[Pages H6137-H6159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
As evidenced by the prior vigorous debate, all of us come to the
floor of the House with our own passions and concerns.
Let me first thank the chairman and the ranking member for being
sensitive to some needs and concerns that I have that were debated at
the time of the Johnson amendment on the National Endowment for the
Arts but raised in a different context from the arguments that I will
make today.
I am prepared and was prepared to offer two amendments, because I do
believe that the National Endowment for the Arts should have been
funded at its fullest level of $136 million, and today I was prepared
to offer that amendment.
In fact, both the ranking member and the chairman realize that, in
earlier years, the National Endowment for the Arts was funded up to at
least $170 million and that was not enough. I also recognize and we
recognize that the arts that are funded by the National Endowment for
the Arts, despite the opponents, really do fund most of the nonprofit
arts in this Nation.
The reason why I have come to the floor to express my concern that
the debate around the Johnson amendment was more to keep or to bring
back $98.5 million, of which I believe is not enough, is because it
strikes home.
In Houston, Texas, the Alley Theater is an excellent representation
of the value of the NEA and the arts in Texas. The Alley Theater is not
a fabulously rich theater, and it represents a lot of our small
theaters around the Nation. In fact, Houston represents the arts
funding center, if you will, beyond the Mississippi, because that is
the argument. Everything is East Coast or West Coast, and we stand up
to represent middle America as someone who believes in the NEA.
The Alley Theater is a family-oriented theater with over 200,000
persons attending productions annually. To quote its director Paul
Tetreault, the managing direction of the Alley Theater in Houston,
``the NEA has given meaningful support to the Alley and its audiences
for many years.''
However, this year, Mr. Chairman, the Alley was denied funding for a
production as a result of reduced budgets, and the director states
that, ``It was a great surprise and disappointment to see that support
interrupted at a time when the Alley is realizing great artistic
achievements.''
The director goes on to say that, ``Many other deserving theaters,
museums, dance and opera companies have been even more deeply affected
by having their grant requests denied. Their losses, like that of the
Alley's, will have a collateral effect on the quality of life in the
communities they serve, to the detriment of arts, education, commerce,
and tourism.''
Mr. Chairman, it is not only the Alley, but it is the Ensemble, it is
the Mecca, it is many arts communities in our Nation and in our
community.
Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer at this time an amendment that
would have supported the NEA at $136 million.
Before I conclude, let me address the other amendment that I was
prepared to offer. I would like to yield for a moment to the ranking
member when I mention my other amendment that was to offer additional
support up to $122 million for the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
We can discuss a lot of things, and we have many interests, from the
interests of our forests and our trees, to the protection of our fish
and wildlife, and certainly to the protection of our native Americans
and the responsible treatment of them. But the NEA deals with our
educational systems.
Have my colleagues ever been to a library? Do they appreciate the
culture of our Nation, the many different cultures? Have they ever
visited the exhibition of The Many Realms of King Arthur at the local
library? Have they ever read the diary of a 17th century New England
midwife? That is the humanities. Do they watch an episode of the Civil
War? Have they appreciated the history of slavery in America,
philosophy, history, religion, art? That is about the humanities.
What we have done by funding it or underfunding it and not giving it
the amount that the administration had is to deny our country with the
ability to teach its children of its great history.
I do respect the chairman and I respect the ranking member, and let
me just mention the fact very briefly that the chairman worked with me
on the issue dealing with the Sojourner Truth Monument, and I am still
working on that. But I do believe these are good amendments. It is my
intent to withdraw these amendments, not without the frustration and
concern that we are cheating our Nation's children, we are cheating our
Nation's cultural arts, we are cheating our Nation's libraries.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to ask the question, recognizing
the hard work, recognizing what we did with both the Democratic effort
but as well the Johnson amendment, can we work together, recognizing
the responsibilities that we have on this issue of funding for NEH and
NEA?
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the strong commitment of the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to the National Endowment for the Arts and
Humanities.
And I do remember, I served on this committee now for 22 years under
the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) a time when
we did have better funding for the National Endowment for the
Humanities and the Arts, and frankly, I think the need is out in the
country, in Texas, in Washington State, in Ohio, in Illinois, in
Oregon. Everywhere in the country there are needs for these resources.
I hope, as we get back to a balanced Federal budget, which I think we
will

[[Page H6138]]

achieve at the end of this fiscal year, and as we go to the next
Congress, hopefully those of us who return can continue to work to see
if we cannot get a more reasonable level of funding. That is certainly
my objective.
We have had to deal with the realities of balanced budgets, and caps
makes it difficult. But certainly, with the better future, with a
balanced budget, I hope we can revisit this item, and I appreciate the
leadership of the gentlewoman on these important issues.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, might I
just make a special note of the ranking member of this committee as
well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), who has done a yeoman's
task on this issue dealing with humanities and arts.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) did not hear me. I thanked him
for our discussion on the Sojourner Truth, and I want to continue that.
Remember, we had that discussion just a year ago.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
understand she will withdraw the amendment. We are faced with many
needs and limited resources. We have done the best we can with what we
have available.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I hope,
however, recognizing that we can all gather maybe a commitment that
those are valuable entities and look to further funding of those
entities as we move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
Mr. Chairman, I speak with great expectation that my amendment to
H.R. 4193--the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill of 1999 will be adopted.
The committee's proposed budget for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) does seem generous at first ($98 million), especially when
you consider that the level was originally pegged at $0. Although the
committee's recommendation keeps the NEA at its 1998 levels, I firmly
believe that we should provide the level of funding proposed by the
Administration. Therefore, my amendment restores the funding for the
NEA to $136 million.
This restoration is offset by a reduction in the United States Fish
and Wildlife's construction fund and a reduction in the national park
Service's operation fund.
Although some seek to keep funding for the NEA at its 1998 levels, we
should strive for progress, not stagnation. The opponents of funding
for the NEA are quick to trot out the occasional bad choices made by
the NEA. However, it is important to highlight and inform the American
public of the vast majority of activities funded by the NEA.
Mr. Chairman, that is what this debate is about. The quality of life
for Americans and their families and children throughout this country.
This is not about the few bad choices made by the NEA in the past. This
is about the ability of children and families to view productions of
plays and musicals; the ability of children and families to experience
art and art education; the ability of a child to travel across town to
an outdoor play with his father and mother and share in a meaningful
family outing where the love of a family can be shared; where a
community can come together in peace; where the quality of life for
residents in a city can be improved by an arts event that both educated
and entertains.
What is the need to summarily eliminate an area of the Federal
Government that is working. Funding for the NEA represents less than
six-ten-thousandths (0.0006%) of the entire Federal budget. With that
six-ten-thousandths percent (0.0006%), the NEA is still the largest
single source of funding for the nonprofit arts in the United States.
This investment of the United States Government is an investment in the
quality of life for families and children. It spawns investment and
giving to the arts by the American people, private and corporate
donors. However, increased demands on all sectors of private giving
have recently presented corporate and individual donors with tough
choices. How can we expect private donations to the arts to increase,
when we do not keep our commitment to the NEA. This is the time that
the Federal Government should be making an investment in the NEA; not
closing it.

Who are we really hurting if we do not fund and support the arts? We
are hurting middle class and poor America. Seven point five (7.5%) of
funding for the NEA goes directly to projects in under-served
communities. Through access and outreach related grants, the NEA has
helped to make the arts accessible to millions of Americans who could
not otherwise afford them. What does that mean? It means that children
in poor communities will not have access to plays, musicals, stage
productions, and arts education that serve to increase the quality of
life and overall educational value of American children. We are hurting
the very people that we are sent here to help. We are hurting families
who are trying to raise their children to respect the community. Mr.
Chairman, we are hurting America.
Keeping funding for the NEA at the 1998 level will not only
negatively affect cities, but it will also negatively affect rural,
small town communities. NEA grants serve communities in both urban and
rural areas. In most small towns across the country, traveling tours,
exhibits, and concerts are the major exposure to the live performing
arts that children receive. The small town and rural communities can
not afford to support a full symphony, orchestra, or museum.
Funding for the NEA is not a Republicans versus Democrats issue.
There are even Republicans that support level funding for the NEA. It
is not a conservative versus liberal issue. Funding for the NEA is a
cultural issue. Important cultural, educational, and artistic programs
are funded by the NEA. Business leaders, educators, cities, States, and
even law enforcement officials support funding for the NEA. After
schools arts programs keep kids off the streets. We have all heard the
phrase an idle mind is the devil's workshop. If we are able to reach
kids and take them off of the streets via an after school arts program,
then why don't we. Funding for the NEA exposes inner city minority
children to Hamlet and to Othello.
The NEA makes the arts accessible to all Americans. There is no doubt
that a people and culture without a preservation of the arts in history
are doomed. I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I speak with great expectation that my amendment to
H.R. 4193--The Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill of 1999--will be adopted.
My amendment raises the appropriations level for the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) from the $96,800,000 recommendation
by the Appropriations Committee to the $122,000,000 level requested by
the Administration. The offsets will come from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife fund and the National Park Service Operation fund.
I work with my local librarian.
The NEH is vital to our educational systems and provides numerous
services in the area of the humanities. The NEH provides grants to
individuals and institutions. These grants support valuable aspects of
the humanities such as research in the humanities; educational
opportunities for teachers; preservation of texts and materials;
translations of important works; museum exhibitions, television and
radio programs; and public discussion and study.
The humanities encompass a wide variety of subject matter. They are
all around us and evident in our daily lives. When you visit an
exhibition on ``The Many Realms of King Arthur'' at your local library,
that is the humanities. When you read the diary of a seventeenth-
century New England midwife, that is the humanities. When you watch an
episode of The Civil War, that is the humanities, too. The humanities
include the study of literature, history, philosophy, religion, art,
history, and archaeology.
NEH also provides many educational tools for children. Most recently,
the NEH has provided students with the educational foundations
necessary for the use of the internet. NEH maintains EDSITEment, a
gateway Web site that provides links to 49 sites carefully selected for
their quality of educational content and design. Instead of having to
sift through more than 65,000 humanities-related sites on the Web,
anyone seeking the best humanities education materials on the Internet
can easily find and access them through EDSITEment. Each site comes
with lesson plans offering suggestions on how to use the materials
effectively in the classroom.
NEH works closely with schools and is currently awarding grants to
schools around the nation through an initiative called ``Schools for a
New Millennium,'' which will enable those schools to become models of
how teachers, principals, librarians and the community can fully
incorporate CD-ROMs and the Internet into their everyday teaching.
NEH also continues to fund the development of excellent new
humanities Web sites and CD-ROMs in areas such as the American wars in
Asia, ancient cultures of North America, Spanish colonial history, U.S.
women's history, and Chinese history and culture.
The Internet places a vast, sometimes disorienting wilderness of
information at everyone's fingertips. NEH seeks to provide teachers,
students and other curious people with a map to the educational
treasures that can be found out there.
To increase its efficiency, the NEH is organized into three
divisions--Education and Research, Preservation and Access, and Public

[[Page H6139]]

Program--and three offices--Challenge Grants, Federal/State
Partnership, and Enterprise.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following statement for the Record in
support of the Regula-Skaggs-Fox amendment, and I thank the chairman
for his leadership in this bill and in the House:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Ohio, the Chairman of
the Committee, for working with Mr. Skaggs and myself to develop this
alternative that addresses the concerns we had raised in our previous
amendment. I believe that the amendment as offered will go a long way
to help in addressing our concerns about energy conservation and, in
particular Weatherization assistance. I appreciate the willingness of
the Chairman to work with us on this alternative and commend him again
for his hard work on this very difficult appropriations bill. I also
wish to thank Mr. Skaggs for his help in working with me on this issue
of mutual importance and commend him for his commitment to this cause.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
through page 123, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the
Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 92, line 12 through page 123, line 14,
is as follows:

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall
be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural
gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within
the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois:
Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhibit or
otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to
minerals owned by private individuals.
Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations
and are approved by such Committees.
Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act
of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the
``Buy American Act'').
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 309. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to
enter into or implement a concession contract which permits
or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program,
unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the
Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming
guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the
AmeriCorps program by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999, then none of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for the
AmeriCorps programs.
Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New
Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of
such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such
pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety
standards.
Sec. 312. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for
the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with
the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 1999, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the
Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section
314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 313. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the purposes of
acquiring lands in the counties of Gallia, Lawrence, Monroe,
or Washington, Ohio, for the Wayne National Forest.
Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by
Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208 and 105-83 for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract
support costs associated with self-determination or self-
governance contracts, grants, compacts or annual funding
agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian
Health Service as funded by such Acts, are the total amounts
available for fiscal years 1994 through 1998 for such
purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority
allocations for unmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts,
grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding
agreements.
Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal year 1999 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed
restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the
Woods'' component of the President's Forest Plan for the
Pacific Northwest to individuals and entities in historically
timber-dependent areas in the States of Washington, Oregon,
and northern California that have been affected by reduced
timber harvesting on Federal lands.
Sec. 316. None of the funds collected under the
Recreational Fee Demonstration program may be used to plan,
design, or construct a visitor center or any other permanent
structure without prior approval of the House and the Senate
Committees on Appropriations if the estimated total cost of
the facility exceeds $500,000.
Sec. 317. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require any person to vacate real property where a
term is

[[Page H6140]]

expiring under a use and occupancy reservation in Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore until such time as the National
Park Service (NPS) indicates to the appropriate congressional
committees and the holders of these reservations that it has
sufficient funds to remove the residence on that property
within 90 days of that residence being vacated. The NPS will
provide at least 90 days notice to the holders of expired
reservations to allow them time to leave the residence. The
NPS will charge fair market value rental rates while any
occupancy continues beyond an expired reservation.
Reservation holders who stay beyond the expiration date will
also be required to pay for appraisals to determine current
fair market value rental rates, any rehabilitation needed to
ensure suitability for occupancy, appropriate insurance, and
all continuing utility costs.
Sec. 318. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
or any other Act providing appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, the Forest Service or the Smithsonian
Institution may be used to submit nominations for the
designation of Biosphere Reserves pursuant to the Man and
Biosphere program administered by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
(b) The provisions of this section shall be repealed upon
enactment of subsequent legislation specifically authorizing
United States participation in the Man and Biosphere program.
Sec. 319. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to
post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National
Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional
area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if
such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
Sec. 320. Of the funds available to the National Endowment
for the Arts:
(1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be
used to make a grant to any other organization or individual
to conduct activity independent of the direct grant
recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments
made in exchange for goods and services.
(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs and/or projects.
Sec. 321. The National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to
solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the
United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other
property or services and to use such in furtherance of the
functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such
gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National
Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the
Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative
of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the
proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit
of the appropriate Endowment for the purposes specified in
each case.
Sec. 322. (a) Watershed Restoration and Enhancement
Agreements.--For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, appropriations
for the Forest Service may be used by the Secretary of
Agriculture for the purpose of entering into cooperative
agreements with willing State and local governments, private
and nonprofit entities and landowners for protection,
restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and
other resources on public or private land or both that
benefit these resources within the watershed.
(b) Direct and Indirect Watershed Agreements.--The
Secretary of Agriculture may enter into a watershed
restoration and enhancement agreement--
(1) directly with a willing private landowner; or
(2) indirectly through an agreement with a State, local or
tribal government or other public entity, educational
institution, or private nonprofit organization.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--In order for the Secretary to
enter into a watershed restoration and enhancement
agreement--
(1) the agreement shall--
(A) include such terms and conditions mutually agreed to by
the Secretary and the landowner;
(B) improve the viability of and otherwise benefit the
fish, wildlife, and other resources on national forests lands
within the watershed;
(C) authorize the provision of technical assistance by the
Secretary in the planning of management activities that will
further the purposes of the agreement;
(D) provide for the sharing of costs of implementing the
agreement among the Federal Government, the landowner(s), and
other entities, as mutually agreed on by the affected
interests; and
(E) ensure that any expenditure by the Secretary pursuant
to the agreement is determined by the Secretary to be in the
public interest; and
(2) the Secretary may require such other terms and
conditions as are necessary to protect the public investment
on non-Federal lands, provided such terms and conditions are
mutually agreed to by the Secretary and other landowners,
State and local governments or both.
Sec. 323. (a) In providing services or awarding financial
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this
Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts
shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or
awarding financial assistance for projects, productions,
workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population
of individuals who have historically been outside the purview
of arts and humanities programs due to factors such as a high
incidence of income below the poverty line or to geographic
isolation.
(2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson
of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that
priority is given to providing services or awarding financial
assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs
that will encourage public knowledge, education,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
(d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and
Humanities Act of 1965--
(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for
projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of
national impact or availability or are able to tour several
States;
(2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15
percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State,
excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually
and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each
grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to
improve and support community-based music performance and
education.
Sec. 324. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
planning, design or construction of improvements to
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the
advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 325. None of the funds in this or any other Act may be
used to relocate the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars from the Smithsonian Institution to the Ronald
Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.
Sec. 326. The Auditors West Building (Annex 3) located at
Raoul Wallenberg Place and Independence Avenue Southwest,
Washington, District of Columbia is hereby named the Sidney
R. Yates Building and shall be referred to in any law,
regulation, document or record of the United States as the
Sidney R. Yates Building.
Sec. 327. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, not later than December 11, 1998, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall grant Chugach Alaska
Corporation an irrevocable and perpetual 250-foot-wide
easement for the construction, use, and maintenance of public
roads and related facilities necessary for access to and
economic development of the land interests in the Carbon
Mountain and Katalla vicinity that were conveyed to Chugach
Alaska Corporation pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. The centerline of the easement is depicted on
the map entitled ``Carbon Mountain Access Easement'' and
dated November 4, 1997. Nothing in this section waives any
legal environmental requirement with respect to the actual
road construction.
(b) Submission of Survey; Relinquishment of Unneeded
Portion of Easement.--Not later than 90 days after completion
of construction of roads and related facilities on the
easement granted pursuant to subsection (a), Chugach Alaska
Corporation shall submit to the Secretary of Agriculture an
as-built survey of such roads and related facilities and
relinquish to the United States those portions of the
easement Chugach Alaska Corporation deems not necessary for
future use.
(c) Construction and Maintenance.--Construction and
maintenance of any roads pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
in accordance with the best management practices of the
Forest Service as promulgated in the Forest Service Handbook.
Sec. 328. Section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134, as amended,
is further amended as follows: Under the heading ``Title
III--General Provisions'' amend section 315(f) (16 U.S.C.
460l-6a note) by striking ``September 30, 1999'' after the
words ``and end on'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2001'' and striking ``September 30, 2002''
after the words ``remain available through'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``September 30, 2004''.
Sec. 329. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds in this Act may be used to enter into any new or
expanded self-determination contract or grant or self-
governance compact pursuant to the

[[Page H6141]]

Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, for any
activities not previously covered by such contracts, compacts
or grants. Nothing in this section precludes the continuation
of those specific activities for which self-determination and
self-governance contracts, compacts and grants currently
exist or the renewal of contracts, compacts and grants for
those activities.
Sec. 330. (a) Prohibition on Timber Purchaser Road
Credits.--In financing any forest development road pursuant
to section 4 of Public Law 88-657 (16 U.S.C. 535, commonly
known as the National Forest Roads and Trails Act), the
Secretary of Agriculture may not provide for amortization of
road costs in any contract with, or otherwise provide
effective credit for road construction to, any purchaser of
national forest timber or other forest products.
(b) Construction of Roads by Timber Purchasers.--Whenever
the Secretary of Agriculture makes a determination that a
forest development road referred to in subsection (a) shall
be constructed or paid for, in whole or in part, by a
purchaser of national forest timber or other forest products,
the Secretary shall include notice of the determination in
the notice of sale of the timber or other forest products.
The notice of sale shall contain, or announce the
availability of, sufficient information related to the road
described in the notice to permit a prospective bidder on the
sale to calculate the likely cost that would be incurred by
the bidder to construct or finance the construction of the
road so that the bidder may reflect such cost in the bid.
(c) Special Election by Small Business Concerns.--(1) A
notice of sale referred to in subsection (b) shall give a
purchaser of national forest timber or other forest products
that qualifies as a ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.), and regulations
issued thereunder, the option to elect that the Secretary of
Agriculture build the road described in the notice. The
Secretary shall provide the small business concern with an
estimate of the cost that would be incurred by the Secretary
to construct the road on behalf of the small business
concern. The notice of sale shall also include the date on
which the road described in the notice will be completed by
the Secretary if the election is made.
(2) If the election referred to in paragraph (1) is made,
the purchaser of the national forest timber or other forest
products shall pay to the Secretary of Agriculture, in
addition to the price paid for the timber or other forest
products, an amount equal to the estimated cost of the road
which otherwise would be paid by the purchaser as provided in
the notice of sale. Pending receipt of such amount, the
Secretary may use receipts from the sale of national forest
timber or other forest products to accomplish the requested
road construction.
(d) Post Construction Harvesting.--In each sale of national
forest timber or other forest products referred to in this
section, the Secretary of Agriculture is encouraged to
authorize harvest of the timber or other forest products in a
unit included in the sale as soon as road work for that unit
is completed and the road work is approved by the Secretary.
(e) Construction Standard.--For any forest development road
that is to be constructed or paid for by a purchaser of
national forest timber or other forest products, the
Secretary of Agriculture may not require the purchaser to
design, construct, or maintain the road (or pay for the
design, construction, or maintenance of the road) to a
standard higher than the standard, consistent with applicable
environmental laws and regulations, that is sufficient for
the harvesting and removal of the timber or other forest
products, unless the Secretary bears that part of the cost
necessary to meet the higher standard.
(f) Treatment of Road Value.--For any forest development
road that is constructed or paid for by a purchaser of
national forest timber or other forest products, the
appraised value of the road construction shall be considered
to be money received for purposes of the payments required to
be made under the sixth paragraph under the heading ``FOREST
SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260, 16 U.S.C.
500), and section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (35 Stat.
963; commonly known as the Weeks Act; 16 U.S.C. 500). To the
extent that the appraised value of road construction
determined under this subsection reflects funds contributed
by the Secretary of Agriculture to build the road to a higher
standard pursuant to subsection (e), the Secretary shall
modify the appraisal of the road construction to exclude the
effect of the Federal funds.
(g) Effective Date.--(1) This section and the requirements
of this section shall take effect (and apply thereafter) upon
the earlier of--
(A) March 1, 1999; and
(B) the date that is the later of--
(i) the effective date of regulations issued by the
Secretary of Agriculture to implement this section; and
(ii) the date on which a new standard timber sale contract,
which is designed to implement this section and has been
published for public comment, is approved by the Secretary.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any sale of national
forest timber or other forest products for which notice of
sale is provided before the effective date of this section,
and any effective purchaser road credit earned pursuant to a
contract resulting from such a notice of sale or otherwise
earned before that effective date, shall continue to be
subject to section 4 of Public Law 88-657 and section 14(i)
of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C.
472a(i)), and rules issued thereunder, as in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 331. Section 6(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the National
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 955(b)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``One'' and
inserting ``Two''.
Sec. 332. (a) Conditional Effective Date.--This section
shall take effect only if the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1999, does not appropriate at least
$6,000,000 in new funds for the management by the Tennessee
Valley Authority of the Land Between the Lakes National
Recreation Area in the States of Kentucky and Tennessee.
(b) Transfer of Jurisdiction, Land Between the Lakes
National Recreation Area.--The Tennessee Valley Authority
shall transfer, without reimbursement, the Land Between the
Lakes National Recreation Area to the administrative
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture.
(c) Management.--Upon the transfer of jurisdiction under
subsection (b), the Land Between the Lakes National
Recreation Area, hereinafter Recreation Area, is established
as a unit of the National Forest System, and the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service,
shall administer the Recreation Area in accordance with this
section and (except as provided in subsection (d)) the laws,
rules, and regulations pertaining to the National Forest
System. Except as provided in subsection (d), land within the
Recreation Area shall have the status of land acquired under
the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the Weeks Act; 16
U.S.C. 515 et seq.). The Secretary shall manage the
Recreation Area for multiple use as a unit of the National
Forest System, in conjunction with the original mission
statement of the Recreation Area emphasizing outdoor
recreation, environmental education, fish and wildlife
conservation, and regional development. The Secretary shall
conduct an inventory of all cemeteries located in the
Recreation Area and ensure public access to such cemeteries
for purposes of burials, visitation and maintenance.
(d) Fees and Other Charges.--The Secretary of Agriculture
may charge reasonable fees for admission to and the use of
designated sites in the Recreation Area or for activities in
the Recreation Area. No general entrance fees shall be
charged within the Recreation Area. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, all amounts received from charges, user
fees, and natural resource utilization, including timber and
agricultural receipts, arising from the Recreation Area shall
be deposited in a special fund in the Treasury to be known as
the ``Land Between the Lakes Management Fund'', which shall
be available to the Secretary, without subsequent
appropriation, for the management of the Recreation Area,
including the payment of salaries and expenses.
(e) Payments.--Federal lands within the Recreation Area
shall be subject to the provisions for payments in lieu of
taxes under chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code.
Notwithstanding the transfer of jurisdiction, the Tennessee
Valley Authority shall continue to be responsible for
payments under section 13 of the Tennessee Valley Authority
Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831l).
(f) Transition.--(1) The transfer of jurisdiction under
subsection (b) should be effected in an efficient and cost-
effective manner to minimize the disruption of the personal
lives of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Forest Service
employees affected by the transfer. Not later than 30 days
after the date on which this section takes effect, the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Tennessee Valley Authority
shall enter into a memorandum of agreement to provide
procedures for the orderly withdrawal or transfer of officers
and employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the transfer
of property, fixtures, and facilities, the interagency
transfer of officers and employees, the transfer of records,
and such other transfer issues as the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the Secretary consider to be appropriate. The
agreement shall provide for a transition team consisting of
Tennessee Valley Authority and Forest Service employees.
(2) In order to provide for a cost-effective transfer of
the law enforcement responsibilities between the Forest
Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority, the law
enforcement authorities designated under section 4A of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c-3) are
hereby granted to special agents and law enforcement officers
of the Forest Service. The law enforcement authorities
designated under the 11th undesignated paragraph under the
heading ``surveying the public lands'' of the Act of June 4,
1897 (30 Stat. 35; 16 U.S.C. 551), the first paragraph of
that portion designated ``General expenses, Forest Service''
of the Act of March 3, 1905 (33 U.S.C. 873; 16 U.S.C. 559),
the National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986 (16
U.S.C. 559b-559g) are hereby granted to law enforcement
agents of the Tennessee Valley Authority, within the
boundaries of the Recreation Area, for a period of one year
from the date on which this section takes effect.
(3) Unless terminated for cause, all permanent Tennessee
Valley Authority employees at the Recreation Area shall be
guaranteed

[[Page H6142]]

employment by the Tennessee Valley Authority for a minimum of
five months following the date on which this section takes
effect. The Tennessee Valley Authority shall provide affected
employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Recreation
Area with a severance/compensation package based on
established practices of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Funding for the activities prescribed for the Tennessee
Valley Authority in this section is to be derived only from
one or more of the following sources: nonpower fund balances
and collections; investment returns of the nonpower program;
applied programmatic savings in the power and nonpower
programs; savings from the suspension of bonuses and awards;
savings from reductions in memberships and contributions;
increases in collections resulting from nonpower activities,
including user fees; or increases in charges to private and
public utilities both investor and cooperatively owned, as
well as to direct load customers. Such funds are available to
fund the activities under this paragraph, notwithstanding
sections 11, 14, 15, 29, or other provisions of the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act, as amended, or provisions of the TVA
power bond covenants. The savings from, and revenue
adjustments to, the TVA budget in fiscal year 1999 and
thereafter shall be sufficient to fund the aforementioned
activities such that the net spending authority and resulting
outlays for these activities shall not exceed $0 in fiscal
year 1999 and thereafter. Within 30 days of enactment of this
Act, the Chairman of the TVA shall submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations an itemized list of the
amounts of the proposed reduction and increased receipts to
be made pursuant to this section in fiscal year 1999. By
November 1, 2000, the Chairman of the TVA shall submit to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an itemized
list of the amounts of the reductions and increased receipts
made pursuant to this paragraph for fiscal year 1999.
(g) Advisory Board.--Within 90 days after the date on which
this section takes effect, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish a 17-member citizen advisory board to advise the
Secretary on environmental education in the Recreation Area
and means of promoting public participation for the land and
resource management plan for the Recreation Area.
Sec. 333. (a) Any appropriations contained in this Act or
any other Act for the operation or implementation of the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
(hereinafter ``Project'') shall be obligated or expended only
as provided in this section.
(b) Within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior shall--
(1) prepare and submit to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate the report
required by section 323(a) of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (111 Stat.
1543, 1596-7), including any additional information necessary
to correspond with the requirements of this section;
(2) distribute for advisory purposes to each national
forest and each resource area or other relevant planning unit
of the Bureau of Land Management within the region
encompassed by the Project (hereinafter ``Project forest'')
all relevant scientific findings of the Project and the
report required by paragraph (1); and
(3) conduct and complete the orderly closing of the offices
of the Project.
(c)(1)(A) Within 90 days after the completion of the
requirements of subsection (b), each Forest Service
Supervisor of, or Bureau of Land Management official with
jurisdiction over, a Project forest shall review the resource
management plan or other land use plan for the Project forest
(hereinafter ``plan''), and, as they may relate to the
specific resources and conditions existing on the Project
forest as of the date of enactment of this Act, the
scientific information and report provided pursuant to
subsection (b)(2) and any policies made applicable to the
Project forest prior to the date of enactment of this Act,
and determine whether an amendment to or revision of the plan
is warranted.
(B) If the determination is made pursuant to subparagraph
(A) that a plan amendment or revision is warranted,
preparation of the amendment or revision shall be completed
within 12 months or 18 months, respectively, of the date of
the determination.
(2) To the maximum extent practicable, any plan amendment
or revision prepared pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) shall
provide for management standards appropriate to the specific
conditions of individual sites and avoid the imposition of
general standards applicable to multiple sites.
Sec. 334. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 1998 in the
roads and trails fund provided for in the fourteenth
paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of
March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by
the Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in
which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or
carry out and administer projects to improve forest health
conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in
the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally
high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing
risks to human safety and public health and property and
enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest
productivity, and biological integrity. The Secretary shall
commence the projects during fiscal year 1999, but the
projects may be completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds
shall not be expended under this section to replace funds
which would otherwise appropriately be expended from the
timber salvage sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to exempt any project from any environmental law.
Sec. 335. Section 5 of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act
(20 U.S.C. 974) is amended as follows:
In subsection (b) strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$5,000,000,000''.
In subsection (c) strike ``$300,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$500,000,000''.
In subsection (d)(4) strike the final ``or''.
In subsection (d)(5) strike ``$200,000,000 or more'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``not less than $200,000,000 but less
than $300,000,000'' and strike the final period and insert in
lieu thereof ``;''.
After subsection (d)(5) insert the following 2 new
subsections:
``(6) not less than $300,000,000 but less than
$400,000,000, then coverage under this chapter shall extend
only to loss or damage in excess of the first $300,000 of
loss or damage to items covered; or
``(7) $400,000,000 or more, then coverage under this
chapter shall extend only to loss or damage in excess of the
first $400,000 of loss or damage to items covered.''.

Tulare Conveyance

Sec. 336. (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (c) and
(d), all conveyances to the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Tulare, California, of lands described in subsection (b),
heretofore or hereafter, made directly by the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company, or its successors, are hereby
validated to the extent that the conveyances would be legal
or valid if all right, title, and interest of the United
States, except minerals, were held by the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company.
(b) Lands Described.--The lands referred to in subsection
(a) are the parcels shown on the map entitled ``Tulare
Redevelopment Agency-Railroad Parcels Proposed to be
Acquired'', dated May 29, 1997, that formed part of a
railroad right-of-way granted to the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company, or its successors, agents, or assigns, by
the Federal Government (including the right-of-way approved
by an Act of Congress on July 27, 1866). The map referred to
in this subsection shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the offices of the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(c) Preservation of Existing Rights of Access.--Nothing in
this section shall impair any existing rights of access in
favor of the public or any owner of adjacent lands over,
under or across the lands which are referred to in subsection
(a).
(d) Minerals.--The United States disclaims any and all
right of surface entry to the mineral estate of lands
described in subsection (b).
Sec. 337. The final set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier
Resources System'', dated ``October 24, 1990, revised
November 12, 1996'', and relating to the following units of
the Coastal Barrier Resources System: P04A, P05/P05P; P05A/
P05AP, FL-06P; P10/P10P; P11; P11AP; P11A; P18/P18P; P25/
P25P; and P32/P32P (which set of maps were created by the
Department of the Interior to comply with section 220 of
Public Law 104-333, 110 Stat. 4115, and notice of which was
published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1997) shall have
the force and effect of law and replace and substitute for
any other inconsistent Coastal Barrier Resource System map in
the possession of the Department of the Interior. This
provision is effective immediately upon enactment of this Act
and the Secretary of the Interior or his designee shall
immediately make this ministerial substitution.
Section 405(c)(2) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(42 U.S.C. 1645(c)(2) is amended by striking ``September 30,
1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''.

{time} 1830

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Kildee:
Page 123, after line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 338. Section 123(a)(2)(C) of the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (111
Stat. 1566), is amended by striking ``self-regulated tribes
such as''.

Mr. KILDEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would clear up an ambiguity
caused by last year's Interior appropriations bill regarding the
ability of the National Indian Gaming Commission to carry out its
congressional mandates. It is technical in nature, and

[[Page H6143]]

it is supported by the administration as well as the majority and
minority of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, I am aware of the amendment.
On this side of the aisle we will accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Parker); and amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Parker

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135,
noes 289, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 319]

AYES--135

Aderholt
Armey
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bateman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Brown (CA)
Bryant
Burr
Camp
Capps
Cardin
Clay
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Coyne
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Engel
English
Fattah
Filner
Fossella
Furse
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (WI)
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lampson
Latham
Lazio
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Manton
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Moran (KS)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Shays
Smith, Adam
Spratt
Stabenow
Stokes
Stupak
Sununu
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Vento
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker

NOES--289

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--10

Ford
Gonzalez
Green
Hunter
Markey
Moakley
Poshard
Radanovich
Serrano
Young (FL)

{time} 1856

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, ROEMER, BERRY, LUTHER, GEJDENSON, LaFALCE
and ABERCROMBIE, and Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. HARMAN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas
and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. MORAN of Kansas, ADERHOLT, BLILEY, LEVIN, TORRES, FILNER,
HILLEARY, HASTERT, STUPAK, ARMEY, PETERSON of Minnesota, FOSSELLA,
VENTO, BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, REYES, BARCIA, LoBIONDO, and DEUTSCH
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 15 Offered By Mr. Miller of California

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 182, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 320]

AYES--236

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr

[[Page H6144]]

Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--182

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Sandlin
Sanford
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Turner
Visclosky
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--16

Clay
Ford
Gonzalez
Green
Hunter
John
Kelly
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Moakley
Poshard
Radanovich
Serrano
Smith, Linda
Stearns
Young (FL)

{time} 1902

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

personal explanation

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 320, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 3 amendment printed in House Report 105-637 offered by
Mr. Young of Alaska:
Page 123, after line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 338. (a) Moratorium on Federal Management.--None of
the funds made available to the Department of the Interior or
the Department of Agriculture by this or any other Act
hereafter enacted may be used prior to October 1, 2000, to
issue or implement final regulations, rules, or policies
pursuant to title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act to assert jurisdiction, management, or
control over the navigable waters transferred to the State of
Alaska pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 or the
Alaska Statehood Act of 1959.
(b) Effective Date of 1997 ANILCA Amendments.--Section
316(d) of Public Law 105-83 is amended by striking ``December
1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 1, 2000''.
(c) Repeal.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall be repealed on
December 1, 1998, unless on or before that date an amendment
to the constitution of the State of Alaska has been adopted
which the Secretary of the Interior has determined would
enable Alaska statutes to be enacted which provide the
priority required in section 804 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3114) in the
taking on public lands of fish and wildlife.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a component of a
broad effort in Alaska to resolve a long running debate over
subsistence hunting and fishing. This amendment affects no other State.
It concerns only Alaska.
My amendment extends until October 1, 2000, a current moratorium on a
Federal takeover of Alaska's fish and game resources. However, the
extension of the moratorium is effective only if the State of Alaska
adopts a constitutional amendment to resolve the subsistence debate. If
a constitutional amendment is not in place by December 1, 1998, the
moratorium does not extend under this amendment.
Now the State of Alaska has until election day to decide whether to
amend its Constitution. I am hopeful my State can come to a resolution
in time. But I strongly believe my amendment is necessary to forestall
and prevent a Federal takeover while the State proceeds in this effort.
A Federal moratorium is necessary because Federal control of Alaska
fish and game would be devastating to the wildlife, and especially the
people of Alaska. A Federal takeover is not my choice, and should not
be Alaska's choice either.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. De Fazio

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

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 107, beginning at line 19, strike section 328 (and
redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue before the
House. A number of years ago, in the 1996 Budget Act, the demonstration
program in the appropriations bill was extended to collect fees among
the various Park Service, Forest Service, BLM and Fish and Wildlife
Service units. The idea was to see if it was feasible, see if it could
be done in a way that was accountable, see if it could be done in a way
that would augment the scarce resources of these agencies for
meritorious purposes, and then come back with a review. That review
will come to the Congress, by law, next March. So next March, this
Congress will receive a full accounting of the fee demonstration

[[Page H6145]]

program among the various units of the Federal Government, and there
are problems with this program.
There is such a multiplicity of programs with exclusive and
overlapping jurisdictions out there that, in my own home State, if you
visit the Deschutes Forest and you buy a pass to park at the Deschutes
Forest, you cannot use it next door in the Willamette Forest, and if
you buy a parking pass in the Willamette Forest, you cannot use it in
some parts of the Deschutes Forest. And if you buy a pass in the
Deschutes Forest and the Willamette Forest, you cannot use it in the
Siuslaw Forest. If you have one for the Siuslaw Forest, the Willamette
Forest and the Deschutes Forest, you cannot use it at Crater Lake.
Now, this is going on in other people's districts and States
throughout the West. People who live in rural areas, who live adjacent
to forests, who live on in-holdings in forest, to park at a trail head
have to pay $25.
It has also seen very steep increases in fees at various park units
around the country. We have seen the fees go from $3 to $10 per person
and $5 to $20 per person at Yosemite, $10 to $20 per vehicle at
Yellowstone, and the list goes on.
We need to review this program. We are going to receive a report, the
United States Congress will receive a report, on this unauthorized tax.
Make no mistake about it. If you oppose this amendment, you are voting
to continue a tax on millions of Americans who visit our public lands
in the United States in a mishmash fashion with no accountability, for
no purpose that you can actually discern in many cases, because the
accounting at the Forest Service and other agencies is so poor.
Eighty percent of the money was supposed to go in the Forest Service
last year. Fifty-three percent of the money collected went to
administration, and they were not enforcing it and offering tickets
last year. This year they are going to be writing tickets. There is
going to be even more overhead expense in the program. This program
needs to be reviewed. It needs to be properly authorized by the
committees.
My amendment would not terminate the program, it would merely say
that the appropriators, this bill, cannot extend for two years beyond
1999 into the next century this program without authorization.
I do not think it is too much to ask, that a tax like this levied
upon millions of Americans recreating on their public lands be
authorized by Congress, that we review it, that we have some
accountability.
We will hear that some of the money, particularly in the Park
Service, is being spent for meritorious things. That may well be true,
but let us have a full accounting. Let us authorize it. Let us do it in
a way so that you do not have to plaster your whole windshield with
passes until you are peering through a little tiny slot there as you
drive around the western United States and trying to figure out what
additional passes you need to paste and which ones you are going to
have to take off at 25 bucks a hit or more.
This is not a program that is well run. There is too much overlap,
too much multiplicity, and it is very egregious upon people who live
close to public lands.
So I would urge Members to vote for this amendment, which means you
are voting simply to say we will receive a report in March, and then we
will authorize or not authorize an extension of these fee programs.
Maybe it will be authorized for the Park Service and not for the Forest
Service, and maybe other restrictions will be placed on it. Maybe we
will require intergovernmental or interagency agreements so people will
only have to buy one or two passes, instead of five or ten different
passes at a very, very high cost to them.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee might accept this
amendment and decide that it would be wise to get this authorized
before the tax is extended.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and
having sat on that committee for 18 years, we have played with this
idea for a long time. It is interesting to go to our national parks. In
1915, it cost $10 to go into Yellowstone National Park. In 1996, it
cost $10 to go into Yellowstone National Park.
Look at the 374 units of the Park Service and how difficult it is to
maintain them. I do not think a day goes by that I do not get a call
from a superintendent or a forest supervisor or a BLM land manager that
says, ``Mr. Chairman, I need this, that or the other, and I do not have
enough money.'' That puts us in a position of going back and looking
for a supplemental thing or something else.
The best deal in America by far is the public lands and the national
parks. Where else can you take your family and go into the Yellowstone
National Park for now, what, $10 or $25, or the Grand Canyon, all these
places that are visited on a regular basis.
I like to go around and talk to people who go into those parks. It is
kind of a fun thing to do. The next time I would advise some of our
Members to do that. Walk into Yellowstone in the area and look at that
retired CEO who is driving in in an $80,000 Winnebago and pulling a
$30,000 Suburban. And, oh boy, we are going to ask for another 10
bucks? Big deal.
In fact, it is not uncommon for those of us on the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands to get money from people who say,
``Boy, no one ripped us off like we ripped you folks off.'' And now we
give these people an opportunity to pay a little money to go into our
national parks, to go into the public lands. I still think it is the
best deal we have got. And to take away that tool that we have now
given forest supervisors, that we have now given park superintendents,
to have some money they can use in their own hands, to me it would be
foolish and disregarding the history we have, which is extremely
successful, and I do not feel that would be a wise thing to do.
I strongly oppose this amendment. If we do not defeat this amendment,
we will just be back asking for more money and it will have to come out
of the general fund, and I do not think that is a very good idea.

{time} 1915

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think, and I realize he
is on the authorizing committee and we have not authorized this, but
does the gentleman think it is reasonable that two adjoining forests
should require two different $25 trail head parking fees? I mean, that
seems a little bit steep, and then the next forest over is requiring
yet a third one. So one can cover an 80-mile stretch and have to pay
$75 just to park at trail heads. I think there needs to be a little bit
better coordination. Would the gentleman at least agree to that point?
It is an actual case example from my home State.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the gentleman's
question.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the question is, if I go to the Deschutes
Forest and pay $25 for a trail head parking pass, it is not good in the
next door Willamette Forest, and it is not good in the Siuslaw Forest.
If I buy one in the Willamette Forest, it is not good in the Siuslaw
Forest. But the one in the Willamette Forest is good in some other
forest. I mean, one has to get a road map to figure out which of the
forests have reciprocity and which do not. It is very, very, very
complicated and potentially very costly.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say this. This
has been kind of an experimental thing we have been moving into. Little
by little I would hope we would come to the point that we are able to
encourage the States to have one.
I am not saying this is a perfect program; I do not think anybody
does. But we have started down the road of having people pay a user
fee, so to speak, or a camping fee, and I think it is coming out very
well.
I would admit to the gentleman, yes, there are some bugaboos in it,
there are some problems, but I think right now we are headed in the
right direction and we will be able to take care of our parks.
Let me just say to the gentleman, we have a tremendous amount of
backlog on in-holdings and repair. I could come up to billions of
dollars just on our

[[Page H6146]]

parks alone that we cannot figure out how to get the money. We had 28
miles of impassable road in Yellowstone; no one could drive down it. We
had a water system out in the Grand Canyon, a sewer system out in
Yosemite. We have a problem down in the Everglades. I could give the
gentleman a list a mile long, but nobody is coming up with the money. I
think it would make a lot of sense to have a users' fee to take care of
this.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me read the list of people and organizations that
support the fee program: National Parks and Conservation Association;
Natural Resources Defense Council; National Trust for Historic
Preservation; the Secretary of the Interior. And I quote Secretary
Babbitt: ``We believe that the strong support for the fee program is
because most receipts remain in the recreation area in which they are
collected to be used to improve visitor services and protect
resources.'' He goes on to say that this is a great program.
The Secretary of Agriculture states: ``I firmly believe that changes
in the program would be detrimental to the recreation fee demonstration
program.'' Again, the Department of Interior, the Director of the Fish
and Wildlife Service: ``The demonstration program begun in 1996 has
been a tremendous success.''
Again from the Department of Interior: ``All the agencies strongly
support this program. I have spoken to superintendents in a number of
parks. They are very strongly in support of it.''
I asked the superintendents, how does the public feel? They said,
``We have no complaints.'' People think this is one of the great
bargains to come in when they know that the money is staying in the
park. That is the important feature here.
Under the old law, the fees that were collected, before we changed
the law as part of creating the demonstration program, the fees
collected went to Treasury instead of staying in the park. Now they
stay in the park, and they are using them to enhance the visitor
experience, improve the camp sites, fix the sanitary facilities, things
that are important to visitors.
Mr. Chairman, our delegation recently visited Muir Woods and the
superintendent told me many people say, ``That is not enough. Here,
take a couple of extra dollars as part of the fee program.''
This is working wonderfully well.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, and I
completely understand the gentleman's concern about proper
authorization, nothing that we have done here would stop the
authorization committees from going ahead and maybe correcting some of
the problems that Mr. DeFazio has properly pointed out. But what I see
based on our trip is that we have such a huge backlog of maintenance
that needs to be done.
The national parks are the crown jewels of this country, and in every
park, the Olympic, Mt. Rainier National Park, the North Cascades,
Yosemite, they have a backlog of work that totals billions and billions
of dollars. For the first time we have gotten people used to the idea
of a user fee, and that they ought to pay a little something when they
visit the parks.
A few people complained when the fee program first started. Now
however, overwhelmingly, when they know we are on the level, when they
know that 80 percent of that money is going back to their park, then
they support this program. Also, Secretary Babbitt has asked for it to
be extended. Secretary Glickman, our former colleague, has asked for it
to be extended.
We had the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen), supporting the fee program. No one has done a better job of
demonstrating concern for our parks than he has been. The gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been the champion on the Committee on
Appropriations. We have all supported him. I think we ought to keep
this program, and I urge the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to go
ahead and work on any refinements to the authorization.
The basic concept is solid, and the American people overwhelmingly
support it. We have a lot of work to do. We have a chance here to stop
the decline of the parks and start seeing them restored. This is a
historic opportunity, and I urge that we stay with the committee
position because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments. I would point out this will generate $500 million
over five years, and as my colleagues can see, it is strongly
supported.
The gentleman mentioned 80 percent stays in the park, and the other
20 percent goes to parks such as Golden Gate where we do not have a
fee, where there is not a single collection point, but it all stays in
the park or the forest system, National Wildlife Refuge, and or BLM.
All of the agencies support it; the public supports it. I think the
program is absolutely very constructive, and I would strongly urge the
Members to defeat this amendment.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a very interesting position here. I
find myself opposing the demonstration fee program, and having to find
myself on the opposite side of my own Chairman.
However, the fact is that I think that we have had sufficient time to
see how the demonstration fee program is really working, and as it was
first conceived, it has not worked well as far as the public is
concerned.
The fact is that I really do think that the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen) is right, and perhaps for the national parks where there is a
lot of high maintenance, and where there are facilities that need
upkeep, we need to revisit that with the demonstration fee program. But
as the demonstration fee program has been conceived of and is being
extended in this bill, it is not working well.
Mr. Chairman, let me give an example. Last weekend I was home in
Idaho and a woman who has 8 children told me about the fact that they
were able to take their family to their church camp, and as always the
family looked forward to going to the church camp, and as the little
children piled out of the car and they gleefully set up camp and got
their bunks all ready and everything set, the little boys took off to
climb the hill behind the church camp. They had been doing this for
years, and it was a favorite hill, but the ranger said, ``Oh, I'm
sorry, you can't climb that hill anymore, you must stay on the church
camp property.''
``Why can't we climb the hill?''
``Well, you need a pass, and it will cost $5 a person to go climb the
hill,'' the hill that family had been climbing for years.
``Well, then let us go down to the lake.''
``Oh, no, you can't go down to the lake, you can't go on that trail.
That too takes a permit.''
So what was a properly conceived of idea, for good reasons, is
working out poorly. And I have received hundreds of calls in my office
about how confusing and discouraging it is for people in Idaho and the
Western States to be able to access the recreation and the outdoors
that we have in our Western States and that we are so proud of, and, by
the way, should be sustained with taxpayers' money.
So I would like to see us revisit this. I think the way it is
conceived of now is not right, and I do again want to say, I do support
fees for the high maintenance areas that have a lot of buildings and
maintenance.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much. In fact, I was
in the gentlewoman's State in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area,
one of the most beautiful places in the country, and we need to do a
lot of good work there.
But the point I was trying to make earlier, the gentlewoman is on the
authorization committee, and there is nothing that we are doing here
today that would stop the authorizers from making certain refinements
in this program. And what I would urge the gentlewoman to do, with the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and

[[Page H6147]]

the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller), is for the authorizing committee to come up
with whatever refinements are necessary to make this even a more
acceptable program.
The thing that I worry about is, it is the old adage, you pay for
what you get. And if we want the parks to be stellar and world class,
we are going to have to fix them up. We are way behind on maintenance.
So I would really urge the gentlewoman to try to, in the
gentlewoman's committee, and I know the gentlewoman is a leader in her
committee, to try to help us refine this program, because we need it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's thinking there, as I usually do in these issues. The
gentleman has been a leader in these issues for years.
But the fact is, as the demonstration fee program has been conceived
of and as extended for 2 years, it is not working well, and the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) also sits on the committee, and I
know that we would all like to see a new program of some sort put
forth. I certainly have my ideas, as I have expressed on the floor. But
as it is conceived of now, and as it is being extended, it is not
working well.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the key here is the word
``demonstration.'' Demonstration to me means let us go out and see if
it will work, and then let us review it. In fact, there is a logical
review point: Next March.
This bill extends for 2 years beyond October 1, 1999 the
demonstration program, after it is no longer a demonstration, with all
of its faults intact. The logical thing to do is not extend it now. The
Committee on Appropriations could come forward next year with an
extension, if we fail to authorize it in the authorizing committee, and
again legislate on an appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. DeFazio, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Chenoweth
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. So the key here, Mr. Chairman, is that as to the
demonstration program, there is going to be a report rendered. We may
very well find that the Park Service is doing a tremendous job with it.
I think we will find that the Forest Service and some of the other
agencies have tremendous problems with the program.
We can then authorize it in due time, have an authorization in place
for the Committee on Appropriations for next year. This is not a
crisis. The program will be continued between this year and next year
under existing law. It is just I object to extending it for another 2
years, because then I do not believe the authorizers will ever get to
it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the point is that if we wait
until 1999 to do this, then we get to the end of the fiscal year. There
would be uncertainty about whether we have the program or not. The
thing that is good about having this now, is that we have established
it and people are used to it. They have accepted it. Now we should not
create uncertainty.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does
have a very good point, but the fact is that in the authorizing
committee we can come up with a new program that has been properly
authorized.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I thank the Chairman for the recognition to me as a member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
As the night is wearing on and these very important amendments are
being debated, I want to speak out of turn. As my colleagues may know,
this appropriations bill of the Subcommittee on Interior is the last
one that our distinguished ranking member from Illinois (Mr. Yates),
will be participating in.

{time} 1930

I wanted to take the opportunity to just interrupt the debate for a
moment before the evening goes on too long to pay tribute to the
gentleman.
In the course of the development of this legislation in the
subcommittee and the full committee and the rest, I think many members
of the Committee on Appropriations have sung his praises, have talked
about his great leadership, and I know that I can speak for every
person in this body on this one subject, that the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) is indeed a gentleman.
People have praised the fact that he is a legislative virtuoso. He
has taught us all a great deal and we have commended him not only as a
teacher and a legislator and a gentleman and a person who has been a
mentor to so many of us, but I want to comment on him as a great
American patriot.
As chairman for a long time of this subcommittee, and as ranking
member, he has protected the beautiful natural resources of our great
country. Thank you for your patriotism, Sid.
As the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, he has
spoken out so eloquently about protecting freedom of expression in this
country. Thank you very much for doing that, Sid, and for protecting
the freest of expression in the arts and the rest.
So he is not only a great leader, teacher, mentor, legislator,
gentleman, but a great patriot.
I am reminded of what was said about Pericles when I think of the
great Sid Yates when it was said of Pericles, ``He was a lover of the
beautiful and he cultivated the spirit without a loss of manliness.'' I
cannot think of anyone that applies to more than the distinguished, the
very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, Mr. Yates, for your leadership.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) very much for yielding to me. I want to join
and associate myself with her remarks and to add a couple of my own,
just to say that for 24 years I have served with the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) about half as long as Mr. Yates has served, and I
wish to say what an incredible pleasure it has been for me as a public
servant to watch him and to admire his beliefs in our public
institutions.
I know him as one deeply involved in the issues of this subcommittee,
the Interior and natural resources issues and the arts and the cultural
issues. He has witnessed many political trends and political fads and
schemes of popularity and unpopularity. But I think what we have seen
is that he has stood fast for a great portion for the protection of not
only our free speech and our free expression, but the protection and
the preservation of our culture and our history in the way that no
other Member of Congress has.
He embodies the very, very best, the very, very best in public
service. At a time when we see so much venom and so much attack in our
public arena, to have you here, Sidney, has been a gift to all of us
who try to hold our profession, this institution, the American public
in the highest possible regard that we can.
His span of service and commitment is something that if each us every
day that we walked into this Chamber, and every day we exited, if we
could just recommit ourselves in his image of that public service, we
would do this country a great favor.
I thank the gentleman so very, very much for giving so much of his
life to this country. I admire him and wish him the very, very best.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to Sid Yates, the
patriot, thank you for protecting our culture, our Constitution, and
our countryside. It has been the greatest privilege of my political
career to call you colleague. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, a few hours ago the gentlewoman from California (Ms.

[[Page H6148]]

Pelosi) and I were clashing over the issue of normal trade relations
for China. But at this moment, I want to rise to associate myself
completely with the remarks that she just made about our distinguished
ranking minority member, Sid Yates.
It is going to be hard to imagine a debate on this bill next year
without Sid Yates being involved in it, but we shall survive somehow.
But his spirit will certainly linger with us as we continue the debate
next year and in following years on this legislation.
His advocacy, not only for the arts, but his advocacy for national
parks and for preservation of lands in the United States has been
extraordinary. And even though I have disagreed with him many times on
many of the issues, I have always admired the perseverance that he has
shown, the knowledge base that he comes from, and as the gentlewoman
said, the civility with which he always approaches these issues.
It is a lesson which many of us in this body who are so much newer,
and we are all much newer than Sid Yates around this place, know that
we could all take to heart.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) for yielding me this time. I have said this to ``my chairman''
many times, that he is the epitome of everything that is good about
citizenship in these United States. He has been everything that we have
heard. I will not enlarge upon it. But I will make an additional
comment, and that is that he has had a wonderful helpmate in his wife
Addie. They have really been a great team. Many times she has been at
the hearings and we love her as much as we do you, Sid. We carry the
message to her that we have appreciated her, and I am sure she has been
a wonderful influence on your life.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to use a
moment to address the amendment at hand. Back to the business of the
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. As a member
of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, we have worked very
hard, under the chairman's leadership, to address the operation on the
maintenance shortfalls which exist at so many of our national parks,
our Fish and Wildlife Refuges, on our other lands which are heavily
utilized by the public.
No one wants our parks or forests or refuges to deteriorate. These
represent in many cases some of the most spectacular and beautiful
treasures that we have in our country. In my own State of Arizona, the
Grand Canyon park is certainly one of the most spectacular natural
splendors in the world. We cannot and must not let the quality of this
park slip through our hands. Yet the increasing pressure of the public
is enormous.
We have an enormous backlog of capital needs in all of our land
management agencies and this is a problem that demands our attention,
even as we seek to balance the budget and struggle to reduce our
national debt. The utilization of our public lands is rising. We cannot
expect appropriated funds to meet all of the increasing needs. We need
to look for other solutions to this very troubling problem.
That is what the fee demonstration program is about. I believe it is
having a positive effect. I have to tell my colleagues it is in my
area. It is used in one of the national forests in the heart of my
district, and it was unpopular with a lot of people. But I think as
people have begun to see that the money is staying there in the forest,
that it is being used to address the problems of maintenance and
operation that is so badly needed to build new restrooms for example,
to build new trails, I think people begin to understand this is good.
It is a user fee that really is doing what it ought to do.
In Arizona, the Grand Canyon expects to collect $38 million in new
money over 3 years. And at the Grand Canyon, this will be used to
improve a transit center, a maintenance facility, back country trails,
archaeological site, stabilization initiatives.
Eliminating the program is not going to help address the critical
backlog that we have on our Federal lands. So I hope that my colleagues
will think very seriously about this amendment. Yes, we need to have
the evaluation of it, but we need also to have some more time for it.
We need to get more data.
So I strongly oppose this amendment and hope that we will keep the
demonstration fee program in effect. It is doing what Congress intended
it do. Defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kolbe was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I will join the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) reluctantly in opposition to this. I have heard some discussion
here about authorizing this type of program. The fact is, when I served
in the capacity of subcommittee chairman, we tried several times to
authorize this type of program. In fact, we did do some authorization
with regard to it.
The fact is that some of the fees that are included under this in
terms of what I would call user fees, not entrance fees but user fees,
are authorized and have long been authorized by the various land
management agencies. But they choose, without the moral authority of
Congress, to not implement those types of fees.
Because of this fee demonstration program I think they are now into
the swing of things. And the fact is as far as the entrance fees in
terms of the parks and forests and some of the other areas which are
authorized by this and necessary and working, they are dealing with
buses, they are dealing with the tour boats that come into Saint Croix,
as an example, that were paying no fees in terms of entrance. The
buses, they are paying considerable fees now when they go through our
various parks and they were paying literally nothing before.
So the fact that it is in place, I would certainly work with the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and others that are concerned
about the fact that there is a problem with regards to parking, with
regards to user fees and so forth in these various areas. We need to
work that out. But the fact is to assume that we are going to keep this
authorized or get it reauthorized in the absence of keeping it in this
appropriation bill, I think would be a big mistake.
We not only need this; we need the pressure of this type of
appropriation to keep the authorizing committee working and doing it.
In the absence of that, I think it is going to get lost in the shuffle.
So, I join in opposition to this amendment and in support of this
program.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for his comments, and I would point out, as
the gentleman mentioned, they have the authority now to have those
fees, and that is absolutely true. But the reason they have not all too
often is because it takes resources away from the parks or the forests
to collect them, someone who could be doing law enforcement or building
trails, and they could not keep the money in the park.
Now they have the incentive to do so, because the money gets to stay
in the park or national forest to do exactly the kind of maintenance
and operational backlog work that needs to be done. So I think the
gentleman is exactly correct.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, today I join with my colleagues, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) to
offer a bipartisan, common sense amendment that will put an end to an
outrageous tax increase on American families.
Two years ago, the recreational fee demonstration program was slipped
into a huge budget bill without adequate hearings or debate. This
legislative maneuver authorized a variety of so-called user fees
throughout our national forests and our national parks, but these fees
are nothing more than regressive taxes on families who can least afford
to pay them.
Our amendment will delete this section of this bill that extends the
life of

[[Page H6149]]

these taxes for 2 more years. If our amendment passes, this tax will
expire in 1999, as was originally planned. It was planned as a pilot
project to see if this is a good way to raise funds for our forests and
parks. Before we extend the fee demonstration program, we need to stop
and find out if it is a good plan.
Mr. Chairman, in my district this new tax is called the Adventure
Pass, and it has truly been a terrible adventure for thousands of my
constituents who visit Los Padres National Forest, which is in our
backyard up and down the central coast of California.
While it is a very local issue for my district, it affects 40 of the
155 national forests throughout this country. It is in all of our
backyards.
Since coming to Congress in March, I have received more angry calls,
letters, and e-mails on this topic than almost any other matter of
Federal policy, and I brought with me today here a sampling of the
letters that I have received from people who have never contacted their
Federal representatives on any issue and have been motivated to express
their deep concerns to me.
My hometown newspaper, the Santa Barbara NewsPress, which is the
largest in the district, has eloquently captured, as colleagues can see
the title here, ``End the adventure.'' This is the sentiment for this
new tax and this editorial ends with this statement: ``The Forest
Service should end the Adventure Pass for an extended and permanent
hike.''
Wealthy people might not think much of paying $5 to take their family
for an afternoon hike or a twilight drive to watch the sunset. But for
many working families in my district, this tax has basically eliminated
a popular recreational activity and diminished our quality of life.
Mr. Chairman, to make matters worse, American families already pay
some of their hard earned money to the U.S. Government to maintain our
national parks and forests.

{time} 1945

This much user fee, therefore, represents a double tax and it is
wrong.
Let me be clear. I support adequate funding for the U.S. Forest
Service, but let us find more equitable sources for this money. I
support the DeFazio amendment that will require mining companies to pay
their fair share for extracting profit from the public lands. And I
support the Furse proposal to reduce the inflated subsidies paid to
timber companies who make their money cutting down trees in public
forests.
It is just not fair that our constituents must pay a fee to hike,
picnic or see a sunset in our national forests when big logging and
mining companies get subsidies for their activities on these same
public lands. What this amounts to is a direct subsidy from the pockets
of working families to the offices of corporate America, and this is
wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a special appeal to my Republican
friends. I have joined many of them to cut other unfair taxes,
specifically the capital gains tax. Please join with us today to
eliminate the unwarranted extension of an equally egregious tax on
working Americans.
Let us end the Recreational Pass Demonstration Project misadventure.
This adventure pass which is a misadventure. Let us go back to the
drawing board. Let us have hearings on this demonstration program and
conduct a full and open debate on its merits.
And perhaps in discussing it we need to separate the parks from the
forests, because I believe there are different ways of collecting
resources for each of these. And, also, it is a good idea that 80
percent of the fees do come back to the local entity. But what is our
surmise, and actually we have not studied this enough, but people are
telling us that half of this amount of money in our local forests goes
to enforcing the law; that we have turned our Forest Service workers
into meter maids collecting these fees. That is what it appears to be
like.
That is what we need to study, and that is why I ask for support for
the DeFazio-Herger-Capps amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote for the gentlewoman
from the Santa Barbara News Press. Their editorial, entitled Adventure
Pass Praise, states ``Let me start by saying I am proud to have
purchased my adventure pass, and I strongly support the concept of user
fees in our national forests.'' They are not a tax, they are user fees.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Capps was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman continue to yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this editorial is by Mark Lurie, whom the
gentlewoman knows. Continuing to quote, ``What's the big deal? A
carload of people for only $5.'' That's a carload. Not one person, a
carload, for $5. ``How much for the same carload to go to the movies,
five to seven times the cost?''
The whole editorial says it is a great program. He strongly endorses
it. And this, of course, is in the Santa Barbara News Press.
Mrs. CAPPS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the
gentleman's letter to the editor. Here are some other letters.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, this is an
editorial writer.
Mr. CAPPS. Well, this is their official position on this topic at
this time. Again, I ask for time to study this idea. I appreciate the
gentleman's comments.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague from Oregon in his concern
about extending this so-called pilot program that charges due fees for
patrons who recreate in our national forests and our national parks and
use the Bureau of Land Management lands and Fish and Wildlife Services'
wildlife refuges.
I have to tell my colleagues that when the subject of pilot projects
comes up in my State, people sort of roll their eyes and they go, ``Is
that Washington-speak for a program that we say we will evaluate and it
is supposed to go away but never goes away?'' This user demonstration
fee program is a perfect example of why so many of my constituents
distrust what we do in Washington, D.C.
Again, this program was scheduled to last no more than 3 years. It
was to be used in a limited number of sites. These tests were there to
provide us with a snapshot view of what happens when we do a pilot
program: What does this look like? What are the things good about it,
what are the things wrong about it?
But since the time that this pilot program was initiated, it is like
somebody added a little bit of yeast and a little bit of sugar and it
has just grown and grown and grown. They probably put it in a hot oven,
too. Now it is used in over 100 sites and it is a program that is so
confusing. I mean if we want to go and use the bathroom, we have to buy
a 3-day pass.
I support the parks, and I know we have huge needs in our parks. But
what happens is in one of our programs it is not about building new
trails, it is not about building new bathrooms. We have somebody who is
getting rid of the volunteers so they can add a new person to collect
the fees.
And what do we get for these fees? Well, unbelievably, we do not
know. Now, of the four agencies that have jurisdiction over this bill,
the Forest Service, has made their numbers available to us, and what
they show is this program barely pays for itself. So far, 53 percent of
the funds that are collected has to be spent on collection costs. I do
not think that is a very good deal.
Now, maybe the other three agencies are doing a terrific job, but we
do not know, and we will not find out until March of 1999. I would like
to have the information before we continue this program. But what I do
not think we should do is continue this program. It is sort of like
saying, well, what we do not know will not hurt us and we are going to
extend the program for another 2 years. I have to tell my colleagues
that makes no sense to me.
I think it is time to step back, take a look at the program, look at
what works and what does not work. I urge

[[Page H6150]]

my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the DeFazio-Herger-
Capps amendment which would strike from this bill the automatic 2-year
extension of the demonstration program.
Many of us here in the House probably did not even know that we voted
to authorize this program back in 1996 when we voted for the Balanced
Budget Down Payment Act. And many of us probably would not have known
that we were voting to extend the program for an additional 2 years if
it were not brought to our attention by this amendment.
Without the passage of this amendment, we will be perpetuating a
program that has never had a hearing, never been debated in the
committees of jurisdiction, and that is, unfortunately, putting a visit
to a national forest, park, or recreation area out of the financial
reach of many working Americans.
I just want to give an example of the last point, and that is the
Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, which is in my
district. Sandy Hook is an extremely popular location and is highly
valued by its 2.5 million annual visitors. These people come from
throughout the New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia metropolitan area to
take advantage of the recreational, historical and educational
resources at Sandy Hook, including bathing beaches, fishing areas and
historic structures.
Sandy Hook has always been really the one place in the area where
people of all economic backgrounds have been able to enjoy a day at the
shore, and we would like to help them keep it that way. Sandy Hook is a
national resource, and as such it should remain affordable to everyone,
and that includes moderate and low-income people.
Now, under this recreational fee demonstration program, daily per-
vehicle beach user fees at Sandy Hook were doubled as of June 20th of
this year from $4 to $8 on weekdays and from $5 to $10 on weekends.
Such an increase, in my opinion, is exorbitant. It will put the cost of
visiting Sandy Hook out of the reach for many working Americans, in
effect turning them away from this national recreation area.
I heard mention that people have not complained about these fee
increases. Let me tell my colleagues that many of my constituents have
complained to me, and loudly.
I am also concerned about the false promises that have been made to
justify the fee demonstration program. The extra money from the Feds is
in no way sufficient to satisfy the multimillion dollar backlog of
repair and rehabilitation needs at Sandy Hook. The fee demonstration
program gives false incentives, in my opinion, to individual park units
to raise park fees. The program gives the impression to Sandy Hook
visitors that their increased generosity will result in significant
park improvements from which they will benefit in the near future, and
there is no reason to believe that that is the case at Sandy Hook.
So I would simply urge my colleagues, again I used one example but I
know there are many more, I would urge my colleagues to support this
amendment so we can examine this program more closely before
considering its extension.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let us revisit where we are at with this
amendment. It does not eliminate this demonstration user fee program,
but what it does do is say it will not be extended for 2 more years
beyond 1999. Beyond October 1st of 1999.
What it says is we will receive a report, as required by the original
demonstration fee program, on 3\1/2\ years of data in March of 1999.
Then we will know. We will know how much is going to overhead, we will
know how well this is working, we will know where the money is being
spent, and then we can make decisions.
If, indeed, the authorizers are incapable of acting, and I would
question if it is this popular, knockdown popular as everybody says it
is, that people are just thrilled to pay this money and they know it is
going to a good cause, why would the authorizing committee have any
problem in moving a bill? I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)
would be happy to do that, if it is so popular.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the
gentleman we had the discussion on this issue in the committee last
year and the year before. We had this discussion, and if I remember
correctly, the gentleman at that time opposed any movement of any bill.
Is that correct?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I opposed the form which the--
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The form. The gentleman opposed it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. It is my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would continue.
So the point here is we are going to get a report in March of 1999.
We will know who is good and who is not.
The Forest Service spent 53 percent on administration last year,
probably more this year, including law enforcement personnel. A lot of
money replacing their newest vandalism, which is the fee signs. The
amount of money collected by the Forest Service last year was enough
money to meet .06 percent of their backlog. Not 6 percent, not six-
tenths of a percent, but 6/100ths of 1 percent of their backlog.
At that rate, yes, in 1,600 years of collections we could meet
today's backlogs. But of course there would be a few more backlog
projects in the 1,600 years.
Yes, we do need additional funds. They should be appropriated. They
should be requested by the administration and they should be
appropriated. Perhaps we should ask the mining companies to pay a small
fee for using the public lands, as opposed to dumping it on the back of
individual taxpayers.
The key thing here is that we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
We do not know how well it is working or where the money is going. This
is just like the previous debate, the debate on the K-V funds, where
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) was successful. We are
creating an unaccountable slush fund.
And if I am not successful with this amendment, in 2 or 3 or 4 years
we will be back with an amendment because of all the money that cannot
be accounted for and all of the moving around within accounts and all
of the administrative overhead being paid for by this program. We will
be back here.
But, no, let us act rationally now. Do not extend it for 2 years. Do
not buy a pig in a poke. Let it go on for the next year, get the report
in March, and then, even if the authorizing committee is not capable of
acting, the Committee on Appropriations could extend the program for
another year at that point. If it is so knockdown, drag-out popular,
and the money is being spent so well, and it is reflected in a report
that we actually receive on this program as opposed to hearsay, then I
do not think that will be a problem.
But if, indeed, the problems are as bad as a number of us have heard,
I think there will be a need for very significant adjustments in this
program before we extend it into the next millennium.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I will be very brief. It is time to vote. I just want to say that
nothing that has happened here today in this appropriation bill stops
or thwarts the gentleman from doing his job on the authorization
committee. He does not have to come here and cry to the appropriators
and cry to the Congress. He should just do his job; okay? That is all I
am saying. The gentleman has a committee and they have said they will
work with him. Go do the job.
The problem we have got is, if we do not extend this thing at this
juncture, then next year the thing will expire at the end of the fiscal
year. What if we do not get the bill passed by the start of the fiscal
year? We are going to have to stop doing these demonstrations all

[[Page H6151]]

over the country? That would be utterly ridiculous.
I think we should go forward and keep this program going. It is
working. And let the gentleman and the authorizers do their job.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
will be postponed.

{time} 2000

Amendment Offered by Mr. Buyer

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Buyer:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used to establish a national wildlife refuge in the Kankakee
River watershed in the northwestern Indian and northeastern
Illinois.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend special compliments
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Yates) not only for this bill, but I appreciate their willingness
to work this out.
Right now in northwest Indiana and northeast Illinois, there are two
existing projects with regard to the Kankakee River Basin. One is a
Corps of Engineers study, and the second is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
project referred to as the Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge.
The location and size with regard to this, the Kankakee Watershed
drains a total of 5,167 square miles. That is 2,990 square miles in
Indiana, 2,177 square miles in Illinois, and 7 square miles in
Michigan. The watershed extends to the high waters of the Kankakee
River near the City of Southbend, Indiana, to its confluence with the
Des Plaines River near Kankakee and the Des Plaines River southwest of
Joliet, Illinois.
The Kankakee River Basin area of northwest Indiana and northeast
Illinois has been suffering from extreme flooding and siltation for
many years. The river back at the turn of the century would meander and
then there would be low-level lakes and then it would meander again.
Indiana dredged and straightened the river in Indiana, which has
caused the siltation to build up in Illinois, and the river to flood.
This brought on years of lawsuits between Illinois and Indiana.
I was pleased to work with Senator Lugar and Senator Simon, Tom Ewing
of Illinois, and others, to help put an end to the court cases, and
instead look for a long-term solution.
We were able to secure authorization and funding for an Army Corps of
Engineers study to address the flooding and environmental concerns.
The Corps is currently in the feasibility study stage. Through the
bipartisan cooperation of Congressmen Conyers, Visclosky, Roemer, Tom
Ewing, Jerry Weller, and myself, the House this year appropriated
$940,000 for the second phase of the feasibility study.

wildlife refuge

In 1996 the Fish and Wildlife Service contacted my office to inform
us of their plans to look into designating a wildlife refuge in the
Kankakee river basin area.
Since then, I, along with Congressmen Weller, Ewing, Visclosky, and
Roemer, have been active in (1) ensuring that the local residents are
well informed of the Service's plans and intentions, and (2) that the
Service address their concerns.
We asked the Service to hold two hearings, one in each State, to
listen to the locals' concerns and to take them into consideration as
they examine whether to establish a wildlife refuge in the area. In
Indiana alone, over 600 people showed up to learn more about the
project and to express their views.
The local residents are rightly concerned about the impacts upon
their properties and lives, and have not received answers to their
questions and concerns.
It is not appropriate for the Service to push for the establishment
of the refuge and for federal funding before the outstanding issues
have been resolved.

solution

I believe that a solution can be found which will integrate the Corps
findings and construction with the Service's refuge. By meshing them
together, solutions can be found to address the (1) flooding, (2)
siltation, and (3) environmental restoration problems.
I have been working with the Corps and the Service to get these two
agencies to work together in a compatible manner.
In response to my efforts, Director Clark sent a letter to me,
stating that the Service, ``will not finalize the draft Environmental
Assessment for the refuge proposal until we have ensured, in a mutually
satisfactory manner, that effective coordination has occurred between
the Service and the Corps on these two projects.''
Until that occurs, it would be irresponsible and premature to
designate federal funds for land acquisition for the proposed refuge.
Therefore, I am offering this amendment which will limit funds under
this bill to be used for the designation or land acquisition of
proposed refuge in the Kankakee River Basin. I have no intention by
this amendment to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife from expending
funds in the planning function of its proposal to protect biodiversity
in the Kankakee River Basin.
I urge the adoption of this amendment which will help ensure a
common-sense solution.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman. Is this a proposal
by the Fish and Wildlife Service? Is that what I understand?
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is an existing
proposal by Fish and Wildlife. I have two projects at once. I have a
Corps of Engineers study, and then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife has a
study.
Let me do say this, though, that would be important for me to say. I
have no intention by this amendment to prevent the Fish and Wildlife
from extending funds in the planning function of its proposed project
to protect the biodiversity.
Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield further, so they can go ahead
and do the planning?
Mr. BUYER. They can go ahead and do the planning. They cannot go in
and designate and purchase lands.
Mr. DICKS. At this juncture. Because this would be one of the rare
times when somebody does not want to have a wildlife refuge in their
district.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I understand
that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) supports the amendment
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) accepted the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. We will agree to it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mc Dermott

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

Amendment offered by Mr. McDermott:
Page 118, beginning at line 8, strike section 333 (and
redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike an unwise
legislative rider intended to halt the National Environmental
Protection Act's planning process by terminating the Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Plan.
In 1993, the then Speaker of the House Tom Foley, reacting to a
legislative gridlock that had been developed in this whole process, and
the Clinton administration together sought to develop a
``scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for east side
forests.'' Those are forests in the eastern two-thirds of the State of
Washington, and Oregon and Idaho and Montana.
The Forest Service and the BLM jointly established the Interior
Columbia Basin project, which includes 72 million acres of public lands
in eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and parts of 4 other States.
The intent of the project is to provide long-term management
direction for 35 national forests, 17 Bureau of Land Management
districts, ultimately amending 74 land management plans in a
coordinated plan.
The Interior Columbia project builds upon the science of the
Northwest Forest Plan, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem

[[Page H6152]]

in California and other regionwide efforts. What we have learned from
those experiences is that individualized land management plans have
failed to address systemwide problems like the protection of endangered
salmon and other species.
Currently, the Federal agencies in the Interior Columbia Basin are
operating under short-term directives to address anadromous fisheries
and other issues. The risk of terminating the overall plan as proposed
by this rider is that resource activities on these lands will shut down
under a cloud of litigation as was the case of the west side forests in
Washington and Oregon.
In May 1997, the BLM and the Forest Service released two draft EISs
for public comment. One EIS applied to eastern Washington and Oregon,
the other to the Upper Columbia Basin for Idaho and other States.
Public comment on these drafts have been extensive.
Frankly, I do not think that the draft-preferred alternative in these
plans goes far enough in protecting old growth, roadless and riparian
areas. The science, for example, clearly supports concentrating active
management in the more degraded road areas rather than the roadless
regions.
The science, moreover, shows that many areas and many resources in
the project area are in serious trouble and will get worse under
current management plans.
So while I do not endorse the preferred alternative in the draft
plans, I strongly endorse the process. It will be a serious mistake to
terminate this project now as the sponsors of this rider propose.
Let me conclude by quoting from an analysis of the rider prepared by
the Department of Interior--quote:

The effect of the House rider would be to terminate the
project, wasting 5 years' worth of scientific inquiry,
taxpayers' resources and project staff time. Limitations on
the use of funds as called for in the action would, by
implication, make it illegal to publish the decision
documents in which 5 years' worth of planning and community
involvement were intended to culminate. Enactment into law of
this provision would guarantee a continuing legal stalemate
in the project area, with the outcome being the substitution
of endless court battles for the sound management of natural
resources.

Both the Departments of Agriculture and Interior strongly oppose this
rider and OMB has issued a veto threat if this rider is included in the
bill. I urge Members to support sound management of natural resources
by voting against this amendment. I urge Members to support this
amendment which strikes section 333.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1998.
Hon. Bob Livingston,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to provide
the Administration's views on the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1999, as
approved by the House Subcommittee. As the Committee develops
its version of the bill, your consideration of the
Administration's views would be appreciated.
The Administration appreciates efforts by the Subcommittee
to accommodate certain of the President's priorities within
the 302(b) allocation such as funding for national park
operations. However, the allocation is simply insufficient to
make the necessary investments in programs funded by this
bill. As a result, a variety of critical programs are
underfunded, as discussed below, and the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA) is terminated.
The only way to achieve the appropriate investment level is
to offset discretionary spending by using savings in other
areas. The President's FY 1999 Budget proposes levels of
discretionary spending for FY 1999 that conform to the
Bipartisan Budget Agreement by making savings in mandatory
and other programs available to help finance this spending.
In the recently enacted Transportation Equity Act, Congress--
on a broad, bipartisan basis--took similar action in
approving funding for surface transportation programs
together with mandatory offsets. The Administration urges the
Congress to consider such mandatory proposals for other
priority discretionary programs.
In addition, the Administration urges the Committee to pass
a clean bill that does not attempt to roll back environmental
protections and circumvent the proper process by attaching
riders to appropriation bills. The Subcommittee failure to
fund the NEA, its underfunding of other priority programs,
and its inclusion of damaging riders, such as the provisions
concerning the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project and the road easement in Alaska's Chugach National
Forest, would lead the President's senior advisers to
recommend a veto if the bill were presented to the President
in its current form.
Below is a discussion of our specific concerns with the
Subcommittee. We look forward to working with you to resolve
these concerns as the bill moves forward.

National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

The Administration strongly objects to the Subcommittee's
elimination of funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) as well as to the Subcommittee's reduction in
funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities ($26
million below the President's request) and the Institute for
Museum and Library Service ($3 million below the President's
request). The elimination of the NEA would result in the loss
of important cultural, educational, and artistic programs for
communities across America.

Departments of the Interior and Agriculture

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
(ICBEMP). The Subcommittee has included a rider that would
terminate this high priority interagency effort ICBEMP is an
ecosystem planning project that will cover 72 million acres
of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in the
states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming,
and Montana. The environmental impact statement and the
record of decision are scheduled to be finalized by mid-1999.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are now
working under short-term directives to address anadromous
fisheries (PACFISH), native fisheries (INFISH), and mature
forests in Oregon and Washington (Eastside Screens). The
Project will replace these interim directions with a
coordinated, long-term management strategy that will foster
both conservation and resource use and development. Replacing
current interim measures with a long-term plan will provide
necessary long-term protections for aquatic species. The
shared environmental planning goals of the region can be
effectively translated into individual forest and land
management plans only through a coordinated process such as
the ICBEMP, and this process provides more certainty to those
who make their livelihoods from the Federal lands and live in
the region.
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Administration
strongly objects to the Subcommittee's deep cuts in land
acquisition funding to protect our national parks, forests,
refuges, and public lands. The Subcommittee has reduced by
almost half the $270 million requested, with Everglades land
acquisition funds cut by 75 percent. This drastic reduction
in funding, in combination with the Subcommittee's silence on
the promised congressional release of the $362 million
appropriated in FY 1998 for Federal priority land
acquisitions, would prevent the Administration from making
significant land acquisitions such as Cumberland Island
National Seashore in Georgia, West Eugene Wetland in Oregon,
Channel Islands National Park in California, the Appalachian
Trail, and the Valles Caldera in New Mexico.
Clean Water Initiative. The Subcommittee has failed to
provide the majority of the requested $128 million increase
for Interior and the Forest Service to implement the Clean
Water Action Plan. These reductions would prevent the
initiation of watershed improvement and planning projects on
public lands, including the remediation of abandoned hardrock
mines, a serious source of water pollution in the West. The
reductions would also curtail plans to increase research,
assessment, and monitoring activities designed to help us
understand the sources, transport and fates of non-point
contaminants.
____

FY 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill: Effects of House and Senate
Action on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Background

At the direction of President Clinton in July 1993, the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
(Project) was initiated by the Forest Service and the BLM to
respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and
rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull
trout protection, economies of local communities, species
associated with old forest structure, and treaty and trust
responsibilities to American Indian tribes.
While the project area includes over 144 million acres in
the interior Columbia River Basin, the Upper Klamath, and
parts of the Great Basin, the project would apply only to the
approximately 72 million acres of public land administered by
the Forest Service and BLM in the geographic area.
Two draft environmental impact statements were released for
public comment in May 1997: the Eastside EIS for eastern
Oregon and Washington, and the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS
for Idaho and portions of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada.
These EISs outline seven ecosystem management alternatives
that replace, where applicable, interim conservation
strategies in up to 74 land and resource management plans.
The preferred option of the DEIS-Alternative Four, announced
on April 23, 1997--aims to ``aggressively restore ecosystem
health through active management using an integrated
ecosystem management approach.''
Public involvement has been a cornerstone of the project,
with over 200 public meetings to date, a newsletter, an
Internet home page,

[[Page H6153]]

and a mailing list of over 8,000 people. The public comment
period on the EISs was extended three times, and closed on
May 6, 1998.
A Steering Committee of regional executive from land
management, science, and regulatory agencies guide the
project. An interagency team is located in Walla Walla,
Washington, and Boise, Idaho. The team and Steering Committee
have met periodically with various tribal governments. County
governments have been active participants throughout the
process.
After the final envionrmental impact statement is
completed, the Record of Decision will have the effect of
amending or completing conformance determinations on
individual land use plans for each of the 48 administrative
units of the BLM and the Forest Service.

Compliance with Recent Congressional Direction

Sec. 323 of the FY 1998 Interior appropriations bill
modified a provision included by the House which required the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to analyze the
economic and social conditions of communities within the
Project area. This analysis was to be published for pubic
comment and later incorporated into the final EISs. The two
departments published and circulated this ``socioeconomic
analysis'' in March, 1998.
The 1998 appropriation also provided that the two
Secretaries submit a report--prior to the release of the
FEISs--that provides a description of all planned ``project
decisions,'' the costs and time required to make those
decisions, and an estimate of goods and services to be
produced from Federal lands in the Project area over a 5-year
period. The two departments fully intend to comply with this
provision, though it should be noted that satisfying this
requirement will significantly extend the Project planning
timeline.
____

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the
concerned agencies.)

H.R. 4193--Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill, FY 1999

(Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Regula (R), Ohio.)
This Statement of Administration Policy provides the
Administration's views on H.R. 4193, the Department of
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1999.
Your consideration of the Administration's views would be
appreciated.
The Administration urges the House to pass a clean bill
that does not attempt to roll back environmental protections
and circumvent the proper public process by attaching riders
to appropriation bills. Regrettably, the Committee bill
under-funds priority programs and includes damaging riders,
such as the provision concerning the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project. In addition, it is our
understanding that, if adopted, the rule for consideration of
the bill will permit a single Member to strike all funding
for the National Endowment for the Arts. Based on these
concerns, if the Committee bill, as modified by the rule and
associated motion, were presented to the President, the
President's senior adviser would recommend that he veto the
bill.
The Administration appreciates efforts by the Committee to
accommodate certain of the President's priorities within the
302(b) allocation such as funding for national park
operations. However, the allocation is simply insufficient to
make the necessary investments in programs funded by this
bill. As a result, a variety of critical programs are under-
funded. The only way to achieve the appropriate investment
levels is to offset discretionary spending by using savings
in other areas. The President's FY 1999 Budget proposes
levels of discretionary spending for FY 1999 that conform to
the Bipartisan Budget Agreement by making savings in
mandatory and other programs available to help finance this
spending. In the Transportation Equity Act, Congress--on a
broad, bipartisan basis--took similar action in approving
funding for surface transportation programs together with
mandatory offset. The Administration urges the Congress to
consider such mandatory proposals for the other priority
discretionary programs.
Below is a discussion of our specific concerns with the
Committee bill. We look forward to working with the House to
resolve these concerns as the bill moves forward.

Departments of the Interior and agriculture

The Administration appreciates the Committee's funding of
maintenance programs, particularly those for health and
safety, in Interior's land management agencies. However, the
Administration strongly objects to inadequate funding
provided by the Committee for high priority programs within
the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture, including Committee actions that would: reduce
by more than half the $270 million requested from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund to protect our national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands, with Everglades land
acquisition funds cut by 75 percent. This drastic reduction
in funding would prevent the Administration from making
significant land acquisitions such as Cumberland Island
National Seashore in Georgia and West Eugene Wetland in
Oregon; provide no funding for the Millennium program
protecting artifacts of our National heritage (see discussion
below); deny most of the requested $128 million increase for
Interior and the Forest Service to implement the Clean Water
Action Plan; fail to provide the requested $15 million for
the Disaster Information Network providing enhanced data to
protect Americans; deny $29 million of the $36 million
increase requested for the Endangered Species funding,
including landowner incentive grants; fail to provide
requested increases for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
education operations and construction, the Indian Country law
enforcement initiative, and the land consolidation pilot
project and other trust system reforms; provide little or no
funding for hazardous fuels reduction in most of California
by allocating a disproportionate amount of available funds to
the ``Quincy Library Group'' project in California; make
significant reductions to the Forest Service's Wildlife and
Fisheries Management, Rangeland Management, and Watershed
Improvement programs, which would limit rangeland vegetative
restoration and limit watershed improvements with
approximately 12,250 fewer watershed acres protected or
restored; and, eliminate the Forest Service's Stewardship
Incentive Program and significantly reduce its Forest Legacy
Program. Both of these programs support local communities and
private landowners and effectively leverage Federal funds.
Forest Service General Administration. The rule would shift
$67 million from General Administration to wildland fire
suppression. This is unnecessary since the Committee mark is
at the request level and a $250 million contingency is
available for use if necessary. Such a transfer would deprive
individual national forests of important on-the-ground
natural resource management capability, delay needed Forest
Service computer system and financial accountability
improvements, and unwisely eliminate key agency leadership
positions.
Priority Land Acquisition Funding. The Administration
objects to the Committee's continued inaction on the promised
congressional release of the $362 million appropriated from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund in FY 1998. As requested
by Congress, the Administration has submitted a list of
proposed land acquisitions. In response, the Committee has
not only held back the FY 1998 Title V funding but also has
funded some items on the Administration's FY 1998 list with
FY 1999 funding, resulting in critical acquisitions planned
for both years being delayed and unfunded.
Millennium Program. The Administration strongly urges the
House to provide funding in FY 1999 for the ``Millennium
Program to Save America's Treasures.'' The Committee has
failed to provide any funding for this important effort. The
President's budget requests $50 million to increase the
Historic Preservation Fund to make a special effort to
preserve our history and culture as we enter the new
millennium. This program is designed to leverage Federal,
State, and private funding to have the greatest collective
impact on our rapidly deteriorating national treasures.
Purchaser Road Credit Program. The Administration fully
supports the Committee's decision to eliminate the Purchaser
Road credit program. The Committee bill includes a provision
that would ensure that the value of road construction by
purchasers continues to be included in calculations for the
Payments to States. To permit increased certainty and better
local planning more directly, we urge the House to adopt the
Administration's proposal to provide a high, fixed level of
payments to States.
Timber Sales. The Administration objects to the increase of
$12 million over the request for timber sales in order to
produce 3.6 billion board feet, 200 million board feet over
the budget estimate.

language provisions

The Administration strongly objects to certain language in
the Committee bill, including provisions that would: unwisely
terminate the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project in six Northwest States, forcing individual
amendments to 74 land management plans; remove 75 acres in
Florida from the coastal barrier protection system,
providing taxpayer subsidies for private development of
environmentally fragile barrier islands; prevent the BIA
and the Indian Health Service from entering into any new
or expanded self-determination ``Section 638'' contracts
or self-governance compacts with tribes, contrary to our
government-to-government policy; prohibit improvements--
even planning or design of improvements--to Pennsylvania
Avenue in front of the White House; transfer the
jurisdiction over the valued Land Between The Lakes
National Recreation Area from the Tennessee Valley
Authority, where it has been successfully managed for over
sixty years, to the U.S. Forest Service, a disruptive
change that would involve additional transition costs
without improving service; and, impose a road easement
across the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, thereby
preventing the Government from making modifications to
protect the environment while authorizing environmentally
damaging management practices and undermining an ongoing
discussion to determine the most appropriate road corridor
based on a 1982 agreement.

[[Page H6154]]

indian health service (department of health and human services)

The Administration is concerned that the Committee has not
included a $10 million increase requested for prevention and
treatment of alcohol/substance abuse and breast/cervical
cancer, which is part of an HHS-wide effort to reduce health
disparities in minority populations. The Administration
intends to work with the Congress to fund these important
initiatives within funds available for the Indian Health
Service. The Administration is also concerned that the
Committee has included authorizing language, without hearings
or tribal consultation, that would require contract support
costs to be distributed to tribes and tribal organizations on
a pro-rata (proportional) basis.

department of energy

The Administration strongly objects to the House's severe
reduction to the Department of Energy's Energy Conservation
program. While the Committee mark appears to be $18 million
higher than the FY 1998 enacted level ($630 million vs. $612
million), it includes $43 million for a program that
previously has been funded in the Fossil Energy R&D account.
The House's funding for the programs traditionally included
in the Energy Conservation Account is $587 million, a cut of
$25 million from the FY 1998 level and a reduction of $222
million from the President's request of $809 million. Within
this reduction, particularly severe damage is done to the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), for
which the Committee mark is $14 million (roughly 10 percent)
less than the current appropriation and $45 million below the
request.
These cuts would eliminate all of the Administration's
requested increase in Energy Conservation for development of
technologies to improve industrial, transportation, and
building efficiencies and to reduce carbon emissions. The
inclusion of several special-interest earmarks in the
Committee Report also would reduce the President's ability to
gain maximum benefit from the available funds. The inclusion
of the $43 million in the Energy Conservation account to fund
a utility-scale turbine program that would continue to be
managed by the Fossil Energy program is an inefficient
management practice that would dilute accountability and
should be avoided.
The Committee mark eliminates all of the funding requested
for the Energy Information Administration to work on carbon
emissions accounting and analysis ($2.5 million), and
eliminates all of the requested increase in Fossil Energy R&D
for high-priority carbon sequestration research ($10
million). The President's budget also requested $36 million
for payment to the State of California for the Retired
Teachers System, which is not included in the Committee mark.
The Administration prefers that this payment be appropriated
consistent with P.L. 104-106.
The Administration would like to work with the Congress to
restore fundings to these important Department of Energy
programs as the bill moves through the process.

National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

The Administration appreciates the Full Committee's
restoration of funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA). The Administration strongly objects to striking
NEA funding and strongly supports the amendment to restore
such funding. We urge the House to provide funding for NEA
and NEH at the President's requested level of $136 million
each and for the Institute for Museum and Library Services at
the requested level of $26 million.

Year 2000 Computer Conversion

In the FY 1999 Budget, the President has requested more
than $1 billion for Y2K computer conversion. In addition, the
budget anticipated that additional requirements would emerge
over the course of the year and included an allowance for
emergencies and other unanticipated needs. It is essential to
make Y2K funding available quickly and flexibly. The House
action striking the emergency fund in the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations bill is very troubling,
particularly in light of several Subcommittees, including the
Interior Subcommittee, deciding to not fund the base Y2K
request for several agencies.

Smithsonian Institution

The Committee's $397 million overall funding level for the
Smithsonian, which is $22 million less than the
Administration's request, would prevent the Institution from
addressing current pressing needs. The Administration is
concerned with the lack of support for the Smithsonian's
National Museum of the American Indian. The Administration
encourages the Committee to provide the $16 million request
for the construction of the Museum on the Mall, as well as
the full $11 million requested for the programs and
operations of the Cultural Resources Center. In addition, the
Administration urges that the $3 million request for
digitization of Smithsonian exhibits be restored.

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

The Administration urges the House to provide the full $33
million requested for the Kennedy Center. In particular, we
ask that the Committee provide the full construction request
of $20 million, which is also included in the
Administration's pending authorization bill.

Holocaust Museum

The Administration urges the House to provide the full
$32.6 million requested for the Holocaust Museum.

Infringement on Executive Authority

There are several provisions in the Committee bill that
purport to require congressional approval before Executive
Branch execution of aspects of the bill. The Administration
will interpret such provisions to require notification only,
since any other interpretation would contradict the Supreme
Court ruling in INS vs. Chadha.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the McDermott
amendment, for a number of reasons. I have been listening to my
colleague from Washington State make mention of the reasons why he
supports his own amendment. Obviously, he does, and I respect that.
However, let me put a clear perspective on this study, and that is
exactly what it is, Mr. Chairman, it is a study.
In 1993, without authorization, and I say that again, without any
authorization, without one single hearing, without any consideration by
the authorizing committee of this Congress, some money was stuck into
an appropriations bill to do a study of Washington and Oregon to look
at the so-called ecosystem of these two regions relative to endangered
species.
What developed from that ministerial duty, I will say, of putting
some money in and saying let us do a study, has developed into a 7-
State, 144 million acre monstrosity. Volumes of documents and
scientific analyses have apparently been done, and so now this so-
called initial study on the short-term has taken on a life of its own
that has become a nightmare in the Pacific Northwest and in the 7-State
region that this study encompasses, all in the name of so-called
ecosystem management.
Let me tell my friends why this is so serious to the Pacific
Northwest and all the Western States. It is a study that is never
ending. It is a study that will cost the taxpayers an estimated $1.25
billion over the next 10 years.
The country has already spent $40 million on a study, a study, that
has now created volumes of documents, staff galore, a lot of
bureaucracy frankly, in the name of ecosystem management.
What this amendment does is essentially continue this bureaucracy
that has existed since 1993, at a cost of $40 million unauthorized.
Let me tell my colleagues who is against this amendment by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott): The National Labor
Management Committee, the Pulp and Paperworkers, which consists of the
pulp and paperworkers and the carpenters and the machinists. It is
opposed by 65 percent of all of the county governments of the 7-State,
144 million acre region.
I have that documentation right here, the Western Legislative
Forestry Task Force, have all of the counties that oppose this study
and oppose the continuation of the expense of this study. Here is
volumes of material, letters and messages saying this study has gone
beyond its original expectations; it is going to ruin the Pacific
Northwest and the 7-State region, not only from a resource management
standpoint but from a private property rights standpoint.
What we need to do in this case is reject the McDermott amendment and
allow the amendment that we put into the subcommittee that passed
without any objection, went to the full appropriations subcommittee
without any objection and now is here on the floor, again without one
hearing by the authorizing committee, a $40 million cost to the
taxpayers already.
What we do is we say, let us terminate this project. Let us use the
science. I object to my colleague asserting that the science is wasted.
It is not. Particularly in our amendment, it says, let us use the
science that has been accumulated. Let us also use the social and
economic information that has been accumulated to make sure we do not
ruin the small communities of the Pacific Northwest, the timber
communities and the resource areas of our great part of the world.
What this amendment will do will be to perpetuate the bureaucracy,
and I must say the environmental community is not pushing this. They do
not

[[Page H6155]]

like the study, the east side ecosystem study, the Interior Columbia
Basin study for different reasons that I do not like it, but they still
do not like it. They are not here on board supporting the McDermott
amendment, to my knowledge. It is the White House, and it is Mr. Gore's
office who really is pushing for this concept nationwide, worldwide, of
ecosystem management, and the test case, the test place for it, is the
Pacific Northwest.
So I would say to my friends, to my colleagues, we must reject this
amendment. It is a destructive amendment to the way of life of people
in the Pacific Northwest. It is a waste of taxpayers' money to continue
this massive study that has gone beyond its original purpose. It is
opposed by labor. It is opposed for other reasons, I am informed, by
the environmental community, and what we need to do here is oppose this
amendment so that we can be sure that there is a way of life in the
Pacific Northwest relative to resource management.
There is nothing in the ecosystem study that prevents lawsuits, but
it does allow the scientific information to be used in the forests that
are affected by this scientific information. I think it is significant
that 65 percent of the county governments, which were supposed to be an
integral part of this study and its findings, have rejected the
findings and the study and the continuation of the study by the
Department of Interior and its land agencies.
So I know there are other Members here who want to speak out on this
today because it is a very serious breach, in my judgment, of the
initial expectation of this study and it is a breach of the property
rights of those of us in the Northwest who want to preserve the
environment but also not shut down the entire forest system and public
land system in the Pacific Northwest in the 7-State region containing
144 million acres that are covered by this study.
So I implore my colleagues, reject this amendment. Make sure that we
preserve the resources of the Pacific Northwest.

{time} 2015

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I join in the comments of the gentleman from
Washington. This study that was undertaken several years ago has ended
up moving from a study that was supposed to last for 9 months and cost
only $5 million, has now moved into a study of 4 years in duration and
has cost $40 million.
Mr. Chairman, that is a 700 percent increase, 700 percent over
budget. The McDermott amendment continues to fund this project, a
project that environmentalists hate, that industry loathes, that
private property owners fear, and that very frankly local Forest
Service and BLM employees say cannot be implemented. When I go home,
and even in work back here, I have had so many Forest Service people
say, ``Please don't run this over the top of us. Please don't implement
this ICBEMP,'' as they call it. Why do we want to continue to fund a
project that is unacceptably overdue, over budget and cannot be
implemented? The land managers themselves tell us, ``Please don't
implement this. It won't work.''
The problem with this program is that what started out to be a study
now will end up to be a superagency, imposing itself over a number of
States and imposing restrictions on State water rights and private
property rights. It also will lead to a paralysis of analysis in terms
of getting our forest plans out.
What we can do in this case is to oppose the McDermott amendment. By
opposing the McDermott amendment, we empower the local Forest Service
and the BLM managers to again use the science and information gathered
during this very intensive and extensive multistate project and
multiyear project to create custom-fit solutions instead of forcing
them to accept a one-size-fits-all Federal fiat that cannot be
implemented at all.
Do we really want to support an amendment that will lead to more
litigation and more gridlock and no improvement in land management? I
do not think so. Or do we want results and better managed lands and
local solutions? I think we do. It is better for our land and our
communities. The McDermott amendment is bad policy and it is bad for
the health of our land. I urge the opposition of the McDermott
amendment. Please vote ``no.''
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Washington. It is a sound amendment, it is an
important amendment and it is one that as he has pointed out is in
opposition to the rider in this legislation that would throw overboard
essentially this plan, it would terminate this plan, it would require
the closing of the office and would not let us get to the final status
of the EIS report. To do so is to stick our heads in the sand and to
pretend that we have learned nothing in the last 25 years.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) comes from the region.
He was here at the center of much of the controversy around the spotted
owl where we started to learn a lesson because of piecemeal management,
of uncoordinated management, of one agency not talking to the other
agency, of the various departments and agencies that are responsible
for land management doing their own thing, if you will, while not
taking into account the impacts upstream, downstream or on other
resources in the area. This effort is to remedy that situation.
Why do we do that? We do that because we have learned that if we do
not do this, the region will be thrown into turmoil. It will be thrown
into turmoil because once again we will be warned as we were with the
spotted owl of the decline of the resource base in the area. What will
that do? That will then force us back into court. That will force us
back into litigation. This is an effort based upon a region-wide basis,
on an ecosystem-wide basis to come to grips with all of the problems
that are causing the decline in the various resources in the area and
their impacts on fish and wildlife, their impacts on the total
environment in that area. The same effort is being made in the
Everglades of California; the same effort is being made in the Central
Valley, in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in California, because we
know that what happens 100 miles upstream dramatically impacts
downstream. We know now that commercial fishermen on the coast of
California are impacted by the cut in the forest that is 150 miles
away. We know if we cut on the steep slopes as we have been doing for
many, many years, we will experience landslides, we will experience the
filling in of the streams and we will experience the diminishing of the
fish population. We know that now. We have learned that.
Many people have said that this is over the top of the Forest
Service. If you look on the front of the report, if you look on the
status of the Interior Columbia Basin, on the cover is the Forest
Service, is the Bureau of Land Management, is the Department of
Agriculture. Why? Because all of those local land managers were brought
in just as we did in the gymnasium in the Pacific Northwest where we
brought together these people and we started to make them talk to one
another, talk about what they needed in terms of resource management in
their area, what they expected in cuts, what they could sustain, what
they thought the productivity would be of the lands and make that fit
and coincide with what was happening elsewhere in the region. The
result of that is a greater recognition of how badly devastated this
region in fact is. Because there are not many people arguing with the
science of this report. Even the authors of this rider suggest that the
science is valid, that it should be distributed to the local agencies
on a site-specific basis and they can do what they want.
What does the science tell us? It tells us that they have a road
system that is in absolute disarray, that is in decline, that is not
able to maintain the maintenance because of declining budgets, and
there is progressive degradation of the road and the drainage
structures and increases in erosion.
What does it tell us about the integrity of the aquatic systems? It
says if this is an important goal of this region, and there is nobody
from this region that believes that the integrity of the aquatic
systems is not an important goal in the Pacific Northwest, then
dramatic and decisive action is required to stop further alterations
and

[[Page H6156]]

restore the areas that are already degraded.
What does it say about the ecosystem integrity of this vast region of
the Pacific northwest? Sixty percent of these lands are of low
ecological integrity value. That is why we did the science. Because we
have learned from the train wrecks and the disasters of litigation, of
shutting down industries, of invoking the Endangered Species Act time
and time again until a region is so bound up in controversy that you
start to lose your economy, you start to lose your tourism, you start
to lose the uses of these lands.
This is an effort to do it right the first time, to recognize the
mistakes that were made in the past. That is why this administration
feels so strongly about this rider.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to do
it right. One of the reasons this has been so extensive is because my
colleagues on the other side, rightfully so, we were doing this in the
Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in the Central Valley of California, the
agencies were directed to go out and to meet and to confer and to deal
with local governments, with the site managers on the public lands, on
the forests and the resource agencies and to take this into account and
to work with these people. That is very extensive. It is also a very
expensive proposition. If we had not done that, we would have obviously
been criticized, the report would have been criticized for not
consulting with these individuals. Now, it would have been less
expensive but we would have found another basis on which to criticize
the report. But the point is that people understand that the science
here is valid.
I appreciate just as we did not like to hear in our region of
California that we would now have to spend $1 billion correcting the
past mistakes if we are in fact going to protect the San Francisco Bay
and the San Francisco Delta and be able to provide for agriculture in
the Central Valley. We got bad news, too. So did the people in the
Everglades because of the history of terrible actions. They now have to
go back and repair that. This is an opportunity to go back and to
restore the environmental integrity of this region and forgo the
litigation. This rider is simply Christmas in July for the attorneys.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would make a point to the gentleman.
The estimate is that it will cost $125 million a year to implement any
scientific findings and there is, in this study, no prevention from
there being any litigation. Does the gentleman realize that?
Mr. MILLER of California. I understand that. And that is the whole
budget. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been besieged by
people all day who said the real cost of this is $350 million. He only
had $26 million. We are going to do the best we can. This delegation
will have to make a decision. We have a big bill and the Everglades has
a big bill and other places have a big bill that are going through
this. Every year we are asking for money and we are making it and we
are trying to make the decisions and work in the worst areas first and
we are setting those priorities. It is all a big bill. Why? Because we
have made some horrible mistakes. Many of those mistakes were made out
of ignorance. We did not know the science. We did not know the
ramifications of those actions. Today we cannot plead ignorance. That
is why this study, the EIS is so terribly important to making the kind
of progress necessary in the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not know if
the gentleman knows that there was a hearing between the Senate and the
House of these land agencies.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Nethercutt, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller
of California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The testimony was that if they could not get the
money, and this budget is strapped, they would do nothing. So,
therefore, the forests deteriorate more and they are stuck sitting
there without any kind of a management plan as long as this study
continues.
My argument is, let us use the science that is there and let the
managers on the ground implement these plans and take the findings and
get something done rather than wait.
Mr. MILLER of California. I would just say to the gentleman that that
is not free and the science dictates that same. This study is very
involved in a very, very active management program. Your solution is
not necessarily any cheaper. We just happen to think that the provision
of the study and the follow-on EIS is simply much better coordinated
and may in fact be somewhat less expensive in the long run if these
people are in fact working together as opposed to just rolling back the
clock to how we used to do business, where all of these 75 different
land management agencies just go back to sort of what they were doing
before.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I really do not quite know how to start after hearing
the gentleman from California, the debate on this and hearing the
gentleman from western Washington with his remarks, but let me put it
in perspective from my point of view. What we have heard so far on
those that are proponents of this amendment are ironically people that
do not live in the area that is affected. I suppose that is not unusual
when we talk about resource issues. But I think in this particular case
it would be worthwhile to find out from those of us that represent the
people that live in this area and the potential impact that it has on
them.
Let me back up to when I got involved in this issue. This came about
in 1993 or 1994. Obviously when I was elected to this body in 1994, it
was brought to my attention by local people, local county
commissioners, and they were asking questions, ``What is this ecosystem
management project and what is the end result?'' At that point I could
not really answer them. But I did do this. I advised them very strongly
that they should be at the table, they should be at the table no matter
what comes out of this, because if you are not at the table, then you
can hardly criticize what decisions may be coming down the line.

{time} 2030

So those that I talked to took my advice and others' advice that that
would be the procedure that they would follow. So they have been
sitting at the table, starting in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 through
this year.
We have moved the comment period back from time to time. I think that
was good policy. The reason why is because the feedback I got from the
elected officials that represent those counties in my district, they
were hearing things that they did not quite like to hear. They wanted
more information.
So as they got more information, they could see that this is becoming
very, very quickly a top-down plan. Because, as was pointed out by my
colleague, the gentleman from Washington, this was never authorized by
this body. It was only funded in an appropriations bill, and it kind of
grew like topsy and grew and grew. We are going to have this
expenditure grow out for what?
So at the end of the day, what has happened is that those county
commissioners in my district and in the adjoining counties said, ``What
can we do in order to change the way this thing is headed?'' We
suggested that maybe one thing we ought to do is cut off the funding
and use the data that has been collected and use it on a local level.
Because, after all, if you come from the school that the government
closest to people is best able to react to the wishes of those people,
then that is a pretty good model with this data.
So over 65 percent of the county commissioners in these affected
counties have written, saying something like this: ``We would like to
see this program terminated. We will use the data as we think best in
our own particular areas.'' I think and I trust those county
commissioners to use that data in a

[[Page H6157]]

way that is the right way to go about it.
Again, I want to make this point, so many times when we talk about
resource issues, these resource issues are trying to be decided by
somebody outside of the affected area.
The fact is that most of the discussion here, at least from my
friend, the gentleman from California, talked about the forest areas.
But this area is 144 million acres, and a good portion of it has no
forest land. In fact I can tell you my district, which is all impacted,
has very little forest land.
What we come to and why my local elected officials are apprehensive
about this whole process is simply this: It is the unintended
consequences that come out of this data. In my district, and I dare say
throughout all of the affected area, the rainfall by and large is less
than 10 inches. So if you have an unintended consequences of
controlling the water resources, what does that do to the agriculture
industry? What does that do, for goodness sakes, to the fish? These are
things that are not being addressed, in my view, by this. We are just
studying, studying, studying.
I think if we are going to come to grips with what has been compiled
so far in a program that was only supposed to have been funded for 1
year, it seems to me we ought to put that data in place. The county
commissioners in my district are prepared to take that data and put it
in a place where they think appropriate. But I think it is very
important to give them the opportunity to make that decision on their
level as they see appropriate.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote against the McDermott
amendment. I think it is bad policy. I think we ought to terminate this
program as the Committee on Appropriations has suggested. So I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McDermott amendment.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, when it was first proposed, the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project actually held great promise. The goal was
to produce a document that would provide a broad framework through
which individual forest management plans would be updated. These
updates would provide the framework through which local communities and
local citizens would see an end to the management of our public lands
and our public forests through conflict.
The promise was that local governments and local citizens and local
business owners and local labor unions and local conservationists would
work together to restore predictability in the management of these
public lands. This was very important, Mr. Chairman, because these
local communities of the Northwest have seen their economies devastated
and they have seen their small town culture wiped away by the breakdown
in the process by which we made public land management decisions.
As we have heard from others, when the project started, the promise
was that it would be completed in 9 months. When the project started,
local governments were promised a place at the table. When the project
started, local forest supervisors were to be given authority to manage
their individual forests according to their individual needs. When the
project started, the Congress was told that the cost would be $5
million.
So where are we today? Well, we are faced with a host of broken
promises. The 9 months turned into 4 years, $5 million turned into $40
million. Local governments, who almost universally endorsed this
project in the beginning, have almost universally now withdrawn their
support for the process. Local citizens have been driven from the
process and have been given no voice. In fact, what happened is the
process that is supposed to be bottom line is replaced with a top-down
mandate.
I found it interesting to listen to the gentleman from California as
he read from the cover of the document saying that this was a document
that was to be a consultation between various agencies. Mr. Chairman, I
did not read the cover. I read the whole document. Let me tell you what
I found out, is a process that was supposed to be inclusive and
participatory has turned into one that is full of mandates and
directives from the top down.
Is the science good? The science is good on the large footprint. But
if you talk to any of the rangers out there that are managing these
resources, if you talk to the forest supervisors, they will tell you
the science for their individual forest management is useless.
I will tell you what else we determined in the joint hearing, and
that is that the economics is off.
I just urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support this
provision in the bill.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I find this is a very interesting debate
because it is characterized as sort of people from somewhere else
jumping in.
This plan was put in place by the former Speaker of the House because
he recognized all the problems we had had on the west side. On the west
side we had every forest shut down for long periods of time. Not a
stick of wood was cut anywhere. So he said to himself, let us not
repeat the mistakes of the west side. Let us develop a coordinated plan
from the outset between all the forests and all the Bureau of Land
Management and get this thing done in a way that will actually work.
What I am hearing from my colleagues here in defending this rider is
they do not want to have any of the plan. They do not want to have it
implemented by the Bureau of Land Management. They want to turn it back
into one fight after another in the courts.
If you have 74 land management plans, that means you have got
district by district inside those forests. If one ranger wants to do it
one way in one district and another ranger wants to do it in the next
district differently, who is going to coordinate that? Not according to
my colleagues. They do not want it coordinated. They simply want to let
everybody have the book and look in it and say, ``Well, that looks
pretty good for our area. I think we will do that.'' But who
coordinates that? My colleagues know that will not work.
So what my colleagues are willing to do tonight is roll the dice.
They are willing to say let us throw away 5 years of trying to
coordinate this thing, and we will go back and take our chances and
cross our fingers that we do not get 74 lawsuits.
When my colleagues tell me that the environmentalists do not like
this plan, I agree. They do not. I am not here defending the plan. I am
defending the process. They do not like this because they do not think
it got far enough.
Now, if we read that and we listen to the environmentalists talk
about it, they are saying this plan does not go far enough. What does
that imply if it does not get put in place? They are going to go to
court. If my colleagues do not think there is a judge someplace in the
Northwest who is going to look at this and say, ``Well, here is what
the National Environmental Policy Act says, and here is what you are
doing. They do not match, so we are closing down the forest till we get
a new plan.''
We all know, everybody in the Northwest knows that we are right on
the edge of having salmon as an endangered species. The salmon spawning
in every single river in the Northwest is in danger. We are going to
have a coordinated plan for salmon restoration. If you think it is
going to be done by one county commissioner in one county and another
county commissioner in another county, it simply will not work because
the streams run through more than one county.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this
point. No less than 4 weeks ago, in the northern part of my district,
there was a Habitat Conservation Plan that was agreed to by all the
parties. It includes essentially all of the Columbia River north of
Wenatchee and including all the tributaries on up to the Canadian
border.
That is a locally developed plan. I am just suggesting to you that
that ought to be a model that we ought to pursue, not only on the
river, I hope is done

[[Page H6158]]

downstream, but also as a model that we can pursue. Because the one
thing that we have, I think that you will agree with me, I hope you do,
and that is this: One size does not fit all in as diverse an area as we
have in the West. There has to be a new way to look at it.
The HCP that was agreed to by the PUDs in the northern part of our
district, frankly, can be a model, not only on the river, but also in
the forested areas.
I would hope that defeating the gentleman's amendment would lead to
that because this is where the county commissioners are. This is
exactly where the county commissioners are in their rejection of the
one-size-fits-all. That is why I think that with that HCP as a guide,
which I say was signed no more than 4 or 5 weeks ago, this could be an
opportunity for us. So I think that it is appropriate that, in fact, we
defeat the gentleman's amendment, and this is the reason why.
Mr. McDERMOTT. If the gentleman from New York will yield, Mr.
Chairman, would the gentleman from Washington just tell me which
watershed that is? It is the mid-Columbia watershed?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is exactly right.
Mr. McDERMOTT. So the gentleman thinks that it will go section by
section through the entire Northwest and it will all be coordinated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Hinchey was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the
point. This is the first step. That is what makes HCP in north central
Washington so significant, because all parties involved, the
environmental community, the farming community, the tribes, because,
after all, they are involved in this as a reservation of the north part
of my district, they all bought off on this idea.
The end result at the end of the day, at the end of this time period
and, by the way, it is scheduled to last for 50 years, and at the end
of this time period they believe that those fish runs will be enhanced.
Everybody up there, all parties agree to that.
I would just suggest to you, as hard as they have worked on this plan
on that issue, we ought to move from the old model of top-down, one-
size-fits-all and look at that possibility, because it is true, it is
real, it is right in that ecosystem that we are talking about.
So, yes, in answer to the gentleman's question, I believe that that
can happen. I believe that we will, in fact, I believe in the near
future we may have another one of those HCPs involving some more dams.
I think that we will continue down that line. Because at the end of the
day, the beauty of this whole system is that the people that are
affected will make the decision.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New York will
yield, I wish that I had the belief that my colleague does in a system,
because I saw what happened on the west side, and it did not happen.
The fact that one area has done it in 5 years that we have been talking
about, we have got to ask ourselves, where is Oregon? Where is the rest
of Washington? Where is Montana? Where are all the other affected
areas? They have had 5 years. They could see it coming down the track
at them, and they have not done it.
All these county commissioners who were going to get together, we
have got one example on 72 million acres. We say, well, if we wait long
enough, we will have it covered. Yes, we will, in about 25 years, after
which we have had about 25 lawsuits. The problem with it is, if we do
not start in a coordinated way at the start, we will never get it
coordinated.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to my friend, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott), make his points.
With regard to the environmental community which opposes this study,
I do not think I am overstating it. The gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) said, well, certainly they will sue. They are opposed to the
study, and they are opposed to a record finding because it does not go
far enough.

{time} 2045

So they probably will. But what I think is so very important in this
case is that if you have the scientific information that is being used
to amend the 74 plans, they are all going to have to be amended anyway,
if there is a record of decision. But the difference is there is not
one preferred alternative that affects all seven States and all 144
million acres. So we have got one particular record decision and
preferred alternative for Oregon and Montana and Washington and Nevada,
and that may not apply to eastern Washington.
What we are trying to do by terminating the study, but using the
scientific findings in the interests of amending the plans anyway, we
are not trying to have the alternative that may apply to Oregon, which
has a different climate than my east side of the State of Washington,
have it apply there. So the method in this madness is to use the
science, and not be stuck with a one-size-fits-all policy that assumes
that this entire region is one region, and we all have the same issues
and the same environmental conditions, and preserve this local autonomy
that my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), mentioned
so well.
I have great respect for my predecessor. Certainly he stuck the money
in. But he stuck the money in so the bull trout would not be listed.
Well, guess what? The bull trout has been listed. After five years,
roughly, of $40 million of expenditure, we are still fighting that
issue. I do not buy the argument that if there had been some record of
decision, it would not have been that somehow the bull trout would not
have been listed.
I just think this is a continuation of bureaucracy that will never
end, and I mean that sincerely. I think now they want another $5.8
million this year in our bill. We could not afford that. We are trying
to save money for parks and other things, but still not waste the
science and $40 million that has been out there. So this local
decisionmaking and wise use of the information that meets the
alternatives and the needs of the local communities, I think, just
makes sense.
I must say to my friend, you have got the labor union movement that
is affected in my part of the country saying, ``Don't do this. We
object to the continuation of this study. We think it ought to be
terminated, because it means jobs for those who are in the pulp and
paper industry.''
Now, I want to preserve jobs too, and I just do not think there is
any sense that this record of decision that affects all seven States
with one preferred alternative is going to be the salvation of jobs in
the Pacific Northwest and in the whole Western States region.
So I just urge my colleagues, look at it again. It is 144 million
acres, it is $125 million conservatively of implementation costs. If
you just look at the Northwest Forest Plan, you can about quadruple
that number, if not more than that, in terms of cost, in doing the sub-
basin studies. It is a tremendous cost.
So my view is, let us let these local decisionmakers make judgments
about the needs of the regions that differ from one another. Use the
science, but do not have a one-size-fits-all policy at a cost that this
Congress and the taxpayers cannot afford.
I yield back to my chairman, with the understanding that there is not
the money in this budget. We are tight as it is, trying to get this all
done.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, having suffered through the other side of
the State and having seen the problems associated with that, I worry a
little bit, I must say to my friend from Spokane,

[[Page H6159]]

who I have worked with, and my friend from the Tri-Cities, who I have
worked with, two of my colleagues, that the idea that you can just do
this without some kind of a comprehensive strategy leaves you
vulnerable to the lawsuit by the environmental action groups that you
enjoin.
They take the scientist in there and they put him under oath.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, they say is the plan that you have got
sufficient to restore the Chinook salmon run, or is it sufficient to
restore the steelhead run, or is it sufficient for the bull trout?
If the scientist says no, the judge enjoins you, and then, instead of
having the harvest rate up here at maybe 50 percent of what it was, you
get enjoined, and then you have to come in and come up with a new plan.
You will be back in Federal Court, they will demand you go out and have
a plan for the entire area. Then when you have that plan developed, it
will take you down further.
I can remember when I stood up here and we could have gotten $2.5
billion in Region VI on the spotted owl, but the people said no, no,
no, that is too much, we cannot do that, and they objected to the plan.
We wound up with $1 billion in the whole region.
So I just say to my friend from eastern Washington, and the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and I have been very hesitant not to
get into this tonight, I just worry that if you do not have a strategy,
if you are just going to leave it go to the local level, and I applaud,
by the way, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) in support of
the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan, and, by the way, that is
done under the Endangered Species Act. I think it is the ultimate tool.
This is a tool Pacific Lumber is using in northern California.
So I just worry that if we completely blow this up, that we wind up
having nothing, and you leave yourself completely vulnerable to lawsuit
after lawsuit that will wind up getting your forest. Instead of being
at 50 percent, you will be down at 10 percent, like I am at the Olympic
National Forest, a 95 percent reduction because the plan was
implemented on a regional basis, top down, and we got killed. My people
up there were very upset and offended by it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just worry that if you do not work out
something that gets everybody around that table and provides some
leadership, you guys may have to go out there and sit down with these
people and get this thing going in the right direction, because somehow
you have to have a plan.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) to close the debate.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my friend. There is
nothing in the Interior Columbia Basic Ecosystem Management Project
that prevents lawsuits. The gentleman assumes that a seven-State, 144
million acre plan with one preferred alternative is the answer. It is
not the answer.
I submit respectfully to the gentleman, I am willing to work through
all of this. I have talked to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) and said let us work through this in conference. The Senate
has a little different feeling about this. But this is not the answer
to not having lawsuits, and, in my sense, the courts are going to look
and say is there a scientific study, which my predecessor was trying to
accomplish. Have a study. There is a study. It did not say a preferred
alternative or record of decision or a seven-State, 144 million acre
study. It said a study.
We have a study. We have adequate scientific information to allow any
court, in my judgment, to resist any challenges, notwithstanding the
fact that there is not a record of decision.
So I understand the gentleman's concern, but I am concerned also. I
want to have some productivity and multiple use out of our forest
system, but I do not come to the conclusion that a Federal program,
such as it has been identified, I think accurately, as a bureaucracy,
that is top down, not locally decided, which is what was expected in
the first place, is the answer. There is no assurance in this. We want
to have some language that says ``no lawsuits.'' I will join into that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was
allowed to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I will be
glad to work with all three gentlemen, my colleague the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and my two colleagues from the eastern side
of the State of Washington. We still need to work something out in
conference on this issue, regardless of what happens on the McDermott
amendment. But I want you to know I am still willing to work with you
all to see if we cannot work out something that makes sense.
I do not want to see our bill get vetoed over this though. I would
say to my colleague from Spokane, we cannot risk vetoing the bill. We
have to work something out here.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) will be postponed.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to advise Members that we are going to rise
temporarily for a matter, and then we will renew our efforts in title
III after that. We are going to finish the bill tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4193)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________