIstookJenkinsJohnson, SamJones (NC)KellerKennedy (MN)KernsKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergLargentLathamLewis (KY)LinderLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)ManzulloMcCreryMcIntyreMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOtterOxleyPaulPencePetriPickeringPittsPomboPutnam

RadanovichRogers (KY)RohrabacherRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)ScarboroughSchafferSchrockSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpTancredoTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThornberryTiahrtToomeyUptonVitterWalshWampWatkins (OK)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOES—264

AbercrombieAckerman

AllenAndrews

BacaBaird


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3436 June 21, 2001BaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrettBassBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBerryBiggertBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoniorBonoBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BurrCapitoCappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)CastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis, TomDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFergusonFilnerFoleyFordFossellaFrankFrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGekasGephardtGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGordonGossGrangerGreen (TX)

GreenwoodGrucciGutierrezHall (OH)HarmanHartHastings (FL)HillHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHoyerInsleeIsaksonJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (IL)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKellyKennedy (RI)KildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KirkKleczkaKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLangevinLantosLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LaTouretteLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)LipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoOberstar

ObeyOlverOrtizOsborneOseOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPlattsPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelRegulaRehbergReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRoemerRogers (MI)Ros-LehtinenRossRothmanRoybal-AllardSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchakowskySchiffScottShawShaysShermanSherwoodSimmonsSlaughterSmith (WA)SnyderSolisSprattStarkStenholmStricklandStupakSununuSweeneyTauscherTerryThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThuneThurmanTiberiTierneyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezViscloskyWaldenWatersWatson (CA)Watt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (PA)WexlerWolfWoolseyWuWynn

NOT VOTING—23

AderholtBachusBakerBermanCallahanCalvertCoxCramer

CubinEverettHoughtonIsraelKapturLewis (GA)McCarthy (NY)McInnis

MeehanNealPeterson (PA)RileyRoukemaRushSerrano

b 1759

Messrs. TAUZIN, BONILLA, andMORAN of Kansas changed their votefrom ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’


as above recorded.The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the

Committee rises.Accordingly, the Committee rose;

and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON) having assumed the chair,Mr. LATOURETTE, Chairman of theCommittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union, reported that thatCommittee, having had under consider-ation the bill (H.R. 2217) making appro-priations for the Department of the In-terior and related agencies for the fis-cal year ending September 30, 2002, andfor other purposes, pursuant to HouseResolution 174, he reported the billback to the House with sundry amend-ments adopted by the Committee of theWhole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe rule, the previous question is or-dered.

Is a separate vote demanded on anyamendment? If not, the Chair will putthem en gros.

The amendments were agreed to.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the engrossment andthird reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossedand read a third time, and was read thethird time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on the passage of the bill.

Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, theyeas and nays are ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 376, nays 32,not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 185]

YEAS—376

AbercrombieAckermanAkinAllenAndrewsArmeyBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrettBartlettBartonBassBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBiggertBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCampCantorCapitoCappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)CastleChabotChamblissClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCollinsCombestConditConyersCookseyCostelloCoyneCrenshawCrowleyCummingsCunninghamDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis, Jo AnnDavis, Tom

DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDoggettDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFergusonFilnerFletcherFoleyFossellaFrankFrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanske

GekasGephardtGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGordonGossGrahamGrangerGravesGreen (TX)GreenwoodGrucciGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHarmanHartHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHillHillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIssaIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson (IL)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKellerKellyKennedy (MN)Kennedy (RI)KernsKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKirkKleczkaKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLangevinLantosLargentLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LathamLaTouretteLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMascaraMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMinkMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOsborneOseOwensOxleyPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPencePeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PhelpsPickeringPittsPlattsPomboPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)PutnamQuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaRehbergReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRoemer

Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)Ros-LehtinenRossRothmanRoybal-AllardRyan (WI)SaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchakowskySchiffSchrockScottShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimmonsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSolisSouderSpenceSprattStarkStenholmStricklandStumpStupakSununuSweeneyTancredoTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThuneThurmanTiahrtTiberiTierneyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyVitterWaldenWalshWampWatersWatkins (OK)Watt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWickerWilsonWolfWoolseyWuWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NAYS—32

BarrBerryCannonCraneCulbersonEmersonFlakeGibbonsGoode

GoodlatteGreen (WI)HefleyHostettlerJohnson, SamJones (NC)Moran (KS)OtterPaul

PetriRohrabacherRoyceRyun (KS)SchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadegg


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3437June 21, 2001SimpsonSmith (MI)

StearnsThornberry

ToomeyWhitfield

NOT VOTING—24

AderholtBachusBakerBermanCallahanCalvertCoxCramer

CubinEverettFordHoughtonIsraelKapturLewis (GA)McInnis

MeehanNealRileyRoukemaRushScarboroughSerranoWatson (CA)

b 1819

So the bill was passed.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.f

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ONAPPROPRIATIONS TO HAVEUNTIL MIDNIGHT FRIDAY, JUNE22, 2001, TO FILE REPORT ON DE-PARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-TATION AND RELATED AGEN-CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr.Speaker, I ask unanimous consent thatthe Committee on Appropriations haveuntil midnight tomorrow, June 22, tofile a privileged report making appro-priations for the Department of Trans-portation and Related Agencies for thefiscal year ending September 30, 2002,and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Ken-tucky?

There was no objection.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-

ant to clause 1 of rule XXI, all points oforder are reserved on the bill.

f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, Iwas unavoidably detained on rollcallnumber 177, the amendment offered bythe gentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER). Please let the RECORDshow that had I been present I wouldhave voted ‘‘aye.’’

f

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBERAS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2172

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that my name bewithdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 2172.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

f

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. BONIOR asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I wish toinquire of the distinguished majorityleader the schedule for the remainderof the week and next week, and I yieldto the majority leader.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ampleased to announce that the House has

completed its legislative business forthe week. I should mention, however,that many Members of the House havemoved their business to their field ofdreams.

Mr. BONIOR. Dreams is the impor-tant word there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ARMEY. Dreams is the impor-tant word. It is the annual charitybaseball game between the Democratand Republican Members of the House,with a beautiful trophy at stake andbragging rights for at least a year. Iam sure our champions of the diamondwill acquit themselves well on our be-half. Nevertheless, we will have no fur-ther business on this floor until thecrowing begins next week.

The first opportunity for that, forone side or the other, will be when theHouse next meets for legislative busi-ness on Monday, June 25, at 12:30 p.m.for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for leg-islative business. The House will con-sider a number of measures under sus-pension of the rules, a list of which willbe distributed to Members’ offices to-morrow. On Monday, no recorded votesare expected before 6 p.m.

On Tuesday and the balance of theweek, the House will consider the fol-lowing measures:

H.R. 2213, the 2001 Crop Year Eco-nomic Assistance Act;

The Transportation AppropriationsAct for fiscal year 2002;

The Agriculture Appropriations Actfor fiscal year 2002;

And the Energy and Water Appro-priations Act for fiscal year 2002.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.Mr. BONIOR. If I could just inquire of

my colleague on a couple of points.Can the gentleman tell us or does the

gentleman know which days the appro-priation bills will be brought up ontransportation, agriculture, and en-ergy? Do we have a day for those yet,or what order they will be in?

Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentlemanfor asking. The transportation bill willbe up on Tuesday. We would expect todo agriculture on Wednesday andThursday and energy and water onThursday and Friday, if necessary.

Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleaguefor that. We definitely think we will bein on Friday next week; is that wherewe are going with this at this point?

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I appre-ciate the gentleman’s inquiry; and yes,I think it is the last week before amajor recess period and the schedulehas announced that since January. Wewould, of course, hope to have expedi-tious work on these appropriation bills.Since some Members would like tohave a break on that, if at all possiblewe would hope to see it turn out thatway. But all Members should, I thinkin the better part of prudence, be pre-pared to be here at work on Friday ofnext week.

Mr. BONIOR. The gentleman is cor-rect, he has notified us way in advancethat we would be working this nextFriday. I understand the need to finishthe bills; and hopefully, we will do it

expeditiously and perhaps maybe nothave that Friday session.

Mr. Leader, may I also ask this ques-tion: the Tauzin-Dingell bill on tele-communications and broad band, canyou give us any sense of when that maybe brought to the floor? Next week per-haps or, if not then, when?

Mr. ARMEY. Again, if the gentlemanwill continue to yield, I thank the gen-tleman for asking. This bill is very im-portant legislation dealing with amajor sector of the American economy.The Committee on the Judiciary, asthe gentleman knows, also has exer-cised jurisdiction on that, and I thinkat this point what we would prefer todo is examine the work of the Com-mittee on the Judiciary.

There is nothing planned at this timewith respect to scheduling that bill forfloor debate. Certainly I would not seeit next week, and I could not tell thegentleman at what time we might ex-pect it following the recess.

Mr. BONIOR. And on H.R. 7, theCharitable Choice bill, might the gen-tleman give us any indication whenthat would be brought to the floor.

Mr. ARMEY. Again, I thank the gen-tleman for his inquiry. The committeesare marking up on that bill. They ex-pect to have a markup on Tuesday. Itis my anticipation that that bill alsowould, while it may be reported by thecommittees, would probably not beavailable to the floor until after the re-cess.

Mr. BONIOR. Finally, let me askthis: Is the HMO bill coming to thefloor before the July 4 recess?

Mr. ARMEY. Again, I appreciate thegentleman’s inquiry. That is a very im-portant subject, and we are working fe-verishly on it; but again I do not ex-pect it before the recess.

Mr. BONIOR. How about the cam-paign finance bill coming to the floorthe first week when we come back fromrecess?

Mr. ARMEY. Again, if the gentlemanwill continue to yield, the committeeis working on that. The committee willhave a markup next week. It is ourvery fervent hope that we can have thecommittee report the bill next weekand it be available to the floor on theweek we return.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy colleague for his responses.

f

RANKING OF MEMBER ONCOMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer aresolution (H. Res. 176) and ask unani-mous consent for its immediate consid-eration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 176Resolved, That on the Committee on Re-

sources, Mr. Hayworth shall rank after Mr.Tancredo.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Texas?

There was no objection.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H3363 - GovInfo.gov

Documents

Transcript of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H3363 - GovInfo.gov