· 6/15/2000 · H4498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSEJune 15, 2000 Ose Oxley Packard Paul Pease Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Pombo Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4498 June 15, 2000OseOxleyPackardPaulPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaReynoldsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)Salmon

SanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchafferScottSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuSweeneyTalent

TancredoTannerTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyTraficantUptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NAYS—182

AckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBecerraBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCrowleyDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettEdwardsEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerForbesFordFrank (MA)FrostGejdensonGephardt

GonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHoeffelHoltHooleyHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLarsonLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMoakleyMooreMoran (VA)Napolitano

NealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPickettPomeroyPrice (NC)RahallRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSchakowskyShermanSkeltonSlaughterSmith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStricklandStupakTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOT VOTING—20

AbercrombieArmeyBarrett (WI)CampbellChenoweth-Hage

CummingsDannerDoolittleHinojosaHoughton

KapturLofgrenMcKinneyNadler

SawyerSerrano

ThurmanVento

ViscloskyYoung (FL)

b 1033

Ms. RIVERS and Mr. DEUTSCHchanged their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to‘‘nay.’’

Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

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

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.Stated for:Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, during

the vote I was unavoidably detained with mystaff concerning issues related to the FY 2001Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Had Ibeen present, I would have voted ‘‘aye’’ forrollcall vote 278.f

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs.BIGGERT). Pursuant to clause 8 of ruleXX, the pending business is the ques-tion of agreeing to the Speaker’s ap-proval of the Journal of the last day’sproceedings.

The question is on the Speaker’s ap-proval of the Journal.

The Journal was approved.f

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr.Lundregan, one of its clerks, an-nounced that the Senate has passedwithout amendment a bill of the Houseof the following title:

H.R. 4387. An act to provide that theSchool Governance Charter Amendment Actof 2000 shall take effect upon the date suchAct is ratified by the voters of the District ofColumbia.

The message also announced that theSenate has passed bills of the followingtitles in which the concurrence of theHouse is requested:

S. 1967. An act to make technical correc-tions to the status of certain land held intrust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw In-dians, to take certain land into trust for thatBand, and for other purposes.

S. 2498. An act to authorize the Smithso-nian Institution to plan, design, construct,and equip laboratory, administrative, andsupport space to house base operations forthe Smithsonian Astrophysical ObservatorySubmillimeter Array located on Mauna Keaat Hilo, Hawaii.

The message also announced that theSenate has passed with amendments inwhich the concurrence of the House isrequested, bills of the House of the fol-lowing titles:

H.R. 2614. An act to amend the Small Busi-ness Investment Act to make improvementsto the certified development company pro-gram, and for other purposes.

H.R. 4576. An act making appropriationsfor the Department of Defense for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 2001, and for otherpurposes.

The message also announced that theSenate insists upon its amendment tothe bill (H.R. 4576) ‘‘An Act making ap-propriations for the Department of De-fense for the fiscal year ending Sep-

tember 30, 2001, and for other pur-poses,’’ requests a conference with theHouse on the disagreeing votes of thetwo Houses thereon, and appoints Mr.STEVENS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. SPECTER,Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. BOND, Mr. MCCON-NELL, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. GREGG, Mrs.HUTCHISON, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. HOLLINGS,Mr. BYRD, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LAUTENBERG,Mr. HARKIN, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. DUR-BIN, to be the conferees on the part ofthe Senate.

f

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that all Membersmay have 5 legislative days withinwhich to revise and extend their re-marks on H.R. 4578, and that I may in-clude tabular and extraneous material.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

f

TIME LIMITS ON AMENDMENTSOFFERED ON H.R. 4635

(Mr. REGULA asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. REGULA. Madam Speaker, I justwant to say to all of the Members, thegoal of the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS) and myself is to get thisbill finished in a timely manner today,by 6:00 or before, because I know thatmany of the Members have plane res-ervations. We can accomplish that ifeverybody will cooperate. We will haveto get time limits on some of theamendments, and perhaps we can ad-dress some of them with a colloquy. Wewill work together to accomplish thegoal to finish this bill in a timely fash-ion.

f

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORAND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-PRIATIONS ACT, 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs.BIGGERT). Pursuant to House Resolu-tion 524 and rule XVIII, the Chair de-clares the House in the Committee ofthe Whole House on the State of theUnion for the further consideration ofthe bill, H.R. 4578.

b 1039

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolveditself into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union for thefurther consideration of the bill (H.R.4578) making appropriations for the De-partment of the Interior and relatedagencies for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 2001, and for other purposes,with Mr. LATOURETTE in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIRMAN. When the Com-

mittee of the Whole rose on WednesdayJune 14, 2000, the amendment by thegentleman from Mississippi (Mr. TAY-LOR) had been disposed of and the bill

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:32 Jun 16, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A15JN7.003 pfrm12 PsN: H15PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4499June 15, 2000was open for amendment from page 53line 10 through page 53 line 22.

Pursuant to the order of the House ofthat day, the amendment by the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS),adding a new section at the end of titleI, if offered, shall begin with his initial5-minute speech in support of theamendment. No further debate on thatamendment shall be in order.

Amendments to that amendment of-fered by the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) or the gen-tleman from Utah (Mr. HANSEN), eachshall be debatable for 1 hour, equallydivided and controlled by the pro-ponent and the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indul-gence of both the chairman and theranking member to allow me to speakout of turn.

The reason I would like to addressthe House this morning is with respectto the roadless forest initiative. Mycolleague and friend, the gentlemanfrom Michigan (Mr. STUPAK), had origi-nally looked at introducing some limi-tation amendments on the roadless for-est initiative and as he will say shortlyhas decided not to introduce them. Insome ways I regret that but I certainlyrespect his decision.

I rise in opposition to the roadlessforest initiative. I represent a nationalforest that was once the Chequamegonand Nicolet National Forest. Like somany others, I have a concern over theeffect of the roadless forest initiativeon the economy of my district and thehealth and safety of our national for-ests.

I would like to make three briefquick points this morning to show thebreadth of opposition in my home areato this roadless forest initiative.

First, local units of government inthe State of Wisconsin in general, andin the Eighth Congressional District,oppose the roadless forest initiative.The Wisconsin Counties Associationopposes it. The Counties of Vilas andOneida and Oconto and others opposeit. They oppose it because they under-stand how dependent our communitiesand our economy is upon the nationalforest, recreation, and timber har-vesting.

They also oppose it because they rec-ognize that cutting off these forests tohuman access poses substantial fireand safety risks.

Point number two, the roadless for-est initiative violates a historic com-pact between local units of governmentand the Federal Government. This na-tional forest in northern Wisconsin wascreated in the 1920s. There were a se-ries of transactions between local unitsof government, county forests, the pri-vate sector and the Federal Govern-ment.

On record, on the public record andin public documents, specifically thesetransactions were made with an under-standing that access to the national

forests would be maintained, in fact,explicitly that commercial access tothe forests would be maintained. Yet,the roadless forest initiative, if it isimplemented, would break that under-standing, would break that agreement.

Very clearly, the Federal Govern-ment is on the verge of breaking itsword with the people of northeasternWisconsin and very clearly these localleaders would never, would never, havetransferred county forest to the na-tional forest if they knew that yearsdown the line we would go back on ourword.

Finally and most damning, the For-est Service employees of northern Wis-consin themselves oppose the roadlessforest initiative. The very people beingcalled upon to implement the roadlessforest initiative oppose it. They havetaken a formal position through Local2165 of the National Federation of Fed-eral Employees, they have taken a for-mal position against the roadless forestinitiative. They understand the dif-ficulties of enforcing it. They under-stand how it will do tremendous dam-age to our way of life and they under-stand how the roadless forest initiativehas failed to take into account thelocal concerns in northern Wisconsin.

I will later place in the RECORD theseresolutions demonstrating the clear op-position in northern Wisconsin to thisinitiative.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. GREEN) indicated, wewere prepared to offer up to severalamendments to block the roadless ini-tiative and the road management rule.Instead, through conversations withthe Chair and the ranking member, wehave decided not to.

These policies and rules that are cur-rently pending before the National For-est Service are still pending. We willhave time in the months ahead to helpfashion and mold hopefully somethingwe can all live with.

Let me just take a few minutes hereand explain what is going on with theroadless initiative and the road man-agement policy.

b 1045

These are new Forest Service poli-cies. They are decisions affecting thenational forests throughout the coun-try. They are not found in any of thelocal-national forest managementplans, and they are developed withouta local input and without local forestofficials’ input.

Now, the roadless initiative on theface of it does not sound too bad, be-cause it includes defined roadlessareas. In my two national forests in Ot-tawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hia-watha National Forest, that is 7,600acres.

We could probably agree that, inthose areas that are identified, itmakes some sense not to put roads; andwe agree that could make some sense.But then it calls for other unroaded

areas, other unroaded areas. We do notknow the size of those areas. We do notknow where they are located. It cannotbe simply identified.

So if we cannot identify the otherunroaded areas, why would we let apolicy go through and we as Membersof this Congress allow a policy to gothrough that we have no clue, no cluewhere these other areas are. Talk toWashington officials, they say one’slocal officials know. Talk to our localforest officials, and we have had hear-ings on this part, and they said we donot know because we do not have theguidelines. So they would let a policygo through.

Look, the proper role on roadless ini-tiative, identify the areas; and if onewants it to be a wilderness area, that isa proper role of Congress. We should doit.

Proposals undetermine other roadedareas. It limits one’s access. It limitsone’s use. It limits one’s enjoyment ofthe forest.

If it was the roadless initiative, wecould probably live with that, but lookat what else is going on at the sametime. At the exact time is this thingcalled road management rule. The onlyway one can build a road in the na-tional forest if this road managementrule goes through is if there is a com-pelling reason for a road.

Temporary roads that we use andrely on for fire fighting, for insect con-trol, for harvesting timber are not rec-ognized. No more temporary roads,none whatsoever.

Who has to agree to it? Not the localforesters, but the regional forester. InMilwaukee, they are going to decidefor Michigan and Wisconsin whether ornot there is going to be a road innorthern Michigan regardless of whatthe local forestry officials say.

So it virtually bans road construc-tion and reconstruction. So in otherwords, one cannot even fix up a forestroad if this policy goes through, onlyessential classified roads, no feederroads, no feeder roads. It does not rec-ognize temporary roads for forest tim-bers.

So put the roadless initiative withthis road management rule that no oneknows anything about, put it together,and one has new policies, new rulesthat will supersede existing locally de-veloped forest management plans inour national forest.

The results are one is going to havea national policy that says one size fitsall. We lose our local control. There isno control input. Economic impact isnot even recognized. For northern Wis-consin and northern Michigan and Min-nesota, we rely upon our national for-ests, not just for timber sales, forrecreation, no personal enjoyment, forhunting; but one has no input. Thoseeconomies are not even recognized aswe develop these policies.

Last but not least, the new policiesand rules change the established use ofthe forest, the access to the forest, andthe activities that can be performedwithin the forest.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:32 Jun 16, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K15JN7.026 pfrm12 PsN: H15PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4500 June 15, 2000What we have here, as we have de-

bated this bill many times in the past,legislative attempts to limit roadbuilding, to limit reconstruction ofroads in our national forests. They can-not pass that. They cannot come beforeCongress and legislatively pass it. Sothey are doing this back-door approachthrough a rulemaking process on roadmanagement that there is no input.

One can write one’s comments, butthere is not a meeting anywhere in theUnited States where people from thelocal national forest did come and con-front the local forest people and sayhere is what we need roads for. Whycannot one reconstruct this one roadthat goes to our lake? Because they aregoing to put through an administrativerule underneath the AdministrativeProcedures Act.

So I urge all Members to look at theroadless initiative. When one appliesthe road management on top of thatroadless initiative, we have seriousproblems with what is going on in ournational forests. I ask them to be vigi-lant and fight these policies by the Na-tional Forest Service. I thank the gen-tleman from Ohio (Chairman REGULA)and the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS), ranking member, for al-lowing the gentleman from Wisconsin(Mr. GREEN) and I to proceed outside oforder.

NEW FOREST SERVICE POLICIES/RULES

(Decisions affecting National Forests; notfound in Forest Management Plans; devel-oped without local community & local for-est officials input)

ROADLESS INITIATIVE

(Includes defined Roadless Areas andundefined ‘‘other unroaded’’ areas)

Wilderness Designation is proper role ofCongress.

Proposes undetermined ‘‘other unroadedareas’’.

Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest.ROAD MANAGEMENT RULE

(Only if compelling reason for a road; no‘‘temp’’ roads; EIS signed by Regional For-ester)Virtually bans forest road construction &

reconstruction.Only essential classified roads (no feeder

roads).Does not recognize temporary roads for

timber harvest.NEW POLICIES/RULES THAT SUPERSEDE EXIST-

ING LOCALLY DEVELOPED FOREST PLANS—RE-SULTS

National Policy—‘‘one size-fits-all’’ men-tality, loss of local control.

Economic Impact—not recognized, localeconomies depend on National Forests.

New Policies/Rules—change establisheduses, access & activities.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DICKS

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-port copy B of the Dicks amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. DICKS:On page 52, after line 15, add the following

new section:SEC. . Any limitation imposed under this

Act on funds made available by this Act re-lated to planning and management of na-tional monuments, or activities related tothe Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Man-agement Plan shall not apply to any activitywhich is otherwise authorized by law.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to theorder of the House yesterday, the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS) isrecognized for 5 minutes in support ofhis amendment.

(Mr. DICKS asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment which would overcome sec-tion 334 and 335 of the Interior Appro-priations Act for fiscal year 2001.

My amendment seeks to overcomethe funding limitation imposed in thebill under section 334 and 335 relatingto the Interior-Columbia Basin Eco-system Management Plan, known asICBEMP, and the design, planning, andmanagement of national monuments.

Both of these provisions are objec-tionable to the Clinton administration,and the committee has received a let-ter from the Office of Management andBudget director Jack Lew stating thatthe President’s senior advisors wouldrecommend a veto unless these ridersare removed.

Section 334 of the bill would stop theInterior-Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project, ICBEMP, fromgoing forward. The author of the provi-sion included report language to thebill language stating concern that theForest Service and the Bureau of LandManagement are not in compliancewith the Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Flexibility Act by com-pleting a regulatory flexibility anal-ysis. The administration, on the otherhand, believes that such an analysis isnot required. This is a major issue inthis debate.

Now, I understand that the author ofthe amendment may have concernsabout the agencies complying with alllaws, but I have been assured by theadministration that they are, in fact,in compliance with all existing Federallaws and, therefore, object to the inclu-sion of this provision which would basi-cally stop their work on this particularproject.

Further, I do not know whether theauthor of the amendment does or doesnot support the Columbia BasinProject’s goals, but I think it is vitallyimportant to articulate why it shouldgo forward and not be stopped with arider in this Interior appropriationsbill.

The Columbia Basin Project was ini-tiated by President Clinton in 1993 torespond to landscape-scale issues, in-cluding forest and rangeland health,the listing of Snake River salmon, bulltrout protection, and treaty and trustresponsibilities to the Tribes in thearea. It also sought to bring more cer-tainty and stability to the commu-nities located in the Columbia RiverBasin, which were impacted by theseevents.

What we had before were literallydozens of smaller management plansthat only addressed specific areas with-in the basin. The goal of ICBEMP wasto better assemble each individual planinto a more coordinated watershed-

based program. ICBEMP has severalgoals. Among them is to better protectthe habitat important to threatenedand endangered species and also to pro-vide a long-term plan for mining, graz-ing, and timber harvest, all of whichare still allowed under the project.

It is not a land grab, nor does it takedecisions out of the hands of local com-munities and local management of-fices. It is an important step to bettermanage these critical lands, and it hashad several years in development andhas received extensive public com-ments and participation.

Section 335 prevents the Secretary ofthe Interior or the Secretary of Agri-culture from using any funds for thepurpose of designing, planning, or man-agement of Federal lands as nationalmonuments which were designatedsince 1999.

This provision attempts to restrictthe designation of monuments by thePresident under the authority of the1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. Aprohibition on spending funds for thesemonuments would not change theirlegal status, but it would prevent anyongoing spending within the monu-ment areas as defined by law.

I would say to all of my colleagueswho had monuments declared, that theauthor of the amendment chose not tocover his monument, but he is coveringour colleagues’ monuments.

The author of the amendment in-cluded language in the Interior Appro-priations report to accompany the billwhich states: ‘‘Nothing in this lan-guage prevents either Secretary frommanaging these Federal lands undertheir previous management plans.’’ Butthe bill language clearly states that nomoney shall be expended for the pur-pose of design, planning, or manage-ment of Federal lands as nationalmonuments.

Once the President has acted to des-ignate these lands, they are legallydesignated and would thus be subjectto the spending limitation. All thisprovision would do is ensure that noFederal dollars by our land and re-source management agencies could bespent in these areas.

A monument designation does notlock up these lands. Quite the con-trary, monument status does not pre-clude such activities as grazing or min-ing.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. DICKSwas allowed to proceed for 2 additionalminutes.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monu-ment status also involves an extensivecommunity involvement process sothat programs can be established forall public uses. Hunting, fishing, hik-ing, canoeing are all allowed in theseareas. But they would all be stopped ifwe could not do necessary wildlife sur-veys and environmental programs.

This provision would not allow anyfunds to be spent for law enforcement


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4501June 15, 2000and staffing in the monument. In theareas where there are visitors’ centers,they would be closed because the provi-sion would preclude any funds frombeing spent to operate, maintain, orstaff them.

I understand that some of the Presi-dent’s recent designations have beencontroversial. But he has had, in eachinstance, the complete authority to actunder the jurisdiction of the 1906 An-tiquities Act. If the authorizing com-mittees, and I note the presence of thechairman of the authorizing com-mittee, if the authorizing committee ofjurisdiction wishes to reexamine theAntiquities Act or wishes to pass legis-lation to cancel any specific monumentdesignation, then they should do so.But the inclusion of this provision andthe other provisions are ill-advised andensure a veto by the President.

I urge support of my amendment andhope the House agrees that these provi-sions should not be included in thisbill.AMENDMENT NO. 46 OFFERED BY MR.

NETHERCUTT TO THE AMENDMENT OFFEREDBY MR. DICKS

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment to the amend-ment.

The text of the amendment to theamendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr.NETHERCUTT to the amendment offered byMr. DICKS:

Strike ‘‘monuments,’’ and insert ‘‘monu-ments or’’.

Strike ‘‘, or activities related to the Inte-rior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementPlan’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to theorder of the House of Wednesday, June14, 2000, the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) and the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS)each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. NETHERCUTT).

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

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman,my amendment to the Dicks amend-ment would strike the provision in theDicks amendment concerning the Inte-rior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Man-agement Project, called ICBEMP.

First and foremost, the linkage ofthe national monuments portion of theDicks amendment with the Interior-Co-lumbia Basin Management Project lan-guage in his amendment requires thatthey be separated. They are not thesame. They are completely different.They have no relevance to each other.They have no relationship to eachother. Therefore, on that point alone,my amendment should be adopted. Myamendment seeks to strip the ICBEMPlanguage from the Dicks amendments.So that is point number one, and that

is the simplest way to look at thiswhole issue.

The second issue and the reason forremoving it from the Dicks amend-ment is that this ICBEMP project wasbegun in 1993 as a scientific assessmentof eastern Washington and eastern Or-egon. Now, I want my colleagues andthe chairman to keep this in mind, itstarted as a scientific assessment. Wewere going to take a look at the eco-system condition of eastern Wash-ington and eastern Oregon. The sci-entific findings were to be used as for-est and Bureau of Land Managementdistricts updated their land manage-ment plans.

Since 1993, this administration hasgrown this project to a size that en-compasses Idaho, western Montana,parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

b 1100

Seven States, 144 million acres, areaffected by what started out as an as-sessment informally.

Even more troubling is that it hasgrown to a scope that it has now be-come a decision-making documentwith standards, meaning that the rec-ommendations of the project managerswill automatically amend the land useplans in the region. The seven-State re-gion; 144 million acres.

In 1998, the House had this issue be-fore it. It voted to keep the ColumbiaBasin project advisory in nature. Not arulemaking, not a decision-makingdocument, but advisory. That lan-guage, which I sponsored and whichwas adopted by the House, rejected theidea that it should be more than advi-sory in nature. Unfortunately, in thenegotiations on this whole issue at thelast minute with respect to the omni-bus appropriations, that language wassacrificed by the leadership and on theinsistence of the President.

Section 334 of the bill, languagewhich I put in, requires the ForestService and the BLM to comply withexisting law. That is the second broadbut important point in this whole de-bate. It requires this administration tofollow existing law, the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,prior to finalizing any interior Colum-bia Basin ecosystem managementproject record of decision.

What is happening here, and those ofus in the West understand this, is thatthis administration has time and timeagain tried to rush to judgment, tohave a record of decision that will havethe effect of law and that will affectdramatically the land use ability andland use of the western States, theseven western States which are part ofthis so-called study. The Small Busi-ness Regulatory Enforcement FairnessAct passed overwhelmingly in thisHouse, signed into law in 1996, requiresagencies to do this simple task: Exam-ine and mitigate for the impact that aproposed rule will have on small enti-ties.

This administration knows that thesmall entities, the small rural commu-

nities of eastern Washington and theseven western States that I mentioned,are impacted by this outside of thepower that they have to stop it. So theonly resource we have is to make surethat this administration complies withthe law, and that is what this amend-ment does. It says before a record ofdecision is issued, Federal agenciesmust comply with the law that exists,that was signed into law by this Presi-dent.

I heard my friend from Washingtonsay that he has an assurance from theadministration that they do not haveto comply with the law in this case;that this act does not apply to them.Only this administration would urgethat the Congress ignore the obligationthat this administration has to complywith the law. Only this administrationwould do that. So I am not persuadedby the assurance that we have beengiven that this law, the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Actdoes not apply. It applies, and there arecourt decisions that confirm that it ap-plies. The General Accounting Officehas issued a report confirming that itapplies.

This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is goingto amend 62 individual land use plansin the West. It is going to amend landuse plans on 32 national Forest Serviceand BLM administrative units in thisproject area. It will replace three in-terim strategies. The project is clearlya rule, and there are court decisionsthat say so. Failure to comply with theSmall Business Regulatory Enforce-ment Act is judicially reviewable bycourts, and courts have invalidatedagency rules on this basis, against Mr.Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in1998.

Evidence is that the agencies havebeen wrong about this before. Over $56million have been spent on this project.It is not authorized. This Congress hasnot authorized this project. The north-west industries have indicated to methat if a regulatory flexibility analysisis not completed, as required by law,and again that is all we are trying todo is have this administration complywith the law, they will pursue litiga-tion which will throw this whole studyinto turmoil. Congress has the respon-sibility to ensure that the project doesnot leave itself open to litigation, if arecord of decision is issued withouthaving completed a regulatory flexi-bility analysis.

This is overreaching by the adminis-trative agencies of this government, bythis administration, by the Depart-ment of the Interior, the Forest Serv-ice, and the BLM. They are trying togo around the law, and that is wrong.That is wrong for rural America, it iswrong for the States that are rep-resented in the West, and we shouldnot let it happen.

So this should be separated out fromthis amendment because it does notapply to the national monumentsissue. It applies to the fairness and theobligation to small businesses to be


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4502 June 15, 2000true to the law, and this administra-tion is lacking in that regard if it triesto go forward.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume torespond to my good friend and col-league that 7 years is hardly a rush tojudgment.

I want my colleagues to hear the lan-guage of this limitation in this appro-priation bill. It says right here, ‘‘Noneof the funds made available under thisact may be used to issue a record of de-cision or any policy implementing theinterior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project not prepared pur-suant to law, as set forth in chapter 6of Title V of the United States Code.’’

In all my years of being on the Sub-committee on Interior of the Com-mittee on Appropriations, the rel-evance of the Small Business Regu-latory Enforcement Fairness Act hasbeen somewhat questionable. But let ustalk about the analysis that is done inan Environmental Impact Statement.It looks at the socioeconomic impactof the EIS.

Now, either we can get serious anddecide we want to really pass legisla-tion, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatallyflawed, but these limitations are objec-tionable to the administration everysingle year because they offend theprocess. We do not have hearings, wedo not get into great detail on thesethings and, frankly, and the gen-tleman, of course, has been here for anumber of years, but that is why wehave authorizing committees and thatis why in most instances we should letthe authorizing committees deal withthese substantive issues and not dealwith them in the appropriations proc-ess. I think on both sides of the aislethere has been a consensus that weshould not do these limitations unlessthere is just absolutely no other way todeal with the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 101⁄2 minutes tothe gentleman from Oregon (Mr.BLUMENAUER) in opposition to theNethercutt amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Ithank my colleague for yielding methis time to speak against theNethercutt amendment and in favor ofthe Dicks amendment.

First, as it relates to what my friendfrom Spokane has advanced, I think itis important to allow the ColumbiaBasin Ecosystem plan to proceed. Ifadopted by this chamber, theNethercutt amendment would retainthe anti-environmental rider, whichwould block the implementation ofthis Pacific Northwest plan for forests,watersheds and endangered species.

It is true that it has grown somewhatin terms of scope and dimension. It hasdone so because that is what has beendictated as in the best interests of theregion that we all care about and interms of what will make the most dif-ference. Careful long-term planning isa help, not an impediment, to the var-

ious challenges that we face in the Pa-cific Northwest.

I have heard my colleague more thanonce on this floor talk about the prob-lems how this has stretched out over 7years at a cost of $45 million. Well,adoption of this amendment, and sub-jecting yet another requirement to thisplan, is only going to make the processmore expensive and more time con-suming. And, indeed, Congress itself isin no small measure a culprit. Everyyear that I have been here, since 1996,the Committee on Appropriations hasbeen interfering with the orderly im-plementation of this review.

Now, as the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS) pointed out, the ex-tension of the Small Business Regu-latory Enforcement Fairness Act tothis study is something that has neverbefore been required. It is vigorouslydisputed as to its applicability. Butmost important it opens up a very realpossibility that we are going to blockthe potential Federal Government ac-tivity to improve the environmentaland management activities in the Co-lumbia River basin.

It is going to make it more likely,not less likely, that a court is going tointervene, possibly issuing a decreethat could mandate management planchanges and entirely halting the pro-duction of goods and services on Fed-eral lands in project areas throughoutits deliberations, and the variety of lit-tle pieces that are involved there. It iswrong. We ought to get on with thisbusiness. It has the greatest potentialof solving some very real problems thatwe in the Pacific Northwest face.

I would like to speak, if I could for amoment, to something that I considereven more insidious, and that is theunderlying amendment that would in-clude restrictions on the ability tohave funding to implement the Na-tional Monuments Act.

This is a major policy adjustment, ashas been suggested by my colleaguefrom Washington, and it would have se-vere, I hope unintended, consequences.Some may applaud at the prospect ofnot having law enforcement on ourpublic lands, but that is an extreme po-sition that would not be approved bymy constituents, nor I think by theconstituents of at least most of us inthis Chamber.

It is not going to do us any good tonot be able to regulate off-road vehi-cles, law enforcement, mining, thegrazing activities. This is categoricallywrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself,why the administration will veto thebill. They would have no choice. But itis an example of the environmental ex-tremism that we hear so often about onthe other side of the aisle.

If my colleagues do not like the An-tiquities Act, they should go ahead andrepeal it. If they do not like what thePresident has done in any specific des-ignation, they should have the courageto bring a specific bill to Congress andundo it. They do not because these arepopular actions, they are things that

would be supported by this Chamber,and the environmental extremists onthe other side of the aisle would ratherplay havoc with our ability to managepublic land in an orderly fashion.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to thegentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman’s point is right on target, as faras I am concerned. The gentlemanmentioned this Small Business Regu-latory Enforcement Fairness Act. Ac-cording to the Department of the Inte-rior, the House requires, under thisamendment, the Federal Governmentto prepare analysis, to their knowl-edge, that has never been prepared forany land use planned effort, no matterits scope.

As a result, the House action will un-reasonably extend the duration of plan-ning for this project, which, in part,due to requirements placed on the Fed-eral Government by riders to every fullyear appropriation for Interior since1996, has already taken 7 years to com-plete at considerable cost to the Amer-ican taxpayer.

The thing that I worry about is thatwe are going to get ourselves into thesame mess we did before the forest planwas put into place, and that is that aFederal judge is going to say that wehave not done the right things in termsof watershed protection, that we arenot protecting these fish under the En-dangered Species Act. He will stop allthe logging, all the mining, all thegrazing, and an injunction issue. Andthat is the worst possible outcome.

So I am saying to the gentlemanfrom Washington, who I do consider tobe a friend and a thoughtful person,that it is time now to let this processgo forward and finish this EIS andmake the changes that are necessaryto protect the bull trout, to protect thesalmon runs on the Snake River, tomake sure that we are doing the water-shed protection so that we do not getthe Endangered Species Act imple-mented in an adverse way in the gen-tleman’s area.

But we cannot simply do nothing. Wecannot just say we have no plan, nostrategy. I have supported both gentle-men from Washington on the issue ofthe Snake River dams. But if we arenot going to take out the Snake Riverdams, then we have to do other thingsto protect the habitat, to deal withhatchery problems, to deal with har-vest. And protecting the habitat is amajor part of this requirement in orderto protect these fish.

I am going to let the gentlemen onthe other side here have a chance, be-cause I know the gentleman from Ala-bama is ready to go, but this amend-ment is offered in good constructivespirit. I think the strategy of trying tostop any change here is simply notgoing to work. It is going to wind upwith the Endangered Species Act beingapplied by the Federal judges in a waynone of us want, and so we have tomake some hard decisions.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4503June 15, 2000b 1115

We cannot say no to everything. Thatis why I supported the protection ofthe Hanford Reach. Because if we arenot going to take out the dams, atleast we will protect these salmon inthe Hanford Reach.

So I appreciate my colleague fromOregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER) yielding tome on this. This is something I feelvery strongly about. I think the strat-egy here of continuing to delay this isa mistaken strategy, and that is why Ioffered this amendment. And I appre-ciate speaking on it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman,reclaiming my time, I would just con-clude by expressing three things.

First, I would like to acknowledgethe leadership of the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) in attemptingto balance a very complex set of issuesthat we deal with in the Pacific North-west. And oftentimes I know he mustfeel like he is the man in the middle.But I think he has addressed this in adirect and forthright manner.

I do not think there is anybody in thePacific Northwest who has workedharder to reach out to try to find mid-dle ground and to avoid the catas-trophe, I think, on all sides of thesecontroversies. If we are going to cedeour ability to plan in a thoughtful andmanageable fashion and have it doneon a piecemeal basis via the courts, Ithink we ought to move forward interms of supporting what the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS)has proposed.

I want to make clear that, as far asthe national monuments are con-cerned, my Republican colleagues havebeen in control here for the last 4years, and they have been unable tofashion a compromise acceptable to theAmerican public to go ahead and repealthis legislation. And we have been infact left with, and I am pleased that westill have, an Antiquities Act that hasbeen utilized by 14 Presidents over thecourse of the better part of this lastcentury, since 1906, Republicans andDemocrats alike.

I think it would be a tragedy for thisHouse to use this back-door attempt totry and take away a power to have dis-astrous consequences on lands that be-long to the American public, and theywant us to exercise this sort of stew-ardship.

I would ask them to at least have thedecency to bring forward legislation torepeal the Antiquities Act and do thisin a straightforward fashion.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to thegentleman from Utah.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman and everybody on that sidevoted for two pieces of legislation tonot repeal it but to take care of it. Andwhat the gentleman has said and theother gentleman has said about law en-forcement and other areas is just nottrue.

What this does, if this gets through,all that ground will stay under the

management plan it now has, which al-lows for law enforcement, which allowsfor cars. It does not make any changeswhatsoever.


Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to thegentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that issimply not what the Department of theInterior and the Forest Service say.They say that once it is designated asa monument, this amendment applies.They cannot do law enforcement, theycannot do planning, they cannot takecare of the visitor. They legallychanged the designation and thuswould be impacted.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will continue to yield, Iwould be happy if he would put in thereto repeal that project. I would be veryhappy to have him do that. And whenall else fails, read it and he will see heis wrong.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to say thisslowly to my friends on the other sidejust so we keep our eye on the ballhere. This requires that the agencies ofthe Federal Government to deal in landmanagement comply with the law.

Talk about lawsuits. We are going tohave big lawsuits if they do not complywith the law and adopt this amend-ment. That is what we are talkingabout here.

The means to do justify the end.That is what this administration seemsto want to do is just say, we do notcare about the law, we just want to getthis done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe distinguished gentleman from Alas-ka (Mr. YOUNG), the chairman of theCommittee on Resources.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I thank the gentleman for yield-ing me the time.

Mr. Chairman, it has been an inter-esting conversation. I will stay awayfrom the monuments, but we will talkabout that later. We did vote on themon this floor. If the gentleman did notvote for it, he was not doing his duty.

I am a little disappointed that thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) opposes the Nethercutt amend-ment. The Nethercutt amendment doesexactly what he says it does, it followsthe law.

I know the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS) likes to follow thelaw. He goes to the State of Alaska andcatches all my salmon. And the bestthing I want to do is have the salmonreestablished on the Columbia River sohe quits raiding my fish in Alaska. Imean, especially when he takes numer-ous amounts of those fish that I wouldlike to take myself.

I would like to suggest one thing.The Nethercutt amendment does ex-actly what is correct, following thelaws that this Congress passed. Butthis administration has a great tend-ency to not to follow the law in any

way, shape, or form. This is theirhabit. This is their MO. They care lit-tle about this Congress. We are goingto do what we think is right and forgetthe people of America.

Now, the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) said it ex-actly right, the Columbia initiativewas in fact a designation and a studyon the Columbia River concerningmostly Oregon and Washington, Mon-tana, Idaho, State River, ColumbiaRiver, etc.; and it is all being done bythe agencies.

And my colleagues want to have a de-cision that goes against the laws onthe books today, a decision made by anadministration that does not really fol-low the law? They want to include thisCongress in that decision on how it willaffect the local economy? They want tohave a decision made now so we do nothave further actions by the judicialbranch?

I am going to suggest, respectfully, ifthe Nethercutt amendment is notadopted it will end up in court andnothing will occur and no solution willbe reached.

So I am suggesting that theNethercutt amendment is the rightway to go. This is what should be doneand will be done if we do what is right.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. GEORGE MILLER).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemanfor yielding me the time, and I rise inopposition to the Nethercutt amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amend-ment is very poorly directed in a sensethat if my colleagues are complainingabout whether or not it is too expen-sive, I think this amendment onlymakes this process far more expensive.I think, also, the amendment is tar-geted at trying to declare the BasinManagement Plan something that it isnot, and that is that it is not a regu-latory process, it is a managementplan.

All of us have gone through this. Wehave gone through this in the SierraMountains, where we have known thatwe cannot deal with this on an individ-ualized little watershed bill; we havegot to look at the entire ecosystem.

In California we just completed withthe governor and the Secretary of Inte-rior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because ifwe do not do that, it is very clear thatall the pieces in and of themselves aredeficient and they are deficient so weend up shutting down the water systemin California, whether it is the irriga-tion system for our farmers, whether itis the drinking water for our cities, be-cause the system cannot be operated insuch a fashion.

In order to stave that off, we engagedin comprehensive basin managementjust as we are talking about on the Co-lumbia River. Because the gentlemanfrom Washington is right, if we stopthis process, if we kill this process,then we go back to the status quo. And


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4504 June 15, 2000the status quo, it is a no-brainer for acourt to put them right back into thesituation that they are in on the otherside of the mountains, on the westernside, where they had chaos, where theyhad just chaos ruling in terms ofwhether people lost their jobs or com-munities did not do well or whether theforests were harvested or not har-vested.

This is a chance to get ahead of thatcurve. They spent $15 million trying toget ahead of that curve. They had end-less meetings with local towns andcommunities and political subdivisionsand all of that. And the question is,can they come up with a plan so theycan continue to improve this, may con-tinue the viability of the basin.

This is no different than what we areconfronting all over the West. And weare doing it so that we can escape thechaos of individualized slapping downof endangered species problems and allthe rest of that. Because that is whythis plan came into being, because weknow what we can front down the road.

So it is very easy that if they stopthis, in fact, the evidence is so clear onits face that the judge simply decidesthat they cannot provide the level ofmanagement to provide the kinds ofprotections that are necessary to thehabitat, to the watersheds, to the spe-cies; and, therefore, they are back intochaos.

And it is difficult. We have been atthis a number of years in Californiawith the Cal Fed process. As difficultas it is, all parts of the puzzle recognizethat, with a comprehensive manage-ment plan, they in fact are in a betterplace than what they would be.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-man, I do not disagree with the factabout how complicated and difficultthese are to work through. I think wewould all agree on that.

But what I keep hearing is howICBEMP is going to resolve this issuejust as the Northwest Forest Plan wasresolved on the West side. Is the gen-tleman arguing that the NorthwestForest Plan is a success and has metits goals?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Iam arguing that what we have learnedis that, absent comprehensive plansthat address all facets of the variouslarge basins, the large systems, wheth-er it is the Sierra or the ColumbiaRiver or the California water system,absent that, what they get is they getback into chaos because the individualattempts are not sufficient to providethe level of protection. So they findthemselves with the court runningtheir systems as opposed to the polit-ical leadership and the local commu-nities.


Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.I yield to the gentleman from Wash-ington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wantedto say this. We have been through this.On the West side, we were enjoined bythe Federal judge, no timber har-vesting. Zero.

The new administration came in andheld a summit in Portland, and nobodywas entirely pleased with the outcome,but we got the injunctions lifted. Wegot some timber harvest restored. Wegot a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to helpthe communities deal with these prob-lems. And we moved on.

What we are talking about here withthe Nethercutt amendment is goingback to the way we used to do business,and that way is going to lead us to theFederal Court’s injunction. And, again,he is going to hurt his own people.That is why I do not understand whyhe is doing this.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, asmy colleague knows, the court is backsaying the plan that has been put for-ward after that has been done on theNorthwest Forest Plan is still not incompliance. Because the survey andmanage requirements that were shovedin in the dark of night by this adminis-tration says the Forest Service hasbeen unable and may indeed be incapa-ble of meeting. We still are not achiev-ing the goals of that plan.

My point in this debate right here,right now, is that to use that as an ex-ample of success is not fair when it hasbeen a failure. I agree we have got tohave the science in place.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Ithink that is the case. Listen, they aregoing to continue to challenge us onCal Fed from either side, from the agri-cultural side and from the environ-mental side. They will continue tochallenge us on the Sierra plan. Butthe fact that they have a plan in placeallows the judge to look at that in amuch different fashion than if theyhave nothing in place so the judge canthen tinker with the plan, but they arenot back into wholesale injuctions onan eco-wide system. So that plan is se-rious, serious insulation from goingback to where they were.

I mean, maybe time has erased ourmemory what was going on in theNorthwest. But take ourselves back tothe late 1980s and 1990s, we had totalchaos.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-man, if the gentleman will continue toyield, so what he is arguing is that, ifwe are going to err at all, we need toerr on the side of following the law.Right?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.No. The gentleman can say whateverhe wants to say.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But theGeneral Accounting Office, in 1997, saysthat this does constitute a rule in theiropinion and, therefore, this small busi-ness would follow.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the De-partment of the Interior and the De-partment of Agriculture seriously dis-agree with that. Let us not pretendthat they do not.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 15 seconds to just say tomy friend from California, not from theNorthwest, this is not killing the proc-ess at all. We are just requiring thatthe agencies of the Government complywith the law.

The means do not justify the end.Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he

may consume to the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. HASTINGS), a distin-guished member of the Committee onRules.

b 1130Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I

thank the gentleman from Washingtonfor yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratu-late my friend from Eastern Wash-ington for all the work that he hasbeen doing on this issue. I do enjoyworking with my friend from westernWashington. We have worked on a lotof issues together that is obviously im-portant to my district. I do appreciatethat very much. But on this issue, ob-viously there is a basic difference as tohow we should approach our economyand our resources in our given area. Itis an honest difference of opinion, Ithink.

What I find very interesting in thearguments that I have heard heretoforefrom my friend from western Wash-ington and my friend from Oregon,they were saying that if we do not likethis process by going through the ap-propriation process, we ought to usethe authorizing process. I have alwaysbeen a proponent of that, but I wouldmake this point very clear. ICBEMPwas never authorized. It was done at atime in 1993 when that side of the aislecontrolled both houses of the Congressand for some reason they felt that theydid not need to authorize this project.It was put in an appropriations bill andnow we are living with the con-sequences of something that has grownfrom $5 million now to $56 million. Ithas kind of grown like Topsy and it hasgrown in scope, too.

Let me make a couple of points thatwere made by those on the other sideas far as their arguments. In his open-ing remarks, my friend from westernWashington was saying that in theplanning process, the ICBEMP providesmore certainty and it does not takeplanning out of the local jurisdictions.I would just make this observation.This ICBEMP as it has been expandedin this time period covers some 105counties in those seven States. Not oneof those counties has passed a resolu-tion in support of ICBEMP. In fact, tothe contrary, 65 of those counties havepassed resolutions in opposition toICBEMP for the very reason opposite ofwhat the gentleman said, they are con-cerned that this affects their planningprocess.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4505June 15, 2000Again, this seems to be a pattern

from this administration that we willhave these meetings that has beenmentioned a number of times, but atthe end of the day we are not going tolisten to the concerns of those at thelocal level. That seems to be a patternover and over and over.

What are the reasons why? I canstate one of my large counties in mydistrict, why they are concerned aboutthe Federal Government doing thisplanning and governing in one area, inthe northern part of my district inOkanogan County. They are concernedabout how the Forest Service is ad-dressing the issue of noxious weeds.They are not addressing the issue ofnoxious weeds in the forest land. Thatis going over into the private lands andit is putting a burden on the taxpayersin that area to fund the noxious weedboard. That is just one example whythey have a concern about the FederalGovernment taking over this planning.

Finally, I would like to as far as theresource part of it make this observa-tion, because the Endangered SpeciesAct has been a threat, that if we do notdo this, the Endangered Species Act isgoing to preempt everything, and wewill end up in a bad situation. I wouldmake this observation, that unless welisten to the local people that are af-fected, we are going to be in worseshape than we ever possibly think wecould. Because it seems to me the im-plicit idea or thought process of thisadministration is to not trust thosethat are elected at the local level tomake decisions. I find that, frankly,wrong.

There is another example in my dis-trict where local people have workedtogether trying to comply with the En-dangered Species Act as it is writtenright now through the HCP process.That was signed a couple of years agoby the Chelan and Douglas CountyPUDs. It still has not gone through thewhole NEPA process yet, but they arevery confident that if they go throughthat process, they can live to the letterof the law with the Endangered SpeciesAct. I for one, by the way, think thatthe Endangered Species Act ought tobe changed, but in the letter of the lawthey can. Why? Because this is localpeople working together to come to asolution. But ICBEMP, the way it isstructured and what we have seen doesnot allow for that to happen.

Finally, from the regulatory stand-point here with my friend from easternWashington’s amendment. This areathat we are talking about is largely anagricultural area. There is no hugeurban area like Portland, Oregon orlike Tacoma or like the Bay Area inCalifornia. There is no large urban arealike that. It is largely agriculture. Ifwe do not know what the impact isgoing to be on the farm implementdealers or the farm chemical dealers orthe food processors who are largelysmaller businesses in that area, thenwe are not doing a service to those thatare going to be affected. That is all

that this amendment does, is to say,let us put everything into the mix andfollow the law. After all, this is an un-authorized project. If the concern isthat it goes for one more year, what iswrong with that, as long as we get itright? Because this will have a big im-pact on my constituents.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge mycolleagues to support my friend fromeastern Washington’s amendment. Ithink it is the right thing to do inorder to clarify where ICBEMP isgoing.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromMontana (Mr. HILL).

(Mr. HILL of Montana asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank thegentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, my constituents aredeeply concerned about this interiorColumbia Basin management plan.They see this as kind of a classical baitand switch that occurred. Basicallywhat happened is that the Clinton ad-ministration proposed this study as ascientific assessment so that we wouldhave a regionwide science that could beapplied to the individual forests for thedevelopment and the renewal of the in-dividual forest management plans. Inthe process, the administration went tothe local governments and solicitedtheir input and their participation andinvited them to participate in the proc-ess. As a consequence of that, therewas pretty broad support for doing thisscientific assessment, because, as thegentleman from California pointed out,it was necessary for us to be able tohave local forest management plans, tohave regionwide science in the develop-ment of those plans.

But along the way, things changed.The administration decided that it wasgoing to shift this from a scientific as-sessment to a decision-making docu-ment. What does that mean? It meansthat the standards and the rules andregulations that would be determinedin interior Columbia Basin would beimposed on the local forests. The con-sequence of that is that now the indi-vidual forests cannot make individualforest management decisions. Theyhave to comply with an increasingnumber of standards and rules and reg-ulations that are on a regionwide basis.We have heard some talk out hereabout the success of this in a narrowregional area west of the Cascades.But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and theBLM lands that are being impacted byinterior Columbia Basin are diverse.The species of trees is diverse. The ele-vations are diverse. The amount ofrainfall that occurs is diverse. There islittle similarity in these forests exceptthat they are all part of the ColumbiaRiver drainage.

In any event, the administrationthen determined that it was going tobasically override the intent of Con-gress. Congress has said it wants forestmanagement, land management deci-

sions made locally by making an over-riding regional decision document.

The problem today is that this Inte-rior-Columbia Basin issue and the RegFlex issue is kind of caught up in a big-ger set of issues. Because right now wehave the designation of national monu-ments going on, the roadless forest ini-tiative going on, mineral and oil andgas withdrawals of the Clinton admin-istration, proposals to breach the damson the Snake River and ICBEMP all oc-curring at one time. It is no wonderthat the people in this region feel likethere is a war being declared on themwith all these things happening.

What the gentleman from Washing-ton’s amendment is trying to do is dealwith just one narrow area. That saysthat if ICBEMP is going to go throughand it is going to be a decision-makingdocument, then let us make sure thatit complies with all the laws. If thegoal of this device is to eliminate in-junctions in court overriding local de-cisions, then it has to comply with allthe law. That is what this amendmentintends to do.

I urge the support of the amendment.Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from New York (Mr. HINCHEY)who is a valued member of the sub-committee.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one ofthe more unfortunate aspects of thepresent majority’s rule of this Houseover the last several years has beenthis propensity to attachantienvironmental riders to appropria-tions bills. Essentially that is what wehave here today in this particular con-text. Seven years ago, the administra-tion embarked upon a plan to improveenvironmental management in the Co-lumbia River Basin. All of the land af-fected by this plan, by the way, andvery importantly, is public land.

It is not private land. It is publicland. It is land owned by all of the peo-ple of the country. So my constituentsin New York as well as every con-stituent of every Member of this Househas a stake in the development of thisplan to manage important public re-sources in the Columbia River basin.That project has gone forward. It hasgone forward very carefully, very intel-ligently, and in a very open way.

An environmental impact statementhas been produced. A supplemental en-vironmental impact statement hasbeen produced. All of the activitieshere have been based on good, sound,responsible science. The intention is toimprove habitat in the Columbia River,to improve habitat for bull trout, forsalmon, to improve recreational re-sources, to improve timber resources,and to have a comprehensive planwhich will stand and which will allowpeople all across the spectrum, fromrecreational uses all across the spec-trum to extracted uses to be able touse this public land in the most effec-tive and efficient way.

Now we have this amendment to theDicks amendment which would block


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4506 June 15, 2000implementation of this Pacific North-west plan for forest watersheds and en-dangered species. It would do so by at-tempting to superimpose an aspect ofthe small business law onto the envi-ronmental law, to take one piece of alaw and inappropriately attach it to asituation where it does not belong, hasno standing, has no meaning andmakes no sense.

Therefore alone, for that reasonalone, just on the structural basis of it,the technical aspects of it, this amend-ment ought to be rejected. But it oughtto be rejected on much more solidground and much more importantground, and that is this, we are herediscussing the future of a very impor-tant part of America. Again, I empha-size, a part owned by all of the citizensof this country, held in trust by theFederal Government, administered bythe Bureau of Land Management andother agencies within the Departmentof the Interior.

Now, everybody has a responsibilityto make sure that this works and thisantienvironmental rider inappropri-ately attached to this bill ought to bevery soundly and solidly rejected.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 10 seconds to say that justbecause someone says that it is anantienvironmental rider does not meanthat it is. This is complying with thelaw.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes tothe gentleman from Oregon (Mr. WAL-DEN) who is from the region that is af-fected by this study, not from outsideour region.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-man, it is interesting to follow some-body from New York who has a districtalong the river much like the ColumbiaRiver, the Hudson River. There is a lotof similarity there. The difference isthey do not have this kind of a plan-ning process in place by the FederalGovernment, ICBEMP.

I want to talk for a moment, Mr.Chairman, about the relationship ofthis requirement for this rule. TheGAO, the General Accounting Officegeneral counsel wrote in July of 1997 aletter to Congress that a national for-est land and resource management plangenerally was considered a rule for thepurposes of this Small Business Regu-latory Act. Failure to comply with thisact is judicially reviewable and courtshave invalidated agency rules on thisbasis.

All we are asking here is for this ad-ministration to follow the law. And ifthere is a question about whether thisis legal or not, would it not be time forthis administration to err on the sideof following the law if there is a ques-tion? Would that not be refreshing?

Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a mo-ment about the monument issue, be-cause we have heard a lot about theAntiquities Act. I have a copy of therelevant statute here. Let me readfrom it, that ‘‘any person who shall ap-propriate, excavate, injure or destroyany historic or prehistoric ruin or

monument or any object of an antiq-uity situated on the lands owned orcontrolled by the government of theUnited States.’’

b 1145

That is what we are talking about,these objects, these archeological fines.It goes on to say, that the Governmentmay reserve as a part thereof parcels ofland, the limits of which in all casesshall be confined to the smallest areacompatible with the proper care andmanagement of the objects to be pro-tected.

And then it goes on to talking aboutarcheological sites, small little objects,and we are going to protect the landaround it. Ladies and gentlemen, thisis not the smallest area possible to pro-tect an archeological find, is it?

These are the areas that have beenapproved already, and, in fact, I wantto point out a factual error because theHanford Reach National Monument de-clared a week or so ago is actually202,000 acres, not 195,000 acres. Theseare monument proposals all in theworks right now that people are talk-ing about, could total 149 million acres,almost 150 million acres. Ladies andgentlemen, the ICBEMP proposal cov-ers 144 million acres.

I want to share with my colleaguesthe fact that that is an area, if we tookall of these national monuments thatare being considered by differentgroups and perhaps this administrationinto account, this is an area more thanall these States combined: West Vir-ginia, Maryland, Vermont, New Hamp-shire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ha-waii, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana,Rhode Island, and the District of Co-lumbia combined.

This administration can do this byfiat. This is not the way to managepublic lands in this country. This is aviolation of the Antiquities Act. TheAntiquities Act is about objects andmonuments and those sorts of things.Read it. It is right here; I will share itwith my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I support theNethercutt amendment. We can havethis science in this planning, and wecan have this administration follow thelaw as well.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 31⁄2minutes to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. INSLEE), who formerly rep-resented this part of the area, who is adistinguished member of the House anda very strong environmentalist.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, as aMember of the Washington delegation,I rise in very, very vigorous oppositionto the Nethercutt amendment. And Iwould like to share with my fellowMembers why I do.

I know this area very, very well, andthe Interior-Columbia Basin. It is anarea my colleagues should come see. Itis an area where Lewis and Clark firstencountered the salmon cultures of

North America, where they first camedown the Snake River and they raninto the Columbia River, and guesswhat they found? They found an entirepeople who lived on salmon.

Lewis and Clark in their journals inUndaunted Courage, Members shouldread it, it is a great book, said theycould walk on the backs of salmon lit-erally across the small areas of the Co-lumbia River when the first Europeanarrived.

Now, today, we have at least 12 runsof salmon that are endangered. Theyare on the verge of going to extinctionforever at our hands, at our hands, atthe hand of the Federal Government,who has not to date acted in their in-terests to make sure that we do nottake natural-use land policies on Fed-eral land that drive them to extinction.

I am here to ask that my colleaguesfrom across the country to come to theaid of the State of Washington to savethe salmon that Lewis and Clark firstdiscovered in the Columbia River. AndI want to tell my colleagues that if thisamendment were to pass, it would gutthe most meaningful effort we have todate to make sure that we the FederalGovernment plays its role in savingthese salmon.

Now what would this do, what wouldthe study simply do? It would do whatI think is common sense. It would tryto have some coordination between the62 land-use plans, the 32 forest plansthat are now independently running offin their separate directions like chick-ens with their heads cut off. This wouldsend us right back to those old days ofagencies not acting in coordination.

I want to address specifically those. Iwant to address those who are veryconcerned about the potential of dambreaching on the Snake River, andthose are legitimate concerns.

I want to tell my colleagues that thesingle most effective way we couldsend us all down this dam breachingroad, is to ignore the common sensethings we need to do that we hope theForest Service and BLM will do to helprestore habitat. Because I can tell mycolleagues this, if we fail in our obliga-tion to restore salmon habitat, if wefail in our obligation to change hatch-ery processes, if we fail in these obliga-tions, in these responsibilities, thenthe potential exists that we do get intoa dam breaching scenario.

Those who want to speak about dambreaching, the last thing we should dois to try to stop the Federal Govern-ment from taking common sense meas-ures to do something about salmon.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Chairman, I just simply want to makethis point, because the basis of the ar-gument of the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. INSLEE) has been on thesalmon, and the implication of his ar-gument is such that only the FederalGovernment can make the right plans.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4507June 15, 2000My question to the gentleman, since

the gentleman used to represent thatdistrict that I now represent, is thegentleman aware of the Vernita Baragreement, which is a local agreementbetween the local State and FederalGovernment that has enhanced thesalmon runs? In fact, we are now seeingthe benefits of that. Because I thinkthe gentleman probably is aware thatthe spring chinook run coming back tothe Columbia River is higher than ithas ever been since they started keep-ing records in the mid-1950s.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 10 seconds to just say thisdoes not gut anything. The Nethercuttamendment simply says comply withthe law, so we do not have huge law-suits later.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from California (Mr.CUNNINGHAM).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Ithink this is a good debate.

Mr. Chairman, one of the gentlemensays that if we have a plan that givesa judge a better opportunity to look,well, look at the tuna dolphin bill, thatpassed the House, that passed the Sen-ate, over 300 votes here. It was signedby the President, environmentalgroups supported it, animal rightsgroups supported it, but the gentle-woman from California in the otherbody judge-shopped to get thatstopped, and that is why we are talkingabout this.

I have heard extremists, and I haveheard anti-environmentalists to askthe Government to follow the law isnot extremist. And I would like to takea look at the things that we are actu-ally looking at in this amendment.

Californians, when they complain,they call it extremists because we donot want to follow the Antiquities Acton millions of acres without review.This is East Coast and all the coloredlands in here are owned by the Govern-ment.

Now, when we turn this chart around,Mr. Chairman, this is what is in theWest. When the President takes Utahand millions of acres and millions ofacres in Oregon and other areas, whenthe Antiquities Act was met, the aver-age is 47 acres, then that is damagingto California and the West.

Yet we are called extremists becausewe want to limit that. And all we areasking, and what the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) is ask-ing, is that for the Government to fol-low the law; that is not extremist.That is not anti-environmentalist.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, will the gentlemanyield?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to thegentleman from California.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlemanon tuna dolphin, the Government didnot follow the law. They failed to dothe studies but went ahead with the ac-tion and the judge said, no, the lawsays you have to do the studies, do thestudies.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,reclaiming my time, the White House,violation after violation of things, lookat what Secretary Babbitt has done;and we are saying that in those casesthen the Government should have tofollow the law, and that is the reason Isupport the Nethercutt amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Oregon(Mr. BLUMENAUER).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to ask, my colleague fromeastern Washington said talk real slow,the allegation here is following thelaw. What they are basing this on is aGAO report on the Tongas wilderness.This would subject a precedent thatthey somehow want to stretch to everyland use decision. No court has ever de-cided this.

This was a GAO opinion from 1973. Nocourt has ever decided it, but I find itironic that our colleagues on the otherside of the aisle are somehow holdingup to such reverence a GAO reportwhen they do not do this for miningpractices, for timber practices, forabuse in the oil industry. These are allGAO reports that the majority has seenfit to avert their eyes; but here, theywould subject every land use process toan opinion that devolves from this oneitem.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 15 seconds to just pointout to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.BLUMENAUER), he has not read the lawwith respect to Northwest Mining As-sociation versus Babbitt, 5 F. Supp. 2d9, DC District Court, 1998. That is abso-lutely contrary to the statement thatthe gentleman from Oregon (Mr.BLUMENAUER) has just made.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes tothe gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs.CHENOWETH-HAGE).

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chair-man, I thank the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) foryielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, we really have tofocus on what the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) is tryingto do here. As I sat and listened to thedebate last night and as I listened to ittoday, I find that this side of the aisleis really trying to constrain spendingand keep the agencies confined to theletter of the law, while we see theother side not really seeming to care ifwe go overbudget or spend a lot ofmoney.

Spending and spending seems to betheir flavor and the American peopleare saying pay down the debt and con-strain government and constrainspending. Now, this is the biggest, bestexample, this ICBEMP project, of aproject going way overbudget. This isthe poster child for the real paralysisof analysis that we find in the FederalGovernment of overspending, overana-lyzing, overregulating and not pro-ducing anything for $56 million, but ahuge plan that covers 62 Forest Serviceplans, multiple States, private prop-erty and State property.

All they have done is plan for $56 mil-lion. My colleagues, the Dicks amend-ment attempts to override reasonablelanguage requiring the administrationto follow the law, and that is all theNethercutt amendment is doing. Weshould not have to be here, but theagencies tend to ignore the law. Whatthe gentleman from Washington (Mr.NETHERCUTT) is doing is saying it sim-ply is not fair as the Congress had rec-ognized before in the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement and FairnessAct. It simply is not fair for a smallbusiness not to have the impact of gov-ernment agency decisions analyzed.

The Forest Service and all of theagencies must comply to that. Weshould not even have to be here, exceptthe gentleman from Washington (Mr.NETHERCUTT) is having to remind theagencies and this administration onceagain we simply need to follow the law.

The ICBEMP decision will havemajor impacts on small businesses, inIdaho, Montana, Oregon and Wash-ington; and this administration ignoresits responsibility under the law. AndCongress must not condone its effortsto side-step the law.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I findit hard to believe that in one breath wecan say we are going to delay this proc-ess now for 7 years and then complainabout the fact that it has cost $56 mil-lion to do the process.

If we stop delaying it, let them issuethe Record of Decision, we can get onwith this. We have looked at the socio-economic consequence in the EIS.

THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair wouldadvise both Members that the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS)has 4 minutes remaining and the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr.NETHERCUTT) has 11⁄2 minutes remain-ing and the right to close.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from NewMexico (Mr. UDALL), who survived thefires; and we are glad he is here.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) for yielding tome.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me thatthe issue here is one of do we proceedon a piecemeal basis with the dev-astating consequences that we havehad or do we proceed and look at theoverall basin. All of us know that thegreat explorer that came out West,John Wesley Powell, when he looked atorganizing governmental units in thisarea, said we ought to look at basins;we ought to look at watersheds. Andwe did not take that advice, and whatwe have gotten today is a piecemealapproach.

b 1200

It has been absolutely devastating tothe natural resources, to the salmon,to the watershed, to the forest.

So what we have today is an attempt,what we have today is an attempt, tocontinue piecemeal, to continue to go


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4508 June 15, 2000into court, to continue to try to bogand slow down the process, rather thanlook at the whole Columbia RiverBasin. That is what the issue is heretoday, and it is an important issue, andit is an issue.

I am from the West. There have beencriticisms here from the other sideturning around and saying, oh, theseEasterners should not be able to talk.We ought to look at all of our basins inthe West. I am willing to have the RioGrande looked at. We are looking atthe Columbia River Basin. We ought tocontinue to look at a sound scientificapproach on our river basins.

So I would urge all of my colleagues,all of my colleagues, to reject thisamendment. It is antienvironmental, itis a return to a piecemeal approach,and it is not the approach that weshould be heading into in the 21st cen-tury in terms of dealing with our re-sources.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 10 seconds to say that Iam interested in the gentleman fromNew Mexico’s comments. The gen-tleman has come out and says he wantsto breach the dams in the lower SnakeRiver. So I do not give much credi-bility to the idea that this is somehowantienvironmental. It is just not.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield suchtime as he may consume to the gen-tleman from Oregon (Mr.BLUMENAUER), for a comment on thelegal issue.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Iwent over and looked at the citationfrom my colleague from eastern Wash-ington, and I apologize for not beingconversant with it, but it seems to mequite clear that what that is, it talksabout this as potentially reviewable.The point I made is that there is no ju-dicial determination on point thatwould apply this to a land use planningprocess, and I stand by that assertion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say tomy friend from Washington, we havehad a very spirited debate here today.We have discussed this issue. The ad-ministration feels very strongly thatfurther delay of this draft environ-mental impact statement is counter-productive, because what we are tryingto do is to protect this habitat andmake sure that we restore these salm-on runs, and also to make sure there issome commodity production on thelands that the gentleman is concernedabout.

What the gentleman is opening him-self up to by further delaying a ration-al answer, a scientifically credible, le-gally defensible answer, is the samekind of injunction that we got on theWest side which led to a total halt inall timber harvesting. So it is a high-risk strategy that I think will fail.

I must say also to my colleagues,who say do not breach the dams in theSnake River, if you are not going to dothat, and I agree with you on thatissue, but if you are not going to do

that, then you have got to do some-thing to protect this other habitat, sothat we can restore these fish runs, sowe can restore the bull trout, restorethe salmon runs on the Snake River.Yes, they may be healthy on the Co-lumbia River, but we have endangeredlistings on the Snake River.

One cannot stop everything and sayyou are addressing the problem. Whatgovernment is about is coming forwardwith leadership, coming forward withproposals, working these things out.Our State had the forest and fish plan,we have had habitats conservationplans, where good people get togetherand work these things out.

I say to the gentleman, it is time tostop blocking this ICBEMP proposal,because you are undermining our abil-ity to solve these environmental prob-lems.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gen-tleman’s passion, but he is wrong. Weare not trying to stop anything. We aretrying to make this government com-ply with the law. Everything that hasbeen done, the $56 million that hasbeen submitted on this issue, it isgoing to remain. We are not going tostop anything. But, doggone it, if youare from the east side of the State ofWashington, and the gentleman is not,these decisions by these agencies havereal consequences on our people.

So I am not persuaded by the ideathat this is somehow stopping any-thing. It is simply saying comply withthe law. That is something this admin-istration has not done. It ought to stopright here.

We are going to use this ICBEMPproject, but, doggone it, do it right. Donot rush to judgment and use anymeans to get to your end, and that islock up our region, frankly, and dothings that are going to hurt our peo-ple.

So this is in the best interests of ourpeople. We are going to have litigationif we do not do this, my friend; we aregoing to have litigation if we do not doit.

So I am saying to my friends is, thisissue is separable from the nationalmonument issue, and all the cryingabout antienvironmental is just wrong.This is the most environmental thingwe can do, is make sure we are not tiedup in litigation on the other side of theissue.

Comply with the law, administration;do what you are supposed to do, and donot confuse this with someantienvironmental attitude. It is not. Iurge my colleagues to support thisamendment and do the right thing forthis country.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr.NETHERCUTT) to the amendment offeredby the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS).

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

RECORDED VOTE

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

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

vice, and there were—ayes 206, noes 221,not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 279]

AYES—206

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCookseyCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFletcherFoleyFossellaFowlerFrelinghuysenGalleglyGanske

GekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GreenwoodGutknechtHansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson, SamJones (NC)KasichKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLucas (OK)ManzulloMartinezMcCollumMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)NethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOseOxley

PackardPaulPeasePeterson (PA)PickeringPittsPomboPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRegulaReynoldsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShusterSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuSweeneyTalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyTraficantUptonVitterWaldenWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NOES—221

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBishop

BlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonClayClayton

ClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutsch


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4509June 15, 2000DicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerForbesFordFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrostGejdensonGephardtGilmanGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHoeffelHoldenHoltHooleyHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantos

LarsonLazioLeachLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PetriPhelpsPickettPomeroyPorterPrice (NC)Rahall

RamstadRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchakowskyScottSerranoShaysShermanShowsSisiskySkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezViscloskyWalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOT VOTING—7

CampbellDannerHinojosa

LofgrenMyrickVento

Young (FL)

b 1226

Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mrs.ROUKEMA, and Messrs. ANDREWS, POR-TER, and PETRI changed their vote from‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed hisvote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.The CHAIRMAN: Without objection,

the gentleman is recognized for fiveminutes.

There was no objection.Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would

like to engage in a colloquy with thechairman of the Subcommittee on theInterior of the Committee on Appro-priations.

As the gentleman is aware, the StoneLakes National Wildlife Refuge is inmy Eleventh Congressional District inCalifornia. Due to the controversy overits existence and management, thechairman has been instrumental in

limiting funds from being spent on landacquisitions for the refuge. I thank thechairman for his support over the yearson this issue.

Unfortunately, it has come to my at-tention that the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService has intentionally ignored thedirection from the Congress and com-mitments made to myself on this issue.The Service has been actively seekingand approving land purchases for theStone Lakes refuge. One documentedpurchase used CVPIA funds, Land andWater Conservation Funds, NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation Funds,Packard Foundation grant money, andStone Lakes environmental grantmoney. The amounts used for thesevarious sources totaled over $1.9 mil-lion.

It gets better. When the Director ofFish and Wildlife Service was askedabout this, she was not immediatelyaware of the purchase of land at StoneLakes.

b 1230

Apparently the regional manager ini-tiated and approved the purchaseswithout consulting her office. This ac-tion was in violation of congressionaldirection, and violated instructionfrom the director that proposed pur-chases for this refuge be brought to herattention.

While I would like to see the pur-chase negated, the damage is done. Theinnocent landowner who sold his prop-erty was lied to and misled about theFederal Government’s authority to buyhis property for Stone Lakes. The Fed-eral taxpayer is out the money andCongress has been ignored.

I have contacted the director of Fishand Wildlife, and we have met thismorning. However, as the Representa-tive of the area in question I must actto ensure that there is a consequenceto this ill-advised Federal action.

Mr. Chairman, in light of the Fishand Wildlife Service’s blatant disregardof the direction of Congress I ask thatthe gentleman work with me as thisbill moves forward in conference to in-clude the strongest language possibleto prevent any funds from being spentor handled by the Department of Inte-rior for purposes of buying land oreasements for Stone Lakes, includingadministrative funds. I also ask thatsuch language address the Depart-ment’s escalating acceptance of non-Federal funds to carry out purchases ofland and easements. The routine prac-tice of foundations and conservationorganizations giving money directly tothe Department has contributed toproblems at Stone Lakes. Without con-gressional oversight or accountability,the Department is bound to repeat his-tory.

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

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. I thank my colleaguefor bringing the Stone Lakes situationto my attention. I am very concerned

over the actions taken by the Serviceand the disregard of congressional in-tent and of the commitments made tothe gentleman by the director of theFish and Wildlife Service.

The committee held a hearing thisyear to address the multiple sources offunds used by the Service to establishrefuges and acquire land. At the re-quest of the committee, the GeneralAccounting Office looked at this issue.At the hearing, the GAO reported sev-eral facts that are cause for alarm andrelate to the gentleman’s problem. Letme share a few of the GAO’s findingswith the gentleman.

One, the Fish and Wildlife Service es-tablished 23 new refuges in the 5 yearsfrom 1994 through 1998. Fifteen of thoserefuges were established with non-appropriated funds, donations and ex-changes. Congressional approval, oreven notification, is not required to es-tablish a refuge with nonappropriatedfunds. After establishing refuges withdonated funds, the Service routinelyadds more land to those refuges withappropriated funds.

The Service has authority to acquireland for many different habitat and en-dangered species preservation purposes.As a result, just about any piece of un-developed land appears to be a poten-tial target for land acquisition by theService.

The Service has many differentsources for Federal land acquisition,appropriated funds through the Landand Water Conservation Fund and theNorth American Wetlands Conserva-tion Fund, nonappropriated fundsthrough the Migratory Bird Fund, anddonations and land exchanges.

To complete the land acquisition forall the current and planned refuges willrequire about $4 billion.

The Service continues to create newrefuges and expand existing refuges.Six new refuges were created in 1999.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of thegentleman from California (Mr. POMBO)has expired.

(On request of Mr. REGULA, and byunanimous consent, Mr. POMBO was al-lowed to proceed for 1 additionalminute.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman continue to yield?

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, theService does not consider the annualoperations and maintenance require-ments associated with establishing newrefuges when making its decisions onrefuge establishment.

I want to say to the Members, I thinkthis really goes around the policy-mak-ing responsibility of the Congress tohave this happen, and I think we needto address this issue in statute and re-quire the Congress to have a voice inthe establishment of refuges, becausewe end up with the cost of maintainingthem.

I want to assure the gentleman thatI will work with him on this issue asthis legislation moves into conferencewith the Senate.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4510 June 15, 2000Mr. POMBO. I want to thank the gen-

tleman for all of the help he has givenme on this issue over the year and Ilook forward to working with him.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HANSEN TOAMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DICKS

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment to the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. HANSEN to the

amendment offered by Mr. DICKS:Strike ‘‘planning and management of na-

tional monuments, or’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to theorder of the House of Wednesday, June14, 2000, the gentleman from Utah (Mr.HANSEN) and the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) each will con-trol 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Utah (Mr. HANSEN).

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

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

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, thegreat conservationist Teddy Rooseveltcould see, as he went through the West,and he was very familiar with theWest, that there were some things thatneeded protection. So he asked Con-gress to pass a law, and that was calledthe Antiquities Law that was passed in1906.

It is kind of fun and interesting to goback and read the information regard-ing the Antiquities Law. As they stoodon the floor and debated it, they saidwhat is this really going to do? Be-tween the gentleman from Texas andthe other gentleman, they said it willprotect the cave dwellers, or what theyhad there, and it should be called thecave dwellers bill.

In this particular instance, what doesit say? It amazes me, Mr. Chairman,because we have passed two previouspieces of information about this, 408 to2 this year and one the term before, butvery few people even take the time tolook at the law.

As Chairman John Sieberling used tosay, when all else fails, read the legis-lation. I could not agree more withthat.

When one goes to what this does, ittalks about going into these pre-his-toric ruins and what one can and can-not do. Then in the next section it saysthis, the limits of which in all casesshall be confined, now keep this inmind because everyone seems to ignorethis, shall be confined to the smallestarea compatible to protect that site.

What sites does it talk about? Ittalks about archeology. The RainbowBridge is a great example of a monu-ment in archeology.

It talks about historic. Where thetwo trains came together and we calledit the Golden Spike is a great historicexample of what we have.

Out of these things, and many peoplehave argued this, they say, gee, wewould not have the parks withoutthese.

Out of the Monuments Act came theGrand Canyon, came Zion’s and others,

but we did not have other laws up tothat point.

Now, I say that many of the presi-dents that my colleagues on the otherside have talked about did a good joband they created these very small,unique areas. However, along comesthis administration, we have anotherthing happen. In September of 1996, thePresident of the United States went tothe Grand Canyon and created theGrand Staircase Escalante. He forgotto tell anybody about it. Let us saythey intentionally told nobody aboutit.

Out of that, they did not take a smallthing like the law says. They did notmention an archeological or historic orscientific thing, like the law says, butthey went ahead and did 1.7 millionacres.

We were very curious, why did theydo that? So we subpoenaed that. Weeven wrote a little book. I hope some-body has read it. I doubt it, from thearguments I have heard about this, butit is called Behind Closed Doors.

Now let me read from this book whatthey say. McGinty, who was the chair-man of the Council of EnvironmentalQuality, she says this, I am increas-ingly of the view we should just dropthis Utah issue. These lands are notreally in danger.

Now, I would say to my colleagues,please listen to this if they would. Thisis a letter we had as we subpoenaedthese papers. The real remaining ques-tion is not so much what the lettersays but the political consequences ofdesignating these land as monuments,now listen, please listen, when they arenot really threatened with losing wil-derness status and they are probablynot the areas in the country most inneed of this designation.

Now listen to this. I talked aboutwhat other presidents have done. Nowlisten. Presidents have not used theirmonument designation authority inthis way in the past; only for large,dramatic parcels that are threatened.

Do we risk a backlash from the badguys? I guess I am one of those. Ittalks about it, but the discretion is toobroad. So now we find ourselves in asituation where, where is all of thisgoing? From that time to this timelook at all of these on this map thathave now come about; every one ofthem exceeding what the law says.

Do we designate what it is? No. Dowe use the smallest acreage? No. Andwe find ourselves in a position wherewe are losing this.

I find it interesting that the Sec-retary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, to theDenver School of Law said this, itwould be great to get these protectionissues resolved in the congressionallegislative process, but if that is notpossible I am prepared to go back tothe President and not only ask, notonly advise but implore him to use hispower under the Antiquities Act andsay, Mr. President, if he does he will bevindicated for generations to come.

So we have a brand new abuse, abrand new way to use it, never been

used before until this President comesabout.

I would ask people to realize what ishappening now and all over America isfor political purposes, and if they donot believe that, please read what theWhite House says, what the Depart-ment of Interior says. To me, in myopinion, I cannot believe that we areletting anyone do this.

Article 4, section 3 of the Constitu-tion says the ground of America is thepurview of Congress, not the purview ofthe President of the United States.

This act has outlived its usefulness,but as we saw from the gentleman fromOregon what we are going to see is awhole bunch of them, 25 more they aretelling me. Why does somebody notjust say let us put the whole West in?Let us put all western States in andcall it the Western National Monumentand get it over with. It will not meananything, but it sure will make a lot ofpeople happy around here. Nothing willchange but it may make a few peoplehappy around here, because nothinghas changed now.

Let me use the Grand Staircase as anexample. We talk about protection. Dowe realize under the management planof all of these areas, which it can stilldo, we have more protection than wedo under the Antiquities Act?

Now my friend from Washington andthe gentleman from Oregon said, oh,we cannot work these lands if this hap-pens. Here is the report, written by theCommittee on Appropriations. Nothingin this language prevents either Sec-retary from managing these Federallands under their previous manage-ment plan.

So what happens? They just go on asever. They can call it that, but nothinghappens. They can have police protec-tion. They will continue to manage theplans. That is a red herring.


Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5minutes to the gentleman from Wis-consin (Mr. OBEY), the distinguishedranking member, who has done a lot ofwork and research on the AntiquitiesAct.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a staticcountry. In the next decade, we willhave 20 to 25 million new people addedto our population. We will have 35 to 40percent more commercial airlineflights, God help us all. We will haveabout 35 million more people knockingon the doors of national parks.

If one does not think that thoseparks are overburdened, I invite themto visit Yellowstone or Yosemite orany other of a couple dozen nationalparks around the country and see howmuch people are crammed in.

It is in the national interest of theUnited States for additional areas ofspecial value to be preserved for futuregenerations.

Now we have heard an attack onPresident Clinton for abusing his power


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4511June 15, 2000in adding 9 additional national monu-ments to the Nation’s storehouse.

I would like to cite what the recordhas been since 1906. Teddy Roosevelt,and I recognize that the former Speak-er of the House, Mr. Gingrich, indi-cated that one of his goals was toeliminate the Roosevelt legacy fromthe Republican Party and return it tothe philosophy of William McKinley,but nonetheless, thank goodness,Teddy Roosevelt served a wonderfulstint as President and he acted 18times to put aside territory just likethis.

William Howard Taft, that well-known ‘‘leftist,’’ acted 11 times. Har-ding, Harding, that terrible, terrible‘‘liberal,’’ added 8 to the nationalstorehouse. Calvin Coolidge, that well-known ‘‘champion of activist govern-ment,’’ added 14.

b 1245

Herbert Hoover, that well-knownenemy of rugged individualism, let ussee, he added 12. Then we had Eisen-hower and Nixon. We know how far leftthey were. Right? They added eight.Wilson added 12. FDR was the cham-pion of them all, 23. Harry Truman,Harry Truman is the Democrat the Re-publicans love to quote but hate toemulate; he added seven.

So now my colleagues are beating upon President Clinton for adding nine.The fact is, out of 151 that were addedto the national storehouse since 1906,nine of them have been added by thisPresident. That is hardly out of linewith the historical record for the pre-vious occupants of that office.

There is only one I see who was lit-erally asleep on the job when it cameto having an opportunity to add pro-tected areas to the national store-house. That was President Bush whodid a grand total of one.

So it seems to me that PresidentClinton is well within the historicaltradition of the country in doing ex-actly what he has done. I would alsosay that, despite the fact that my goodfriend indicates that the Secretariesmaintain the ability to manage theselands as their former status would indi-cate, as forests or as wilderness, or aswildlife refuges, the general counselhas said that is not true. So we do notbelieve it is true. At best, it is an openquestion.

So it seems to me that we ought tostick with the amendment of the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS).What the President is trying to do is dowhat this Congress has not had thegumption to do, and I congratulate himfor it.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Alaska(Mr. YOUNG), the distinguished chair-man of the Committee on Resources.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair-man, I was listening with great inter-est to the statement of the gentleman

from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY). But if onetook all the land of all the Presidentsthat set aside those monuments, itequals one-third of what this Presidenthas done in the past 3 years. The origi-nal intent of the Antiquities Act wasnot to set aside vast areas of land; itwas to set aside those that are special.

I challenge anyone to show me whereany of the areas this President setaside in the massive acreage that hasoccurred that has anything specificallyspecial in those great borders. If it wasspecial, that one small area shouldhave been set aside. But this Presidentis using this act, which was never in-tended to do so, to designate and todictate the use of lands.

Under the Constitution, it says onlythe Congress shall have that responsi-bility. For this Congress and that sideof the aisle and the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) and the gen-tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) andthe rest of my colleagues to acquiesceto the executive branch is unconstitu-tional. My colleagues swore right up asI did, I swore to uphold the Constitu-tion of the United States of America.Yet, we sit in this body and allow thisact to be misused by this administra-tion and say, oh, it is to protect thoselands.

By the way, there was no local input,no understanding what effect wouldoccur economically, culturally, psy-chologically. It was decided downtown,in big Washington, D.C., who knowsbest for all. This is against the Con-stitution. He is not protecting whatshould be protected. He, in fact, is run-ning this as a fiefdom and a kingdom.

This Congress, to my knowledge, hasnever accepted any one of his monu-ments by the Representative from thatdistrict. If one goes back and checksTruman and Roosevelt and all thoseothers, he did it in consultation withthat Representative that was dulyelected by the people. I challenge thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) to show me one Congressmanthat supports that area as declared amonument.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEH-LERT), who has been a strong protectorof the environment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I risein opposition to this amendment. Weneed to reject this amendment andstrike the rider.

The language needs to be stricken be-cause its effect, to put it very bluntly,would be perverse. This language wouldput land in newly created nationalmonuments in a state of limbo. Thelands would remain national monu-ments; but the design, the planningand management necessary to fullyprotect the lands and to make them ac-cessible could not be accomplished.

Who could possibly gain from keep-ing lands in this sort of halfway-housecondition? Nobody.

Not those who want to preserve theenvironmental value of the lands. Theprohibition in this rider would blockthe planning and management neededto protect the environmental and cul-tural values that prompted the monu-mental designation.

Not those who want recreational ac-cess to the lands. The prohibition inthis rider would prevent the develop-ment of programs or centers to enablethe public to take greater advantage ofthe lands.

Not even those who have mineral orother economic interests in theselands. The prohibition in this riderwould prevent the development of rulesand policies that would determine howto handle their claims.

So why would anyone propose a riderthat cannot help anyone concernedabout national monuments and a riderthat would cause this entire bill to bevetoed to boot? The reason is that theproponents of this rider want to signaltheir opposition to the 1906 AntiquitiesAct itself and with the particularmonument designations that have beenmade this year.

But they have plenty of other waysto do that directly. The Congress couldamend the Antiquities Act. The Con-gress could override any particularmonument designation. The Congresscould reject any particular manage-ment plan for a monument. Congresshas all the direct authority it needs tohave a full debate about lands policy.

But they do not want to do that be-cause Congress has repeatedly shownits unwillingness to significantly alterwith monument authority or designa-tion. So, instead, we have a rider to tryto do it in an indirect and inartful waythrough the appropriations processwhich could not be done through directcongressional action; namely, derail ef-forts to protect Federal lands throughthe use of the Antiquities Act. That isa misuse of the appropriations process,and it is especially misguided in thiscase because the direct impact of thelanguage is so counterproductive.

So I urge my colleagues not to turnthe discussions on this rider into a de-bate over the legitimacy of the Antiq-uities Act or the wisdom of any par-ticular monument designation. If Con-gress wants to weigh in on these mat-ters, it can and should do so directly.In any event, the rider leaves the actand all recent proclamations entirelyintact.

This debate should be about the spe-cific language in the rider which willleave the status of the land in an un-certain State which would hobble ef-forts to protect Federal lands andwhich would improperly take advan-tage of the appropriations process. It isa bad rider, and it should be stricken.

I urge a no vote on the Hansenamendment.


Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want tocompliment the gentleman from New


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4512 June 15, 2000York (Mr. BOEHLERT) on his statementand make this point: the effect state-ment of the Department of Interior ba-sically says that, if this languagepasses, that we have basically neuteredor gutted the Antiquities Act. It makesit impossible for the President to pro-tect these important lands.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is exactlyright, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the otherpoint I want to make is he does notjust go out and do this on any land. Ithas to be land that has previously beenunder Federal management. In mostcases, they are still hunting and hikingand canoeing and other things that canbe done on this land.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman is correct.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are notinstantly creating wilderness. So thegentleman is a moderate, a centrist,one of the most respected Members ofthis House. I think this language goesway too far. I think it will be a badthing for, not only this President, whoa lot of the people in this Chamber donot seem to like, but for the futurePresident who may want to protect animportant monument for this country.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman fromUtah for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very much infavor of this amendment. The previousremarks that were made by the gen-tleman from western Washington (Mr.DICKS) and by the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. BOEHLERT) was that thisland had to be under Federal owner-ship. That is exactly right.

But let me tell my colleagues aboutwhat happened in my district with thelatest monument that was created.Those lands largely in the early 1940swere under private land; but because ofthe Second World War, the Governmenttook them over.

Now, the Hanford Reach runsthrough that area. For those of my col-leagues who do not know, the HanfordReach is the last free-flowing stretch ofthe Columbia River. The issue, the peo-ple will talk about the Hanford Reachand say we need to protect it forspawning reasons. Well, this Congressalready acted on that. In 1995, wepassed a bill to prevent any dam build-ing, any dredging, any channelling ofthat river. So the spawning beds are al-ready protected. What we are talkingabout is the lands surrounding theriver.

Now, there has been a lot of discus-sion on this, and there are differentideas. My idea is an idea that is pro-posed by a citizens committee thatworked for nearly 2 years coming upwith a management plan that is in op-position to a one-size-fits-all Federalplan.

What they came up with is a sharedplan that involved the Federal Govern-ment, that involved the State govern-

ment, involved the local government.It allowed for local decision-making forthe people that live and work andrecreate in that area.

But with this action of the monu-ment, with this action of the monu-ment, all of this work is taken away.As a matter of fact, this monumentdesignation for the Hanford Reach ismore likely, more extreme than anybill that had been introduced address-ing this issue in the time that I havebeen in Congress.

So I think, frankly, it is a slap in theface to those that live and work in thatarea. I think that the amendment ofthe gentleman from Utah (Mr. HANSEN)is exactly the right amendment, be-cause what we are talking about here,as the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.YOUNG) pointed out, is an abuse ofpower and process by this President indesignating monuments. This is a clas-sic example of how that has happenedbecause the people in that area cameup with the plan.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. GEORGE MILLER).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment andthis debate is really about America’slands. It is not about the lands thatany one Member of Congress controls.It is not about the lands of any oneState. It is about the lands of this Na-tion, the great public lands that belongto all of the people of this Nation.

This summer, millions of Americanswill set off with their families to visitour wilderness areas, to visit our na-tional parks, to visit our nationalmonuments, to visit our historicalsites, one, because they want to enjoythe historical aspects, the cultural as-pects of these great lands, of the tradi-tion of our country, of the history ofour country. They want to share thatwith their children, with their grand-parents, their grandchildren. Many ofthem will remember when their par-ents took them on such a trip.

Because of the bold actions of thisPresident, the vision of this President,of this administration, to think aboutthe future, to think about the threat tothese lands, they will be able to dothat, and their children will be able todo that, and their grandchildren will beable to do that.

They will be able to visit the pin-nacles of the midcoast of Californiawhose protection is enhanced becauseof the enlargement of that monument.They will be able to visit the 3,000-year-old Sequoia trees that reach 300feet into the air because this Presidentmade them a national monument. Be-cause if we do not do this, we go backto the old management regime, if mycolleagues believe what the gentlemanfrom Utah (Mr. HANSEN) said, that ev-erything just goes back to the way itwas. The way it was, we were cuttingthe Sequoias. We were destroying theenvironment of the Sequoias.

The Sequoias, the cathedral trees,the largest of the largest were threat-

ened by the actions around them. Thatis why this President took his action.This is a gift. This is a gift to our Na-tion, just as Yosemite was a gift to ourNation, just as Glacier was a gift toour Nation, the Grand Canyon and theEverglades.

This is a gift to our people, of havingthe foresight to go in, whether it wasTeddy Roosevelt or Franklin Rooseveltor President Clinton, to go in and un-derstand the threat and the need topreserve these lands, to understandthat this country is filling up with peo-ple, that California is filling up withalmost 35 million people, and that theywant a place to go and to take theirfamilies so that they can recreate, thatthey can enjoy the history.

b 1300

Because of the actions of this Presi-dent in southern Oregon, parts of theOregon Trail will be preserved so peo-ple can go there and undertake andlook at the remarkable actions of thepeople who had the courage to set outfrom the Mississippi River to settle theWest.

A member of my family walked thatfive times, bringing young people tothe west from Missouri. A member ofmy family set out and he walked thatfirst group, his children, as a weddinggift, because he thought they were tooyoung to cross the country by them-selves. They were 15 and 16 years old,they were married and they were goingWest. They ended up in Eureka, Cali-fornia, where this President had theforesight to protect the HeadwatersForest, the great cathedral trees of theredwoods on the North Coast, like thegreat cathedral trees of the Sequoias.

This amendment should be rejectedbecause this amendment is an attackon our culture, our history, our legacy,and the great environmental assets. Ifmy colleagues go to a foreign nation,their people will talk about our na-tional parks, the so-called crown jew-els. Talk to the businesses in theseareas, and they will talk about the eco-nomic engines that wilderness areas,that monuments, and that nationalparks become for the business commu-nities and for local communities.

This amendment should be rejectedand America’s wild lands and Amer-ica’s great environmental assets shouldbe protected.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would re-mind members in the gallery that theyare guests of the House, and either ap-proval or disapproval of any state-ments made by the Members is againstthe rules of the House.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Ari-zona (Mr. HAYWORTH).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, Irise in support of the amendment of-fered by my friend, the gentleman fromUtah (Mr. HANSEN), and I would simplysay to the House that, sadly, what thepreceding speaker is telling us is thatthe ends justify the means. If we mean


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4513June 15, 2000well; if we, through good intentions orperhaps a form of arrogance, say we arebetter than others, that our motivesare more pure than the Constitution ofthe United States, well, then, the lawreally makes no difference.

Perhaps, my colleagues, it would begood to actually listen to the words ofthe Constitution that we all swear touphold, protect and defend; article 4,section 3, the second paragraph. ‘‘TheCongress shall have the power to dis-pose of and make all needful rules andregulations respecting the territory orother property belonging to the UnitedStates.’’

My colleagues, the history was laidout correctly by the gentleman fromUtah. The Antiquities Act was de-signed to protect archeological treas-ures and, really, in the fullness of time,to jump start a national parks system.The problem we have is not the Antiq-uities Act, it is not living up to the An-tiquities Act, not setting aside thesmallest amount of land possible andignoring the process of turning to theCongress for Congress’ constitutionallymandated responsibilities.

Indeed, to see a friend from Arizona,the Secretary of the Interior, testify infront of a congressional committee andto have the Secretary of the Interiorasked what his intention is regardingthese lands; could he tell this com-mittee what lands he plans to des-ignate, and then to have the Secretaryof the Interior say no, my colleagues,that is contempt of Congress. That iscontempt for the Constitution. That isnot love of the land.

This is not a question of preservationand conservation. We all believe inthat. There are ways to do that. Andwhether it was Franklin Roosevelt orTheodore Roosevelt, other presidentshave acted in consultation with theCongress. That is what is important.And in our drive to preserve and pro-tect lands, let us not destroy the Con-stitution.

Mr. Chairman, on another note, if myfriends on the left want to acquiescehere, then none of them should everstand in the way of any president whowants to usurp his constitutional au-thority vis-a-vis our military.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume,and I rise in opposition to the Hansenamendment.

I want to give my colleagues a senseof how the administration feels aboutthe subcommittee action and why theybelieve that it is so dangerous.

‘‘Although not completely clear onthe face of the rider, its prohibition onmanaging national monuments as na-tional monuments during FY 2001 is in-tended to effectively repeal the Presi-dent’s proclamations made since theend of FY 1999.’’ Very cleverly writtenlanguage, by the way. ‘‘This intent ismade clear in the Committee report,which calls on the Secretaries of theInterior and Agriculture to continueprevious management scenarios untilsuch time as Congress ratifies the

Monument declaration. As described inthe report, then, the amendment wouldrepeal the effect of recent monumentproclamations until Congress ratifiesthem, thus effectively nullifying thePresident’s exercise of the authorityCongress gave him in the AntiquitiesAct.

‘‘The Antiquities Act has been one ofthe Nation’s most effective protectiontools, implemented by both Republicanand Democratic administrations since1906. The proposed amendment, a riderto an appropriations bill, would essen-tially neuter the Antiquities Act by de-nying the responsible Federal agenciesthe ability to enforce key elements ofthe monument proclamations madesince 1999. In the Antiquities Act, Con-gress vested in the President the abil-ity to act quickly to protect portionsof the existing Federal estate. In thisappropriations provision, added with-out the congressional considerationthat would normally accompany thesubstantive modification of an author-izing statute, the subcommittee is at-tempting to undo much of that author-ity for areas designated since 1999. Theamendment would effectively strip thePresident of his ability to protect ob-jects of historic and scientific interestfor their unique value and for the en-joyment of the American people.

‘‘A related effect of the House amend-ment would be to expose nationalmonuments designated since 1999 toabuse and resource degradation, withpotentially devastating results. Man-agement as national monuments is pro-hibited by the rider language, so thatany action constrained or described ina monument proclamation would bedisallowed if affecting it required anexpenditure of funds appropriated bythe FY 2001 interior bill. This suggestsone of two outcomes, both unfortunatefor the American people. Either theFederal agencies, unable to enforce anotherwise valid Presidential proclama-tion, would be forced simply to closethose lands to any form of public use;or the Federal agencies, denied fundingto manage these monuments, wouldhave to abandon them to vandals,invasive species, uncontrolled resourceexploitation and other harm, untilCongress restored the funding neededto manage them.

‘‘For example, the rider would pre-vent the BLM from stopping mining ac-tivities in these monuments on claimslocated after the proclamation hadwithdrawn the area from operationunder the Mining Law. The languagewould also prevent the responsibleagencies from managing these lands forlivestock grazing, even when grazing isa use recognized in the proclamation,because such uses cannot be managedwithout funding.

‘‘A similar problem arises from alack of funding to enforce restrictionson highway vehicle use. The proclama-tion that established the Grand Can-yon-Parashant in Arizona, for instance,provides specifically that the BLMshall continue to issue and administer

grazing leases within the portion of themonument within the Lake Mead Na-tional Recreation Area consistent withthe Lake Mead National RecreationArea authorizing legislation.

‘‘And for the purpose of protectingthe objects identified above, all motor-ized and mechanized vehicle use offroad will be prohibited, except foremergency and authorized administra-tive purposes.

‘‘The House amendment makes it im-possible to implement these portions ofa monument proclamation that dependon funding. Thus, enactment of therider could force BLM to remove live-stock from the Grand Canyon-Parashant, and close the area to vehi-cle use of any sort. Alternatively, BLMwould be forced to walk away from thisland all together, and abandon the en-forcement of OHV restrictions, themonitoring of grazing allotments, andthe review and renewal of grazing per-mits.’’

So I think this amendment is wrong.I do not think we properly consideredit in our committee. I think the gen-tleman from Utah, and others who areagainst the Antiquities Act, shoulddeal with it in the authorizing commit-tees and not here as an appropriationrider. That is why I so strongly objectto this amendment.


Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman fromIdaho (Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE).

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chair-man, I thank the gentleman from Utahfor yielding me this time, and I rise instrong support of his amendment.

My colleagues, this administration isinvolved in a very desperate grab of ourFederal land, and I have to ask myselfwhy does the government need all thisland. The President is currently engag-ing in the biggest land grab since theinvasion of Poland.

Now, it was pointed out by the gen-tleman from Arizona very succinctlythat there is a strong reason why thegentleman from Utah is offering hisamendment, and this is the reasonwhy. The Constitution clearly assignsto the Congress the power to dispensewith public lands.

Now, I put together a list here, Mr.Chairman, to show that the adminis-tration’s abuses of the Antiquities Actis taking in about 150 million acres,that we know of, that the President in-tends to lock up. Now, that is what weknow of. But this administration is re-luctant to even tell the Congress ex-actly how many monuments and ex-actly how much land is involved.

In fact, the process that has been setup previously by the United StatesCongress to have these processes go ina manner so that we understand the en-vironmental and economic impact andhow it affects people’s lives, how it af-fects counties and States, all of thishas been abused. This is all done with-out the benefit of the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4514 June 15, 2000But, environmental organizations are

working to declare lands, or having thePresident declare lands in the West,these vast national monuments, nearly150 million acres. The Sierra Club andthe Wilderness Society, among others,have announced their desire to havethe President create over 50 more newmonuments, with a land area of morethan 150 million acres. This is an arealarger in the West than that comparedto West Virginia, Maryland, Vermont,New Hampshire, Massachusetts, NewJersey, Hawaii, New York, Con-necticut, Delaware, Indiana, Rhode Is-land and the District of Columbia com-bined. And this is done by presidentialedict.

The gentleman is absolutely right,we must support his amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. HINCHEY), a very valuedmember of our subcommittee and aperson who has had great experience inthese areas.

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

The first point I want to make is thatland cannot be ‘‘grabbed’’ if it is al-ready owned. All of these lands thatare being designated and have been des-ignated as national monuments areowned by the people of the UnitedStates, held in trust by the FederalGovernment and managed by the De-partment of the Interior. The amend-ment that we have before us here todaywould prevent, interestingly enough,Federal funds from being spent on ninefairly recently designated nationalmonuments.

Now, the designation of nationalmonuments under the 1906 AntiquitiesAct, passed by the Congress, of course,allows for the protection of natural andcultural resources that are underthreat or need for preservation or pro-tection. The point has been made that14 presidents since 1906 have used thisauthority. Lands designated as monu-ments are already owned by the Amer-ican public. Fifty million Americansenjoy these monuments every year.Monument designation provides perma-nent protection for long-term con-servation of areas that are critical tothe protection of resources and enjoy-ment by the public.

This antienvironmental rider targetsnine recent monuments that were cre-ated to protect unique national re-sources for all future generations toenjoy.

b 1315

A prohibition on spending funds onthese monuments does not changetheir legal status as monuments butwould prevent any ongoing spendingwithin the monument areas.

Visitors would still visit these lands,but this would prevent Federal mainte-nance and appropriate actions taken.The Department of the Interior wouldnot be able to provide law enforcementservice to visitors or maintain roads,

thereby threatening visitor safety. TheDepartment would be unable to processgrazing applications for the lands ormanage hunting or other suitable usesto public enjoyment.

This would hurt local people andlocal economies. It would hurt themthe most by preventing outfitters andguides from going into these monu-ments and not allowing management ofsuitable uses.

There is one other interesting aspectto this particular amendment that isbefore us now. It would prevent spend-ing on nine monuments, but it wouldnot prevent spending on a particularmonument in the State of Utah.


Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. HINCHEY)kidding me? Is he telling me that thegentleman from Utah (Mr. HANSEN) ex-empted his monument?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, the gentleman fromUtah (Mr. HANSEN) has exempted hismonument.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gen-tleman will continue to yield, so he isgoing to get funding for his monument?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, this amendmentsays they cannot spend Federal fundsfor nine monuments, and those monu-ments are located in California, in Ari-zona, in Colorado, Oregon, Washington;but they can spend money on themonument in Utah.

The budget that we have here todaywould spend, in fact, $5.3 million on avisitor center for a national monumentin the State of Utah. I believe that islocated in the district of the sponsor ofthis amendment, which would preventspending on these nine monuments inthese other States. This is an inter-esting feature of this particular amend-ment.

Now, I have always thought that cyn-icism is a personality trait to be avoid-ed, but one does not have to be terriblycynical to make the observation thatsomething very odd and unusual isgoing on here. It is okay to spendmoney on the monument in my dis-trict, but it is not okay to spend moneyon the monuments in people’s otherdistricts in other States. That strikesme as being very strange.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gen-tleman from Utah.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, whenthe President started this tirade, thiswas the first one he put in was theGrand Staircase Escalante. It has beenthere 4 years. Money has been appro-priated for it.

I would be happy, as I told the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS)and anyone else, to take all of themoney out. Why did they not do that?We did not ask for that 5.3 millionacres. That did not come from Utah.

That was from the administration.That did not come from us. If my col-leagues want to strike that and putthis in the amendment, I would acceptthat in a heartbeat. Go ahead and takeit. Take the dang thing.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, we are not inter-ested in striking funding for thatmonument or for the other nine thatthey would strike either. We believethat these national monuments, be-longing to all the people of the coun-try, deserve to be protected and thatthe 50 million people who visit themought to be treated properly and fairly.My colleague would deny then that op-portunity.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Ari-zona (Mr. SHADEGG).

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methe time.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a debateabout national monuments. EveryAmerican takes pride in their nationalmonuments. This is a debate aboutabuse of national monuments.

I just want to harken back to the lastspeaker. He would not yield time tome, but he began with a passionate de-bate saying we cannot lock up landthat we do not already own because thelaw specifically says the Federal Gov-ernment must already own these lands.Yes, the law says that. But I would likethe gentleman to tell me, was he awarethat, in fact, the President is lockingup lands the Federal Government doesnot own?

In the State of Arizona, in the last 6months, the President has createdthree new national monuments. Three.Count them. And he has done so by in-corporating into those national monu-ments tens of thousands of acres of notFederal land but State land.

The gentleman from New York (Mr.HINCHEY) was defending the use of thelaw in a proper fashion. This is the useof a law in an improper fashion. In Ari-zona, in one monument, they locked up53,000 acres of State land, not Federalland. In another one, they locked upanother 30,000 acres of State land.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a mapshowing the thousands of acres ofState land that was put into a nationalmonument in violation of the Federallaw.

That is precisely why this amend-ment is here, because this administra-tion is abusing the law.

Indeed, here is an editorial by theleading newspaper in the State of Ari-zona saying that preservation requiresinput and that they were not giventhat input and says, declaring monu-ment was not done right. The papergenerally supports monuments, as Ithink all Americans do, but not whenthe process is abused.

In Arizona, for example, there wereno public hearings whatsoever. Now,


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4515June 15, 2000my friend the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. GEORGE MILLER), says thisis a wonderful thing, all being done inaccordance with the law and all a goodidea and a compliment to this adminis-tration doing this in the proper orderof business.

If that is true, should we not ask our-selves why, of the nine national monu-ments which have been created by thisadministration, eight of the nine havebeen created in the last 6 months only?If these needed to be created, wherewere they 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 6years ago, 7 years ago?

This is about abuse of this law. Letme explain this. These are the Amer-ican people’s lands, and they do takepride in national monuments. But 8months ago I personally, in a formalhearing of this United States Congress,looked Secretary Babbitt in the eye,eyeball to eyeball, and said, Mr. Sec-retary, the people of America and thepeople of Arizona have a right to inputin this process. Will you provide thiscommittee with a list of the monu-ments you are considering across thisNation?

Secretary Babbitt looked me and thechairman and every other member ofthe committee in the eye and said, no,a one-word answer, no, I will not pro-vide you a list.

That cuts the American people out ofthe process. It is an abuse of the law.

I support the amendment, and I callon my colleagues to support it, as well.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. INSLEE).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise invigorous opposition to this amend-ment.

Presidents, Republican and Demo-crat, for decades have left the Amer-ican people great gifts across thiscountry; and today the U.S. House, orsome therein, attempt to gut the abil-ity to leave those gifts to the Americanpeople. And, apparently, the way theyare trying to do it is to make surethere are no fingerprints on the weaponto gut the ability to protect these giftsof the American people. Let me tell mycolleagues why.

We should be allowing Presidents tocreate national monuments. If thisamendment passes, all we will createare monuments to futility, monumentswhere we cannot do anything to pro-tect these gifts.

Let me tell my colleagues why thatis important. In the State of Wash-ington, 6 days ago, the President left agift to the American people creatingthe Hanford Reach Monument Area.Six days ago.

I will tell my colleagues, the peopleof the State of Washington want thatmonument. The people of the State ofWashington deserve that monument.And the people of the State of Wash-ington are going to get that monu-ment. And let me tell my colleagueswhy.

This is a picture of the HanfordReach, the last free-flowing stretch of

the Columbia River. Very close to thisis where Lewis and Clark first came tothe Columbia River. My colleagues cansee these white bluffs form a spectac-ular scenery over the Columbia.

Let me show my colleagues whathappened when we did not have thismonument. When we did not have thismonument, certain practices resultedin the absolute collapse of these whitecliffs; and we would have a quartermile of, essentially, dirt collapse intothe river right into this area and de-stroy salmon habitat and destroyspawning habitat.

We need to stop that from occurring.There was a comment by my colleagueabout something about the local peopledo not want this. Well, I have got amessage for the U.S. House from thefirst family of people who settled thisarea and broke this ground.

Lloyd Wheel, a 90-year-plus formerjudge, who grew up with the first Euro-pean family who homesteaded on thisproperty right outside this picture,Lloyd Wheel has a message for the U.S.House: do not destroy this monument.Protect these salmon. Make sure thenatural heritages are protected.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I amhappy to yield 2 minutes to my col-league, the gentleman from Utah (Mr.CANNON).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I feelstrongly that managing land throughunilateral executive orders estab-lishing national monuments is wrong.It ignores the role of Congress, the roleof the people who live nearer and clos-est to the land, and the role of localelected officials. I believe the con-sensus-based management accom-plishes more to protect the land thanhierarchical mandates.

Unilateral national monument des-ignation avoids the compromise nec-essary for consensus and implementa-tion of the whims of the current ad-ministration.

Secretary Babbitt, in a hearing ear-lier this year, said, ‘‘I believe that theCongressional delegation is the way togo.’’ He continued by saying that, ‘‘Inmost cases, there is now legislation,not all, but most,’’ speaking of thesenine recently designated monuments.‘‘And in the cases where we did makethe designation, particularly the onesin Arizona, it was crystal clear thatthere was no interest in the Congressat all. In one case, there was not evena sponsor of a bill for Aqua Fria, and inthe case of the Grand Canyon, the billthat was offered before this committeereduced the existing level of protec-tion.’’

If Congress concludes that the Na-tion’s interest is best served in a man-ner different from what Secretary Bab-bitt and this administration may rec-ommend, Secretary Babbitt apparentlybelieves that the President should sim-ply declare a national monument.

This amendment supports constitu-tional process. Congress makes deci-sions about the management of publiclands because the Constitution gives us

that responsibility. We passed FLPMAin 1976 and established that we mustfirst have the input of the locals.

Secretary Babbitt and the adminis-tration have not done this with theirmonument designations. Congress,therefore, has the responsibility tocurb this excess by this administrationby refusing to fund these monuments.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentleman from Colo-rado (Mr. UDALL).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chair-man, I thank the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) for yielding methe time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just speakto my colleague from Utah (ChairmanHANSEN) and say to him, I understandhis frustration, I have listened to hisfrustration around this issue, and Ihave respect for it. But I would urge usto continue to discuss this, as we havein the Committee on Resources, andthere is legislation pending that wouldalter the Antiquities Act in ways thathe thinks is appropriate and others do;and I would continue to be interestedin having that debate.

But I think this amendment goes atit in the wrong way. It comes inthrough the back door; and it has thepotential, as previous speakers sug-gested, of making only monuments inname and would be very, very counter-productive.

The other piece that I want to add tothis discussion today has to do withlocal and specific examples in south-western Colorado. The President justcreated the Canyon of the Ancients Na-tional Monument.

I will include for the RECORD a letterfrom the Commissioners of the Countydown there, who, in effect, said, ‘‘Weneed to move immediately and deci-sively to put our local input on themanagement of this area. The only waythat we as a community can minimizethe negative impacts and be in a posi-tion to reap the positive benefits is ifwe are organized and actively engagedin the planning management and prob-lem solving connected with the monu-ment from day one. If funding isblocked, we will lose this opportunity.Blocking funding will hurt the verycommunities that are already saddledwith the impact of the monument.’’

Now, I might not have used thosesame words, but I strongly agree withhim with the need for maintaining thatfunding.

So, again, I appreciate the point ofview of the chairman, but I think thisis the wrong way to have the debateabout the Antiquities Act and how it isapplied.

Mr. Chairman, I include the followingletters for the RECORD:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4516 June 15, 2000MONTEZUMA COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,Cortez, CO, June 12, 2000.

Hon. MARK UDALL,Cannon House Office Building,Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN UDALL: The Canyons ofthe Ancients National Monument in South-west Colorado, which we spent a year work-ing to avoid is a reality as of last Friday.The challenge now is to work together to re-alistically address the potential impacts onour constituents, our fiscal and economichealth and the wide variety of important re-sources within the monument boundary. Weare asking for your support in opposingbudget amendments that would block fund-ing to new National Monuments is criticalfor the reasons outlined below.

We need to move immediately and deci-sively to put our local imprint on the man-agement of this area. We have, as a startingpoint, the summary of public input producedby the RAC citizen Working Group, and theresulting NCA legislative draft to guide themanagement planning process. We are not atall comfortable with the vague language inthe Proclamation, and feel that it would berisky to let the management of this areadrift on the basis of ‘‘interim guidelines’’ es-tablished without local involvement. Wehave been promised an advisory council rep-resenting the spectrum of local interests. Weneed to get the advisory group in place andimmediately begin to engage the planningand management of this area.

With all the publicity that has and will re-sult from the proclamation, we must be pre-pared and funded to deal with a wide range ofimmediate impacts. It is our understandingthat visitation to the Grandstaircase-Escalante increased 250% upon Monumentdesignation. The Working Group Reportpoints to key areas of concern including theimpact on services such as road mainte-nance, search and rescue, fire protection andlaw enforcement. Given the commingling ofBLM and private land, we anticipate moreproblems with trespassing and damage toprivate property. The community is adamantabout the protection of multiple-use, and wecannot allow the deterioration of archae-ological resources to be used as a pretext forrestricting these rights, privileges and ac-tivities including archaeological research.Nor can we afford to allow a lack of funds forBLM staffing to be used to justify restrictinguses and areas of the Monument.

Restrictions on grazing would undermineour local ranching industry. Restrictions onoil and gas production would put at risk 30%of the County tax base. Restrictions on rec-reational uses would disrupt an importantfocal point for community pride and enjoy-ment. Much of the 164,000 designated acresare rugged and remote, while the more acces-sible Sand Canyon is already close to beingover-run. Dealing with both the remote andthe ‘‘loved to death’’ areas is going to re-quire a major community effort involvingeveryone that uses and values the area. Eventhe economic benefits that will result willrequire close coordination between people incontact with visitors and the land manage-ment agencies.

The only way that we, as a community,can minimize the negative impacts and be ina position to reap the positive benefits is ifwe are organized and actively engaged in theplanning, management and problem solvingconnected with this monument from dayone. If funding is blocked we will lose thisopportunity.

While we understand the anger and frustra-tion which has led to efforts to block fundingfor National Monuments, we believe that itis far better to go to the root cause of theseabuses by supporting legislation such as H.R.

1487 introduced by Congressman Hansen andS. 729 introduced by Senator Craig, which di-rectly address a more participatory processfor establishing National Monuments.

In the meantime we hope you will activelyvoice the concern to your colleagues and inthe upcoming floor debate that blockingfunding will hurt the very communities thatare already saddled with the impacts of newmonument designations. We appreciate yourconsideration. Please let us know if we canhelp or provide further information.

Sincerely yours,G. EUGENE STORY, Chairman.

[From the Durango Herald, June 11, 2000]CANYON OF THE ANCIENTS

MONUMENT IS ON THE MAP; NOW IT NEEDSFUNDING

On Friday, some 160,000 acres of rugged drywashes, canyons and rock formations cov-ered with scattered sage, pin

¨on and juniper

between Cortez and the Utah state line wereprotected by the Clinton administrationfrom further degradation. The land, occupiedby pre-Puebloans between about 750 and 1300A.D. and carved from lower elevation publiclands controlled by the Bureau of Land Man-agement, now will be known as the Canyonsof the Ancients National Monument.

The monument designation, one of four an-nounced across the West by Vice PresidentAl Gore that day, occurred because increas-ing numbers of visitors threatened the frag-ile landscape and the remains of rock andwood-built pre-Puebloan structures. Themonument designation should—must—pro-vide additional federal money to properlyprotect its priceless contents.

While Secretary of the Interior Bruce Bab-bitt has promised that a locally composedboard will advise the BLM on its manage-ment of Canyons of the Ancients, the presi-dent’s proclamation makes positions clearon several substantive issues dear to localsand Westerners: The monument status willnot give the federal government any waterrights, nor change the way the state of Colo-rado manages wildlife on the land. Nor willit impact any rights to the land claimed byAmerican Indians. Grazing will continue,under BLM regulations as in the past. Car-bon dioxide, gas and oil production will con-tinue, under BLM regulations as in the past.Carbon dioxide, gas and oil production willcontinue, but further exploration will haveto a greater degree take into considerationprotection of the surface’s natural resourcesand pre-Puebloan remnants.

Mining, other than CO2, and gas and oil ex-traction, is forbidden.

The monument designation does call for atransportation plan, and it’s expected thatoff-road travel by motorized vehicles will beeliminated, and that the number of histor-ical access roads will be significantly re-duced. As a result, access to privateinholdings may be more limited than theyare currently.

The monument status was forced on Mon-tezuma County, as some local critics chargenoisily. But unlike the administration’s pre-vious monument designations, especially insouthern Utah, it was not a surprise and itwas not done without consultation withlocals. The Secretary of the Interior signaledit was coming, and urged that Congress—lead by an initiative from Sen. BenNighthorse Campbell and Congressman ScottMcInnis—instead provide the needed protec-tions. But that was not to be, as Campbelldeemed that extremists on both sides of theissue would make legislative compromisesimpossible.

The specifics of the monument designationdid not originate in Washington, However.The administration listened closely to local

testimony in front of a stakeholder groupconvened a year ago to address issues sur-rounding the proposed monument, and Bab-bitt made a couple visits to the area. And,his telephone call to the Montezuma Countycommissioners two months ago allayed somefears as to what the monument designationwould contain. In conversations with Bab-bitt, he was very familiar with the issuesthat surround the monument.

Now what’s needed is a representative ad-visory board that applies thoughtfulness andvision in helping the BLM shape the futureof the Canyons of the Ancients NationalMonument. And money is also needed. InSouthwest Colorado last week, it was en-couraging to hear McInnis say that althoughhe was opposed to the way the acreage wasdesignated by the administration, he wouldwork to secure funding to implement theneeded protections. With public lands budg-ets already limited, that extra money is crit-ical.

New maps of the Four Corners and Colo-rado will soon be leaving the printers, and onthem will be the state’s newest monument.We’re glad the Canyons of the Ancients willbe there, it’s stunning natural features andman-made structures to be better protectedfor generations to come.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Colo-rado (Mr. SCHAFFER).

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the chairman for yielding methe time.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that itwould be his preference that such anissue were not necessary here on thefloor. But the reality is, this is thePresident of the United States who hasnecessitated this discussion for clearlyabusing and misusing in a recklessfashion the law, which has been on thebooks for many, many years and asmany Presidents previously, as hasbeen indicated before, have used withdue discretion and have used in co-operation with local entities, State ju-risdictions, and certainly Members ofCongress who represent the affectedareas. But that is the distinction andthe difference.

This President has made two fatal er-rors in his execution of the AntiquitiesAct: one is by dramatically expandingthe coverage of these monuments be-yond the archeological or historicfocus of what a legitimate monumentmight constitute; and, secondly, doingso without even the consultation ofMembers of Congress, who have the ul-timate policy-making authority andresponsibility where monuments areconcerned.

b 1330But the third thing that this Presi-

dent has done is used the AntiquitiesAct in establishing monuments in ablatantly political fashion and has con-sequently jeopardized the underlyingpurpose of the law and caused us to payclose scrutiny as we do here today.

These monuments are issued aroundelection time where great, vast, beau-tiful landscapes are used as nothingmore than a backdrop for politicallymotivated press conferences. Mr.Chairman, all of the flannel shirts andblue jeans cannot obscure the naked-ness of a President bereft of the con-stitutional covering that we would


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4517June 15, 2000hope any President would rely on whenorchestrating public policy on behalf ofthe country.

That is what this amendment reallytries to get at and why we must adoptit, because it brings back into somesemblance of reality the original in-tent and scope of the Antiquities Act,that these are small acreages designedto protect and preserve truly remark-able features that the American peoplewant to enjoy and protect. I urge itsadoption. I thank the gentleman for of-fering it today.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Idaho(Mr. SIMPSON).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I risein support of the Hansen amendment.Let me talk for just a minute if I canabout the proposal being considered inIdaho to expand the Craters of theMoon National Monument into theGreat Rift National Monument. Itmight surprise some of my colleaguesthat I am not necessarily opposed tothe expansion of the Craters of theMoon into the Great Rift area. It istruly a unique geological area.

But what I am opposed to is a processby which any administration, Repub-lican or Democrat administration, canignore the input of local people, can ig-nore the input of local- and State- andFederal-elected officials and Congresscan ignore its constitutional responsi-bility to dictate land managementpolicies. It is the process that is a prob-lem here.

The Secretary has been out to theState of Idaho twice. I appreciate thefact that he has called me twice whenhe is going out there to inform me ofthat. Mr. Chairman, I have requestedinformation on the designation. Underthe Antiquities Act, the requirement isthat the President put the request in tothe Secretary of Interior for what areaought to be designated as a nationalmonument. I have requested the letterfrom the President and have not re-ceived it.

Secondly, they are supposed to usethe least amount of land available toprotect this area. The Secretary hasnot sent me the information on that.Thirdly, the area being protected issupposed to be of some geological, sci-entific, or historic nature. The Sec-retary has not told me what the naturethat he is trying to preserve of thisarea is. But, fourthly, the most impor-tant thing is the area is supposed to beunder some threat, some imminentthreat. So far, the Secretary has re-fused to tell me what the imminentthreat is in this area.

Mr. Chairman, this is not pristinehabitat or natural forests or salmonhabitat or anything like that. What itis is lava rocks. It is under no threatcurrently, and the Secretary refuses toacknowledge that.

Earlier one of the speakers from NewYork said, Congress already has the au-thority to control this by undoing a na-tional monument if we want to. The re-ality is that a former congressman

tried to enact this and could not getsupport from his own party or the peo-ple of Idaho.

I urge the support of the Hansenamendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 21⁄4minutes to my good friend, the gen-tleman from Oregon (Mr.BLUMENAUER).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman,we continue to have the language beingemployed of the extremeantienvironmentalists, people who aretalking about reckless. If it were trulyreckless, my colleagues would be pro-posing alternatives to eliminate theseas monument designations. They arenot, and I think that that is primafacie evidence that it is, in fact, notreckless. These are reasonable ap-proaches and are supported by the ma-jority of the public.

There is the notion of a land grab. Asmy colleague from New York pointedout, this is not a land grab. These arelands that are already owned and man-aged by the Federal Government.There may have been surrounded someparcels of private property as our col-league from Arizona pointed out, butthey have always been surrounded bythe Federal Government and that doesnot change it. What is changed underthis antienvironmental rider is thatyou can no longer use Federal funds tomanage them. Bear in mind they donot change the category but thingsthat were legal earlier to use Federalmoney, for example, to deal with issuesof vandalism or invasive species whichwould have been legal under the priordesignation are no longer legal becausethey would have to be managed asmonument property.

Earlier you had legal grazing activi-ties which require money to be able tomanage, but now since it is monumentland and would not be designated tospend money managing a monumentmeans that you make that impossiblefor grazing; for mining. This is abso-lutely inappropriate and would not besupported and is truly going to lead toa condition that these folks in othercontexts would be going absolutelybonkers if it were proposed. But theiramendment, were it to be so unfortu-nate to be adopted, would put that intoeffect.

Last but not least, it would not allowfunding for the planning and engage-ment of the community to make theseprocesses work. These are efforts thatthe people talk about engaging thepublic. It would not allow money to doso. It is a bad idea. I hope that thisantienvironmental rider is firmly re-jected.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. CUNNINGHAM).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,previous speakers not only in thisamendment but in other amendmentshave used the term antienvironmentalextremists 11 times. Doth us think thatthere is a little politics here?

First of all, we feel that the Presi-dent, a single individual designating

land in violation of the law takingState lands and affecting private prop-erty is wrong, a single person, withoutgoing through the Congress. Even yes-terday we had talk about a backlog oftaking care of our national forests andfish and wildlife. Just like with theCalifornia desert plan and other things,the moneys that are going to be re-quired to take care of these, we do nothave. The only way to do it is increasetaxes. We do not want to do that.

Mr. Chairman, this map indicates theproperty that is controlled on the EastCoast by the Federal Government. If Iturn this over, this is the property incolor controlled on the West Coast.What is too much? In Utah, Arizona,and Nevada, 70 and 80 percent of theland is controlled by the Federal Gov-ernment. In California, over half theland is controlled by the Federal Gov-ernment. What is too much?

All we are doing is saying that if wewant these parks to be designated orthese national monuments, at leastbring it before Congress. Let us have adebate. We may lose the debate. But atleast bring it before us. Do not have aking with the sign of a pen designateland. That is all our position is. Wethink that that is a test of fairness.The test of fairness in the past withthe President and with Secretary Bab-bitt has been a one-way street. Wethink that that is wrong, also.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 15 seconds. Again I want topoint out, we already own these lands.There is no land grab here. We are notadding anything additional here. Weare creating a monument which thePresident has the authority to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2 minutes tothe gentleman from California (Mr.FARR), a distinguished member of theCommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. FARR of California. I thank thegentleman from Washington for yield-ing me this time.

Mr. Chairman, there are only fiveStates that are affected by this amend-ment. It is interesting that the au-thor’s State is not affected. Thank Godfor the Antiquities Act. Thank God forthe action of the President to takeFederal lands and upgrade their statusso that they are more protected. Thereason the President had to do it by ex-ecutive order is because this Congressunder this leadership is failing to de-liver these things.

I introduced two bills in Congress onthese issues that did not even get ahearing in the committee. The onlymember of the other party that hasbeen supportive of all this effort is thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA). Hehas been the best environmentalist theRepublican Party has because he is onthe Committee on Appropriations andhe can appropriate money. But to tryto get a hearing in the other commit-tees and try to get some substance outand get these lands protected, no way.Now they want to take them away.

Give me back my monuments. Giveme back Sequoia in California. Give me


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4518 June 15, 2000back the Grand Canyon-Parashant inArizona. Give me back Agua Fria inArizona. Give me back the CaliforniaCoastal Monument. Give me back thePinnacles National Monument in mydistrict. Give me back the Canyons ofthe Ancients in Colorado. Give me backIronwood Forest in Arizona. Give meback Cascade-Siskiyou in Oregon. Andgive me back Hanford Reach in Wash-ington. This amendment would take allthose away and take it away from thepublic who owns that land.

This is your land, ladies and gentle-men of the United States. Defeat thisamendment. Give them back to thepeople.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Indiana(Mr. SOUDER).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wantto make it clear that I do not opposedesignating national monuments, I donot oppose the Antiquities Act, but Ido oppose the abuse of power. This isnot taking these lands back to the peo-ple. Quite frankly, whether or not theyare national monuments or not na-tional monuments, they belong to thepeople. Some Presidents such as Theo-dore Roosevelt have used the Antiq-uities Act to preserve large threatenedareas. But when we look at the pre-vious examples of that like the GrandCanyon, they were clearly beingprivatized and degraded. It was beingdebated in Congress. There was publicoutrage. But in the case of PresidentClinton’s new monuments, these monu-ments already are Federal lands. Thefact is that if they are being degraded,it is under this administration.

FDR designated previously the high-est number of public lands. In fourpresidential terms he designated 2.5million acres. This President has al-ready done 4 million unilaterally. It isclear that we need to and will continueto expand national monuments andparks. It is clear that our crown jewelparks are already in existence. And sonow the question is really, are wegoing to adequately fund the existingparks plus as we add to this system,where will they be and what will thefunding priorities be?

We heard earlier that this is aboutinvasive species and grazing questions,but these new monuments are all inthe West, where they already have atleast 25 percent federally owned lands,in some cases 50 percent and in somethe proposals are in States where itgoes up to 60 percent. East of the Mis-sissippi, we have lands that alreadyhave willing sellers that are clearly ei-ther culturally, naturally, orrecreationally valuable for the publicsector but we have willing sellers. Butbecause the President has unilaterallydesignated additional lands in Stateswhere they already have 25 to 65 per-cent Federal lands, money will not beavailable for other places in the coun-try where there are natural, culturaland recreational opportunities.

How is it fair to let a lame duckPresident unilaterally, in one year, ex-

ceed any other President’s designation,including the two Roosevelts, who had,in FDR’s case, four terms, and tie thehands of the Committee on Appropria-tions where we cannot meet the needsof existing parks or the demands wehave in other parts of the country.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. METCALF).

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I risein support of this amendment. Many ofthese areas recently designated as na-tional monuments are beautiful andsensitive and may well deserve protec-tion. However, article 4, section 3 ofthe Constitution grants to Congressthe power to make decisions respectingthe property of the United States.

In these recent designations, thePresident has usurped and completelybypassed the authority of Congress.These new national monuments rep-resent the worst abuses of executivepower. No environmental assessmentsare conducted, and the public is noteven allowed to comment on the meritsof the designations as required. The ad-ministration is using the 1906 Antiq-uities Act, intended to protect smallparcels of land, to set aside millions ofacres. It is time for this body to re-assert its authority and reject this lat-est presidential overreach.

b 1345

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposi-tion to the Hansen amendment. ThePresident of the United States clearlyhas authority under the AntiquitiesAct. Clearly, if the majority partywants to, they could repeal that act.They could pass it here, but they donot seem to want to do that. What theywant to do is use an appropriations billwith a very cleverly drafted rider toprohibit the President from imple-menting these monuments.

I think it is terrible. I think the Fed-eral government will wind up being em-barrassed because we cannot do law en-forcement. We cannot do planning. Wecannot do anything once these monu-ments are designated. And try as youwant to with report language, it doesnot nullify the effect of this amend-ment, which is to take away from thePresident the authority to name thesemonuments and then to have themproperly implemented.

Again, I believe that these riders arewrong. We should do it only when wehave had thorough debate and hear-ings, and we have not had that here. Iwould suggest to the gentleman fromUtah (Mr. HANSEN) in his own com-mittee that people want to work onthis, if they want to improve the An-tiquities Act, do it there, not on the In-terior Appropriations bill.

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

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it has been a very in-teresting debate that we have had here.

I think it all comes down to one thing,abuse of power. I do not know of onePresident who has abused his powermore than this gentleman has. He hasdone more than all of the other Presi-dents combined, and the interestingthing is, just what Member of Congresswas consulted and which one agreeswith what he has done?

Now, I always thought that the Con-stitution said ‘‘we the people,’’ butwhen we read this thing behind closeddoors, it said we cannot let this out,this has to remain secret. Now, to me,that is not the way we do things inAmerica. What is this about?

Article IV, section 3 says, ‘‘Congresshas the right of these powers of theland.’’ It does not go to the President.The gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) had some things brought upthat is the biggest red herring I haveever heard. Right here in their ownmanual, right here in the report, noth-ing in this language prevents eitherSecretary from managing these Fed-eral lands.

These lands will go on as they were.This idea that they will not be man-aged and vandalized is nonsense. Ofcourse they will be managed. Call upthe local BLM director, call up thelocal forest director. They will tell usthey will take care of the land. Thereis nothing in here that says they can-not maintain those lands at this time.

A little personal shot was made atme. I am big enough to take that, say-ing why not put your own in there?That was done in 1996, and it was fund-ed by this Congress. I would be morethan happy if my colleagues feel thatway, why did colleagues not put anamendment in to do that, and I wouldhave stood up and I said accept it; butmy colleagues did not do that. It ismore important to take a few shots, Iguess.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge the peo-ple in this particular body to do theirbest and do what is right for Americaand do what is right for the West. Helpus out in this and vote for this amend-ment.

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

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offer by the gentlemanfrom Utah (Mr. HANSEN) to the amend-ment offered by the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS).


RECORDED VOTE


A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 6(f) of

rule XVIII, the Chair will reduce to 5minutes the minimum time for anyelectronic vote on the underlyingDicks amendment that may follow im-mediately this 15-minute vote on theHansen perfecting amendment.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—ayes 187, noes 234,not voting 13, as follows:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4519June 15, 2000[Roll No. 280]

AYES—187

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBatemanBereuterBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCookseyCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDooleyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonEverettEwingFletcherFossellaFowlerGalleglyGekasGibbonsGillmorGoode

GoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)King (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLucas (OK)ManzulloMartinezMcCreryMcHughMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNussleOrtizOseOxleyPackardPaulPeasePeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)

PickeringPickettPittsPomboPortmanPryce (OH)RadanovichRegulaRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuSweeneyTalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyTraficantVitterWaldenWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NOES—234

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BassBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuano

CardinCarsonCastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDoyleEdwardsEhlersEngelEnglish

EshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerFoleyForbesFordFrank (MA)FrelinghuysenFrostGanskeGejdensonGephardtGilchrestGilmanGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHolt

HooleyHornHoughtonHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichKuykendallLaFalceLampsonLantosLarsonLazioLeachLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcInnisMcIntyre

McKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoNealOberstarObeyOlverOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPetriPhelpsPomeroyPorterPrice (NC)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSabo

SanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchakowskyScottSerranoShaysShermanSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyWalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (PA)WexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOT VOTING—13

BecerraCampbellDannerFranks (NJ)Greenwood

HinojosaJones (OH)LofgrenMcCollumNorwood

ShowsVentoYoung (FL)

b 1418

Messrs. BILBRAY, MINGE,GILCHREST, RUSH, REYNOLDS, andHORN changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. BARR of Georgia changed hisvote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’


as above recorded.PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is thenext vote going to be on the underlyingDicks amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman iscorrect, yes.

The question is on the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. Dicks).

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

RECORDED VOTE


A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute

vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-


[Roll No. 281]

AYES—243

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BassBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDoyleEdwardsEhlersEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerFoleyForbesFordFrank (MA)FrelinghuysenFrostGanskeGejdensonGephardtGilchrestGilmanGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)

GutierrezHall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHooleyHornHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichKuykendallLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLarsonLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)LipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitano

NealNorwoodOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)PetriPhelpsPomeroyPorterPrice (NC)QuinnRahallRamstadRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchakowskyScottSerranoShaysShermanSimpsonSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezViscloskyWalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—177

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBatemanBereuter

BilirakisBlileyBluntBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahan

CalvertCampCanadyCannonChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCook


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4520 June 15, 2000CookseyCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDooleyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonEverettEwingFletcherFossellaFowlerGalleglyGekasGibbonsGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunter

HutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson, SamJones (NC)King (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeLargentLewis (KY)LinderLucas (OK)ManzulloMartinezMcCreryMcHughMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupOseOxleyPackardPaulPeterson (PA)PickeringPickettPittsPomboPortmanPryce (OH)RadanovichRegulaReynoldsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacher

Ros-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShusterSisiskySkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuSweeneyTalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyTraficantVitterWaldenWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)WhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NOT VOTING—14

BecerraCampbellDannerFranks (NJ)Greenwood

HinojosaJeffersonLofgrenMcCollumMollohan

NussleShowsVentoYoung (FL)

b 1428

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

as above recorded.The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

For necessary expenses for forest firepresuppression activities on National ForestSystem lands, for emergency fire suppressionon or adjacent to such lands or other landsunder fire protection agreement, and foremergency rehabilitation of burned-over Na-tional Forest System lands and water,$614,343,000, to remain available until ex-pended: Provided, That such funds are avail-able for repayment of advances from otherappropriations accounts previously trans-ferred for such purposes: Provided further,That not less than 50 percent of any unobli-gated balances remaining (exclusive ofamounts for hazardous fuels reduction) atthe end of fiscal year 2000 shall be trans-ferred, as repayment for post advances thathave not been repaid, to the fund establishedpursuant to section 3 of Public Law 71–319 (16U.S.C. 576 et seq.): Provided further, That not-withstanding any other provision of law, upto $4,000,000 of funds appropriated under thisappropriation may be used for Fire ScienceResearch in support of the Joint FireScience Program: Provided further, That allauthorities for the use of funds, includingthe use of contracts, grants, and cooperativeagreements, available to execute the ForestService and Rangeland Research appropria-tion, are also available in the utilization ofthese funds for Fire Science Research.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offeran amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. STEARNS:Page 54, line 4, insert ‘‘(increased by

$1,000,000)’’ after the dollar figure.Page 85, line 7, insert ‘‘(reduced by

$1,960,000)’’ after the dollar figure.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that all debate onthis amendment and all amendmentsthereto close in 10 minutes, 5 minuteson each side.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromOhio?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.The CHAIRMAN. The objection is

heard.Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me

ask the other side, would they agree toa unanimous consent agreement of 10minutes on each side? The gentlemanand I have been through this manytimes and I have great respect for theother side and I can remember most ofthe arguments very vividly. They arevery clear. I think we could limit this.Many Members want to leave at 6:00.


Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, now thegentleman understands we are having aseparate discussion here?

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.Mr. DICKS. We are going to treat

this amendment separately from thisprevious discussion in terms of every-thing else, but on this one we willagree to 71⁄2 minutes on each side, splitit down the middle.

Mr. STEARNS. How about 10? Allright. 71⁄2 minutes is fine.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that each side have71⁄2 minutes on this amendment and allamendments thereto.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromWashington?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The Chair’s under-

standing of the unanimous consentagreement is 71⁄2 minutes per side on allamendments to the Stearns amend-ment.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr.STEARNS) and a Member opposed eachwill control 71⁄2 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. STEARNS).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, Iheard the amendment read and I need,I believe, to withdraw and clarify be-cause I think the Clerk read it incor-rectly.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman mayeither withdraw the first amendmentor ask unanimous consent to.MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent to withdraw that,and I think the Chair has the correctamendment, which is the same thing.

It is basically a 2 percent cut in theNational Endowment for the Arts andthe rest goes into the wildland firemanagement. I believe I gave it to thefolks correctly.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-port the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:Modification to amendment offered by Mr.

STEARNS:In the first instruction strike out

‘‘$1,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,960,000’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromFlorida (Mr. STEARNS) that his amend-ment be modified?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will still

conduct the debate in accordance withthe previous unanimous consent re-quest.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr.STEARNS) is recognized for 71⁄2 minutes.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve apoint of order on this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Washington reserves a point oforder.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think this is anamendment that has come up annually.Basically for my colleagues, we aretaking a 2 percent reduction in the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts and weare putting this money into thewildland fire management. Let me justread where it is going to go. For nec-essary expenses for forest fire pre-sup-pression activities in the national for-est system lands, and for emergencyfire suppression and/or adjacent to suchlands or other lands under fire protec-tion agreement.

Of course, this would affect my homeState of Florida, as well as Los Alamosin New Mexico, as well as Denver, Colo-rado, recently where the fires came upto this wonderful city.

My home State of Florida is facingsevere drought conditions after havingthe second driest May in history in thisState of ours. As a result, of course,Florida is battling another season ofwildfires. Since January, Florida hashad 3,422 fires that have burned 121,000acres. This is a staggering amount ofland. Were it not for the tireless effortsof the Department of Forestry, fire de-partments, and countless, countlessvolunteers, these numbers would beprobably even higher, perhaps twice asmuch.

My amendment is, I think, very im-portant. It is significant in many ways.It obviously is taking a very smallamount from the National Endowmentfor the Arts budget and allocating it tofire fighting.

I think we can talk about getting se-rious about government spending. Apart of this money, obviously, in theway the outlays go would go to retirethe debt. So it has an added benefit.

I think many of us agree that theNEA does not shield us from any inva-sion or protect us from crime or othereconomic hardship, so basically I am


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4521June 15, 2000here to talk about the NEA, as a pro-gram, as one of many programs thatsupport the arts. Lots of times on theHouse floor we talk about the NEA asif it is the sole body that is protectingthe arts, but last year there were 200programs for the arts and humanitiesin this country. Last year Federalfunding for the arts exceeded $800 mil-lion. Interesting enough, before theprogram was created, President Ken-nedy stated, quote, I do not believeFederal funds should support sym-phonies, orchestras, or other operacompanies.

So I think when we consider thefunding for the arts, it has been re-duced. I know that. I will hear thatfrom the other side, but there is somuch out there in terms of private sup-port for the arts. In fact, it is over $10billion in private funds go for the arts.So I think just taking $2 million tohelp fire fighting personnel in thiscountry is worthwhile for us to do.

So we take a small step, reducingquestionable spending that many of usfeel on this side and perhaps a few onthat side feel, so I believe our moneywould be better spent to help the firefighters retire the debt.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto support this amendment.


The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS) insist onhis point of order?

Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point oforder.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS) is recog-nized for 71⁄2 minutes in opposition tothe amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as many of us know,the National Endowment for the Artswas created in 1965. I believe that thisendowment has done a tremendousamount to help foster the arts in thiscountry. When the Endowment wascreated, we did not have the greatrange of the arts we now have. We nowhave performing symphonies and bal-lets all over this country. We have seena tremendous growth in the arts, and Ibelieve that one of the major reasonsfor that is because of the challengegrants and the other programs that theEndowment approved over the years.

The private sector looking to an enti-ty, an arts organization getting a Na-tional Endowment for the Arts grant,is almost the Good Housekeeping Sealof Approval. Since the endowmentswere created, we have seen a tremen-dous growth in the amount of moneythat the private sector contributes tothe arts all over this country.

A few years ago, we were funding theNational Endowment at about $170 mil-lion. It was cut back dramatically.Today we only fund it at $98 million. Infact, we will have a bipartisan amend-ment after we take care of the Stearnsamendment to increase the money forthe endowments in a modest way.

The President has requested for eachof the endowments $150 million. A fewyears ago, Congress had some concernsabout the quality of the grants andsome of the grants that were approvedby the National Endowment for theArts. We put in very strong languagesaying, since they cannot approveevery grant that comes in, use qualityas a standard for judging and assessingthese grants, and do not let an entityget a grant and then give it to a subgrantee for some other purpose.

I believe that under Jane Alexanderand Mr. Ivey, Mr. Ferris at the Human-ities, that we have seen managers whohave seen the words from the gen-tleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA) andmyself that were crafted, and have im-plemented it. We now have congres-sional Members who are on the advi-sory boards of the panels to give con-gressional input, to make sure that theAmerican people’s voice is being heardon these issues.

So I think this is an amendment thatCongress has defeated over and overagain. I am confident that we willagain defeat it today, because I thinkthe American people believe that themodest investment we make in thearts, and I think also in the human-ities, is tremendously important incommunities all over this country. Wesee education, education in the artsbeing an important item in many com-munities.

I can remember going with Jane Al-exander to Garfield High School in thecity of Seattle and seeing an after-school program where the kids weredoing very good high quality work inthe arts. The kids were enthused aboutit. It helped us, I think, in dealing withcrime and also furthered their edu-cation. It gave them something to be-lieve in.

I think that educational programsare good. Dale Chihuly, one of theworld’s renowned glass artists from mydistrict in Tacoma, Washington, has anafter-school program to teach kids howto create blown glass and create glassart. These kids, some of which havebeen juvenile delinquents, swear thatthis has transformed their lives. One,they have something to do after schooland, two, they are working in the artsin a very creative way.

I had a chance to go up and visitthem to see their work, to actually tryto create glass art myself. I was not asgood as the kids, but it really made animpression on me and showed that pro-grams like this that are sponsored bythe National Endowment for the Artsare truly very important to our coun-try.

So I urge today that we will resistthis amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. I would be delighted toyield to my friend, the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. HORN), for any com-ments he wants to make.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I want topraise the gentleman on behalf of the

Arts Caucus, which is much more than130 in this Chamber. I appreciate all hehas done, both in the committee andare going to do.

I would say to my friend, the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS),the fact is we are not talking aboutfunding the great symphonies of Amer-ica. They can find the money in LosAngeles, New York, San Francisco, andBoston. We are concerned about kidsthat live in urban America that havenever seen a symphony, never seen anopera, never seen any aspect of thearts.

Let me say, in the last 5 years therehas been a complete turnaround. It isnot only the people in urban America,it is where I grew up in rural America.In the 1930s, I can remember as a 6-year-old seeing this wonderful WPAsymphony. That came to Hollister,California, population 3,000. It inspiredme to be a musician.

Those are the communities we aretalking about throughout America, andWilliam Ivey has done just an out-standing job as administrator of theEndowment.

I would hope the gentleman wouldactually withdraw his amendment.

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


Mr. Chairman, I would just tell mycolleague, the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. HORN), when he grew up theNEA did not exist. It started in 1965.Second of all, most of the money goesto six major cities. There are almost150 Congressional districts that get nomoney.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.PITTS).

b 1445Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, some peo-

ple think that conservatives hate thearts. They think that, because we op-pose Federal subsidies for the arts,that we are uncultured dolts who donot appreciate the finer things in life.

Let me try to correct the record, Mr.Chairman. The arts are an essentialpart of our culture. I love the arts. Ilove art in many forms. In fact, I aman amateur artist myself. I do notwant this to be a show-and-tell session,but let me just illustrate. Here is aprint of an oil I did last year of an areain my district called the BrandywineValley. Here is a little sculpture that Ido for volunteers who donate for peoplehelping in my campaign. My daughteris an artist. We have a show at thispresent time in Lancaster County at anart gallery there. We have never re-ceived one red cent. There are millionsof amateur artists out there who do notget any kind of funding.

Mr. Chairman, in fact, there is nocorrelation between NEA funding andthe state of the arts in America. Thearts are flourishing in America today.It is not because they are subsidized.

Although NEA funding has gonedown as much as 40 percent in the past


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4522 June 15, 2000few years, there are more people work-ing in the arts today than ever before.Employment in the arts is growingthree and a half times faster than gen-eral employment at a time when we re-duced NEA funding by millions of dol-lars.

In the last 5 years, attendance at ar-tistic activities have increased by 37percent, remember all this time whenNEA funds are decreasing.

Now, the thing that outrages the tax-payers is when the NEA, and they havethe pattern of doing this, funds theshock art, the outrageous art, the anti-Catholic bigotry, the pornography.

There is a play recently in New YorkCity entitled ‘‘The Pope and theWitch,’’ which is funded. It depicts thePope called John Paul, II, as a heroinaddicted paranoid advocating birthcontrol and legalization of drugs. Aslong as this type of funding is done byNEA, we need to send them a signaland give them the modest cut of 2 per-cent. I support the Stearns amend-ment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield theremaining time on our side to the gen-tleman from North Carolina (Mr.BALLENGER).

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Washingtonfor yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to firstsay, in the Catholic lead, when it hadthe thing that was called ‘‘The Popeand the Witch,’’ I would like to readfrom the notes here. ‘‘Please note thatthe NEA is not supporting the develop-ment or the production of this play. AllNEA grants are by law for a specificproject, and this was not included inany of their projects.’’

I would also like to say that, in mylittle small town of Hickory, NorthCarolina, we built an art museum. TheNational Endowment gave us $1,000.One would not think that was of anygreat value one way or the other. Butwith that $1,000 we were able to go toall the corporations and supporters inthat little town, and we raised $3 mil-lion to build an art museum.

The $1,000 is just like the best thingone can say when some corporationwants to know, what have you done?Who are you getting it from?

I would also like to say, when we cutit $65 million in 1995, I voted for thatcut because I thought the National En-dowment had gotten out of hand, andwe should mandate changes; and we didmandate changes because of problemsthat were there. They have had no in-crease in 8 years now.

Let me just give my colleagues a cou-ple of things. They have a cap on theamount of money that can go to anyone State; whereas, previously NewYork got way out of their share of it.

The State grants program, the Stateset-aside, has been increased. EveryState gets more money, and my col-leagues would be surprised at the num-ber of every State that participates.

State grant programs and State set-asides I say have increased. Anti-obsenity requirements for grants, thisis supported by the Supreme Court.They have to live by this.

No matter what anybody wants tosay, they are doing what was mandatedand what they deserve. There is a largenumber of us that think that, in spiteof what they say, art does add a greatdeal to the quality of life.


Mr. Chairman, I just point out to thegentleman from North Carolina (Mr.BALLENGER) that, if he wants the list ofprojects they have supported since 1980,they have a 20-year record here, fromthe Sorano, Mapplethorpe, I mean, tothe one that the gentleman from NorthCarolina just mentioned. I mean, itgoes on and on and on.

So the fact that the gentleman fromNorth Carolina got $1,000, the rest isgoing to six major cities.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do wehave remaining?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. STEARNS) has 2 min-utes remaining.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromKansas (Mr. TIAHRT).

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of this amendment. One of themost amazing characteristics of thehuman race is our ability to expressourselves artistically. All of us havebeen touched by a piece of music, abeautiful and interesting sculpture, anoutstanding theatrical performance.

Art can be as enriching to the soul asnature itself. But sometimes in thisjob, we are forced to choose priorities.I think wildland fire management is ahigher priority for the amount ofmoney that we are talking about.

Because the arts are flourishing inAmerica. Most people do not know thatmore people attend artistic events in agiven year than sporting events. Theprivate sector contributes over $9 bil-lion to the arts every year. Employ-ment in the arts is growing 3.6 timesfaster than the general employment. Ofthe money that we do give to the artsfrom the Federal Government, 20 per-cent is consumed in overhead. A major-ity of the remaining amount is spent inNew York or California.

The gentleman from North Carolina(Mr. BALLENGER) was relishing that hegot $1,000 for his district, $1,000. It isnot very much money. Very little ofthis money makes it out to the rest ofAmerica.

I think our Founding Fathers notedthat the benefits of keeping the Gov-ernment out of the arts were great. Butif any of my colleagues have lost per-sonal possessions to a fire or to a floodor to theft, they know how serious thatis. Sometimes it is merely a scrap ofpaper with a signature on it or a can-celed check or photo, something thatcannot be replaced.

If we can support the wildland firemanagement, I think we are going tohelp people from losing their posses-sions and keep our natural heritage,the wildlife areas, from burning.

So this issue is not about the impor-tance of our arts in our society, asmuch as it is about helping protectthose who stand to lose everythingfrom wildfire.


Mr. Chairman, my amendment takesa very small step in reducing question-able spending and shifts it to a muchmore needed important area. I believeour money would be better spent pro-tecting Americans than being used topromote art that is many timesantireligious and, recently last month,anti-Catholic.

We hear repeatedly that the NEA haschanged. It simply has not. The NewYork Times reported that 70 percent ofits grants go to the same recipientsevery year, while fires are ravaging ourcountry.

The people who believe in giving it tojust six major cities are subsidizingthem, and I think it is an amendmentbetween public safety and environ-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of theStearns amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment, as modified, offered bythe gentleman from Florida (Mr.STEARNS).


Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 524, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. STEARNS)will be postponed.

The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

For necessary expenses of the Forest Serv-ice, not otherwise provided for, $424,466,000,to remain available until expended for con-struction, reconstruction, maintenance andacquisition of buildings and other facilities,and for construction, reconstruction, repairand maintenance of forest roads and trailsby the Forest Service as authorized by 16U.S.C. 532–538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: Pro-vided, That up to $15,000,000 of the funds pro-vided herein for road maintenance shall beavailable for the decommissioning of roads,including unauthorized roads not part of thetransportation system, which are no longerneeded: Provided further, That no funds shallbe expended to decommission any systemroad until notice and an opportunity for pub-lic comment has been provided on each de-commissioning project: Provided further,That any unobligated balances of amountspreviously appropriated to the Forest Serv-ice ‘‘Construction’’, ‘‘Reconstruction andConstruction’’, or ‘‘Reconstruction andMaintenance’’ accounts as well as any unob-ligated balances remaining in the ‘‘NationalForest System’’ account for the facilitymaintenance and trail maintenance extendedbudget line items may be transferred to andmerged with the ‘‘Capital Improvement andMaintenance’’ account.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4523June 15, 2000LAND ACQUISITION

For expenses necessary to carry out theprovisions of the Land and Water Conserva-tion Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C.460l–4 through 11), including administrativeexpenses, and for acquisition of land or wa-ters, or interest therein, in accordance withstatutory authority applicable to the ForestService, $50,000,000, to be derived from theLand and Water Conservation Fund, to re-main available until expended.ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS

SPECIAL ACTS

For acquisition of lands within the exte-rior boundaries of the Cache, Uinta, andWasatch National Forests, Utah; the ToiyabeNational Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles,San Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland Na-tional Forests, California, as authorized bylaw, $1,068,000, to be derived from forest re-ceipts.

ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LANDEXCHANGES

For acquisition of lands, such sums, to bederived from funds deposited by State, coun-ty, or municipal governments, public schooldistricts, or other public school authoritiespursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, asamended (16 U.S.C. 484a), to remain availableuntil expended.

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

For necessary expenses of range rehabilita-tion, protection, and improvement, 50 per-cent of all moneys received during the priorfiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic live-stock on lands in National Forests in the 16Western States, pursuant to section 401(b)(1)of Public Law 94–579, as amended, to remainavailable until expended, of which not to ex-ceed 6 percent shall be available for adminis-trative expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, andimprovements.

GIFTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS FOR FORESTAND RANGELAND RESEARCH

For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C.1643(b), $92,000, to remain available until ex-pended, to be derived from the fund estab-lished pursuant to the above Act.ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

Appropriations to the Forest Service forthe current fiscal year shall be available for:(1) purchase of not to exceed 132 passengermotor vehicles of which 13 will be used pri-marily for law enforcement purposes and ofwhich 129 shall be for replacement; acquisi-tion of 25 passenger motor vehicles from ex-cess sources, and hire of such vehicles; oper-ation and maintenance of aircraft, the pur-chase of not to exceed six for replacementonly, and acquisition of sufficient aircraftfrom excess sources to maintain the operablefleet at 192 aircraft for use in Forest Servicewildland fire programs and other ForestService programs; notwithstanding otherprovisions of law, existing aircraft being re-placed may be sold, with proceeds derived ortrade-in value used to offset the purchaseprice for the replacement aircraft; (2) serv-ices pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to ex-ceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C.3109; (3) purchase, erection, and alteration ofbuildings and other public improvements (7U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land, waters,and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C.428a; (5) for expenses pursuant to the Volun-teers in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) the costof uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901–5902; and (7) for debt collection contracts inaccordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).

None of the funds made available underthis Act shall be obligated or expended toabolish any region, to move or close any re-gional office for National Forest System ad-

ministration of the Forest Service, Depart-ment of Agriculture without the consent ofthe House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations.

Any appropriations or funds available tothe Forest Service may be transferred to theWildland Fire Management appropriation forforest firefighting, emergency rehabilitationof burned-over or damaged lands or watersunder its jurisdiction, and fire preparednessdue to severe burning conditions if and onlyif all previously appropriated emergencycontingent funds under the heading‘‘Wildland Fire Management’’ have been re-leased by the President and apportioned.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available for assistance to orthrough the Agency for International Devel-opment and the Foreign Agricultural Servicein connection with forest and rangeland re-search, technical information, and assist-ance in foreign countries, and shall be avail-able to support forestry and related naturalresource activities outside the United Statesand its territories and possessions, includingtechnical assistance, education and training,and cooperation with United States andinternational organizations.

None of the funds made available to theForest Service under this Act shall be sub-ject to transfer under the provisions of sec-tion 702(b) of the Department of AgricultureOrganic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C.147b unless the proposed transfer is approvedin advance by the House and Senate Commit-tees on Appropriations in compliance withthe reprogramming procedures contained inHouse Report No. 105–163.

None of the funds available to the ForestService may be reprogrammed without theadvance approval of the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations in accordancewith the procedures contained in House Re-port No. 105–163.

No funds appropriated to the Forest Serv-ice shall be transferred to the Working Cap-ital Fund of the Department of Agriculturewithout the approval of the Chief of the For-est Service.

Funds available to the Forest Service shallbe available to conduct a program of not lessthan $2,000,000 for high priority projectswithin the scope of the approved budgetwhich shall be carried out by the Youth Con-servation Corps as authorized by the Act ofAugust 13, 1970, as amended by Public Law93–408.

Of the funds available to the Forest Serv-ice, $1,500 is available to the Chief of the For-est Service for official reception and rep-resentation expenses.

Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) ofPublic Law 101–593, of the funds available tothe Forest Service, up to $1,250,000 may beadvanced in a lump sum as Federal financialassistance to the National Forest Founda-tion, without regard to when the Foundationincurs expenses, for administrative expensesor projects on or benefitting National ForestSystem lands or related to Forest Serviceprograms: Provided, That of the Federalfunds made available to the Foundation, nomore than $200,000 shall be available for ad-ministrative expenses: Provided further, Thatthe Foundation shall obtain, by the end ofthe period of Federal financial assistance,private contributions to match on at leastone-for-one basis funds made available bythe Forest Service: Provided further, That theFoundation may transfer Federal funds to anon-Federal recipient for a project at thesame rate that the recipient has obtainedthe non-Federal matching funds: Providedfurther, That hereafter, the National ForestFoundation may hold Federal funds madeavailable but not immediately disbursed andmay use any interest or other investment in-come earned (before, on, or after the date of

the enactment of this Act) on Federal fundsto carry out the purposes of Public Law 101–593: Provided further, That such investmentsmay be made only in interest-bearing obliga-tions of the United States or in obligationsguaranteed as to both principal and interestby the United States.

Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law98–244, $2,650,000 of the funds available to theForest Service shall be available for match-ing funds to the National Fish and WildlifeFoundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 6201–3709, and shall be advanced in a lump sum asFederal financial assistance within 60 days ofenactment of this Act, without regard towhen expenses are incurred, for projects onor benefitting National Forest System landsor related to Forest Service programs: Pro-vided, That the Foundation shall obtain, bythe end of the period of Federal financial as-sistance, private contributions to match onat least one-for-one basis funds advanced bythe Forest Service: Provided further, That theFoundation may transfer Federal funds to anon-Federal recipient for a project at thesame rate that the recipient has obtainedthe non-Federal matching funds.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available for interactions with andproviding technical assistance to rural com-munities for sustainable rural developmentpurposes.

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, 80 percent of the funds appropriated tothe Forest Service in the ‘‘National ForestSystem’’ and ‘‘Reconstruction and Construc-tion’’ accounts and planned to be allocatedto activities under the ‘‘Jobs in the Woods’’program for projects on National Forest landin the State of Washington may be granteddirectly to the Washington State Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife for accomplish-ment of planned projects. Twenty percent ofsaid funds shall be retained by the ForestService for planning and administeringprojects. Project selection and prioritizationshall be accomplished by the Forest Servicewith such consultation with the State ofWashington as the Forest Service deems ap-propriate.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available for payments to countieswithin the Columbia River Gorge NationalScenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and(2), and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99–663.

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorizedto enter into grants, contracts, and coopera-tive agreements as appropriate with the Pin-chot Institute for Conservation, as well aswith public and other private agencies, orga-nizations, institutions, and individuals, toprovide for the development, administration,maintenance, or restoration of land, facili-ties, or Forest Service programs, at the GreyTowers National Historic Landmark: Pro-vided, That, subject to such terms and condi-tions as the Secretary of Agriculture mayprescribe, any such public or private agency,organization, institution, or individual maysolicit, accept, and administer private giftsof money and real or personal property forthe benefit of, or in connection with, the ac-tivities and services at the Grey Towers Na-tional Historic Landmark: Provided further,That such gifts may be accepted notwith-standing the fact that a donor conducts busi-ness with the Department of Agriculture inany capacity.

Funds appropriated to the Forest Serviceshall be available, as determined by the Sec-retary, for payments to Del Norte County,California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and 14of the Smith River National Recreation AreaAct (Public Law 101–612).

Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, any appropriations or funds available tothe Forest Service not to exceed $500,000 may


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4524 June 15, 2000be used to reimburse the Office of the Gen-eral Counsel (OGC), Department of Agri-culture, for travel and related expenses in-curred as a result of OGC assistance or par-ticipation requested by the Forest Service atmeetings, training sessions, management re-views, land purchase negotiations and simi-lar non-litigation related matters. Futurebudget justifications for both the ForestService and the Department of Agricultureshould clearly display the sums previouslytransferred and the requested funding trans-fers.

No employee of the Department of Agri-culture may be detailed or assigned from anagency or office funded by this Act to anyother agency or office of the Department formore than 30 days unless the individual’semploying agency or office is fully reim-bursed by the receiving agency or office forthe salary and expenses of the employee forthe period of assignment.

The Forest Service shall fund overhead,national commitments, indirect expenses,and any other category for use of fundswhich are expended at any units, that arenot directly related to the accomplishmentof specific work on-the-ground (referred to as‘‘indirect expenditures’’), from funds avail-able to the Forest Service, unless otherwiseprohibited by law: Provided, That the ForestService shall implement and adhere to thedefinitions of indirect expenditures estab-lished pursuant to Public Law 105–277 on anationwide basis without flexibility formodification by any organizational level ex-cept the Washington Office, and whenchanged by the Washington Office, suchchanges in definition shall be reported inbudget requests submitted by the ForestService: Provided further, That the ForestService shall provide in all future budgetjustifications, planned indirect expendituresin accordance with the definitions, summa-rized and displayed to the Regional, Station,Area, and detached unit office level. The jus-tification shall display the estimated sourceand amount of indirect expenditures, by ex-panded budget line item, of funds in theagency’s annual budget justification. Thedisplay shall include appropriated funds andthe Knutson-Vandenberg, Brush Disposal,Cooperative Work-Other, and Salvage Salefunds. Changes between estimated and actualindirect expenditures shall be reported insubsequent budget justifications: Providedfurther, That during fiscal year 2001 the Sec-retary shall limit total annual indirect obli-gations from the Brush Disposal, Coopera-tive Work-Other, Knutson-Vandenberg, Re-forestation, Salvage Sale, and Roads andTrails funds to 20 percent of the total obliga-tions from each fund.

Any appropriations or funds available tothe Forest Service may be used for necessaryexpenses in the event of law enforcementemergencies as necessary to protect naturalresources and public or employee safety: Pro-vided, That such amounts shall not exceed$500,000.

Section 551 of the Land Between the LakesProtection Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460lll–61) isamended by adding at the end the followingnew subsection:

‘‘(c) TRANSITION.—Until September 30, 2002,the Secretary of Agriculture may expendamounts appropriated or otherwise madeavailable to carry out this title in a mannerconsistent with the authorities exercised bythe Tennessee Valley Authority, before thetransfer of the Recreation Area to the ad-ministrative jurisdiction of the Secretary,regarding procurement of property, services,supplies, and equipment.’’.

Mr. REGULA (during the reading).Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-sent that the bill through page 66, line

16 be considered as read, printed in theRECORD, and open to amendment atany point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromFlorida?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYCLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(DEFERRAL)Of the funds made available under this

heading for obligation in prior years,$67,000,000 shall not be available until Octo-ber 1, 2001: Provided, That funds made avail-able in previous appropriations Acts shall beavailable for any ongoing project regardlessof the separate request for proposal underwhich the project was selected.

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MS. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Ihave four amendments at the desk, andI ask unanimous consent that they beconsidered en bloc.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-port the amendments.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendments offered by Ms. SLAUGHTER:Page 66, line 21, insert ‘‘(increased by

$22,000,000)’’ after the dollar amount.Page 85, line 7, insert ‘‘(increased by

$15,000,000 which shall not be available untilSeptember 29, 2001)’’ after the dollar amount.

Page 85, line 21, insert ‘‘(increased by$5,000,000 which shall not be available untilSeptember 29, 2001)’’ after the dollar amount.

Page 86, line 19, insert ‘‘(increased by$2,000,000 which shall not be available untilSeptember 29, 2001)’’ after the dollar amount.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentlewomanfrom New York?

Mr. REGULA. I object, Mr. Chair-man.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer my first amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Ms. SLAUGHTER:Page 66, line 21, insert ‘‘(increased by

$22,000,000)’’ after the dollar amount.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, weare calling up this amendment to givea much-needed raise to three agenciesof the Federal Government that havebeen starved by this Congress for anumber of years simply because ofmisperceptions and absolute downrightlies about the kind of work that theyhave done.

I do not think any reasonable personin the United States can dispute thegood work that these agencies do. As amatter of fact, in the years which westruggled just to keep it alive, we havegotten a lot of help from the associa-tions, the counties, the conference ofmayors, major corporations in theUnited States who believe that cre-ative thinking is the key to success.

This year we can afford to give to theNational Endowment of Arts $15 mil-lion more, and $5 million more to theNational Endowment for Humanities,and only 2 million more, I wish it weremore, for the Museum Service, whichdoes so much, the Museum and LibraryService.

The debate over the years aboutthese three agencies, over this govern-ment have taken such a terrible beat-ing. Things have been said on the floorthat have been, as I said earlier,misperceptions and down right wrong.But we struggle just simply to keepthem alive. But we have ample prooffrom the response of the peoplethroughout the United States thatthey not only want these agenciesalive, they want these agencies to sur-vive.

I want to make it clear this after-noon that I am offering this amend-ment on behalf of the Arts Caucus ofthe House of Representatives, which isco-chaired by the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. HORN). This amendment iscosponsored also by the gentlewomanfrom Connecticut (Mrs. JOHNSON) andthe gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS).

What we are asking is, as my col-leagues know, the bill calls for a defer-ral of $67 million. We would like to in-crease that by $22 million for a total of$89 million, as we said before, to givethe NEA a $15 million raise, the NEH $5million more, and the Library and Mu-seum Service $2 million more.

People cry out for it. Even our oppo-nents on the other side have talkedabout how much people appreciategoing to arts programs.

The National Endowment for theArts and National Endowment for Hu-manities have made certain over theyears that they have reached out toevery nook and crannie from sea toshining sea in the United States, try-ing to make the little bit of moneythat we give them stretch to meet theneeds of the growing population of theUnited States.

b 1500

We know more than we used to aboutthe development of the mind. We knowmore about what it is like for a childto be exposed to art at a very earlyage. We know a child who has studiedart for 4 years in high school will do 80points better on their SAT scores. Andwe know that this House should vote tosupport these agencies.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will thegentlewoman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentlewoman for yielding to me.

We also know that we could keepmore talented young people in theschool system if we put resources intogood programs in the arts, learningabout the arts, and the humanities. Itis something that every student in col-lege, and some of our California Stateuniversities, have to take at least onecourse in the arts and/or music. Andthat is important because it broadensthe mind, and it keeps the brain mov-ing.

The arts also provide inspiration. Weall know that. So we should not haveto go through these annual maulingswhere we have to refute some new


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4525June 15, 2000bogus charge which is utter baloney.Some earlier grants often had nothingto do with the National Endowment forthe Arts.

In 1965, I happened to be on the Sen-ate staff and the establishment of theArts and Humanities endowments wereoverwhelmingly passed by the House ofRepresentatives and the United StatesSenate. As far as government supportof the arts in the depression, the WPA,the Works Progress Administration,put millions were put in when peoplewere unemployed, and they brought in-spiration both in murals, in sym-phonies, in opera.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, I just want to echowhat the gentleman from California(Mr. HORN) has said.

It is unbecoming for this Congressevery year to debate this subject theway we do. Last night half of thisgroup in this House went over to theKennedy Center for a free performanceof To Kill a Mockingbird, and thisafternoon they have come back for aperformance on the floor to try to killthe NEA.

I think the time has come to stopthat nonsense and fund these agenciesa little bit more so they can do threetimes more work.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise invery strong support of this amend-ment.

I had hoped that we could do thisswiftly for our colleagues. I knowmany of them would like to be headinghome this evening. Except for this oneamendment, which we could not getagreement on, we could have had anagreement on every other amendmentin this bill. But if we have to do it thisway, we have to do it.

I think this issue is crucially impor-tant to our country, and I believe thatthe gentlewoman’s amendment, whichwould increase the deferral by $22 mil-lion, would then allow us to have theroom necessary to vote for an increaseof $15 million for the National Endow-ment for the Arts, $5 million for theNational Endowment for the Human-ities, and $2 for the museums and li-braries.

Now, believe me, that is not a lot ofmoney. I do think it would send a sig-nal that after 8 years of holding downfunding for the Endowment of the Artsthat we see that Bill Ivey and his peo-ple have done a good job and that theydeserve this small amount of addi-tional money.

I want to commend the chair of theCongressional Member Organizationfor the Arts, the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) and thevice chair, the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. HORN), for their leadershipon this. It is bipartisan. There are peo-ple on both sides of the aisle here thatsupport the arts in this country.

When I go home to my State and Ilook at what has happened in Wash-ington State in the arts, and it is notjust in Seattle, it is Tacoma, in Brem-erton, in Port Townsend, it makes me

proud that that small amount of Fed-eral money has been used all over thiscountry to create performing arts’groups, ballets, and symphony orches-tras. And, also, we have been able toget funding from the private sector be-cause they see the government involve-ment, they see that Good House-keeping Seal of Approval, and they arewilling to match those monies, as thegentleman from North Carolina (Mr.BALLENGER) previously talked about.

So I think this is a solid amendment.Unfortunately, we have to offer it inthree different steps. But I hope thaton each of these steps everyone in thisHouse will recognize that this is theamendment on the National Endow-ment for the Arts. If my colleaguessupport it, they support the Slaughteramendment. If they do not, then theydo not. But I think there is a majorityin this House. If given a chance to voteup or down on this issue in this Houseof Representatives, I think there is amajority here in support of the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts and forthe National Endowment for the Hu-manities.

I regret that we are forced to offerthis amendment in this convolutedfashion because the majority is sonervous about this issue. What iswrong with the arts? What is wrongwith the humanities? Why are theyafraid of this issue, when in every com-munity in this country there are greatexamples of where the arts and human-ities are helping the American people,and our museums as well?

I am very upset that we could notwork out an agreement here. This isthe only issue we have not been able toresolve amicably, and I hope that peo-ple will stay with us, vote for theseamendments as we have to go throughthis process. We will clearly identifywhich ones are for the arts, and we ap-preciate the hard work of the gentle-woman from New York who is chair-man of the arts caucus.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothis amendment. This budget is verytight. We have many needs to balancewithin the interior budget and theoverall budget, and we must not takefunds from Social Security and Medi-care because we are afraid to maketough choices.

My opposition is based on budgetgrounds. In the past, I have helped leadthe opposition to NEA on a number ofgrounds which, under the direction ofBill Ivey and the new guidelines passedby Congress, has corrected a number ofits past problems. No longer are NEAfunds so concentrated on the major cit-ies of this country, where arts re-sources are already plentiful. This hasalso helped alleviate the cultural elit-ism of the past.

There has also been major progress inthe area of performance artists, wherethe only art is in the eyes of the artist.If art is to be public funded, it needs tobe more majoritarian or consensus art.

If the NEA wants me, my family, thepeople of Indiana, and America to payfor it, it should be something appre-ciated by others not just the artists.

Probably Americans are most famil-iar with the controversies around thefunding of morally offensive art by theNEA. It is unfortunate that conserv-atives, such as myself, do not speak upoften enough about the importance ofarts to the soul. A society without ar-tistic expression would be gray, boring,and depressing. But publicly funded artshould not gratuitously insult thedeeply held religious beliefs of theAmerican public.

The Reverend Donald Wildmon andPat Trueman of the American FamilyInstitute have performed a tirelesspublic service in making sure Ameri-cans and Congress aware of where ourtax dollars are spent. It is my beliefthat the new director and the new rulesof the NEA help make progress on lim-iting morally offensive art funded byour tax dollars.

I was shaken, as others have been, byseveral cases where NEA funds havegone to organizations in the last fewyears that have either performed orprovided a venue for art that attacksChristian beliefs in an aggressive cal-culated way. The clear goal was tocause insult and offend, not to inspirethe soul or cause reflection. They arecrudity designed to shock.

I decided to study the possible NEAinvolvement further, and this is what Idiscovered. And it was not enough justto argue that the funding was not forthe individual projects because moneycan be fungible and it can be used tosend tacit approval to the organiza-tions that performed it.

There was recently a play entitled‘‘The Pope and the Witch.’’ It depictedthe Pope, called John Paul II, as a her-oin-addicted paranoid, advocatingbirth control and legalization of drugs.

The NEA provided funding to theIrondale Ensemble Project and pro-vided funding for the New City, wherethe play was performed. But here is therest of the story. The $15,000 grant tothe Irondale Ensemble was for a musi-cal theater piece of ‘‘The Murals ofRockefeller Center.’’ The date wasprior to the morally offensive anti-Catholic about the heroin-addictedPope.

The NEA did not fund the offensiveplay, nor did they know such a playwould later be performed by this orga-nization. The real test is next year.Now they know this theater has stuckits finger in the eye of the Americanpeople. Now there should be no morefunds.

The same is true for the theater forNew York City. Their grant was tofund education programs. It was givenbefore the disgusting, anti-Catholicplay about a heroin-addicted Pope.While NEA did not know that this or-ganization was going to provide avenue for an anti-Catholic play whentheir grant was given, they now know.No more funds.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4526 June 15, 2000The Brooklyn Museum in New York

is a famous institution. It was not asurprise that NEA would have sup-ported an arts program at that mu-seum. After that funding was granted,the Brooklyn Museum apparently de-cided that their best hope for raisingmoney was to insult Christians to gainattention. A Virgin Mary made out ofdung certainly did that.

No NEA money was used for that art.NEA money to the Brooklyn Museumhad been given earlier, so it was notmoral support or fungible money. Butnow we know they will deliberately in-sult Christians with shock art. Nomore funds.

Another case raised by critics actu-ally started in 1996. In this case, ‘‘Cor-pus Christi’’ promoted itself as a playabout Christ being a homosexual whohad sex with the apostles. Clearly, notsomething taxpayers would want tosupport. But once again the facts donot show that NEA supported this play.

In 1996, the Manhattan Theatre Clubreceived a grant to develop TerrenceMcNally’s new play ‘‘Corpus Christi.’’Here is the application that describedthis proposal. I have read it and gonethrough the application. Here is allthat it said. ‘‘Spirituality has been oneof the major themes in TerrenceMcNally’s most recent plays at MTC.His next play, Corpus Christi, will bean examination of good and evil. Hewill use certain miracles in the life ofChrist as inspiration for the story,which will have a contemporary set-ting.’’

In case my colleagues missed thepart about Christ being a homosexualand having sex with his apostles, it isbecause it is not there. That is whyCongress now requires more in-depthdescriptions.

But that is not even the rest of thestory. The Manhattan Theatre Clubthen wrote to cancel this grant andasked to transfer the funds to ‘‘Col-lected Stories.’’ I have reviewed theletter exchanges that clearly show thegrant transfer.

Nothing then happened for 2 years. In1998, McNally completed the disgustingshock art play, which was performedwithout NEA funds. Many artists todaywould rather use their creative powersto mock God and try to provoke out-rage from people who love and honorour Creator rather than develop art.

Our anger and legitimate concernthat no tax dollars provide funding, di-rect or indirect, or even in the form ofmoral support, is completely justified.But we also, especially as Christians,have a moral obligation to stick withthe truth. NEA did not fund this art,directly or indirectly.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords, and I wish to engage in a col-loquy with the gentlewoman from NewYork.

It is my understanding that in theoffset for the gentlewoman’s amend-ment, she seeks to defer until 2002 $22million of previously proposed funds

for the Clean Coal Technology Programof the Energy Department. For 15years, through the Clean Coal Tech-nology Program, the Federal Govern-ment has been a solid partner, workingjointly with private companies and theStates to develop and demonstrate anew generation of environmentallyclean technology using coal.

Companies were willing to signagreements with the government be-cause Congress, under the leadership ofthe gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA),the chairman of the subcommittee, andthe gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS), the ranking member, and oth-ers, had the foresight to appropriatethe entire Federal share of funding inadvance. The companies knew themoney would be available, and withthat confidence they came to the tableready to commit their own funds.

In fact, for every $1 committed bythe Federal Government, $2 have beencommitted by private industry andState agencies. This program is comingto a conclusion. All projects have beenselected and all contracts have beennegotiated. Can the gentlewoman giveme her assurance that the deferral offunds called for in her amendment willin no way inhibit the Department ofEnergy’s ability to fulfill its contrac-tual obligations for fiscal year 2001;and, further, can the gentlewoman as-sure me that none of the currentprojects in the Clean Coal TechnologyProgram, for which contracts have al-ready been signed and agreed to by thegovernment, will not be canceled as aresult of the deferral of funds in thegentlewoman’s amendment?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLDEN. I yield to the gentle-woman from New York.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Iam happy to respond to the gentle-man’s inquiry.

I have contacted the Department ofEnergy and been assured that deferringthe additional $22 million would notcause any significant problems and isnot expected to result in the cancella-tion of any contracts.

In fact, the Department of Energyoriginally proposed deferring $221 mil-lion and rescinding an additional $105million in clean coal funds. Con-sequently, a deferral of $22 millionshould not cause any major hardship,and I urge my colleagues to take thisopportunity to allocate the funding tothe arts and humanities.

Mr. HOLDEN. Reclaiming my time,Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentle-woman and will support her amend-ment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full5 minutes, but it is important to under-stand what this amendment is. This isthe first of four amendments which, inall, will try to add $22 million to cul-tural programs; $15 million to the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts, $5 mil-lion to the National Endowment for

the Humanities, and $2 million frommuseums. It is paid for out of an ac-count which will suffer no impact if itloses that offset because that moneycannot be spent.

I would remind my colleagues thatthe agencies that the gentlewomanfrom New York is trying to fund are atthis point funded at a level 40 percentbelow where they were a decade ago.

b 1515

I would just say, I understand theanger that persons have felt in the pastwhen they have seen obscene art or so-called works of art that are morally of-fensive to large numbers of Americans,and I think that has no place in a pro-gram like this. And as you know, wehave instituted many reforms to assurethat, to the maximum extent possibleby any human being, that will not hap-pen again.

At this point, I guess my suggestionto any Member would be: Whoever onthis floor has never made a mistake ornever had their staff make a mistake,whoever there is on this floor, pleasefeel free to go ahead and criticize thisagency. Because they had a 99.9 percentrecord of funding projects which areperfectly acceptable to everyone.

I would remind you that even astopped clock is right twice a day, andso there are times when even in thebest of circumstances something wrongwill occur.

But as one of the previous speakerspointed out, in many of those in-stances, the projects that were beingobjected to were never funded by NEAin the first place.

I would also say, I just wish that youcould see one action that is takingplace in schools in my district whereone song writer goes into schools andtakes young people who have never hadexposure to this kind of program, findsout their interests, gets them to putthe words down on paper that expresstheir feelings about those interests,and then, in turn, puts those words tomusic. He has produced a wonderful CDas a result of that. And it is incrediblewhat some of those kids have been ableto do.

We need more projects like that allover the country. It would be a terribleshame if we could not begin the newChallenge Program that Bill Ivy andthe National Endowment is trying tobring forth.

I congratulate the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) for heramendment, and I would ask the co-operation of the House so that she canachieve what she is trying to do inpiecemeal fashion because the ruledoes not allow her to do it all at thesame time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number of wordsand I rise to speak in support of theamendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is another year andanother debate on a modest increase infunding for the NEA and the NEH.Most of us could probably dust off last


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4527June 15, 2000year’s statement and just use thatagain because the issues have notchanged; they are the same every year.

Every year supporters of the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts come tothe floor, and we present overwhelmingevidence that the NEA is a good invest-ment for our country. We talk aboutthe broad geographic reach of the NEA,with grants to all 50 State arts agen-cies as well as to the hundreds of com-munities across the country.

We talk about how the NEA has ex-tended the reach of the arts into ruralcommunities to which the arts neverreached before all across the country.

We talk about the importance ofNEA seed money in leveraging privatesupport, like the $4 million in totalfunding Chamber Music America wasable to raise from just a $300,000 NEAgrant.

We talk about the economic benefitsof the NEA, pointing to the tens of bil-lions of dollars in economic activitygenerated, the millions of jobs sup-ported, and the billions of dollars inFederal income tax generated by thearts every year.

And we talk about the numerous edu-cational projects supported by the NEAfrom programs for young children tolife-long learners.

Finally, we talk about the inherentvalue of supporting a vibrant arts com-munity in this Nation, how the arts liftthe spirits of our citizens and bring ustogether, how they entertain us andmake us think, how they leave a last-ing legacy for our children and theirchildren to remember and celebrate.

But as I said, we bring up these argu-ments year after year. Of course, a fewyears ago we were debating whetherthe NEA should even exist, whether itwas the proper role of Government tosubsidize the arts. But we have wonthat fight.

Clearly, the American people supportthe NEA and the work it does. Clearly,the American people believe the Fed-eral Government also has a role in pro-moting the arts and cultivating artiststhroughout the country. But in orderto carry out this mandate, we mustfund the NEA at a level that enables itto fulfill its mission.

Today, resources are stretched toothin to adequately fund worthyprojects. The average grant size hasdropped by over half since 1997 and isexpected to drop even further unless weprovide an increase this year.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin(Mr. OBEY) pointed out, this agency isfunded at a level 40 percent less than adecade ago. When we limit funding, wealso hamper the ability of the agencyto continue its work in expanding thereach of the NEA to underserved areas.

The massive cuts to the NEA enacteda number of years ago has reduced aonce thriving agency to a very valuablebut still shell of its former self. Inthese times of unparalleled prosperity,of unparalleled huge and increasingbudget surpluses, it is nothing short ofoutrageous that we have not provided a

nickel’s increase for this vital and pop-ular agency for the last several years.

I think we should return to the glorydays of the Reagan and Bush adminis-trations when the NEA received almosttwice what it does today. Short of that,I urge my colleagues to support themodest increases we are talking aboutin these amendments.

As is pointed out, the offset providedin this particular amendment poses nodanger to anything because they can-not spend that money now. The offsethas no negative impact. The modest in-crease of $15 million to the NEA and $5million to the NEA and $2 million tomuseums is less than we should do, butwe can do no less today.

I urge the adoption of these amend-ments.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues walkthrough the tunnel that connects theLongworth Building and the CannonBuilding with the Capitol today, theywill see the difference from what hap-pened yesterday when the walls werebare. Now the walls are hung withbeautiful, live, vibrant art. Now, wecannot miss it. We cannot miss thechange from nothing to what theseyoung students have done around ourcountry.

My favorite piece of art is the cowpoking its nose through the barbed-wire fence. But that is today. Tomor-row I will walk by, and I will see an-other piece of art, and it will becomemy favorite. Because that is what artdoes, it tickles us, it enthuses us, andit makes us love living. And that iswhat art is all about.

What an embarrassment for theHouse of Representatives to once againin an appropriations bill hold fundinglevels for the National Endowment forthe Arts and for the Humanities.

As anyone who has managed a budgetknows, this really means we are de-creasing funds for the arts for the hu-manities, for the libraries. Opponentsof the NEA and NEH cry fiscal dis-cipline as if the richest Nation in theworld needs to be the most culturallyimpoverished.

But money is not what this is allabout. We know that the dollars thatwe invest in the NEA and in the NEHleverage matching grants and multiplymany, many times over in every one ofour communities.

What we are really witnessing here isan assault on free expression, a war onculture. It is a battle as old as thestockades in Puritan times, and it isabsolutely wrong-headed.

The arts and humanities teach us tothink. They encourage us to feel, to seein a new way, and to communicate. Aworld without art would be as drearyas those tunnels between the CannonBuilding and the Capitol when they arewithout the art of the young peopleacross our country. A world withoutart would be a dreary, dreary existenceindeed.

I hope that all of my colleagues willsupport the Slaughter-Johnson-Hornamendment to increase funds for theNational Endowment for the Arts, theNational Endowment for the Human-ities, and the Institute for Museum andLibrary Services. It is a small invest-ment with a return as vast as our veryimaginations.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strongsupport of this critical amendment toincrease funding for the National En-dowment for the Arts and the NationalEndowment for the Humanities.

Arts are our cultural language. Theybring our communities together andserve to define who we are as a society.Both the NEA and the NEH broadenpublic access to the arts and human-ities for all Americans and improve thequality of our lives for our children andour families.

I spent a good deal of my career inpublic schools, and I have seen thepositive impacts that arts has in ourchildren’s education. The arts teachour children rhythm, design, cre-ativity, and critical thinking.

The arts have also been shown todeter delinquent behavior of at-riskyouth and to help dramatically to im-prove academic performance, truancyrates, and other critical skills amongour children.

As the new economy demands aworkforce that can think and work in-novatively, arts education provides acrucial part of that skill building,skills that can begin at a very youngage. For example, in a child’s elemen-tary school class trip to the museum.

In my district on the central coast ofCalifornia, students have been exposedto the virtues of music, poetry, anddance as a result of our National En-dowment of the Arts support.

Students from Santa Barbara, SanMarcos, and Morro Bay High Schoolshad the opportunity to participate inthe Essentially Ellington program andstudy the jazz music of Duke Ellington.

Students and adults have been ex-posed to poetry through National Po-etry Month at the Lompoc Public Li-brary, Miguelito Elementary School,the Dunn School in Los Olivos, the SanLuis City County Library, and the Uni-versity of California in Santa Barbara.

Thousands of my constituents havebeen thrilled and inspired by the Mo-zart Festival in San Luis Obispo, theSanta Barbara Symphony Orchestra,and the LINES Contemporary Ballet,which has performed at both AllanHancock College in Santa Maria andCalPoly University in San Luis Obispo.These exhibits and performances havebeen funded and supported by NEA.

For slightly less than 36 cents a year,all Americans have access to all thatthe arts have to offer. It is a smallprice to pay for one of our Nation’srichest and most effective resources.

And so I urge my colleagues, let usvote for our children and support the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4528 June 15, 2000Slaughter-Horn-Johnson amendmentto strengthen both the National En-dowment for the Arts and the NationalEndowment for the Humanities.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words.

Mr. Chairman, since its creation in1965, the National Endowment for theArts has issued more than 110,000grants; and of this total, fewer than 20have been considered controversial.

We can match that 20 against grantrecipients who received 35 of the past46 National Book Awards, NationalBook Critics Circle Awards, and Pul-itzer Prizes in fiction and poetry since1990.

Thirty-five of those recipients havebeen NEA recipients. Match it againstthe grant recipients of PBS’s GreatPerformances that were nominated for121 Emmys and won 51 Emmys.

Imagine all of those who are recipi-ents of NEA awards. Great perform-ances or small, the NEA has supportedhundreds of professional orchestras,dance companies, nonprofit theaters.And before that NEA support, theyreally did not exist. But given NEAseed money and given the credibilitythat they get by NEA choosing tomake an award to them, even if it be asmall award, they then go out andraise substantial amounts that are inmany multiples of the actual moneythat NEA gets. But that little seed,that credibility, makes a world of dif-ference.

Federal funding for music, dance,theater, literature, and visual arts isnot just about the quality of life; it isabout investments to fulfill our humaneconomic potential. By directing fundstoward culturally diverse, educationalcommunity-oriented programs, we pro-vide places where at-risk youth can ex-press themselves creatively ratherthan destructively.

b 1530One witness provides a living testi-

mony for why Congress should increaseNEA’s budget. Three years ago, I knowI was moved by the testimony and Ithink all of the members of the sub-committee were moved by the testi-mony of a young opera singer namedDenyce Graves. She testified that with-out the NEA, she never would haveheard an opera, let alone determinedthat she was interested in pursuing acareer as an opera singer.

Growing up in Washington, D.C., Ms.Graves was only a few miles away fromthe Kennedy Center but because herfamily could never afford Kennedy Cen-ter productions, it might as well havebeen a world away. It was not until Ms.Graves, as a teenager, saw her firstopera at a local community theaterfunded in part through the NEA thatshe changed her whole career aspira-tions. She was so inspired by themusic, the drama, and the passion thatshe decided at that moment she wouldbecome an opera singer.

Since that day, Denyce Graves hasperformed as Carmen at the Met and

sung all over the world in major operaproductions. But she has never forgot-ten the role that NEA had in her life.She devotes a large amount of her timeworking in community theater groupssponsored by the NEA. She talks toinner-city kids about the importance ofarts as an alternative to violence andabout how they can find constructiveways to express their passions, theirfears, their desires and their dreams.

That is what this is all about, fun-neling people’s passions into construc-tive things rather than destructivepursuits. Promoting the arts improvesour culture and helps instill civility.Arts and the humanities can lift peopleup and show them a different way oflooking at the world. This Congressshould continue to help the youngDenyce Graves of the world to achievetheir dream.

Today we have a chance to increaseour investment for this worthwhileprogram. We can vote to increase op-portunities for our citizens, to enrichtheir lives, their communities, and im-prove the social fabric of our Nation.We ought to give more Americans thechance to enjoy the arts the wayDenyce Graves and countless othershave had that opportunity because ofthe National Endowment for the Arts.The NEA, the NEH, the Museums, allthat we do for the arts pays multiple-fold dividends. It is part of our qualityof life and part of our social and eco-nomic progress. We ought to increasethat investment today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not going tocomplicate this, because everybody hasexpressed themselves adequately andthere has been a lot of emotion and agreat deal of coverage here. I justthink there are three things: One, doyou believe in the arts? Secondly, doyou believe in the government being inthe arts? And thirdly, how muchmoney is involved?

I do not think there is any questionabout the first issue. I do not thinkanybody who is adamantly opposed tothe government being in the arts op-poses the arts. I mean, it is clear thatthere is tremendous benefit to our soci-ety, to our children, all of the richnessof our lives.

So the second thing is, should thegovernment be in the arts? I reallythink it should. I will tell my col-leagues why. I will give an example ofa particular program that years agowas trying to start up an arts camp inMassachusetts. They could not get anymoney. It was unproven. They were notsure it was the right thing to do. Sothey finally got a 5-year grant, I thinkit was $5,000 a year, from the NEA,which clearly was not enough to coverthe program but it was enough to sig-nal to the other program on the out-side, this is really worthy of somethingbecause the National Endowment forthe Arts of the United States is sup-porting this.

The end result of this is they got themoney, that people, individuals, cor-porations and foundations supportedthis thing and as a result, there are 40to 45 of these camps literally touchingthe lives of thousands of students. Thatnever would have been possible had itnot been for that authenticity.

The third area is how much. I do notknow how much. I do not know if thereshould be an increase of 15 for the NEA,five for the NEH and two for the Muse-ums or whether it should be more orless. I do know, though, the trend hasbeen going in the wrong direction.Somehow if we believe in this, then wemust reverse it, and the numbers ex-pressed here today make a great deal ofsense.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

As a proud member of the NationalCouncil of the Arts, and I saw my goodfriend the gentleman from North Caro-lina (Mr. BALLENGER) here, I cannothelp but be impressed with thethoughtfulness, the seriousness and thecommitment of the Members who aremaking these judgments. I have seenwith the gentleman from North Caro-lina firsthand the NEA’s grant selec-tion process. I just want to applaudthem once again for successfully in-creasing America’s access to the artsdespite level funding for the last 3years.

Unfortunately, the bill before ussorely underfunds the NEA and wouldinhibit the NEA from funding worthyand creative programs such as Chair-man Ivey’s ‘‘Challenge America’’ whichwould further arts education and out-reach, particularly in underservedareas. It is so exciting to see and totalk with Chairman Ivey about what hewants to do, to go to areas whereyoung people do not have access to thearts, to go into schools where many ofour young people really cannot expressthemselves as well as others can with-out access to music, to art, to othercultural attractions. This is so veryvital for their education.

In a Nation of such wealth and cul-tural diversity, it is a sad commentaryon our priorities that year after yearwe must continue to fight for an agen-cy that spends less than 40 cents perAmerican each year and in return ben-efits students, teachers, artists, musi-cians, orchestras, theaters, dance com-panies and their audiences around thecountry.

Mr. Chairman, let us make a changethis year. Now is the time to increasefunding for the arts. Let us do the rightthing. Let us support our young people.Let us support these programs. And letus make sure the United States ofAmerica can stand tall and be proud ofour commitment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strongsupport of the NEA, the NEH, the Mu-seum and Library Services and in sup-port of the Slaughter-Johnson amend-ment. My colleague the gentleman


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4529June 15, 2000from New York (Mr. HOUGHTON) said,Well, we support the arts. We supportthe Federal Government involvementin the arts. The question is, how muchmoney?

Let me take a try at explaining whywe should be putting more money intothese organizations at this time. TheNational Endowment for the Arts hasbeen treated unkindly by this body fortoo long. Since the early 1990s, theNEA, for example, has seen its fundingreduced from $162 million in 1995 to $99million in 1996, to $97.6 million lastyear. So even if we adopt this amend-ment, the NEA budget would still fallshort of the President’s budget request.

To the credit of the NEA, it is con-tinuing to do more with less. Even withthe shrinking budget over the last 5years, NEA has provided a greaternumber of grants to more communitiesacross the entire country. Unfortu-nately, simple math will tell us, whilethe number of grants has risen, the av-erage grant amount has dropped by 45percent. We must stop starving the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts. Wehave won the fight, I hope, for the ex-istence of the NEA and the NEH andLibrary Services. But every year, itseems, we have to fight to raise itabove starvation. Whether it is theKennedy Center’s touring company inManalapan or the Boy Choir School orthe McCarter theater, all of those inmy district, or a nonprofit group inTuscaloosa, Alabama, or in Lake Plac-id, New York, funding for the NEAtouches all of our constituents, bring-ing them arts, cultural events and edu-cational opportunities. Visual and per-forming arts, literature and poetryhelp us know ourselves as a society andhelp us stretch ourselves and grow as asociety.

The President made a reasonable re-quest of $150 million for the NEA. Mycolleagues on the Committee on Appro-priations set the NEA allocation at $98million. This amendment, I think, is areasonable increase and will help raisethis above starvation levels.

I urge my colleagues to vote for thisopportunity for personal enrichment,for societal enrichment, for culturalenrichment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of in-creased funding for the arts and hu-manities. I know there is a philo-sophical difference over whether or notthere is a Federal responsibility to as-sist in the creation of the arts and thehumanities across this Nation andwhether the Federal Governmentshould be involved in helping to exposemore Americans to the benefits ofthose arts. But I have come to the real-ization that I think the Federal Gov-ernment does have a role, not a pri-mary role but it does have a role.

I also believe that increased fundingfor the National Endowment for theArts is justified. There are a lot of artsgroups in my district, in my part of Ar-izona that benefit very directly from

this funding, such as dance theater per-formances and in-residence musicaltroupes that have been there in com-munities like Safford and Thatcher,poetry readings, photography exhibitsin Tucson and other small commu-nities around the district. These activi-ties are a real asset to the rural townsand to the larger metropolitan areas.They are precisely the type of culturalactivities that got overlooked too oftenwithout the National Endowment forthe Arts.

But having said that and my supportfor added funding, as a member of theCommittee on Appropriations, as amember of the majority and as a mem-ber of this subcommittee, I have abasic question and a basic responsi-bility and, that is, how do we get thisbill past the House of Representatives?An increase is great if it helps us topass this bill on the floor of the House.But it does not do us much good if themajority of this body end up votingagainst the overall measure. So myquestion to the sponsors would be, dothey intend to support this bill if anamendment is passed to increase thefunding of the NEH and the NEA? Ihope that we get this answered some-time before this debate is over.

My concern is a very practical one. Ifwe adopt the amendment, do we gainsupport for the bill? It appears that wedo not. But I can assure my colleaguesthat its passage results in a loss of sup-port, unfortunately as far as I am con-cerned, but a loss of support by someMembers on my side who have a verydifferent point of view and whose viewI also respect.

It is for that reason, until I havesome assurance about this, that Iwould have to oppose this amendment.Because if we cannot get the billthrough the House of Representatives,off the floor of the House and to con-ference with the Senate, then we alllose. We have to govern responsibly. Ido not want to risk shutting down ournational parks and forests over a vir-tual increase in funding, and I say ‘‘vir-tual’’ because this amendment does notactually allow any additional money tobe spent or obligated to NEA or NEHuntil the last day of the fiscal year. Itis in essence an advanced appropriationfor the fiscal year 2002, not 2001.

So it is my hope that when this proc-ess is completed, the appropriationsprocess is finished for this next fiscalyear, we can find a consensus some-where in what I would call the ‘‘radicalcenter’’ and achieve a responsible in-crease in funding for the arts and hu-manities.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

I rise in support of the Slaughter-Johnson–Dicks amendment and reallyapplaud them for all of their hard workon this amendment. This would add ad-ditional funding for the National En-dowment for the Arts by $15 million,the National Endowment for the Hu-manities by $5 million, and the Insti-

tute of Museum and Library Servicesby $2 million.

These programs help communitiesacross the Nation develop criticallyimportant cultural resources. Throughthe NEA grants to local communities,support is provided for more than 7,400K–12 arts educational programs inmore than 2,600 communities all acrossthis great Nation.

Chairman Bill Ivey has listened tothe concerns of Congress and respondedto them. He has initiated a series of re-forms, first in how grants are given,and secondly in the arts reach pro-gram, he has reached out to all of theStates with the goal of making thecontributions equal among the States.

b 1545

The Challenge America program ofNEA is hoping to bring educationalprograms to our public schools, to ouryoung people in the early years, whichis tremendously important. Study afterstudy shows that children who are ex-posed to the arts do better in schooland have higher self-esteem.

NEA, NEH and IMLS reach out to allof our communities. They provide cul-tural and educational opportunities toour children and families that enricheach and every one of us.

At the same time, these programsgenerate an enormous amount of rev-enue, approximately $3.6 billion eachyear for our local economies acrossthis country.

The NEA is useful to all our commu-nities and comes at very little cost totaxpayers. Funding for the arts ismuch less than 1 percent of our Federalbudget, and funding for these ex-tremely beneficial programs has beenfrozen for several years.

In fact, funding is now 40 percentlower than it was 10 years ago. So it istime to do more for students and com-munities across our Nation. In my owncity of New York, I cannot even imag-ine what it would be like without thearts.

It is such a vital and important partof the enrichment and cultural life ofour city. And every single city shouldhave arts, humanitarian programs, thehumanities and library services.

This amendment reaches out to ac-complish that goal. Again, one goal isto make sure that all States have equalfunding. So I urge all of my colleaguesto support this package.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to dividemy time with the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. CUNNINGHAM), who actuallywas here before me, and the gentlemanconsented to this. I will speak for 21⁄2minutes or less.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong sup-port of the Slaughter-Horn-Johnsonamendment to enable an increase infunding for the National Endowmentfor the Arts by $15 million, for the Na-tional Endowment of the Humanitiesby $5 million, and for the Institute of


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4530 June 15, 2000Museum and Library Services by $2million.

We have heard over and over again,and we do agree it is critical that wesupport Federal funding for these pro-grams. They serve to broaden publicaccess to the arts in humanities for allAmericans to participate in and enjoy.The value of these programs lies intheir ability to nurture artistic excel-lence of thousands of arts organiza-tions and artists in every corner of thecountry.

The NEA alone awards more than1,000 grants to nonprofit arts organiza-tions for projects in every State. Theseprograms are also a great investmentin our Nation’s economic growth. Letus realize that the nonprofit arts in-dustry alone generates more than $36.8million annually in economic activity.It supports 1.3 million jobs. It returnsmore than $3.4 million to the FederalGovernment in income taxes.

I know that each of us in Congresscan point to worthwhile projects in ourdistricts that are aided by the NEA,the NEH, and the Institute of Museumand Library Services. In my district,Montgomery County, Maryland, theNEA funds, just as an example, thePuppet Theatre Glen Echo Park, just afew miles from the Capitol. It is a 200-seat theatre created out of a portion ofan historic ballroom at Glen EchoPark.

The audience is usually made up ofchildren accompanied by their familiesand teachers, representing the culturaland economic diversity of Maryland,Virginia, and the District of Columbia.An NEA grant allows the Puppet Com-pany to keep the ticket prices low sothat many young families can attendthe performances.

One reads every day in the papersabout those groups that travel therefor the performances. And in the lastfive years other institutions and indi-viduals in Maryland have received $18.2million from the NEH and the Mary-land Humanities Council for projectsthat help preserve the Nation’s cul-tural heritage, foster lifelong learning,and encourage civic involvement.

By supporting the arts and human-ities, the Federal Government has anopportunity to partner with State andlocal communities for the bettermentof our Nation. Both the arts and thehumanities teach us who we were, whowe are, and who we might be. Both arecritical to a free and democratic soci-ety. It is important, even vital, that wesupport and encourage the promotionof the arts and humanities.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote onthe Slaughter-Horn-Johnson amend-ment package.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my col-league and friend, the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. CUNNINGHAM).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Iwill move to strike the requisite num-ber of words and take my own time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of the amendment offered by mygood friend and colleague, the gentle-woman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER).

As chairperson of the CongressionalArts Caucus, she has done a remark-able job in educating her colleagues onthe importance of the arts, humanities,history and literacy programs here inthe United States.

This amendment would restore $22million of urgently needed resources tothe National Endowment for the Arts,the National Endowment for the Hu-manities, and the Institute of Museumand Library Services.

These funds will be used to continueand expand upon a number of impor-tant programs at these agencies, in-cluding the arts, education programsat the National Endowment for theArts.

Currently over 5 million Americanchildren benefit from the arts edu-cation programs, including a number ofmy constituents in the Bronx and inQueens.

In my district, the BCA DevelopmentCorporation, which runs theWriterCorps project, recently received$30,000 to support the Youth PoetrySlam. The poetry program is designedto use teens’ natural penchant for com-petition and self-expression to intro-duce them to the written and to thespoken word.

It has been proven over and overagain that children who are exposed tothe arts remain in school longer, re-ceive better grades and stay out oftrouble, and hold themselves in higherself-esteem.

Additionally, the NEA providesgrants to cultural and folk institutionsthroughout our country to dem-onstrate and show respect for the di-verse ethnicities that make up ourgreat Nation.

As an example of the importance ofthese funds, the Thalia Spain Theatrein Sunnyside, New York, received$10,000 to support a series of folkloreshows of music and dance from Spainand Latin America. The music anddance shows included Argentine, tangoand flamenco, and classic Spanishdance, as well as Mexican folklore.

I am especially pleased at the fund-ing award for the Thalia Spanish The-atre. I have worked very hard to makesure that the arts and cultural organi-zations cater to nontraditional andnew audiences. That is why I ampleased to thank both the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Chairman REGULA) and thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) for once again including my lan-guage into this bill to include urbanminorities under the definition of anunderserved population for the purposeof awarding NEA grants.

My district, which is composed of adiverse wealth of neighborhoodsthroughout Queens and the Bronx, hasa number of ethnic groups that add tothe tapestry of New York City.

My language will open NEA fundingto more local ethnic arts groups and

more residents of Queens and theBronx. It would also help fulfill themission of the NEA to guarantee thatno person is left untouched by the arts.

Once again, I want to thank the gen-tleman from Ohio (Chairman REGULA);the ranking member, the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS), for alltheir hard work to include that lan-guage.

I want to also ensure that all Ameri-cans have equal access to cultural pro-grams. Projects targeted at urbanyouth will greatly help keep theseyoung people off the streets and awayfrom the lure of drugs and crime. Thearts also help to break down barriers.They bring communities together; andthey offer hope, hope to strugglingcommunities throughout our country.

That is why the Slaughter amend-ment today is so important. Addition-ally, this amendment will increase thefunding for both the National Endow-ment for the Humanities and the Insti-tute for Museum and Library Services.These two agencies both have strongreputations among both Democrats andRepublicans for the wonderful work inrestoring the folk, oral, and writtentraditions of America.

The NEH has been very active in pro-viding seed money throughout thecountry, and particularly in New YorkCity, to address the issues of electronicmedia in the classroom. A specificgrant was given last year to assist inthe training of teachers in new mediatechniques to communicate the hu-manities to our children.

This type of project represents thebest of the NEH and of our governmentworking directly with local commu-nities to advance the education of ouryoung and train them for the future.

The NEH and the IMLS have led theway in working to build and strengthenrelationships between our Nation’s li-braries and museums and our chil-dren’s classrooms to ensure that theknowledge, creativity, and imaginationof every child of our great Nation is atthe fingertips of every young Einstein,Rembrandt, and Twain to come in thefuture.

This is an excellent amendment, andI urge all of my colleagues to supportit.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) is a cham-pion of the arts and the NEA and thepeople that speak for the National En-dowment of the Arts. I just happenedto disagree with the manner in whichthey fund the arts, and I will be happyto explain.

I want to tell everyone about a littlegirl that escaped from Vietnam; hername was Foo Lee. She participated inthe arts caucus every year which haveart students from the high schools sub-mit their work and we pay for the stu-dent to come back here, out of our ownpockets. Foo Lee escaped in a boatfrom Vietnam, and if anyone sees the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4531June 15, 2000painting, we would actually get tearsin our eyes, because she and her wholefamily escaped from Vietnam on arickety boat, and she drew a picture ofthat. We can see the pain and the an-guish.

Mr. Chairman, the little girl has afantastic talent. We found out that FooLee’s mom stayed behind when shecame to the United States. She knewthat if they were captured, that theywould be all put into a re-educationcamp, and there is nothing educationabout a re-education camp in Vietnam.

So the mom, who was a gynecologist,actually stayed behind so that Foo Leeand the rest of the family could comeforward. It took 2 years, but we finallygot Foo Lee’s mom into LindberghField in San Diego on Christmas Day,and that little girl is still an artist.

I want to tell everyone that there areartists like that, and there are paint-ings of the children in our schools thatpaint in the hallway here. There is alot of very gifted children and a lot oftalent there. It should be cultured.

I respectfully disagree with the waythat the National Endowment for theArts deals with taxpayer funding.

I will come into the district of thegentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER), and I will campaign forthe arts, not for the gentlewoman. Iwill not raise money for the gentle-woman, but I will come in and if thegentlewoman has something here in DCor wants to raise money for the arts, Iwill be happy to do that.

I openly seek from private industryto give and contribute to the arts. Iwould make a wager that with most ofthe majority, I give more money toSan Diego Symphony and the Escon-dido Arts Center than most Membersgive out of your own pockets.

Again, I disagree with taking it outof taxpayer dollars for the NationalEndowment for the Arts in this way.And we have a lady named Mrs. Bell;her husband started Taco Bell. Shelives in my district. The first time Imet her she told me to take the bucketof lettuce out there and go feed thechickens, Congressman. That is hownonassuming she is.

She provided a grant to start an en-tire music system in Encinitas Ele-mentary School System, and I thinkthat is what we ought to do. If we wantto support tax deductions for it, pri-vate contributions, industry investingin education and the arts, as I said, Iwill even come to the most liberal dis-tricts; I will come to the districts. Iwill even come to the district of thegentleman from Vermont (Mr. SAND-ERS) and fight for the arts.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this;and I would say to those, the individ-uals that have the beliefs in this, Iknow the Members mean well in thisand see it as the way to invest in thearts. Some of us disagree with that,and I hope the Members understandthat as well.

Whatever pro or con of this par-ticular amendment, the bill we feel it

will be a killer to the particular bill,and if Members want the bill to pass,then I would reject this amendment.Whether pro or against this particularbill, it may not be the case, but we feelthat the bill will go down, one of thereasons for this particular amendment.

We would like to pass the bill, and Iwould say to my colleagues, let us sup-port the arts, but let us not do itthrough taxpayer-funded messages.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,I move to strike the requisite numberof words and rise today in support ofthe Slaughter-Johnson–Dicks amend-ment to increase funding for the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts.

The arts and humanities are impor-tant components of American life. Thearts really bring to life the strugglesand challenges many people are con-fronted with on a daily basis. More-over, the arts and humanities tran-scend cultural race, religion, income,age and geography.

b 1600

Whether it is at the Kennedy Centeror a theater in Chicago, the arts reallyhelp to enhance the quality of life forall Americans through a breathtakingarray of cultural activity.

Statistics suggest that art programsin schools and music concerts tend tostimulate students’ learning and im-prove overall academic performance. Inmy congressional district in Chicago,the NEA has had a significant impacton many of our great institutions andon improving the quality of life. Forexample, the NEA has supported theWest Side Cultural Arts Council, theChicago Symphony Orchestra, ChicagoBlack Ensemble Theater Corporation,the School of Art Institute of Chicago,the Black Ensemble’s Little City Pro-gram, the Museum of ContemporaryArt, the Illinois Arts Alliance, and theField Museum of Chicago, just to namea few.

For me, increasing funding for theNEA is not an option, it is actually apriority, and it is a priority becausepublic support for the arts and human-ities is the finest expression of faith inthe individual’s ability to think, createand express ideas.

The arts and humanities can speak ofthings that cannot be spoken of in anyother way. They foster a sense of com-munity by advancing the under-standing of history, of culture, and ofideas. Cultural diversity is somethingthat we talk about a great deal in thiscountry, and it is, indeed, a source ofgreat strength to our Nation, a sourceof energy, a source of creativity.

Therefore, I believe that sustainingand supporting an increase of fundingfor the arts and humanities must in-deed be a national priority, if we are tobe able to pull together and shape theNation, based upon the culture, thetradition, the hopes, the aspirationsand the contributions of all of its peo-ple.

Mr. Chairman, I urge, in a vote, urgea vote in favor of an increase.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of allthe Slaughter amendments to increasefunding for the National Endowmentfor the Arts and the Humanities andfor the Institute of Museum and Li-brary Services. I only wish they couldhave been considered as one, ratherthan have been split up as they havebeen.

These are very modest amendments,and, personally, I would support sig-nificantly greater increases for each ofthese three agencies. The reason why isvery simple. These agencies are goodfor the third district of Massachusetts,a district that I am proud to represent.They contribute to the economic vital-ity and cultural vibrancy of the com-munities I represent.

Let me highlight a few examples formy colleagues. The Institute of Mu-seum and Library Services has pro-vided grant support to expand and en-hance educational programs and publicoutreach to the Worcester Art Mu-seum, one of the premier museums inNew England, as well as to the WillardHouse and Clock Museum in NorthGrafton and the Worcester County Hor-ticultural Society. By supporting thesemuseums, large and small, IMLS hashelped foster leadership, innovationand a lifetime of learning for thesecommunities.

The National Endowment for the Hu-manities has provided grant support tothe American Antiquarian Society inWorcester to conserve and acquirebooks and manuscripts in the Society’scollection.

Let me tell you a little more aboutthe American Antiquarian Society, oneof my favorite sites in Worcester. It isa precious resource for every singleAmerican. The Society houses the larg-est and most accessible collection ofbooks, pamphlets, broadsides, manu-scripts, newspapers, periodicals, sheetmusic and graphic arts material print-ed from the establishment of the colo-nies in America through 1876. It is aunique resource for the understandingof our history and culture. The NEHhas provided support to nearly everyaspect of the museum’s operations, in-cluding outreach to the public and toschool children. It has also helped le-verage additional State and privatesupport.

Mr. Chairman, I also have 16 collegesand universities in my district, and theIMLS and the NEH have provided in-valuable research grants and supportfor their educational and culturalwork.

The National Endowment for theArts has provided direct support to ac-tivities in Worcester and Attleboro,and with its support of the Massachu-setts Cultural Council, reaches schoolsand community centers throughoutCentral Massachusetts. These threeagencies, Mr. Chairman, help the edu-cational, community and cultural in-stitutions in my district meet the chal-lenges of the future.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4532 June 15, 2000Through their grant support, my

communities can provide greater pub-lic access to the arts, the humanities,and the resources of our libraries andmuseums. They help these institutionsincorporate and make available to thepublic new technologies, regardless ofincome.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto support these amendments. They aremodest but worthy investments in edu-cation and families and children andour cultural heritage and our future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleaguestonight as we debate this to substitutethe word ‘‘religion’’ every time theword ‘‘art’’ has been used here. I sug-gest that there is a great deal, in fact,an exact comparison, between almosteverything that has been said in sup-port of the funding for the arts thatcould be said, but certainly wouldnever be said on this floor, if an amend-ment were proposed to support reli-gion.

As the Managing Director of Balti-more’s Center Stage put it, ‘‘Art haspower. It has power to sustain, to heal,to humanize, to change something inyou. It is a frightening power, and alsoa beautiful power. And it’s essential toa civilized society. Because art is sopowerful, because it deals with suchbasic human truths, we dare not entan-gle it with coercive governmentpower.’’

For exactly the same reason that,certainly I know my friends on thisside of the aisle would stand up andrail against anyone who would suggestthat we should take public money andsubsidize religious experiences, for ex-actly the same reason I ask you tothink about what you are doing whenyou ask people to subsidize the arts.

The arts are, in fact, as close a re-semblance to religion as I can possiblythink of. They are expressions of theinnermost feelings in our souls, andcertainly worthwhile. Think of it thisway: If we subsidized religion, could wenot come to the floor as the gentlemanfrom Illinois (Mr. DAVIS) did with thatbeautiful and eloquent explanation ofall of the wonderful things that happenin our country because we subsidize re-ligion, all of the incredible things thatgo on in our own communities, themany benefits that we could bring toindividuals in our own communities be-cause we could subsidize religion.

Certainly it would be difficult toargue with the benefits of a religiousexperience. It is difficult to argue thefact that art is an uplifting, a wonder-ful thing, that we all enjoy, in our ownspecific way. But just as God is in theeye and/or mind of the believer, art isin the eye and mind of the observer,and I have no more authority, no moreresponsibility, to compel people in thiscountry to support religion than I dohaving them support the arts. And thatis really the most basic, I guess, com-parison that I can make; and I ask my

colleagues to think about it. It issomething somewhat more esotericthan the kind of debate we have beenhaving, but I think just as germane.

Something that was written in 1779,‘‘To compel a man to furnish contribu-tions of money for the propagation ofopinions which he disbelieves and ab-hors is sinful and tyrannical.’’ 1789. Theauthor, of course, Thomas Jefferson, inthe Bill for Religious Freedom.

What, may I ask, do you think is thedifference between what he is warningus about here and what we are pre-paring to do with both this amendmentand the funding of the arts in general?It is difficult, if not impossible, to de-termine a distinction, and although Iunderstand entirely the altruistic in-tent on the part of the people who wantto fund the arts and who want to in-crease the funding for the arts, I askyou to think about the basic issue thatforces itself into the discussion here,and that is that when you compel peo-ple to contribute money for the propa-gation of opinions which onedisbelieves in and abhors, it is sinfuland tyrannical.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, andthe minute that you fund the arts, youdo exactly what they fear would hap-pen when you fund religion, you politi-cize it. You will always then have peo-ple arguing about what is proper art,what is proper for public support, whatkind of movie or what kind of play orwhat kind of books should be fundedwith public dollars. We will alwayshave that because, of course, it is thenature of the business. If we fund it, wewill attempt to regulate it; we will at-tempt to censor it. We should not cen-sor art; we should not fund art.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my col-league from Colorado, and I thank cer-tainly the sponsors on this side, thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) and the gentlewoman from NewYork (Ms. SLAUGHTER) and others.

One great thing about our Nation, asthe gentleman from Colorado (Mr.TANCREDO) knows and all of us in thisChamber knows is that there are dif-ferences that exist among us. We aretied together with some commonthreads, but what makes us so great isthat there are people who wear dif-ferent clothing, who cling to differentpolitical beliefs. Obviously there arethose that harbor different politicalphilosophies, as we see aired on thisfloor day in and day out.

What ties us all together really asAmericans is that we all really sort ofshare the same dreams and same aspi-rations. I have constituents of mine inthe Chamber today, and I can assurethe gentleman from Colorado (Mr.TANCREDO) they are good church mem-bers. They are members of PrincetonAvenue Full Gospel Church back in mydistrict, and all of them want theirkids to go to a good school, and all ofthem want their parents to maintaintheir health benefits at work, to main-tain a job and their health benefits.

But there are differences that existamong us that really make Americawhat it is. The NEA and the NEH inmany ways helps to foster that, spon-sors those initiatives and those efforts,and I might add in my public schoolsystem, both NEA and NEH grantshave done wonderful things to assistteachers and educators in passingalong ideas and teaching lessons tokids who sometimes might not ordi-narily get them. We have all seen thestats and the data that clearly dem-onstrated that kids that are exposed toarts and music early in life do better intheir core subjects, the math and thescience, the English and the historyand the host of other core subjects thatare so critical to a young person’s de-velopment.

It is my hope, and I understand myfriend from Colorado’s passion aboutthis issue, but the facts are the facts.We are not talking about religion here,we are talking about the arts. The Con-stitution speaks clearly, the foundingof this country was predicated uponthose seeking religious freedom.

So I would say to my colleagues onthe other side of the aisle, and evensome on this side of the aisle, thinkabout all of those museums and univer-sities and schools, think about allthose nonprofit and community organi-zations that benefit from these grants.Think of the young people’s lives thatwe impact and touch and improve, andthink about the heritage and the waysin which we are able to bring people to-gether, despite our differences, and howthese grants and initiatives help to dojust that.

Seeing the look on a young person’sface when they learn about their his-tory and learn about their heritage andhow it fits into this larger nationalfabric is truly phenomenal, as theSpeaker knows, and I would hope thatmy colleague from Colorado knows aswell.

I would ask all of my colleagues tolook beyond the rhetoric from one mo-ment, to look beyond the political con-tributions for one moment, to look be-yond those political constituenciesthat would lambast the arts and hu-manities, and let us support an initia-tive and support an amendment that inmany ways helps to bolster and pro-mote what is great about our Nation,our ideals, our democracy and our free-dom.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsors,and would urge support of this amend-ment.

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of the Slaughter-Horn amendmentto increase the amend of funding thatwe provide to the National Endowmentfor the Arts, the National Endowmentfor the Humanities, the Institute ofMuseum and Library Services. It al-lows these groups to expand and con-tinue what is truly important workthat goes on around the country inthese areas.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4533June 15, 2000These are agencies that are charged

with bringing our history, the beauty,the wisdom, culture, into the lives ofall Americans, young, old, rich, poor,urban, rural. We in the Congress havesaid that preserving our national herit-age and making it accessible to allAmericans is a goal that is worthy ofour support. It is time now to makesure that these agencies have the re-sources that they need to achieve thismission.

b 1615

This is about our humanity, this isabout our civility. This is what definesus as a people. These are the institu-tions that help to capture who we areand what we are about.

Many years ago I spent 7 years as thechair of the Greater New Haven ArtsCouncil in my city of New Haven, Con-necticut, so I know firsthand how thearts not only enrich lives, but con-tribute to the economic growth of thecommunity.

Federal investment in the arts is notonly a means of support for the endeav-or, but rather, our dollars, which rep-resent a small fraction of an annualbudget, are used to leverage privatefunding and fuel what is an arts indus-try. This industry creates job, it in-creases travel and tourism, it gen-erates thousands of dollars for aState’s economy.

If Members cannot be persuaded onthe humanity portions of this effortand the cultural and the preservationof our heritage, gosh, I would hopeMembers would be turned on the issueof the economics of a vibrant arts com-munity.

In addition, the NEA is an importantpartner in bringing arts education tomore American youngsters. Arts edu-cation is critical. It helps to plantseeds of art appreciation. It cultivatestalent that is yet to be discovered inthe young minds of our kids around thecountry.

In partnership with State arts agen-cy, the Endowment provides $37 millionof annual support for from kinder-garten through 12th grade arts edu-cation projects in more than 2,600 com-munities across the country.

When we are teaching youngstersmusic, we teach them mathematics. Itis found and proven that the develop-ment of a musical education in fact in-creases the mathematical ability ofyoungsters today.

The National Endowment funds pro-fessional development programs for artspecialists, classroom teachers, andartists. We are truly just beginning tounderstand the benefit of arts edu-cation and the way in which it helps tofoster self-esteem for our youngsters,helps them to choose a constructivepath rather than turning to violence.We need to continue to support theseefforts.

We know that the arts builds oureconomy, it enriches our culture, itfeeds the minds of adults and children.The NEA, the NEH, the Institute for

Museum and Library Services, need tohave an increase in their missions. It istime we gave them our support.

Let us focus in on the legacy that wewant to give to future generations onwho we were and what we did. Let itflower in our music, in our painting, inour buildings. Let generations to comeunderstand who we are and what wehave done.

This is an expression of our human-ity. Let us not shortchange it. Let usunderstand that it imbues who we areand how we live our lives today.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, first, I am opposed tothe clean coal deferral because I thinkthe program is important in terms ofenergy independence. We have manyresearch projects in the clean coal pro-gram. We are going to be able to sell alot of this technology to the Chinesebecause most of their power plants arefueled by coal. Yet they are growingmore sensitive to clean air problems.

What this amendment does is defer$22 million of clean coal funding sothat the money would be available todo an increase in the National Endow-ment for the Arts. That is why all thisdiscussion has been focused around theNEA. Without this window of moneythere is not anyplace to do an offset,which of course would be required foran NEA amendment.

Just so the Members understand, thevote will be on whether or not weshould defer $22 million of clean coalmoney which would be used for poten-tial projects in developing clean coaltechnology and use that deferredmoney for an amendment later on.


Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, of coursethe gentleman, who has done so muchon this particular issue, realizes alsothat the administration requested amuch larger deferral; that we can deferthis money until the end of the fiscalyear and the testimony is that it willnot have any effect whatsoever on theprograms, the substance of the pro-grams. All the projects will go ahead,but it does make the money availablefor this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is cor-rect.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman,the Administration did request more. Ido not agree with them. I think thatthe Department of Energy needs tohave this space, although they mightfeel differently, in the event that theyhave some projects that will fit theclean coal technology objective.

In any event, just so the Membersunderstand this vote, and it will be thesecond vote this afternoon, the vote isto take $22 million of clean coal moneyand make it available to do the in-crease that will be proposed by amend-ment in the National Endowment forthe Arts program. That is why the de-

bate was revolving around the NEA. Sothat will come.

I might say, I have been advised bythe leadership, and I think a memothat went out to this effect to all theoffices, that they plan to finish thisbill tonight. So I think we need to keepworking on it if we want to get it fin-ished. That is the present plan fromthe Republican leadership. I just wantto advise Members of that. I hope thatonce we get by these two amendmentswe can reach some time agreements inorder to get this bill finished in a time-ly way.

I would urge my colleagues and thecolleagues on the other side of the aisleto vote against this second vote to-night. The first vote will be on theSterns amendment to reduce the fund-ing for the National Endowment forthe Arts. The second vote will be onthis proposal to defer $22 million ofclean coal money.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support ofthis amendment. I appreciate thechairman’s concern about the cleancoal technology research money, andhave for years supported it. I wouldhope that in conference he can movethe money around in an appropriateway.

Mr. Chairman, it is very, very impor-tant, and it is difficult within our proc-ess, but it is very important for thisCongress in this session to providesome modest increase in funding forthe NEA, the NEH, and our museumfolks.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell the Mem-bers why. Bill Ivey, the new head of theNEA, deserves to be recognized andsupported. He has earned our support.He has not only brought that agencyback on track, but he has brought it incompliance with the letter of all thereforms this House has adopted, and incompliance with the spirit of those re-forms.

He has gone beyond that. He has de-veloped a new NEA program called‘‘Challenge America.’’ Challenge Amer-ica is to do exactly what this Housesaid over and over again, particularlyRepublicans, what they wanted theNEA to do. That is to bring arts moneyto the service of local communities. Ifany Member has ever been in one of theHOT schools, stood there and listenedto that fifth grader tell you what itmeans to go to a school that is a High-er Order of Thinking school, you wouldhave had to become a believer.

One of the problems in America isthat kids are not learning well. Theyare not learning to integrate logicalthinking with intuitive thinking. Kidswho have arts education develop betterskills in those areas and do better life-long. This is not an issue. The researchis overwhelming.

So for the NEA to take on ChallengeAmerica, to challenge our communitiesat the local level to better integratearts into their curriculum so kids will


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4534 June 15, 2000learn better, think better, and bestronger members of our Nation, thatis a very good thing. Bill Ivey is doingit.

Secondly, look at the rural commu-nities, at least in my part of the coun-try. They are developing tourism asthe way to save the rural economies.They are developing theaters, they aredeveloping museums in their very oldhouses, and in Connecticut, resusci-tating the old iron industry, whichbuilt the cannons that won the Revolu-tionary War for us.

So these areas of our country needthis kind of Challenge Americanmoney to be able to develop the econ-omy that will compliment the farmeconomy and create strong rural com-munities. What is the NEH doing? TheNEH is out there helping these smallcommunities develop the very museumcapacity, that preserves our historyand strengthens our communities.

I have seen it happen. They come inwith expertise far beyond what anysmall community could mobilize. Theyconnect that little museum planningcommittee with nationwide intellect,experience, and capability in both thearea of planning exhibits, commu-nicating with kids, and developing out-reach programs that make museumsstrong economic entities, and also partof that chain of facilities that meansthat tourism can compliment a ruraleconomy to make it strong.

The NEA and the NEH are not justabout some abstract cultural strengthof our country, they are integral to thedevelopment of the arts, theater,music, poetry, educated children, astrong work force, and strong econo-mies in our cities and towns.

Anyone who has been involved in eco-nomic development of the cities knowsthat we cannot do it without the arts.So for us to put just a little moneyinto the NEA, which is now on theright track and reaching our local kidsand local towns, a little money for theNEH, a little money for the museumfolks who are doing so much good incommunities of all sizes to build insti-tutions that will last for generations isright.

It would be simply a tragedy if we donot respond to the changes these orga-nizations have made, and to their abil-ity now to reach into every corner ofAmerica and help us achieve the goalswe cherish: a strong cultural heritage;to value that of the past and createthat of the future.

If this is not a perfect vehicle, wejust have to set that aside. A lot ofthings are not perfect vehicles aroundhere. But if we can save this money,pass the NEA amendment, then in con-ference with the Senate higher levelsand the Senate NEA money, we will beable to make just a little tiny improve-ment in our funding for the arts, thehumanities, and our museum develop-ment capability.

I think we owe this much to our-selves and to our children and the com-munities of America.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased tobe able to rise in strong support ofthese amendment which are offered bythe gentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER) and the gentlewoman fromConnecticut (Mrs. JOHNSON) who justfinished speaking very eloquently,along with the gentleman from Cali-fornia.

These amendment provide $15 millionin addition for the NEA, $5 million forthe NEH, and $2 million for the mu-seum and library services. They arevery modest amendments, and theyhave an excellent value for the dollarsthat are proposed.

The National Endowment for theArts and the National Endowment forthe Humanities play an important rolein our society that we should not allowto be trashed in the halls of this Con-gress.

Since 1995, the majority party hasmoved every year to either eliminateor cut funding levels for the NEA andfor NEH. At the $98 million proposedappropriation for fiscal year 2001, thefunding level for the NEA is 40 percentwhat it was only in 1995. The NEH hasnot fared much better. The 2001 levelproposed is 33 percent below what haveprovided in 1995. Both are at less thanhalf the appropriation reached duringthe 1980s administrations of PresidentsReagan and Bush, both Republicans.

By the proposed underfunding of theNEA, this Congress would once againshift funding away from people whoseopportunities in the arts are the mostlimited among all Americans, and thatat a time when the NEA has redesignedthe program to broaden its reach to allAmericans.

The Challenge America initiativethat has already been described so wellby the gentlewoman from Connecticut(Mrs. JOHNSON) is aimed at makinggrants available to our Nation’s small-and medium-sized communities. Forsuch communities, often NEH and theNEA are the opportunity of last resortfor exposure to arts and humanities intheir common form.

The smaller communities in westernand central Massachusetts use thesefunds to provide residents with theaterproductions, museums, local arts cen-ters, and such.

b 1630

If Congress refuses to increase fund-ing for NEA above fiscal year 2000 lev-els, this Challenge America initiativewill not grow and thrive and thousandsof underserved communities will con-tinue to be denied access to the arts.

Funding for the NEA and NEH rep-resents a minuscule percentage of theoverall Federal budget and contributesenormously to the cultural life of cit-ies and towns throughout the Nation.Surely, these programs are as deserv-ing of a $22 million increase in fundingin the combination of these amend-ments as the few thousand wealthiestfamilies in America are deserving of

billions of dollars of tax give-away thatthe majority party pushed through thisHouse only last week.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote onthe amendments before us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enterinto a colloquy with the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. REGULA).

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enterinto a colloquy to clarify the commit-tee’s position on an important tech-nology program for fuel economy. Irecognize that the funding levels haveplaced severe restrictions on the com-mittee’s ability to provide funding formany of these worthwhile programs.For example, the transportation sectorwithin the Department of Energy is re-duced by $5 million, resulting in a re-duced funding for critical research infuel cell and hybrid technology. De-spite this restrictive allocation, I amstill interested in developing new tech-nologies to improve fuel economy onour passenger cars and sport utility ve-hicles. While some emerging tech-nologies such as fuel cells receive Fed-eral funding, there are other tech-nologies such as engine boosting thatneed government investing to deter-mine if they can become a viable solu-tion to improve fuel efficiency, per-formance and air quality.

Finding a technological solution isparticularly important in light of con-cerns about rising fuel costs, continuedconsumer demand for SUVs, and ongo-ing concerns about our air quality.


Mr. KUYKENDALL. I yield to thegentleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is cor-rect that our fiscal year 2001 alloca-tion, which is $300 million below theamount enacted for fiscal year 2000,prevented us from providing fundingfor new programs.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Reclaiming mytime, I proposed increasing funding forthe Department of Energy’s LightTruck Program by $5.3 million over 3years to support technology develop-ment and demonstration activities forturbochargers and other boosting de-vices. Data from Europe on productioncars shows that turbocharging enablesthe downsizing of engines to improvefuel economy while maintaining theperformance and power of larger en-gines.

The program I proposed adapts anddemonstrates current boosting tech-nologies on SUVs here in the UnitedStates, and thus helps develop othernew engine boosting technologies. Ulti-mately, these technologies may im-prove fuel economy on the SUV aloneby 14 to 16 percent.




CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4535June 15, 2000Mr. REGULA. Developing and dem-

onstrating energy-efficient tech-nologies for transportation applica-tions is an important goal. I under-stand the purpose of this initiative isto offer an alternative in the U.S. mar-ket and generate near-term fuel econ-omy improvements and emission re-ductions.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Again reclaim-ing my time, I thank the chairman forhis consideration of this important ef-fort. As this bill moves forwardthrough the legislative process I urgehim to keep this program in mind andlook for ways to provide some mecha-nism for getting it into the fiscal year2001 in the event that additional fundsbecome available in the future.



Mr. REGULA. We will certainly bemindful of this program and give itevery consideration as we move for-ward in the legislative process.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theSlaughter-Horn-Johnson amendmentwhich calls for increased funding forthe National Endowment for the Arts.Over the past 30 years, our quality oflife has been improved by the arts.Support for the arts and Federal fund-ing for the NEA illustrates our Na-tion’s commitment to our freedom ofexpression, one of the basic principleson which our Nation is founded.

Cutting funding for the arts deniesour citizens this freedom, and detractsfrom the quality of life in our Nationas a whole.

The President’s committee on thearts and humanities released the reportentitled Creative America, which madeseveral recommendations about theneed to strengthen support for culturein our Nation. That report applaudsour American spirit and observes thatan energetic cultural life contributesto a strong democracy. This report alsohighlighted our Nation’s unique tradi-tion of philanthropy but also notedthat the baby-boomers generation andnew American corporations are not ful-filling this standard of giving. It sad-dens us that something as important asthe arts, which has been so integral toour American heritage, is being castaside by our younger generation assomething of little value.

By eliminating funding for the arts,our Nation would be the first amongcultured nations to eliminate the artsfrom our priorities. As chairman of ourCommittee on International RelationsI have come to recognize the impor-tance of the arts internationally, asthey help foster a common apprecia-tion of history and of culture that is soessential to our humanity. If we wereto eliminate the NEA we would be eras-ing part of our civilization.

Moreover, I understand the impor-tance of the arts on our Nation’s chil-

dren. Whether it is music, drama ordance, children are drawn to the arts.Many after-school programs give ouryoung people the opportunity to ex-press themselves in a positive venueaway from the temptations of drugsand violence. By giving children some-thing to be proud of and passionateabout, they can make good choices andavoid following the crowd down darkpaths.

However, many young people are notable to enjoy the feeling of pride thatcomes with performing or creating be-cause their schools have been cuttingarts programs or not offering it alto-gether. We need to make certain thatthis does not continue to happen. I amdoing my part by introducing legisla-tion to encourage the development ofafter-school programs in schoolsaround the Nation that not only offersports and academic programs but alsomusic and arts activities.

Increasing children’s access to thearts will only benefit this country as awhole. It is our responsibility to makecertain that our children have accessto the arts. I strongly support in-creased funding for the NEA, and I urgeour colleagues to oppose any amend-ment which seeks to decrease NEAfunding and support the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I did not want to letthis opportunity go by without havingsaid a few words in favor of this amend-ment. I do so in the context of mygreat respect for the chairman of thesubcommittee, recognizing that withthe allocation that was provided himhe has done the best work that couldpossibly be done by anyone on this bill.Within the parameters he was allowedto operate, he has provided us with thebest bill that could be provided withinthose parameters. However, I thinkthat there is something that we allwould like to do beyond that which hasbeen done for the arts, the NationalEndowment for the Arts and the Na-tional Endowment for the Humanities.These are both very important entitiesfor the American people.

It strikes me as somewhat ironicthat many of the Members of the Houseavailed themselves of a very unusualopportunity last night, and that was togo over to the Kennedy Center to see alive performance. It happened to be aperformance of a great Americannovel, to Kill a Mocking Bird, a won-derful and striking story. Many peoplewent over, and I am sure those whowent did enjoy it. Now today, we findourselves unable to provide the kind offunding that a civilized society such asours ought to provide for the enhance-ment of arts and humanities within ourcountry.

The amount of money that is beingasked for in this amendment is, frank-ly, very modest. Nevertheless, evenwith that very modest amount ofmoney, a very substantial difference

can be made. I would just point to oneparticular program that Bill Ivey hasproduced within the NEA, and I thinkeveryone would agree that he is an out-standing chairman of the National En-dowment for the Arts. I refer to theChallenge America program. Now, thisis a program that is designed to expandthe NEA outreach initiative, and theyare doing so all across the country. TheNEA is reaching out into small townsand villages and counties in the mostrural areas and in urban areas as well.They are providing people in thoseareas with opportunities to see impor-tant aspects of American and worldart, aspects which they would not havethe opportunity to see without this ini-tiative.

The Challenge America program,reaching out into communities so thatyoung people, young and old, can havethe opportunity to see ballets, to seetheater, to see a display of importantart that is in the Smithsonian. Theyare taking their show on the road allacross America, but that program willnever see itself fulfilled, and manycommunities across the country will bedenied the opportunity to see the kindof art that is available in our muse-ums, as well as the great musical pro-ductions that are available and danceproductions that are available, theywill not be able to see them withoutadditional funding that would go to theChallenge America program.

So for arts education, to enhance ourcultural heritage, to give art programsfor youth at risk, to provide access tothe arts in underserved areas and forcommunity arts partnerships, theChallenge America program is a modeland we ought to be funding it. So if wepass this amendment, if we provide thismodest additional funding for the NEAand the NEH, a great many peoplearound our country will have the op-portunity to enrich their lives and en-hance their experience that they wouldnot have without it.

So, Mr. Chairman, with particularand deep respect for the work that ourchairman has accomplished, I respect-fully hope that the majority of theMembers of this House will adopt thisamendment.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sup-port of the Slaughter amendment to increasefunding for arts and humanities programs.

The National Endowment of the Arts (NEA)provides important funding for developing arteducation opportunities allowing each of andeveryone one of us to explore our creative tal-ents. In my state of North Dakota this fundinghas been used to support vital programs suchas the North Dakota Council on the Arts’ ‘‘Tra-ditional Arts Apprenticeship Program’’ and thePlains Art Museum’s educational outreach pro-gram. These programs are only a few exam-ples of the important role that the arts canplay in allowing each of us, whether young orold, to express, develop and explore all ourcreative dimensions. I strongly believe in theimportance of the arts to all Americans, espe-cially our young children, and I support fund-ing for the program.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4536 June 15, 2000Some would suggest supporting funding for

the NEA as proposed in the Slaughter amend-ment is an attack on coal. Only a small bit oflight on this argument reveals that it is utterlybaseless. I am a strong supporter of the CleanCoal Technology program which provides im-portant funding for the development of newand innovative technologies to reduce environ-mental impacts from the burning of coal. How-ever, not one dollar in funding for the CleanCoal Technology Program will be reducedunder this amendment. Further the amend-ment will in no way hinder the operations ofthe program.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend thegentlewoman from New York, Ms. SLAUGHTER,for her leadership and determination for sup-port of the arts.

Since the earliest days of our Republic therehas been an appreciation for the arts in thelives of Americans. Indeed, our second Presi-dent John Adams wrote to Abigail Adams in1780:

I must study politics and war that my sonsmay have the liberty to study mathematics,philosophy, geography and agriculture inorder to give their children a right to studypainting, poetry, music, architecture, stat-uary, tapestry and porcelain.

How far we have strayed from that aspira-tion of our second President when the Houseof Representatives supports the arts by a slimmargin and a meager budget.

Skimping on the arts is a false economy.The arts are their own excuse for being—toparaphrase Emerson. The arts are importantto our economy creating jobs as well as ideasand works of beauty. And the poet Shelleyonce wrote that ‘‘the greatest force for moralgood is imagination.’’ With the challenges fac-ing our nation’s children it is clear that weneed all of the imagination they can muster.We must encourage their creativity—for itselfand for the confidence it engenders in them.

Children often express themselves throughthe arts more effectively and sooner thanthrough other endeavors. The confidence theyfind through the arts enable them to face otheracademic challenges more effectively. It en-ables them to face life’s challenges with more.

Support creativity, support imagination, sup-ports Ms. SLAUGHTER’s amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I amproud today to join with so many of my col-leagues to increase funding for the NationalEndowment for the Arts, the National Endow-ment for the Humanities and the Institute ofMuseum and Library Services. Fulfilling ourcommitment to the arts will enrich the lives ofmany Americans, especially our children.

I would like to recognize the good work ofthe Illinois Arts Council and the Illinois Human-ities Council. They provide critical leadershipin the support and development of numerousarts and humanities programs that touch thelives of so many in Illinois. Among those won-derful and innovative programs in the Lira En-semble in Chicago, the only professional per-forming arts company specializing in the per-formance, research, and preservation of Polishmusic, song, and dance. The Lira Ensembleand other arts and humanities programs con-tribute greatly to our communities. They de-serve our support.

It cost each American less than 36 centslast year to support the National Endowmentfor the Arts. The NEA in turn awarded over$83 million in grants nationwide and over $1.7million in my home state of Illinois.

Economically, support for the arts and hu-manities just makes sense. The arts industrycontributes nearly $37 billion into our economyand provides more than 1.3 million full-timejobs. In addition, arts education improves lifeskills, including self-esteem, teamwork, moti-vation, discipline and problem-solving that helpyoung people compete in a challenging andever-changing workplace.

Let’s do the right thing for our communitiesand increase this funding now.

Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman,I rise today in strong support for increasedfunding for the National Endowment for theArts (NEA) as well as additional investment inthe National Endowment for the Humanities(NEH) and the Institute for Museum and Li-brary Service (IMLS). I congratulate my col-league from New York, Ms. SLAUGHTER, forthe adoption of her amendment earlier in theday which adds funding to these importantprograms. Further, I am astonished at thelengths the majority is going to in order todeny the will of the House.

NEA has not had a funding increase since1992 when its budget was almost $176 mil-lion. In fact, in the 104th Congress when I ar-rived, efforts were made by the Majority toeliminate the NEA. The funding level in the billunder consideration today, $98 million, is inad-equate and should be increased within thecontext of a balanced budget. Congress-woman SLAUGHTER’S amendment does notmake the program whole but it made a mod-est, much-needed increase in funding for theNEA.

We need additional funds to support grantsfor art education which we know is key to re-ducing youth violence and enhancing youthdevelopment. If we are serious about curtailingyouth violence, cutting funds to an agency thatis getting positive results with its youth artsproject is counterproductive. Consequently, Icommend Congresswoman SLAUGHTER for of-fering her amendment which would increasefunding for the NEA by $10 million and pro-vide an additional $5 million for the NEH and$2 million for the IMLS.

In my district, NEA has successfully fundedthe Ailey Camp of the Kansas City Friends ofAlvin Ailey, which is a national dance troupe.This 6-week dance camp has an 11-year his-tory and has provided opportunities for morethan 1,000 children. This camp provides a ve-hicle, through art, for children to grow andenjoy the experience of success. Beyond thedancing, they also have creative writing, per-sonal development, antiviolence and drugabuse programs. Statistics confirm the suc-cess of this program on behavior and learningof these at-risk children.

The NEA funds several programs at theAmerican Jazz Museum (AJM) in Kansas City,the only museum of its kind in the country.NEA funding helps the AJM preserve andpresent jazz so that people from all over thecity, the country, and the world learn to appre-ciate one of the first original American artforms.

Four years ago, the NEA and the U.S. De-partment of Justice took the lead in jointlyfunding the youth arts project so that local artsagencies and cultural institutions across thenation would be able to design smarter artsprograms to reach at risk youth in their localcommunities.

One of the primary goals of the youth artsproject is to ascertain the measurable out-

comes of preventing youth violence by engag-ing them in community based art programs.This program has had a dramatic impactacross the nation, and we must preserve ade-quate funding for NEA to continue it and to ex-pand it.

We should also be requesting additionalfunds to expand the NEA summer seminarsessions which provide professional develop-ment opportunities to our nation’s teacherswho are on the front lines in our efforts toreach out to our children. Mr. Chairman, artand music education programs extend back tothe Greeks who taught math with music cen-turies ago. Current studies reaffirm that whenmusic such as jazz is introduced by mathteachers into the classrooms, those half notesand quarter notes make math come alive forstudents.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to op-pose any back door attempt to undo Con-gresswoman SLAUGHTER’S victory. It is theright thing to do substantively as well as insti-tutionally. Please support additional funding forthe NEA, NEH and IMLS to send a messagethat art and music in the classroom increaseacademic achievement, decrease delinquentbehavior and contribute to reducing youth vio-lence.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, today, wehave the opportunity to award the National En-dowment of the Arts its first increase in fund-ing in 8 years. It should be touted that theNEA we fund today is not the NEA Repub-licans faced when they first came into the Ma-jority in the 105th Congress. In fact, the NEAis different because of the changes we en-acted.

In January 1996, after being reduced in sizeby 40 percent, the agency went through majorstructural reorganization. After the NEA wasforced to consolidate programs and re-prioritizing funding, Congress enacted a num-ber of reforms which provided the NEA withgreater accountability and a more stringentgrant process.

In the FY 1996 Interior Appropriations bill,we codified the elimination of the use of sub-grants to third party organizations and artists.Simply, that means if an art museum in Hick-ory, NC, receives a grant from the NEA, thegrant money can only go to the projects themuseum applied for. The funding cannot inanyway go towards projects or artists notmentioned on the application.

In fiscal year 1996, Congress prohibitedgrants to individuals except in literature. Thisis important as it stopped the focus of handingartists blank checks. This also enabled morefunding to go to community centers andprojects which deal with a greater number ofpeople. Again, in 1996, we placed a specificprohibition on seasonal or general operatingsupport grants. Applicants must now apply up-front for specific project funding or support.Grant terms and conditions require that anychanges in a project after a grant has beenapproved must be proposed in writing in ad-vance.

Then in 1998, Congress placed a percent-age cap on the amount of NEA grant fundsthat could be awarded to arts organizations inany one state. Also in 1998, the agency cre-ated ArtsREACH, a program designed toplace more grant funds in under-representedgeographic areas.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4537June 15, 2000These reforms and the NEA’s commitment

to arts education and community outreach pro-grams represent the new NEA, not the NEARepublicans faced in the 105th Congress.

As I have stated in my Dear Colleagues, Iam one of five Members of Congress whoserve on the National Council of the Arts,which is the governing board of the NEA. I’vebeen to nearly every National Council session,and I’ve been impressed by the depth ofchange at the agency over the past two years.Grants are going to smaller organizations lo-cated in small or medium-sized communities.These are the places that are most in needand where the agency is targeting its new pro-grams.

It has been 8 long years since the NEA hasseen an increase in funding. I’m not advo-cating a tremendous increase, but an increasethat rewards the NEA for the good job theyhave been doing in recent years. Vote yes onthis amendment, and support the new NEA.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong support of the amendment offered bymy good friend and colleague from New York,Congresswoman LOUISE SLAUGHTER.

As Chairperson of the Congressional ArtsCaucus, she has done a remarkable job ineducating her colleagues on the importance ofthe arts, humanities, history and literacy pro-grams here in the United States.

This amendment would restore $22 millionof urgently needed resources to the NationalEndowment for the Arts, the National Endow-ment for the Humanities and the Institute ofMuseum and Library Services.

These funds will be used to continue andexpand upon a number of important programsat these agencies, including the arts educationprograms at the National Endowment for theArts.

Currently over 5 million American childrenbenefit from the arts education programs in-cluding a number of my constituents in theBronx.

In my district, the BCA Development Cor-poration, which runs the WriterCorps project,recently received $30,000 to support theYouth Poetry Slam. The poetry program is de-signed to use teens’ natural penchant for com-petition and self-expression to introduce themto the written and spoken word.

It has been proven over and over again thatchildren who are exposed to the arts remain inschool longer, receive better grades, stay outof trouble, and hold themselves in higher self-esteem.

Additionally, the NEA provides grants to cul-tural and folk institutions throughout our coun-try to demonstrate and show respect for thediverse ethnicity’s that make up our great na-tion.

As an example of the importance of thesefunds, the Thalia Spanish Theatre in Sunny-side, New York received $10,000 to support aseries of folklore shows of music and dancefrom Spain and Latin America. The music anddance shows include Argentine tango, fla-menco, and classic Spanish Dance, and Mexi-can folklore.

I am especially pleased at the fundingaward for the Thalia Spanish Theatre. I haveworked very hard to make sure that the artsand cultural organizations cater to non-tradi-tional and new audiences.

That is why I am pleased that ChairmanREGULA and Congressman DICKS for again in-cluding my language into this bill to include

‘‘urban minorities’’ under the definition of an‘‘underserved population’’ for the purpose ofawarding NEA grants.

My district, which is composed of a diverseswath of neighborhoods throughout Queensand the Bronx, has a number of ethnic groupsthat add to the tapestry of New York City.

My language will open NEA funding to morelocal ethnic arts groups and more residents ofQueens and the Bronx. It will also help fulfillthe mission of the NEA to guarantee that noperson is left untouched by the arts.

So I want to thank the chairman and rankingmember of all of their hard work.

I want to ensure that all Americans haveequal access to cultural programs. Projectstargeted at urban youth will greatly help keepthese young people off the streets, and awayfrom the lure of drugs and crime. The arts alsohelp to break down barriers, they bring com-munities together, and they offer hope.

That is why Mrs. SLAUGHTER’s amendmenttoday is so important.

Additionally, this amendment will increasethe funding for both the National Endowmentfor the Humanities and the Institute of Mu-seum and Library Services.

These two agencies both have strong rep-utations among both Democrats and Repub-licans for their wonderful work in restoring thefolk, oral and written traditions of America.

The NEH has been very active in providingseed money throughout the country, and par-ticularly in New York City, to address the issueof electronic media in the classroom. A spe-cific grant was given last year to assist in thetraining of teachers in new media techniquesto communicate the humanities to our chil-dren.

This type of project represents the best ofthe NEH and of our government working di-rectly with local communities to advance theeducation of our young and train them for thefuture.

The NEH and IMLS have led the way inworking to build and strengthen relationshipsbetween our nation’s libraries and museumsand our children’s classrooms to ensure thatthe knowledge, creativity and imagination ofour great nation is at the fingertips of everyyoung Einstein, Rembrandt, or Twain.

This is an excellent amendment and I urgeall of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I risein strong support of the Slaughter/Horn/John-son amendment to increase funding for theNational Endowments for the Arts and the Hu-manities and the Institute of Museum and Li-brary Services (IMLS). The arts and culturehave a lasting, positive impact on communitiesacross the nation, yet for years these agen-cies have been sorely underfunded. It is crit-ical that we give them the increases they rich-ly deserve.

The arts are an essential part of our culture,and the new millennium provides us with theopportunity to focus on the role that the NEAand the NEH play in projects that preserve ourcultural heritage and promote our creative fu-ture.

The NEH preserves our cultural heritagethrough its work to preserve the events andhistorical documents that shaped our nation.NEH projects serve to define who we are asa nation and where we come from. They allowus to pass along our ideals to the next gen-eration.

The NEH promotes our creative futurethrough teacher training in the arts, arts in

schools outreach, and after-school arts pro-grams. The NEA has proposed a new artseducation collaboration to involve youth in thearts. Research has proven that providingyouths with access to the arts leads to higheracademic achievement and fewer incidencesof drug abuse and violence. Kids exposed tothe arts and music earlier in life do better intheir core academic subjects. The arts im-prove both their creativity and critical thinkingskills and raise their self-esteem. We are onlyjust beginning to understand how our youths’lives are impacted through the arts.

Clearly, the arts and humanities serve as anessential and forceful vehicle to educate ourcitizens and help our struggling youth. Theytouch and enrich each of our children’s lives.Yet, the United States spends the least amongten industrialized nations on the arts and hu-manities. Federal leadership and funding playthe essential role in these efforts to make artsavailable in every community to every citizen.

This debate is not a debate just about arts.It is a debate about whether we are willing tobe creative in America. There is not an indus-try in the United States that does not dependon the arts, does not depend on the imagina-tion, does not depend on the ability to look atthings, as they say, ‘‘outside the box.’’

I’d like to leave you with a quote from theNational Foundation on the Arts and the Hu-manities Act of 1965, which established theNational Endowment for the Arts and the Na-tional Endowment for the Humanities.

A high civilization must not limit its ef-forts to science and technology alone butmust give full value and support to the othergreat branches of scholarly and cultural ac-tivity in order to achieve a better under-standing of the past, a better analysis of thepresent, and a better view of the future.

We must ensure that these agencies havethe resources they need to fulfill this mission.I encourage you to support the Slaugher/Horn/Johnson amendment and increase funding forthe NEA, the NEH and the IMLS.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today tospeak once again about the importance of thearts in my district, and to show my support foran increase in funding for the National Endow-ment for the Arts (NEA).

We are simply not doing enough to recog-nize the value and importance of the NEA toour national vitality. The network of financialsupport for the arts in our communities is veryclosely linked, and weakening any link is notin our public interest. Arts organizations relyon funding from a diverse pool of resources,and the NEA is often a linchpin in helpingbuild and preserve a strong sense of commu-nity.

As many of you are aware, Minnesota’sFourth District has one of the highest con-centrations of Lao-Hmong immigrants in thenation. The Hmong have worked very hard toadjust to a new language and culture, and thearts have done an amazing job of reaching outto the Hmong community. The NEA in par-ticular has played an important role in helpingthe Hmong find ways to strengthen their cul-tural identity and creative expression.

Recently, the Center for Hmong Arts andTalent (CHAT) in St. Paul received a grantfrom the NEA to run a new, multidisciplinaryyouth arts program. This initiative was de-signed to allow professional artists to engageHmong youth in typically American arts mediathrough visual arts, video production and lit-erary programs. These programs, which reach


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4538 June 15, 2000kids aged 10–18 years, successfully work toincrease understanding between different cul-tures.

Another example of the importance of NEAfunding is a project by the Women’s Associa-tion of Hmong and Lao (WAHL). In an effortto educate an increasingly U.S.-born Hmongpopulation. WAHL capitalized on NEA funds tohelp preserve Hmong traditions such asPajNtaub story cloths. These beautiful storycloths, which depict Hmong lifestyle changesand cultural evolution, are a unique testamentto the Hmong-American experience.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support anincrease in funding for the NEA. We must en-sure that this program remains a viable com-ponent in building valuable community artsprojects nationwide.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday in support of the Slaughter-Horn-John-son amendment which increases funding forthe National Endowment for the Arts by $15million, for the National Endowment for theHumanities by $5 million, and for the Institutefor Museum and Library Services by $2 mil-lion.

Investments in our cultural institutions, likethe NEA and NEH, are investments in the liv-ability of our communities. For just 38 centsper year per American, NEA supported pro-grams help enhance the quality of life forAmericans in every community in this country.For just 68 cents per year per American, NEHsupported programs preserve our heritage bykeeping our historical records intact and build-ing citizenship by providing citizens to studyand understand principles and practices ofAmerican democracy. In fact, Congress estab-lished the NEH because ‘‘Democracy de-mands wisdom and vision in its citizens.’’

Adequately funding the National Endowmentfor the Arts, in particular, is absolutely criticalto the state of Oregon, which has suffered inrecent years from cutbacks at the state andlocal levels. Portland and other cities in Or-egon have managed to make this work byusing public funds to leverage as much privateinvestment as possible. Portland arts groupsmanage to attain about 68% of their financialresources from the box office, which is higherthan the national average of 50%. Portlandcompanies have stepped up to the plate—doubling their investment between 1990 and1995. The public investment, particularly theinvestment from the NEA, is absolutely criticalto preserving these opportunities.

A commitment to culture pays many divi-dends—dividends that promote our economicdevelopment and our understanding of theworld around us. Economically, an investmentin culture helps promote tourism. People flockto cities that support the arts and humanities,benefiting hotels, convention centers, res-taurants, and countless other businesses re-lated to entertainment and tourism. In fact, thenonprofit arts industry generates $36.8 billionannually in economic activity, supports 1.3 mil-lion jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the federalgovernment in income taxes and an additional$1.2 billion in state and local tax revenue.

An investment in culture also helps pre-viously disenfranchised groups gain access tonew cultural experiences. The NEA, for exam-ple, provides fun and educational arts pro-grams that help students and teachers de-velop arts, environment, and urban planningcurricula. Public funds, like those from theNEA, are also critical to keeping ticket prices

low, giving lower income individuals and sen-iors the opportunity to attend cultural events. Ifticket prices reflected the entire cost of theevent, cultural events would by necessity bedenied many of our citizens, especially theyoung and elderly.

We won’t be able to meet these unrealisticbudget caps by limiting spending on our Na-tion’s cultural heritage. This approach is short-sighted and doesn’t recognize the long-termeconomic and social benefits an investment inculture conveys to our communities and theNation as a whole.

We have the tools, infrastructure and inno-vative spirit in place to make communitiesacross the nation more livable through culturalopportunities. What we need to promote is aNational commitment to improving the livabilityof our communities by investing in culture. Wecan develop and promote that national com-mitment through the NEA and the NEH.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I stronglysupport funding for the National Endowmentfor the Arts (NEA).

My state of Minnesota benefits greatly fromthe NEA. Federal- and state-supported artsevents in Minnesota stimulate growth in busi-ness, tourism and a healthy economy.

Most importantly, though, the arts help ourchildren perform better in all subjects atschool. A Minnesota Center for Survey Re-search poll at the University of Minnesotafound that 95% of Minnesotans believe thatarts education is an essential or importantcomponent of the overall education of Min-nesota’s children.

I would like to share with you some of themany exciting arts activities that take place inmy district. NEA funding supports arts pro-gramming and artists-in-residence programs inschools throughout my district, including Hop-kins High School, Orchard Lake ElementarySchool in Lakeville, Zachary Lane ElementarySchool in Plymouth, Wayzata High School,Excelsior Elementary School and the NorthHennepin Community College in BrooklynPark.

Several other organizations in my districtprovide additional educational opportunities forboth adults and children. Stages Theatre, Inc.in Hopkins is a theater company dedicated togiving young people a professional setting inwhich to develop their theater performingskills, as well as an outstanding venue foryoung audiences. The Bloomington Art Cen-ter, an art school and gallery, offers classes,exhibition spaces and theatrical experiences toboth vocational and professional artists of allskill levels and ages. The Minnetonka Centerfor the Arts is a community arts education fa-cility that employs professional artists andeducators to teach the arts to people fromages three to 90. Without these and manyother NEA-sponsored facilities, my constitu-ents would have far less access to the arts.

We in Minnesota are fortunate to have ahealthy and vibrant community, both artisticallyand economically. For the third year in a row,Minnesota was named the ‘‘Most LivableState’’ by Morgan Quitno Press, in large partdue to our citizens’ access to the arts.

Again, I ask my colleagues to support an in-crease in NEA funding to continue this trendof excellence in education, community devel-opment and quality of living.

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


Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demanda recorded vote, and pending that, Imake the point of order that a quorumis not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 524, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gentle-woman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER) will be postponed.

The point of no quorum is consideredwithdrawn.

SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEEOF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 524, proceedings will nowresume on those amendments on whichfurther proceedings were postponed inthe following order: The amendment,as modified, offered by the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. STEARNS) and theamendment offered by the gentle-woman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER).

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutesthe time for any electronic vote afterthe first vote in this series.

AMENDMENT, AS MODIFIED, OFFERED BY MR.STEARNS

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment, as modified, offeredby the gentleman from Florida (Mr.STEARNS) on which further proceedingswere postponed and on which the noesprevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will designate the amend-ment, as modified.

The Clerk designated the amend-ment, as modified.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote hasbeen demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.This will be a 15-minute vote, fol-

lowed by a 5-minute vote on theSlaughter amendment.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—ayes 152, noes 256,not voting 26, as follows:

[Roll No. 282]

AYES—152

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBatemanBilirakisBishopBlileyBluntBoehnerBonillaBoydBrady (TX)BryantBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCanadyCannonChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburn

CollinsCombestConditCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDeGetteDeLayDeMintDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonEverettFletcherFossellaGekasGibbonsGilchrestGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGreen (WI)

GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHostettlerHulshofHunterHydeIstookJenkinsJohnson, SamJones (NC)KasichKing (NY)KingstonLargentLathamLewis (KY)LinderLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)ManzulloMcCrery


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4539June 15, 2000McInnisMetcalfMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMyrickNeyNorwoodNusslePackardPaulPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPortmanRadanovichRileyRoganRogersRohrabacher

RoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShusterSimpsonSkeltonSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)SpenceStearnsStumpSununuTalentTancredoTauzin

Taylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThornberryThurmanTiahrtTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VitterWaldenWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonYoung (AK)

NOES—256

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrett (WI)BassBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBlagojevichBoehlertBoniorBonoBorskiBoswellBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BurrCampCappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleClayClaytonClementClyburnConyersCookCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEhlersEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansEwingFarrFattahFilnerFoleyForbesFordFowler

Frank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGephardtGillmorGilmanGonzalezGordonGrangerGreen (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHornHoughtonHoyerHutchinsonInsleeIsaksonJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E.B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKnollenbergKolbeKucinichKuykendallLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLarsonLaTouretteLazioLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)LipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovern

McHughMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoNealNethercuttNorthupOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOseOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPickettPomeroyPorterPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRahallRamstadRegulaReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRoemerRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchakowskyScottShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusSisiskySkeenSlaughter

Smith (MI)Smith (WA)SnyderSouderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStricklandStupakSweeney

TannerTauscherThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThuneTierneyTownsTraficantUptonVisclosky

WalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWeygandWiseWolfWoolseyWuWynn

NOT VOTING—26

BecerraBlumenauerBoucherCampbellCookseyCostelloDannerEngelGreenwood

HinojosaHooleyJeffersonKlinkLewis (GA)LofgrenMcCollumMcIntoshOxley

RangelSerranoShowsToomeyVelazquezVentoWexlerYoung (FL)

b 1705

Ms. DELAURO, Mr. MENENDEZ, andMs. ROS-LEHTINEN changed theirvote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Ms.DEGETTE, Messrs. WELDON of Flor-ida, SHUSTER, UDALL of Colorado,BACHUS, PACKARD and BISHOPchanged their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’


as above recorded.ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 524, the Chair announcesthat he will reduce to a minimum of 5minutes the period of time withinwhich a vote by electronic device willbe taken on the additional amendmenton which the chair has postponed fur-ther proceedings.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. SLAUGHTER

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand for a recorded voteon the amendment offered by the gen-tlewoman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER) on which further proceedings werepostponed and on which the noes pre-vailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will designate the amend-ment.

The Clerk designated the amend-ment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote hasbeen demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-

minute vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-


[Roll No. 283]

AYES—207

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrett (WI)BentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBilbrayBishop

BlagojevichBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoswellBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleClayClaytonClementClyburn

ConyersCookCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooley

DoyleEdwardsEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerFoleyForbesFordFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGejdensonGephardtGilmanGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHoeffelHoldenHoltHornHoughtonHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKucinichKuykendallLaFalce

LaHoodLampsonLantosLarsonLazioLeachLeeLevinLewis (GA)LoBiondoLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNapolitanoNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosi

PhelpsPomeroyPorterPrice (NC)RahallRamstadReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchakowskyScottShaysShermanSlaughterSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStricklandStupakTauscherThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—204

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBiggertBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-Balart

DickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFletcherFossellaFowlerGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHyde

IsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson, SamJones (NC)KasichKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)ManzulloMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOsePackardPaulPeasePeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickett


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4540 June 15, 2000PittsPomboPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRegulaReynoldsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessions

ShadeggShawSherwoodShimkusShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStumpSununuSweeneyTalentTancredoTanner

TauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTraficantVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NOT VOTING—24

BecerraBlumenauerBoucherCampbellCookseyCostelloDannerEngel

GreenwoodHinojosaHooleyJeffersonKlinkLofgrenMcCollumMcIntosh

OxleyRangelSerranoShowsToomeyVelazquezVentoYoung (FL)

b 1721

Messrs. BERRY, TURNER, POM-EROY and BISHOP changed their votefrom ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

Mrs. BIGGERT and Mr. BASSchanged their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

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

as above recorded.Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the last word.Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask a

question because I know the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS) and anumber of others are being asked a lotof questions by Members on both sidesof the aisle.

As I understand it, the intention an-nounced earlier by the leadership wasfor the Committee rise at 6 o’clock sothat Members might catch their air-planes.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going any-where. My plane has been canceled along time ago.

I rise to ask a civil question, and Iwould like a civil response if possible.If I could just ask. My understanding isthat the Chicago airport has canceled anumber of planes, that Detroit isclosed, that the New England area ishaving rapid cancellations. And soMembers are simply trying to figureout what their plans are.

I would simply inquire of the gen-tleman, either the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. REGULA) or the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. ARMEY), the distin-guished majority leader, I would sim-ply like to ask if the leadership intendsto keep the commitment which was an-nounced to the House or whether therumors are true that we hear that theynow intend to be in until 9 o’clock.

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Texas.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding. I do appre-ciate your inquiry.

You know, we talk about this everyyear, it is appropriations season. Allthe Members are anxious about contin-ued progress on appropriations bills.

We had ended the week last weekwith a colloquy in which we encour-aged every Member to understand wewould be working and working lateeach night this week, including thisevening.

The floor managers of the bill haveworked very hard. We worked out anagreement last night that we thoughtwould give us good progress. We hadhigh hopes of continuing this work andcompleting it by 6 o’clock today. Butas we can see, we are approaching thathour; and we are not near completion.

It is the consensus of opinion that inorder to maintain our schedule so thatwe can fulfill all of our work require-ments in a timely fashion as the yearproceeds that we must complete thisbill before we leave this evening. That,of course, always is difficult under the5-minute rule.

Wherever possible, the floor man-agers do work out time agreements. Iwould encourage all the Members withamendments to continue to be coopera-tive, as they have been, with the floormanagers. And as we work our waythrough these, I am confident we willcomplete this bill this evening. And to-morrow morning when we get up earlyand enjoy the sunshine and look for-ward to the rest of our weekend backhome and flights that are not bedeviledby bad conditions across the country,we all are going to feel so good that wefinished this up tonight, as we will do.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaimingmy time, I thank the gentleman for hiscomments.

Let me simply say that the problem,as has been brought to my attention bya number of Members, is that theschedule published by the leadershipindicates legislative business, no votesafter 6 p.m.

As I have said, my plane has longbeen canceled. I will be here today. Iwill be here tomorrow. I will be hereSunday. But I regret that the leader-ship has seen fit to upset the ability ofeach individual Member to get back totheir district, planes allowing.

And so if it is the intention of theleadership to go back on the under-standing that was reached last night,then I very reluctantly move that thecommittee do now rise.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman would hold that motion andif the gentleman would continue toyield, our agreement that we made lastnight was in full understanding of theneed and the commitment to completethis, where the floor managers said,and I think in good faith and with allgood intention, that they would do ev-erything they could to finish by 6o’clock.

b 1730

Unfortunately, given their best ef-forts, they have not been able toachieve that. We have not been able to

achieve that. We still have a clear un-derstanding of the need to completethe work.

Mr. Chairman, I should say to theMembers that as we proceed thisevening, we will as we do on all otherevenings try once we get past this sec-tion of the bill to work through a se-ries of holding votes and rolling themso that they can have a pleasant houror two for their evening meal as wecontinue on the work with our commit-ment to complete the bill as soon aspossible.

Mr. OBEY. If I could simply respondto the gentleman, I was in the meetingwhen the commitment was made. Thegentleman was not in the meetingwhere we discussed the times.

I know that last night, I asked thestaff of the distinguished majorityleader whether they were indeed cer-tain that they wanted to have the voteon the rule on HUD today, because Itold them that it was my reading ofthe interior bill that with all of theamendments pending, they would notbe able to finish by 6 if they followedthrough on that rule. We were told thatthe intention of the leadership wasthat we were leaving at 6, that thecommittee should do its best to bedone by 6, but there was a clear under-standing that the Members would beallowed to leave as scheduled at 6o’clock.

PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I movethat the Committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe motion offered by the gentlemanfrom Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY).


RECORDED VOTE

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand arecorded vote.



[Roll No. 284]

AYES—183

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBoniorBorskiBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburn

ConditConyersCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerForbesFordFrank (MA)

FrostGejdensonGephardtGonzalezGordonGreen (TX)GutierrezHall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHoeffelHoldenHoltHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)JohnJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKleczkaKucinichLaFalce


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4541June 15, 2000LampsonLantosLarsonLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (VA)

MurthaNapolitanoNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPickettPomeroyPrice (NC)RahallReyesRiversRodriguezRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchakowskyShermanSisisky

SkeltonSlaughterSmith (WA)SnyderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)ViscloskyWatersWaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—218

AderholtArcherArmeyBacaBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBoswellBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFletcherFoley

FossellaFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonJackson-Lee

(TX)JenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KellyKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLoBiondoLucas (OK)ManzulloMcCrery

McHughMcInnisMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMingeMoran (KS)MorellaMyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOsePackardPaulPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaReynoldsRileyRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysSherwoodShimkusSimpsonSkeenSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununu

SweeneyTalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThune

TiahrtTraficantUptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkinsWatt (NC)

Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)

NOT VOTING—34

BecerraBlileyBlumenauerBoucherCampbellCookseyCostelloDannerEngelGreenwoodHinojosaHooley

HornIstookJeffersonKasichKlinkLofgrenMartinezMcCollumMcDermottMcIntoshNadlerOxley

RangelScottSerranoShowsShusterSmith (MI)ToomeyVelazquezVentoYoung (FL)

b 1749

Messrs. TERRY, HOEKSTRA andCRANE changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. TOWNS and Mr. HILLIARD andMs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON ofTexas changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to‘‘aye.’’

So the motion was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. ROYCE:Page 66, line 21, after the dollar amount in-

sert the following: ‘‘(increased by237,000,000)’’.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that all debate onthis amendment and all amendmentsthereto close in 10 minutes and thatthe time be equally divided.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, in 1996,

the President and the Congress agreedto provide no new money to the CleanCoal Technology Program. Taxpayersare footing the bill for technology to beused by private companies.

In my view, government has no busi-ness favoring certain companies withtax breaks and subsidies. The free mar-ket is there to allocate resources in themost efficient way possible. Federal in-volvement only serves to distort themarketplace by giving selected busi-nesses special advantages, corporatesubsidies, put other businesses that areless politically well connected at a dis-advantage.

Corporate welfare has lead to the cre-ation of what some have termed thestatist businessman who has been con-verted from capitalist to capital lob-byist. Companies should invest theirown money in research and develop-ment activities on what they believeare promising technologies, ratherthan look to the Government for fund-ing.

And private industry is much bettersuited to identify and target tech-nologies that are commercially viable.The best thing government can do topromote economic growth is to get outof the way, get out of the way and let

entrepreneurs and the mechanisms ofthe marketplace determine how theeconomy’s resources will be directed.

Private industry can flourish withoutthis corporate welfare. Clean CoalTechnology, as it is called, is supposedto help the electric industry, but it isnot even interested in the technology.According to the Congressional Re-search Service, based on currenttrends, the technology of choice fornew construction will be natural gasfired plants.

In 1994, the General Accounting Of-fice found that a number of Clean CoalTechnology demonstration projectswere experiencing problems and dif-ficulties, and in a report released thisMarch, the GAO found that the prob-lems they identified then still continuetoday. Only worse, eight of the 13 re-maining projects had serious delays orfinancial problems; six of eight are be-hind the schedule of completion dateby 2 to 7 years; two of the eightprojects are bankrupt and will never becompleted.

Instead of just deferring money, weshould be investigating how we can getthe obligated funds back from thesebankrupt projects. Congress has had ahistory of rescinding money from thisprogram due to the failure of projectsbeing completed. In fact, for the past 3years, over $400 million has been re-scinded.

At the very least, I think we shoulddefer the amount that President Clin-ton has requested to be deferred; andon top of that, we should also deferwhat the President wanted to rescind.And that would be the total amount of$326 million, which is what this amend-ment would do.

I believe, frankly, that it should notbe spent on bankrupt and mismanagedprograms, and I urge adoption of theamendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the point was madethat the industry should make theirown expenditures, and I want to pointout to the Members that for every dol-lar of Federal money in the Clean CoalTechnology program, there are twodollars of private money. This has beena partnership, but it has been a part-nership where industry has carried theheavy end of it, and we have had somereal successes.

I wish I could take every Member toTampa, Florida, to visit the plant thatwas built under this Clean Coal Tech-nology program. It is a greenfieldplant. The efficiency is probably al-most double that of the normal plant,and the emissions are very negligible.They capture every part of a lump ofcoal, the sulfur, the various other com-ponents.

As I said, I was there. They are get-ting everything but the squeal out ofthat lump of coal, and they are doing itunder a very efficient system. So itdoes work. It is an important program,because as we talk about the continuedeffort to clean up our air, to clean up


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4542 June 15, 2000our water, we need to have a clean coalprogram on stream.

Let me point out that whatever elsewe may think about it, we are going tobe using coal for the foreseeable futureas a major source of power generation.Our committees invested a lot ofmoney in boiler technology, in addi-tion, to the clean coal technology, be-cause we have a plentiful supply ofcoal. Perhaps in actual BTUs, the coalsupply of the United States is theequivalent of most of the known oil inthe world today.

If we are to have energy independ-ence, if we are to have electricity tofuel a growing economy, we need to usecoal and to use coal in a clean, environ-mentally safe way. It requires cleancoal technology.

Many of these projects are underway. I do not think it is an appropriatetime to take out the money or to makeit difficult for the Energy Departmentto continue on the Clean Coal Pro-gram.

A few weeks ago or a few days ago,we voted to bring China into the WTO.One of the compelling reasons was thatChina could grow the economy and be-come a market for United States prod-ucts. China alone plans to build eightto 10 power plants a year, a year, eightto 10 a year for the next 20 years. Thatis 160 power plants. 75 percent of thosewill burn coal, because this is the fuelthat they have.

If my colleagues are concerned aboutthe environment, I think it is essentialthat we develop this technology. Wewill have a market for it in China, andnot only will we have a market in theprocess of cleaning up the air in China,this, of course, adds to the cleaning ofair in our global environment.

For those who talk about Kyoto andthe Kyoto Protocol, the premise is thatany impact on the environment of airemissions, wherever it occurs in theworld, has a deleterious impact on allof us.

b 1800If we can use this technology, sell it

to China, persuade them to use it inthe generation of power as they expandtheir economy, we will be doing our-selves a favor, not only economically,but in terms of the environment.

For all of these reasons, I urge Mem-bers to vote no on this amendment. Ido not think it is an appropriate timeto give up on the technology that hassuch an enormously bright future.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothis amendment. There has been anawful lot of talk on this floor the lastfew days about our dependence on for-eign energy, particularly upon foreignoil. Well, this amendment and similaramendments have come up every yearsince I entered the Congress in 1993,and every year Members of the Penn-sylvania and West Virginia delegationstake this opportunity to remind ourcolleagues of some very importantfacts.

Number one is that we have more re-coverable coal in this country than thewhole world has in recoverable oil. Yes,that is true. There is more recoverablecoal in this country than recoverableoil in the whole world. We should be re-investing in alternative sources to usethat fuel that we have available, notdisinvesting.

I am honored to represent the an-thracite coal fields of Pennsylvania,along with the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. KANJORSKI) and the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHER-WOOD), and we have anthracite coalthat is high in Btu and low in sulfurand meets every EPA standard of theClean Air Act.

Technology has been around for dec-ades where we can turn waste coal andraw coal into diesel fuel and gasoline.The Germans did it during World WarII, the South Africans did it during theembargo. I am sure many of my col-leagues have been receiving the samecomplaints I have been receiving abouthigh gas prices here in the UnitedStates. We should take this oppor-tunity to be reinvesting in alternativeways so that we can perfect that tech-nology so we can use our own naturalresources.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto defeat this amendment. Let us takeadvantage of our own natural resourcesand not disinvest. Let us reinvest inclean coal technology.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-man, I move to strike the requisitenumber of words.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect tothe gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA),the chairman of the Subcommittee onInterior of the Committee on Appro-priations, there is nothing new beingdeveloped under the Clean Coal Tech-nology Program except for new ways tosquander taxpayers’ money.

The clean coal program idles envi-ronmental innovation. It duplicatesinitiatives already under the 1990 CleanAir Act. It has been consistently foundtime and time again, GAO report afterGAO report, to manage inefficiently.

Mr. Chairman, the demand for cleancoal is also falling in the energy mar-ket place. The Clean Coal TechnologyProgram under the Department ofLabor has spent nearly $2.5 billionsince 1986 in grants to help private in-dustry develop commercial tech-nologies to burn coal in less pollutingways. What that essentially means isthat we have given $2.5 billion alreadyto private companies for commercialtechnologies to make a profit on it tosell it. In other words, it is industrialpolicy. We are picking winners and los-ers in the marketplace with Federalsubsidies, subsidizing the research anddevelopment end of their budget, there-by engaging in what many people callcorporate welfare.

Mr. Chairman, this is also a very re-dundant program. We already have aninnovative system for cleaning up ourair in the 1990 version of the Clean AirAct. We have emissions trading. Which

is a situation in which private compa-nies already have an incentive to re-duce pollution through emissions trad-ing under this act.

This program is, plain and simple, aboondoggle. In the last 3 years, Con-gress has rescinded $400 million infunding as the clean coal technologyprojects have proven that they cannotbe completed in a timely and efficientmanner, if completed at all.

In the most recent GAO report, re-leased this March of the year 2000, theGAO found that problems identified inthe mid-1990s found that a number ofclean coal demonstration projects haveexperienced difficulties meeting costs,schedule, and performance goals. Asthe 2000 report finds, these problemscontinue today and have become worse.

Two of the eight projects studied outof the 13 are in bankruptcy. Eight moreare heading to bankruptcy. This pro-gram is wasting taxpayers’ money,they do not work, they are not onschedule, it is industrial policy, it iscorporate welfare, it isantienvironmental, it duplicates theClean Air Act, and, more importantly,according to the Congressional Re-search Service, conventional wisdomwithin the electricity industry basedon current trends is that generatingtechnology and fuel costs, that thetechnology of choice for new construc-tion will be natural gas-fired plants.

This is a thing of the past. Why weshould continue to subsidize these cor-porate budgets is beyond me. I urgepassage of this amendment.


Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield tothe gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I wouldinvite the gentleman to go to theTampa Power Company and visit theirplant if the gentleman thinks it doesnot work. It is remarkable what theyhave accomplished in that program. Itis a greenfield plant, so they had theadvantage of starting from scratch, butthey are taking what is normally abouta 30 percent efficiency in the use of theBTUs in a lump of coal and gettingabout 60. That illustrates the value ofthe program, plus the fact that theycan use any kind of coal because theydo a pressure cooker process which ex-tracts the sulfur and the other thingsthat have value and it reduces emis-sions to almost a negligible point. So Ithink it illustrates it does work. I dothink there is a lot of opportunity tosell this technology.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-man, reclaiming my time, and I clearlyrespect the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.REGULA) and the leadership he hasgiven on this issue and many others, Isimply think it comes down to thepoint where we have the mechanism inplace under the 1990 Clean Air Act toreduce emissions. Emission trading is amarket-based initiative that is actu-ally serving this public good, withouthaving to obligate taxpayer money,without having to have the Depart-ment of Energy pick this company to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4543June 15, 2000give money to over that company togive money to, thereby engaging in in-dustrial policy.

I think that there can be meritspointed out, but the point is the de-mand is losing, many of these projectsare inefficiently managed, the GAO re-port is consistently telling us thesethings are not well managed.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will yield further, I thinkthis is a useful debate, and that is, ofcourse, as the projects go on streamand succeed, they do pay back the in-vestment of the United States govern-ment. So it becomes a kind of seedmoney type that will allow them tosell the bonds to make these projectswork. My concern is that we are goingto have an enormous demand for poweras the economy of this country ex-pands, and I think coal is going to bethe fuel of choice simply because thereis so much of it. We ought to figure outhow to get it done in an energy-friend-ly way.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of thegentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. RYAN)has expired.

(On request of Mr. REGULA, and byunanimous consent, Mr. RYAN of Wis-consin was allowed to proceed for 1 ad-ditional minute.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-man, I think one can clearly contestthe point whether coal is going to bethe fuel of choice or not. I think nat-ural gas has a good case for it. I thinkthat around the country, according tothe Department of Energy itself, nat-ural gas usage will increase 44 percentbetween the year 2000 and 2020, withelectricity utilities expecting to rep-resent 60 percent of this total increase.So it comes down to a philosophy. I donot think the Federal Governmentshould be doing this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not have a dog inthis fight. The most agriculture I havein my district is at the swap meet. I donot have any coal fields, I do not haveany natural gas, but I will tell youwhat my concern is. In my heart I un-derstand the gentleman’s amendment,any waste fraud and abuse we want toeliminate. But I take a look at our de-pendence on foreign oil, and my col-league, the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS), looks at our mili-tary constraints and the problems thatwe have with oil reserves and thosethings. He does a very good job of that.

In Utah, one of the reasons we lostthe fight, but in the fight with the An-tiquities Act, the President made amonument of the cleanest coal in theworld. And, guess what? Mr. JamesRiady was the recipient of that becauseit gave him a collective position oncoal to sell to China. The Presidentthen gave China $50 million to put acoal plant in. Where does Riady crackhis coal? In China. Now we have to buythat coal back. Look at the workersthat have been put out of work inUtah.

I look at the Antiquities Act also andmy concern for renewable resources, orat least resources that we could use,instead of dependence on foreign re-sources. If they take, for example,ANWR, which is a postage stamp in alarge area, but I think the Presidentwill probably under this go and try andmake a national monument in ANWR,one of our largest reserves of oil in theworld.

I look at another thing that we did inthis House, some conservatives alongwith the others, the fusion-fission pro-gram, which was showing promise, wecanceled that research. Natural gas isanother area in which I think we oughtto invest. I do not know how beneficialthe clean coal is. I do know I have beento some of my colleagues’ districtsthat have coal miners and workers, andI know how much they are hurting, andthat bothers me. But do we have jobs?Corporate welfare? No.

So I would reluctantly oppose thegentleman’s amendment, just becausewe may have some bad research incoal, but we may have some good. Myconcern, I think like the gentlemanfrom Washington, is where do we getour resources when we run short innatural emergencies? We are going tohave to rely on those.

I am part of the problem myself. Mybill stopped offshore oil drilling off ofthe coast of California, because I donot want to be like Long Beach andhave our beaches all polluted. So Iwould say to the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. REGULA), I am part of the problemas well. I understand that. But, on theother hand, we also need to be able tohave resources so that this country canwork.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the fossil en-ergy program because, contrary tosome of the arguments made on thisfloor, it has produced meaningful re-sults that have benefited all Ameri-cans. Let me give the Members someexamples.

Let us talk about cleaner air. Fifteenyears ago the old technology thatcould effectively remove smog-causingnitrogen oxide pollutants from a powerplant cost $3,000 per ton of NOX re-duced. But DOE’s clean coal researchhelped develop better lower-cost com-bustion technologies. Today that re-search has reduced pollution controlcosts to less than $200 a ton, and 75 per-cent of the coal-burning plant capacityin this country uses these new low-pol-luting burners.

Let us talk about sulfur emissions,one of the pollutants associated withacid rain. Today sulfur emissions frompower plants are down 70 percent since1975, even though the use of coal hasincreased by more than 250 percent.Many utilities installed scrubbers toreduce sulfur pollutants, and more willlikely be installed in the future. But inthe 1970s, scrubbers were expensive andunreliable. Today, largely because of

DOE’s research, scrubbers are muchmore affordable and reliable, and theycost only one-fourth as much as theydid in the 1970s. That alone has savedthe United States ratepayers morethan $40 million a year, and more than$40 billion since 1975.

Let us talk about the future. Untilthe 1990s, the only way to use coal togenerate electricity was to burn it, butthen came the Clean Coal TechnologyProgram. Today, because of this pro-gram, residents can get their elec-tricity from power plants that turncoal into a super clean gas, much likenatural gas, and it burns it in a tur-bine. It is the forerunner of a new gen-eration of high efficiency, virtuallypollution-free power plants. It wouldnot have been possible without theDOE research program.

The track record for fossil energy re-search is a good one, and when you re-alize that 85 percent of our energycomes from fossil fuels, it is importantwe have this research, because it bene-fits every American who turns on hislight switch, or, for that matter,breathes the air.

Let us remember one thing: Coal isour most abundant source of energy. Itis an energy source which no foreignnation can hold us hostage with. Weshould vote to keep these results com-ing in in the future. I urge my col-leagues to vote against the Royceamendment.

b 1815

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

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Housewill reject the amendment offered bythe gentleman from California (Mr.ROYCE). I am sure it is meant in goodwill, but the fact is that it defers toomuch money to next year. His amend-ment would defer $237 million.

I come from a district where we havetwo of the largest coal operations inthe United States. The Port of Los An-geles has a major coal facility. So doesthe Port of Long Beach. Most of thatcoal moves to Asia. That coal could bea lot cleaner than it is, as many resi-dents could tell us. As the coal traincomes from Colorado and Utah andtravels through little towns and largetowns.

So I think it is just overreach to wipeout all of the funding in this section. Iagree with the gentleman from Ohio(Chairman REGULA) on this issue, and Iwould hope all Members of the Housewould also vote No on the Royceamendment. Vote down this particularamendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strongopposition to this amendment. I wantto tell the chairman that I think he isabsolutely right. The administrationsuggested a higher level of deferral. Wegave 67. The House in its good judg-ment added 22, or 89; something a littlehigher than that if necessary might beappropriate.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4544 June 15, 2000But to do the whole thing, to defer

the entire program I think would be amistake. I think we have to continuethis important research and work to-wards a cleaner coal technology. Mr.Chairman, I urge a vote on the amend-ment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my col-leagues to vote against this amend-ment. I think the purpose of it is quiteclear. They are trying to kill a fly withdynamite. I think they believe if theytake away all of the money, there willnot be any for the National Endow-ment for the Arts, the National Endow-ment for the Humanities, and the mu-seums.

Frankly, the clean coal portion ofthis legislation is very important. Ijust want to urge that everybody lookor search their minds here and reallyunderstand what is happening with thisamendment.

I commend the gentleman from Ohio(Chairman REGULA) for saying thisshould not be voted for, and I join himin that. I hope that everyone will voteno.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from California (Mr. ROYCE).


Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-man, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 524, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from California (Mr. ROYCE)will be postponed.

The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:ENERGY RESOURCE, SUPPLY AND EFFICIENCY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)For necessary expenses in carrying out en-

ergy conservation activities and for fossilenergy research and development activities,under the authority of the Department ofEnergy Organization Act (Public Law 95–91),including the acquisition of interest, includ-ing defeasible and equitable interests in anyreal property or any facility or for plant orfacility acquisition or expansion, and forconducting inquiries, technological inves-tigations and research concerning the ex-traction, processing, use, and disposal ofmineral substances without objectionable so-cial and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3,1602, and 1603), performed under the mineralsand materials science programs at the Al-bany Research Center in Oregon,$1,139,611,000, to remain available until ex-pended, of which $2,000,000 shall be derived bytransfer from unobligated balances in theBiomass Energy Development account: Pro-vided, That $153,500,000 shall be for use in en-ergy conservation programs as defined insection 3008(3) of Public Law 99–509 (15 U.S.C.4507): Provided further, That notwithstandingsection 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99–509, suchsums shall be allocated to the eligible pro-grams as follows: $120,000,000 for weatheriza-tion assistance grants and $33,500,000 forState energy conservation grants: Providedfurther, That no part of the sum herein madeavailable shall be used for the field testing ofnuclear explosives in the recovery of oil andgas.

AMENDMENT NO. 28 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS

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

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

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. SANDERS:Page 67, line 16, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ‘‘(reduced by $45,000,000)(increased by $20,000,000) (increased by$3,500,000) (increased by $9,500,000) (increasedby $5,000,000) (increased by $7,000,000)’’.

Page 67, line 19, after the dollar amount,insert the following: ‘‘(increased by$23,500,000)’’.



Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I wantto particularly thank the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. BOEHLERT), thegentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. KIND),the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.SMITH), Mr. UDALL, the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. LAZIO), the gentlemanfrom Maine (Mr. ALLEN), the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. QUINN),and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.RUSH) for their support of this bipar-tisan amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment isalso supported by a very broad coali-tion of environmental and public inter-est organizations, including the Leagueof Conservation Voters, the SierraClub, the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Public Citizen, and U.S. Pub-lic Interest Research Group.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment ad-dresses, among other things, the veryserious national problem of millions oflower-income Americans being unableto properly weatherize their homes forthe winter or for the summer. The re-sult is that their limited incomes lit-erally go drifting out the window oftheir underinsulated homes.

In addition, from an environmentalpoint of view, this Nation wastes bil-lions of dollars in higher than neededenergy costs. That is money that isjust going through the windows,through the doors, and through theroofs.

For those of us who are concernedabout protecting the financial well-being of lower-income Americans andfor those of us who are concerned aboutthe environment, this is a very impor-tant amendment. This amendment in-creases funding for energy efficiencyinvestments by $45 million, including$20 million for the highly successfulweatherization assistance program.

The $45 million offset for this amend-ment is the fossil fuel energy researchand development program, otherwiseknown as power generation and large-scale technologies. This amendmentwould bring that program down from$410 million, that is a lot of money,$410 million to $365 million.

Mr. Chairman, last year 248 Membersvoted in favor of an amendment to cutthe fossil fuel energy research and de-

velopment program by $50 million. Un-fortunately, despite our vote to cutthis program that is widely regarded ascorporate welfare, the conference com-mittee not only ignored our vote, butadded more than $50 million to thiscontroversial program.

Some of us are determined, and whenit comes to corporate welfare versusthe needs of millions of low-incomeAmericans all over this country, we aregoing to stand up against corporatewelfare.

Mr. Chairman, the energy efficientprograms that this amendment sup-ports have been enormously successfuland have saved Americans some $80 bil-lion over the last 20 years. Yet, fundingfor these programs has been consist-ently shortchanged.

According to the Alliance to SaveEnergy, funding for Federal energy-ef-ficient programs have been reduced byalmost 30 percent since 1996. In otherwords, we are increasing funding forweatherization efforts which have beencut in recent years, which is what thisamendment is about, in order to cut adubious program which has seen sig-nificant increases in recent years; moremoney for low-income people to weath-erize their homes, less money for a pro-gram that has gone up in recent years,which many regard as corporate wel-fare.

Mr. Chairman, this amendmentwould also increase funding for theState energy program by $3.5 million.That program helps homeowners,schools, hospitals, and farmers reduceenergy costs.

Mr. Chairman, regarding the fossilfuel energy research and developmentprogram, let me quote from the reportof the fiscal year 1997 Republican, I sayit again, Republican budget resolution.I would hope my Republican friendswould hear this.

‘‘The Department of Energy hasspent billions of dollars on researchand development since the oil crisis of1973 triggered this activity. Returns onthis investment have not been cost-ef-fective, particularly for applied re-search and development, which indus-try has ample incentive to undertake.

‘‘Some of this activity is simply cor-porate welfare for the oil, gas, and util-ity industries. Much of it duplicateswhat industry is already doing. Somehas gone to fund technology in whichthe market has no interest.’’

That is not the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS), that is the1997 Republican budget resolution.

Let me quote from the 1999 Congres-sional Budget Office report, whichsays, ‘‘The appropriateness of Federalgovernment funding for such researchand development is questionable. Fed-eral programs in the fossil fuel areahave a long history of funding tech-nologies that, while interesting tech-nically, had little chance of commer-cial feasibility even after years of Fed-eral investment. As a result, much ofthe Federal spending has been irrele-vant to solving the Nation’s energyproblems.’’


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4545June 15, 2000The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SAND-ERS) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. SANDERSwas allowed to proceed for 1 additionalminute.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that isthe CBO, 1999.

Mr. Chairman, I can well understandwhy some of my friends from variousStates are here to defend this program.I can understand that.

The reality is that unlike the weath-erization program, which is well dis-tributed to all 50 States, the lion’sshare of fossil fuel research money goesto relatively few States. In fact, over 50percent of the designated funds goes tofour States, while 38 percent of thatmoney goes to two States. This amend-ment is good environmental policy, itis good public policy, and I urge mycolleagues to vote yes on this amend-ment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothe Sanders amendment. Let me saythat we have tried to strike a carefullybalanced allocation of funds in the fos-sil fuel account. We have recognizedthat fossil fuels cover a lot of areas.

What the gentleman is attempting todo is just rearrange the chairs on thedeck in what he would consider to be amore efficient way. But I would pointout, and we have this experience, weonly need to drive down the street andlook at gasoline prices to recognizethat we need to have research intomaking automobiles more fuel effi-cient, into burning our fuel in a moreefficient way also.

We are now up to importing 52 per-cent of our oil, and predictions are thatit will rise to 64 percent by 2020. Mem-bers can imagine how subjected we willbe to OPEC pricing and to the price offuel. Of course, that reflects then inthe price of consumer goods.

This country is so dependent on en-ergy, and every dimension of our indus-trial economy is tied to energy use.Our lifestyle is tied to energy. What wehave tried to do in this bill, in the allo-cation of the fossil research money, isto ensure we get the best possible useof the resources.

This is an interesting statistic: One-third of the world’s population, 2 bil-lion people, do not even have access toelectricity. Of course, that again isgoing to cause a tripling of consump-tion over the next 50 years as the lesserdeveloped nations try to expand theireconomy. It is a market for our cleancoal technology, and it will be a mar-ket for other technologies that will bedeveloped under the fossil program.

As has been pointed out by a speakerearlier, we have more coal in this coun-try than the rest of the world has of re-coverable oil in terms of Btus. We needto conserve our natural gas, but wealso need to have the development oftechnology that will cause the produc-tion of natural gas to be more efficient.

That is part of the fossil research. Wecan get gas from deeper and more com-plex formations. We can get a betterextraction, because we need all theseenergy sources. We need coal, we needgas, we need petroleum simply because,as a Nation, if we just look at the sta-tistics and project our energy needsover the next say 40 or 50 years, theyare going to be enormous.

We are the people who are laying thefoundation for an adequate and effi-ciently produced source of energy.Whether our children and grand-children will enjoy the same quality oflife that we have, which is tied to en-ergy consumption, clearly is being de-termined by the way we use these re-sources.

What we have tried to do on the com-mittee, because it is our responsibility,working with the minority Memberand myself and the other members ofthe Committee, is to say, this is thebest we can do to allocate the re-sources in terms of energy production.

In weatherization, as the gentlemanknows, we have increased it from $135million to $139 million. That is a com-mitment on our part because most ofour funding was level, but we felt thatthe weatherization program deservedsome additional funding.

All these programs are important. Ithink that tonight to just simply rear-range all of these ways in which wehave tried to address energy need isnot the way to go.

The committee, working with the De-partment of Energy, has exercisedwhat we consider to be our best judg-ment of the use of our Nation’s re-sources to provide the energy needs oftomorrow and tomorrow and tomor-row, and to ensure that future genera-tions will have the same opportunitiesthat we have had, because they are tiedvery dramatically to energy.

I think that the result of this amend-ment will be to decrease the domesticenergy supply availability. I hope thatthe committee, the Members of the fullcommittee and the House will supportthe judgment of the Committee on theInterior.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gen-tleman from Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman made the point that thecommittee had increased funding from$135 to $139 million. What the gen-tleman is talking about is the moneythat was included in the supplemental.

Mr. REGULA. For weatherization,yes.

Mr. SANDERS. But the gentlemanknows that Senator LOTT has declaredthat supplemental dead on arrival, andwhat we are looking at is $15 millionless.

Mr. REGULA. There is a conferenceon the supplemental next week, and Ithink it will be addressed. But again,this is important to this Nation’s fu-ture.

b 1830Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to

the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).As many of my colleagues are aware,the amendment before us is the latestincarnation of the gentleman’s peren-nial crusade to hamper important en-ergy research and development efforts.

At a time when all of our constitu-ents have been rightfully concernedwith our Nation’s energy security, anarea of great importance to our overallnational security, I believe that a moveto indiscriminately slash $45 millionfrom energy R&D will produce unwar-ranted and detrimental effects thatwill only exacerbate the current situa-tion and fester throughout the summerdriving season.

Let us keep in mind that the UnitedStates currently imports 54 percent ofits crude oil from other countries,more than at any time in our history.If we do not take aggressive actions toalter this trend, by 2020 we could be im-porting 64 percent.

In a recent ‘‘dear colleague’’ sent outby the proponents of the Sandersamendment, the claim is made that theintention of the amendment is to re-duce our dependence on overseas oil.Now, how can this be achieved if $45million is being moved away from re-search into areas such as fuel cells andmethane hydrates, both of which rep-resent abundant energy supplies, andtransferring the funds to support thepurchase of caulking, weather strip-ping, and storm windows?

Now, this is not to say that weshould not pay attention to improvingenergy efficiency of low-income house-holds. We should, but not at the dis-proportionate expense of critical R&Defforts that will reduce our dependenceon overseas oil as well as produce awhole host of other beneficial out-comes.

Let me be clear. I have been a strongsupporter of efforts such as the weath-erization program and LIHEAP. So myconcern about this amendment doesnot rise out of opposition to weather-ization but out of an interest toachieve appropriate funding propor-tionality.

Whenever one program of merit ispitted against another, it is critical forMembers to move beyond thewordsmithing, smoke screens, and sur-face sentiment and to look to the factsof the matter. If Members take time todo a brief cost benefit analysis, theywill find that supporting energy R&Defforts is the most efficient and effec-tive investment we can make.

Consider the following: Despite thefact that the weatherization programhas not been authorized since 1990, itsfunding level has continued to receiveincreases. $128 million in fiscal year1997; $124 million in fiscal year 1998;$133 million in fiscal year 1999; and $139million in fiscal year 2000.

While so many important and au-thorized programs are underfunded in


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4546 June 15, 2000this year’s Interior bill, the weather-ization program is slated for a $4 mil-lion increase. On average, the programweatherizes 70,000 dwellings a year, yetit requires just 40 percent of the fundsbe spent on weatherization, materialsand labor.

Fossil energy research and develop-ment, on the other hand, continues todo more and more with tighter budg-ets. Fossil energy has been essentiallyflat funded since fiscal year 1997 andthis bill’s funding levels represent a 2percent decrease from last year’s level.

In response to this trend, FE hassharpened its focus and, as a result, hasheightened its efforts with regard tohigh efficiency projects, including ef-forts to develop new and more effectivetechnologies that will help U.S. pro-ducers recover more oil from domesticfields and to develop cleaner fuels tomeet future vehicle emission stand-ards.

Without question, fossil energy isabout a lot more than coal. In addition,FE R&D significantly contributes toyour State, both in terms of fundingand jobs. In fiscal year 2000 alone, FEprojects supported a total of 248,575jobs, something worth consideringwhen Members cast their vote.

Finally, I want to recognize the goodwork done by the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. REGULA) and the ranking member,the gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS), given the current budgetaryconstraints. Their leadership can al-ways be counted on and is much appre-ciated.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge thedefeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theSanders-Boehlert-Kind amendment toincrease our funding and in support forcritical Federal programs to promoteenergy efficiency, but I take somewhatof a different approach from the leadsponsor of this amendment. I want tomake it clear that I support thisamendment not because of the pro-grams that it cuts, because there aresome very good fossil energy researchand development programs this billfunds, and if more money is found laterperhaps these cuts can be restored. Isupport this amendment because I be-lieve that we must make a more seri-ous commitment to energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency, energy efficiency,energy efficiency, that should be ourmantra. That must be our commit-ment.

The United States is the world’s larg-est consumer of oil, and this week theprice of oil surged past $31 a barrel forthe second time this year. The lasttime that happened many of my con-stituents were faced with enormouscosts for home heating oil, costs thatthey could not meet with some tragicconsequences. This time, they are facedwith rapidly escalating gasoline prices,gasoline prices that have exceeded $2.50a gallon in some sections of the coun-

try. That is having a devastating nega-tive impact on families.

Meanwhile, the oil-producing nationsare deadlocked as to whether or not toraise their production of oil. If they donot raise production, then rising de-mand will quickly outstrip supply andprices will further escalate. If they doraise production, then several weeks ormonths down the road the Americanconsumer will feel a little relief, butwe are dependent on the OPEC nations,overly dependent, I believe, because weare one of the world’s largest importersof foreign oil.

I think this amendment will providesome help where help is needed. Theenergy efficiency programs we fundwill help us develop cleaner, more effi-cient technologies that allow us to domore with the same amount of energy.We add $9.5 million to make buildingsmore efficient so that homeowners andbusinesses can heat their homes in thewinter and cool them in the summerwithout having heart arrest whenopening their energy bills. We add $7million more to make transportationmore efficient so Americans can go fur-ther down the road with fewer visits tothe fuel pump, not to mention thefewer pollutants emitted along theway, and that is a major issue.

We add $5 million more for efficientindustrial technologies so that ourbusinesses get the competitive edgethey need in the global marketplace.

This amendment also boosts fundingfor the crucial weatherization programto insulate and weatherize the homesof low-income families; $20 million willgo to weatherization programs to helpan additional 10,000 families, each ofwhich could save up to $200 worth ofenergy costs every year.

Now for us in Washington, $200 a yearfor a family budget to save does notsound like much, but let me say to somany families that means everything.We have to be aware of that.

The amendment also boosts fundingfor the State energy program by $2.5million to help schools and hospitalsand farmers and small businesses re-duce their costs by becoming more en-ergy efficient, and let me add if we cando that we provide some much neededrelief on the property tax burden.

Do not forget, the money we wouldhave sent overseas to pay for all ofthat oil is kept right here in the do-mestic economy.

Mr. Chairman, I feel this amendmentis a wise investment in energy effi-ciency, and a wise investment in amore energy secure future. I urge mycolleagues to support the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind energy efficiencyamendment.

Let me close by saying, energy effi-ciency, energy efficiency, energy effi-ciency. That should be our mantra. Itmust be our commitment.


Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gen-tleman from Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS. Just to set the recordstraight, my good friend, the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. DOYLE)a moment ago talked about the energyefficiency programs going up. That istrue in recent years, but in 1995 it wasbudgeted at $215 million. Today it is at$120 million; a huge decline in funding.

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

(Mr. KIND asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ampleased to be an original sponsor ofthis amendment that will expand fund-ing for the low-income weatherizationprogram, the State energy program,and other critical energy conservationand research measures.

I commend my colleagues from bothVermont and New York, and otherswho have been supporting this amend-ment this year and in previous fiscalyears, in trying to work in a bipartisanfashion to advance the cause of energyefficiency.

I think my friend from New Yorkstated it so well and so eloquently,that we as a country, especially withthe bad weather conditions we experi-enced last winter and the terribly highgas prices that are sweeping the Nationbut especially in the upper Midwesttoday, need to start developing a long-term energy efficiency program thatmakes sense for the consumers in thiscountry and lessens our dependence onfossil fuel energy consumption and for-eign oil production.

Just to respond to my friend fromPennsylvania, I understand his concernin regards to a system of the offsets inthe program that affects his local area,but this is, I believe, the right policydirection that we should be moving in,because these energy programs are nota luxury but a necessity to many,many families across the country whocannot afford their own weatherizationpreparations.

I do have a parochial interest in thisas well, Mr. Chairman, because thefirst weatherization assistance pro-gram that was set up in the Nation wasestablished right in my congressionaldistrict in western Wisconsin back in1974. Since that time, over half theStates have developed their own weath-erization or energy efficient programs,and what a marvelous result we areseeing coming from these programs.

The average family who has beenable to weatherize their home underthis program is realizing a 23 percentefficiency upgrade with their energyconsumption needs. What that meansin a nutshell is more money for theselow-income families for other purposesrather than for escalating energy costs,money that could be spent on food, forinstance.

In fact, just recently there was a con-stituent back in my hometown of LaCrosse that wrote a letter in regards tothe weatherization program. It was asingle mother who was trying to makeit on her own and trying to make endsmeet and she was informed by somefriends about the existence of this pro-gram. She applied and was qualified. In


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4547June 15, 2000the letter that she wrote and I quote ‘‘Ihad no insulation, drafty windows, apoor chimney lining and a list of realenergy zappers, much of which I wasunaware. My bedroom wall had frost onthe interior and my blanket wouldstick. Not any more. I am so fortunateto live in an area with these kinds ofresources. Thank you so much for help-ing me and my family enjoy the Amer-ican dream.’’

I am also pleased that this programis fiscally responsible and environ-mentally advanced. By divertingmoney from the fossil fuel energy re-search and development program, weare looking to the future in developingnew technologies. These programs willmake us less dependent on fossil fuelsand foreign oil supplies at exactly thetime when we need to be less dependenton them. If erratic temperature vari-ations that we have recently seen werenot enough, we are now seeing whatcomes from our reliance on overseasoil, with gas prices reaching the upperMidwest beyond $2.00 a gallon. Cur-rently, 70 percent of our energy supplycomes from fossil fuels which are non-renewable and environmentally detri-mental. With cleaner, more efficientenergy supplies we boost the economyand become a leader in cleaner energy.

Our Nation continues to thrive in anera of economic growth but not everyAmerican family is fortunate enoughto participate in this prosperity. Theweatherization program, LIHEAP, En-ergy Star and State energy programsare ideal tools to help our Nation’scitizens who are most in need. I urgemy colleagues to support this amend-ment, which would expand fundingthese vital programs.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strongopposition to the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amendment. This amendmentpurports to benefit energy efficientprograms by cutting $45 million fromthe Department of Energy’s fossil en-ergy research activities. In reality, thisamendment will cut energy efficiencyresearch.

b 1845

Today, 70 percent of the electricitygenerated from this country comesfrom fossil fuels. Our Nation’s demandfor electricity will continue to increasewith the rapid growth of our high-techeconomy. Do we really want to cutfunding for research that will allow usto use nonrenewable resources more ef-ficiently? Do we really want to cutfunding for research that will furtherreduce the impact of fossil energy onthe environment? The answer is no.

Funding for fossil energy researchsupports national laboratory and uni-versity efforts to improve the fuel effi-ciency and reduce the emission of fossilenergy facilities. Although it does notfall under the budgetary category ofenergy efficiency, fossil energy re-search is in reality energy efficiency

research relating to fossil fuels and fos-sil energy.

The United States is already bene-fiting from the improved efficiency andenvironmental protections of fossil en-ergy research. For example, three-quarters of America’s coal fire powerplants use pollution boilers developedthrough private sector collaborationwith the Department of Energy.

Future research efforts promise toreduce the release of greenhouse gasesinto the atmosphere by sequesteringcarbon. Other research could lead tothe capture and use of by-productsfrom fossil energy generation for othercommercial purposes.

Scientists are attempting to con-struct better filters that can screen outpollutant-forming impurities from thehot gases of power plants. Let us nothalt this kind of progress by cuttingimportant fossil energy research.

I urge my colleagues to vote againstthe Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amend-ment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my col-leagues to support the Sanders-Boeh-lert-Kind amendment to H.R. 4578, theInterior Appropriations Act for fiscalyear 2001.

The Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amend-ment would cut funding for the FossilFuel Energy Research and Develop-ment program by $45 million and in-crease funding for energy efficiencyprograms by the same amount. In-cluded in this increase would be an in-crease of $20 million in the Weatheriza-tion Assistance Program.

The Weatherization Assistance Pro-gram provides assistance to low-in-come American families to improvetheir energy efficiency and lower theirenergy cost. Two-thirds of those servedby this program have incomes under$8,000 per year, and almost all of themhave incomes under $15,000 per year.Many of the beneficiaries were elderlyor disabled and many are families withyoung children. Weatherization assist-ance enables those families to heattheir homes in the winter and coolthem in the summer.

Mr. Chairman, I recall it was just 2years ago, I believe, that we witnessedseniors dying in Chicago. Many of themwere trapped in high-rise buildings, andwe could not even get assistance tothem. They literally suffocated in theirhomes because of the heat, and theyhad no air conditioning. I do not thinkthat we want to see the reoccurrence ofthe kinds of deaths that we saw as a re-sult of the weather and the heat atthat time.

Low-income families spend an aver-age of $1,100 per year on energy ex-penses for their homes. These expendi-tures comprise 14.5 percent of their an-nual incomes. By contrast, other fami-lies spend a mere 3.5 percent of theirannual incomes on home energy ex-penses.

The Weatherization Assistance Pro-gram enables low-income families to

save an average of $200 per year inheating costs. These savings can beused for other basic human necessitiessuch as food, clothing, housing, andhealth care.

The Fossil Fuel Energy Research andDevelopment program funds govern-ment research on fossil fuel tech-nologies that benefit, for the mostpart, the oil, gas and utility industries.This program was funded at $34 millionabove and beyond the amount re-quested by the President, although, theInterior Appropriations Act as a wholewas funded at $1.7 billion below thePresident’s request.

Why are the Republicans increasingfunds for this corporate welfare pro-gram? The oil, gas, and utility indus-tries do not need this program. Theysincerely can afford to do their own re-search.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favorof the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amend-ment. Cut the corporate welfare andsupport funding for energy assistancefor low-income Americans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleaguesin support of this legislation. There isa tragedy here that we are choosing be-tween important issues that are beforethe country. There is no question thatwe have to address alternative energyand finding ways to make coal burncleaner.

But the choice today is one that ispresented to us that puts thousandsand thousands of senior citizens andother Americans in harm’s way, really.It puts them in a situation where, thiswinter, as we see high gas prices willsoon be changing once again to high oilprices, in a position where they maynot be able to make it through the win-ter.

Additionally, of all the things thisCongress does, weatherization createsmore energy for less money than al-most every other expenditure, becausewhen one weatherizes a house, the ben-efits of that weatherization do not justoccur in that heating season or thatcooling season, the benefits of thatweatherization last for the life of thehouse. If that house lasts for 100 years,those benefits last for 100 years.

When we look at what we ought to bedoing and what we do in this Congress,when there was a crisis in the FarmBelt, the Congress responded. First,our colleagues on the other side of theaisle chose Freedom to Farm. Whenthat program failed, we came in withadditional revenues for farmers. Ourfriends in California that do not haveenough water, the Federal Governmentsubsidized bringing water to thosefarmers. We in New England do not geta lot of those kinds of benefits.

But other senior citizens and work-ing people, many of them very poor, doface some of the harsher winters in thiscountry. Across this country, manycitizens need the help of this weather-ization program. But this not only


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4548 June 15, 2000helps the individuals, it helps our na-tional dependence on foreign energy.Because every time one weatherizes ahome, for every barrel of oil that fam-ily does not use, it is a barrel of oil wedo not have to import. It helps ourtrade balance. It helps the families. Ithelps the country.

Pass this amendment. It is the rightthing to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of the Sanders-Boehlert-Kindamendment, which cuts corporate wel-fare and boosts energy efficiency pro-grams that benefit consumers and theenvironment. This amendment restores$45 million to programs that help low-income families reduce energy costs,that help States implement efficiencyprograms, and that foster investmentsin new efficiency technologies. All ofthese programs have been cut in recentyears just as America’s energy needshave been rising.

This amendment renews our commit-ment to energy efficiency as a corner-stone of our energy policy. The offset isthe fossil fuel R&D account which hasbeen identified as corporate welfare byconsumer and taxpayer watchdogs, in-cluding the National Taxpayers Unionand Citizens Against GovernmentWaste.

On top of direct appropriations, wealso subsidize the fossil fuel industrythrough exemption from environ-mental laws. For instance, America’soldest and dirtiest coal-fired powerplants are still exempt from Clean AirAct emissions standards that were en-acted 30 years ago. These grand-fathered power plants continue to spewtons of pollution into our air, adding tosmog, acid rain, mercury poisoning,and global warming. While industryprofits from this exemption, the publicsuffers increased respiratory problemsand expensive environmental cleanups.

If America is to create a sustainableand cost-effective energy policy, wemust reduce our dependence on highlypolluting fossil fuels. Improving energyefficiency is an important first step to-ward that goal.

Mr. Chairman, as we begin the sum-mer months with the threat of brown-outs and rising fuel costs, now is thetime to make a commitment to energyefficiency. This amendment is a smallbut significant step toward a 21st cen-tury energy policy that lowers con-sumer costs and protects public healthand the environment.

I urge my colleagues to support thisamendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theSanders-Boehlert-Kind amendment. Iwant to thank the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS) and the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT)and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.KIND) for offering this.

Those of us from the Northeast, andparticularly those of us in all of the

colder States of this country, realizethis past winter the real problems thatcan beset low-income and fixed-incomesenior citizens and people throughoutour district when we saw rocketingprices when it came to home heatingoil.

When it came to energy efficiency,we looked at the high cost of renova-tions. We realized that the people backin our districts, regardless of all theBeltway talk that we may hear heretoday, clearly understand that it isoften beyond their means to be able toafford the energy efficiency and weath-erization that they need to have to beable to heat their homes.

This problem we incurred this winterwas attributed to four different issues:one they said was the production ofcrude oil; the second was the storagecapacity in many of the communitiesaround the country; third was the lackof alternative fuels; fourth, which iswhat we are discussing here tonight,the lack of energy-efficiency programs,weatherization programs to stop con-sumption as we have presently going ofthe high, high cost of energy and fuels.

Today and tonight we are offering anamendment particularly for those com-munities that have older architecture,older problems with regard to weather-ization and alternative fuels.

Let us put back some of the moneyinto the weatherization program thatwe have stripped out over the last 10 to15 years. Let us put back the kinds ofrhetoric that we have been fusing intoactual dollars in terms of not onlywords, but deeds. Let us put back intothose programs to help those seniors,those people on fixed income, the realalternatives for more energy effi-ciency.

Let us put back into the real prob-lems of this government money tomake sure that our senior citizens andour low-income people have weather-ization programs. But I would alsopoint out there goes more than justthat.

If one takes a look at the old archi-tecture that besets many of our olderhomes and our older communities, onewill also find another problem. It iscalled lead paint. Many of the sameproblems with lead paint are the sameproblems with weatherization, the highcost of renovation.

When we talk about weatherizationprograms, we often couple in our com-munities the opportunity for renova-tion for lead paint as well. If we putmore money into weatherization pro-grams, we can double our effort in leadpaint reduction as well.

I ask all of my colleagues to supportthis amendment. It does wonders in avery small way but a very efficient wayto make sure that our seniors of lowincome have an opportunity for energyefficiency.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr.Chairman, I want to stand here in sup-port of the amendment of the gen-tleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).Not only is it sensible at this moment,but it gives us a rare opportunity, Ithink, also to highlight what has hap-pened over the course of the last yearwhen we have been, indeed, slow toreact.

This initiative that the gentlemanfrom Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) is offer-ing really is part of a great legacy inthis House of Representatives. The leg-acy was established by Silvio Conte, aRepublican Member of this House. Hebegan the low-income heating oil pro-gram that so many Americans havebenefited from who live below povertyguidelines.

Now, we ask ourselves tonight, whyis this amendment necessary? Last Fri-day, the average price for a gallon ofgasoline rose to $1.67 per gallon. Somepeople across this Nation are payingmore than $2 per gallon. These highprices are caused by low stocks, the re-sults of the high prices experiencedthis past winter when oil dealers didnot replenish their stocks.

The summer driving season is infront of us, and the price of gas is un-likely to drop while demand remains sohigh. As the price of oil remains highas well, stocks are unlikely to be re-plenished. This will result in lowstocks for the winter again.

This is a dangerous cycle for allacross the Nation who live below pov-erty guidelines. Many people in theNortheast last winter had to make thehorrible choice between heating andeating. Anybody who has stood in agrocery checkout line, that is on theminds particularly of senior citizens.

b 1900Now, we do not want that to happen

again. We can act this evening to avoidanother catastrophe from occurringthis winter.

The Northeast Home Heating Oil Re-serve would protect low-income home-owners in the Northeast from having tochoose once again between food andfuel. The Northeast Home Heating OilReserve is an environmentally con-scious way to ensure enough fuel is onhand to combat another harsh winter.

I want to thank the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS) for calling at-tention in this timely manner to anissue that is going to be in front of usonce fall sets upon us. But we have achance to act tonight, to take the ini-tiative, to grab the high ground and toproceed with a sensible plan. I hope allthe Members of this House will standin support of the Sanders amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theSanders-Boehlert-Kind amendmentperhaps from a slightly different per-spective than my good friend fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS).

I really have no problem with the En-ergy Department’s fossil energy re-search and development program. I do


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4549June 15, 2000not consider it welfare. I think we needto continue to do research into fossilenergies, into alternative fuels, intothe whole range of possibilities thatwill make our country less dependenton foreign oil and energy. But one ofthe components, perhaps the most im-portant component, of our energy pol-icy in this country should be reducingthe use of energy and saving resources,and the low-income weatherizationprogram is a demonstrated effectivemethod of doing that.

We are faced as Members of this Con-gress with budget constraints. And asthe chair of the subcommittee has indi-cated, sometimes that means we dohave to rearrange the chairs on thedeck and make some choices. When Imake those choices, I have to keep inmind the things that my mother usedto tell me. And one of those things isthat a bird in hand is worth more thana lot of birds in the bush. The researchmay well yield some fascinating re-sults in the future, but what we doknow is that home weatherization willyield immediate results in the presentand that the low-income energy weath-erization program has been a vital andimportant success story as a means ofsaving energy.

So I do not have any particular beefwith doing research in the long run. Weneed to do that. And, of course, there isgoing to be plenty of money in this billto do that. But in the meantime peopleare freezing to death and people arewithout the weatherization programthat would reduce the heat in theirapartments, and that is a choice that Ihave no problem making in favor of theamendment, even though I have no par-ticular beef with the longer-term re-search.

So in that context I want to encour-age my colleagues to do what makessense in the immediate future and dosomething that we know works. Thisamendment will allow us to supportand finance and put our money, atleast in part, in something that hasbeen a proven success story, the weath-erization program. I encourage my col-leagues to support the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords, and I rise in opposition to thegentleman’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition tothe gentleman’s amendment. Nearly 70percent of the electricity generated inthe United States today is fueled by acombination of coal, oil and naturalgas. These traditional fuels are abun-dant, particularly coal, which accountsfor 90 percent of our Nation’s energyreserves.

At current rates of consumption, theUnited States has enough coal to lastthroughout the next 2 centuries, andthat is just here in the United States.Coal generates nearly 40 percent of allelectricity worldwide, a number that isgrowing as we stand here and debatethis issue.

Here are the facts, Mr. Chairman. Wehave an abundant supply of coal. It is

responsible for over half of the energygenerated in this country, and its useis going to increase here in this coun-try and worldwide. The only questionthat remains is are we or are we notgoing to make it cleaner? Now, let mejust emphasize that. We are going touse more coal in this country andworldwide. The only question that re-mains is are we going to make it clean-er and cleaner, which I support andevery Member that represents a coalregion in this Nation supports. That iswhy we support the Clean Coal Tech-nology Program, because we want it tobecome cleaner and cleaner.

I have to say that I am surprised athow cuts to the fossil energy researchbudget have been framed in this de-bate, as if cutting these funds is somesort of a good environmental vote. Mr.Chairman, nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. In fact, as a result ofFederal funding, since 1970 overall U.S.emissions of pollutants from coal-basedelectricity generation have been cut bya third, even as coal use has tripled.What a success story.

For those of my colleagues who havestood up and argued for the environ-ment and argued for efficiency, I ampleased to tell them that technologiesnow being researched, coming out ofthe Clean Coal Technology Program,will produce a near zero emissionspower plant with double the efficiencyof today’s utilities. This technologywill also be exportable to developingcountries as they build new powerplants to meet their ever-growingneeds and as we become increasinglyconcerned about global warming andglobal greenhouse issues.

Mr. Chairman, that is good for theenvironment and it is also very goodfor our economy. Do not be fooled, mycolleagues. Cutting fossil energy re-search and development is anantienvironmental vote. I urge defeatof the gentleman’s amendment.


Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gen-tleman from Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, Ithank my good friend for yielding tome.

In terms of the environment, I wouldpoint out to my colleagues that myamendment is supported by the Leagueof Conservation Voters, the SierraClub, the Natural Resources——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, I would ask the gen-tleman if he can make the argumentsubstantively that cutting the CleanCoal Technology Program is good forthe environment rather than just cit-ing a number of organizations? Can hemake it with me, please, right here andnow?

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman willcontinue to yield, I certainly can. Asthe gentleman from New York (Mr.BOEHLERT) indicated earlier, when weconserve energy we are doing some-thing extraordinarily important for theenvironment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, reclaimingmy time, the Clean Coal TechnologyProgram, one of its real strengths isthe conservation of the use of energyto generate electricity. As a matter offact, the Clean Coal Technology Pro-gram has increased efficiency, as I saidin my comments, while it reducesemissions.

It is good for the environment, it isgood for the economy, it is an environ-mentally good program while it affectsefficiencies.

Mr. SANDERS. I would just point outthat all the environmental groups sup-port the amendment.

Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair-man, I am a strong supporter of programs thatwork to increase energy efficiency and afford-ability. I know all too well how important it isto have an energy efficient home. During thehome heating crisis this past winter in myhome State of Connecticut, my constituentswere faced with exorbitant home heatingcosts.

While the amendment offered by Mr. SAND-ERS may make home weatherization more af-fordable, I must reluctantly oppose it. By usingthe Department of Energy’s fossil energy re-search and development program as an offset,this amendment will take money from one en-ergy efficiency program and give it to another.That is not good policy.

Both the Low Income Weatherization Pro-gram and the fossil energy research programwork toward the goal of energy efficiency andaffordability. Energy efficiency starts with thefuels we use. We must ensure that these fuelsare as efficient as possible, while at the sametime we must ensure that we are using effi-cient energy practices. This includes buildingenergy efficient homes, driving fuel efficientcars and using clean, dependable, and effi-cient electricity generation technologies.

I fully support increasing resources for bothprograms, just not at the expense of one an-other. The allocation for the Department of theInterior, as reflected in this bill, is simply inad-equate. I therefore must oppose Mr. SANDERS’amendment.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, duringthe upcoming debate on H.R. 4578, the De-partment of Interior and Related Agencies Ap-propriations Act for fiscal year 2001, we will beasked to consider the need to reduce fundingfor fossil fuel research to increase funding forweatherization, state energy programs and en-ergy efficiency research and development. Iam a strong advocate of energy efficiencytechnologies because this research offers usthe potential to minimize our dependence onforeign oil. It also holds the key for a cleanerenvironment in the future by encouraging tech-nologies that reduce emissions. It is an areathat is poised to become accepted by the mar-ket, with a small investment by the federalgovernment, and is certainly an area in whichbusiness and environmental proponents canfind much common ground. I also support pro-viding assistance to low-income individuals tomeet their energy needs.

Despite my unwavering support for energyefficiencies, I find that I cannot support thisamendment. In short, the benefits to beachieved are more illusory than real and thecosts incurred if this amendment passes sub-stantial. It is worth noting that the line itemsfunding fossil fuel research and energy con-servation research have been combined. This


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4550 June 15, 2000amendment cuts the total funding for both pro-grams, resulting in a reduction to our energyconservation efforts. At the very time we aredesperately searching for ways to use energymore efficiently, we are cutting the one con-servation research program that may actuallybear fruit.

Second, the major premise of this amend-ment is that there is nothing valuable to begained from fossil fuel research. It is thispremise with which I disagree. The fact is thatfossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—are criticalto this country’s energy mix, and will continueto be far into the future. The U.S. Energy In-formation Administration projects that demandfor oil and natural gas will grow during thenext two decades by 35 percent, to 24.6 mil-lion barrels today. We have made it difficult toinvest in market-ready alternatives to coal, oiland gas to supply our energy needs and re-newable alternatives cannot yet substitute forthese resources on a broad scale. Until we dohave marketable, viable alternatives, our onlyreal solution is to invest in research and devel-opment efforts to explore, extract, and utilizefossil fuels cleanly and efficiently. This is thegoal of the fossil fuel research and develop-ment program—a goal that supports environ-mental objectives to reduce environmentalconsequences and national security objectivesto reduce the need for foreign oil.

Recently, the Department of Energy re-leased a report noting the accomplishmentsresulting from investment in fossil fuel re-search. The report, titled ‘‘Environmental Ben-efits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration andProduction Technology,’’ lists 36 specific im-provements resulting from fossil fuel research.These improvements have resulted in fewerdry holes, more productive wells, smaller envi-ronmental footprints, and less harmful wasteto manage. Additionally, private-public effortslike the Petroleum Technology Transfer Coun-cil (funded principally through the fossil fuelprogram), have provided the technologicalmeans for independent producers to reducethe environmental impact of their efforts, large-ly by supplying technological answers to cur-rent problems. This has been critical to helpthese small producers (who account for 25percent of our domestic oil and gas supply) tocomply with environmental regulations and toimplement best management and industrypractices.

In short, faced with a budget that has beenreduced by $300 million from fiscal year 2000,the subcommittee has had to make difficultdecisions about program funding; many impor-tant programs were reduced and others flatfunded. In my view, the better solution is notto starve one energy program in favor of an-other as this amendment seeks to do. A betteruse of our time is to figure out how we mightreallocate our financial resources and re-search efforts to support and develop all ofthese promising technologies.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).


Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 524, further proceedings onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS)will be postponed.

The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:

ALTERNATIVE FUELS PRODUCTION

(RESCISSION)

Of the unobligated balances under thishead, $1,000,000 are rescinded.

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

The requirements of 10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B)shall not apply to fiscal year 2001 and anyfiscal year thereafter: Provided, That, not-withstanding any other provision of law, un-obligated funds remaining from prior yearsshall be available for all naval petroleumand oil shale reserve activities.

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

For necessary expenses in fulfilling thethird installment payment under the Settle-ment Agreement entered into by the UnitedStates and the State of California on October11, 1996, as authorized by section 3415 of Pub-lic Law 104–106, $36,000,000, to become avail-able on October 1, 2001 for payment to theState of California for the State Teachers’Retirement Fund from the Elk Hills SchoolLands Fund.

ECONOMIC REGULATION

For necessary expenses in carrying out theactivities of the Office of Hearings and Ap-peals, $1,992,000, to remain available until ex-pended.

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

For necessary expenses for Strategic Pe-troleum Reserve facility development andoperations and program management activi-ties pursuant to the Energy Policy and Con-servation Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C.6201 et seq.), $157,000,000, to remain availableuntil expended.


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

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

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. SANDERS:Page 69, line 10, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ‘‘(reduced by $10,000,000)(increased by $10,000,000)’’.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, thistripartisan amendment is being sup-ported by, among others, the gen-tleman from Connecticut (Mr. SHAYS),the gentleman from Massachusetts(Mr. MARKEY), the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. MCHUGH), the gentlemanfrom New Jersey (Mr. LOBIONDO), thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. STRICK-LAND), the gentleman from California(Mr. THOMPSON), the gentleman fromIllinois (Mr. EVANS) and the gentlemanfrom Maryland (Mr. WYNN). It hasstrong bipartisan support.

The purpose of this amendment is toprovide $10 million for the establish-ment of a Northeast Home Heating OilReserve. Stand-alone legislation that Iintroduced back in February, callingfor a 6.7 million barrel home heatingoil reserve, garnered 98 cosponsors, in-cluding 24 Republicans and 27 Memberswho are not from the Northeast.

In addition, and importantly, author-izing legislation that passed the Houseby an overwhelming vote of 416 to 8 in-cluded language to establish a homeheating oil reserve in the Northeast.

Not only does this amendment enjoystrong bipartisan support, it also hasthe backing of the Clinton administra-

tion. Let me just quote from a letterthat I received yesterday from Sec-retary of Energy Bill Richardson.

‘‘The floor amendment you intend tooffer to the Interior, Related Agenciesappropriations bill for fiscal year 2001would appropriate $10 million for thehome heating oil reserve. As you areaware, the House recently passed H.R.2884, reauthorizing the Energy Policyand Conservation Act with the addedprovision to create such a reserve.Your amendment, therefore, is con-sistent with both the President’s pro-posal and the views expressed pre-viously by the House and I supportyour amendment.’’ That is from BillRichardson.

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to every-one that we are experiencing an energycrisis in this country. The price of gas-oline is skyrocketing. We are feelingthat all over the country. This canonly mean one thing. If we do not actforcefully now, next winter we aregoing to have a disaster on our handsthat was worse than last winter, whichwas a real tragedy for millions of peo-ple.

Mr. Chairman, we must make certainthat the huge increases in home heat-ing oil prices that we experienced lastwinter does not happen again. Not thiswinter, not any winter. Mr. Chairman,let me be clear that this is not just anissue that affects the northeast. Ahome heating oil reserve would alsoprovide positive benefits to the entirecountry. Since diesel and jet fuel canbe used as a substitute for heating oil,industry experts believe that if a heat-ing oil reserve were in place, not onlywould the price of heating oil be re-duced, but diesel and jet fuel priceswould also be reduced all over thecountry.

Mr. Chairman, winter is not a nat-ural disaster. We in Vermont know,and I think the rest of the countryknows, that it takes place every year.Yet we continue to be unprepared for aseverely cold winter. In fact, fuel oilshortages have taken place in theNortheast about once every 3 years.Most recently these shortages have oc-curred during the winters of 1983, 1984,1988, 1989, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000.Enough is enough.

b 1915

Mr. Chairman, the offset for thisamendment is a pretty conservativeone, and it is a simple one. It shouldnot meet much controversy. If thisamendment passes, $10 million of the$157 million already in the bill for theStrategic Petroleum Reserve would beused for the Northeast Home HeatingOil Reserve.

So this is more of an accountingtransfer than a real significant offset.We are taking money out of the Stra-tegic Petroleum Reserve. There is $157million in it. We are moving $10 mil-lion over for the Northeast Home Heat-ing Oil Reserve.

Mr. Chairman, this is a sensible ap-proach to protect millions of people


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4551June 15, 2000who really were hurt last winter and inthe past by skyrocketing home heatingoil costs, and I would hope that we canwin strong bipartisan support for it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand theconcern that the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS) has. We havethe same concerns in the Midwest. Wehave the same concerns as a lot ofplaces. Should build reserves for dieselfuel, for jet fuel, for ethanol, for allforms of energy?

We have the SPR. This amendmentproposes to take $10 million out ofSPR. We cannot just do that arbi-trarily. It has to be made up some way.The money is to operate SPR, and wecannot cripple it or that reserve willnot be available if needed in the periodof critical defense needs, which is themain objective. We had requests to doall kinds of programs similar to this.

Now, I would point out that heatingoil has a very short shelf life. So tomaintain a reserve would mean it hasto be turned over in a short time,something like every 3 months. That isa very expensive proposition. It meansfrequent government sales or ex-changes. It will take a couple millionbarrels to set up the reserve, whichwill, of course, create a heating short-fall immediately.

These things ought to go to the au-thorizing committee to begin with andhold some hearings. I think what weare reflecting here is the fact that wedo not have a national energy policy.

I was here in the 1970s when we hadcritical shortages. Everybody said wehave got to set up a policy. Then theshortage went away, and there is nopolicy. I think what the gentlemanfrom Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) is ad-dressing is the absence of a nationalenergy strategy. I would suggest thathe take his case to the administrationbecause we need leadership from themon an overall policy. We cannot pickone area of the country.

It is interesting to note that in thesix New England States there is notone refinery because they will not letthem build a refinery. Now, it is hardto produce heating oil without a refin-ery. And one of the problems is thattheir area is impacted by the environ-mentalists who have made it impos-sible to build a refinery in New Eng-land.

How many refineries does the gen-tleman have in New England? They areshaking their heads. I do not thinkthey have any. And they have had somedifficulty getting gas pipelines upthere, too.

All I am saying is that they ought tohave a policy in New England or otherparts of the country that need help.Therefore, we need a national energypolicy. But to try to address one in-stance is not going to be a long-termsolution.

I understand it is proposed that thisheating oil reserve be put in New YorkHarbor. Why not put it in New Eng-

land? I think we ought to build the fa-cilities where the need is.



Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, be-cause the capacity already exists inNew York Harbor and it does not makesense to build new capacity when wealready have existing capacity.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, it may be that asthe home heating oil shortage con-tinues New York State will use thatcapacity for themselves. And theremay be other States, Pennsylvania.But I think if we are going to createthese kind of facilities, we ought to putthem where the people are. But I dare-say that they will not get any coopera-tion from their area in building facili-ties in Vermont or New Hampshire orConnecticut.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will continue to yield, Iwould mention that New York Stateand Pennsylvania are also eligible touse the oil from the reserve in NewYork Harbor.

Mr. REGULA. Well, that is probablytrue. But I suspect, knowing the size ofthese States, that they can use the en-tire, what is it, 10 million-barrel capac-ity in New York Harbor. That wouldprobably be used up by those States.

All we are focusing on here is that weneed a long-term energy policy. Andmy concern is that the minute theshortage eases, and we hope it will, wewill go back and nothing more willhappen. This will not be a long termsolution.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will continue to yield, I donot argue with him that we need along-term energy process.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). The time of the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. REGULA) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. REGULAwas allowed to proceed for 2 additionalminutes.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will continue to yield, Iwould simply argue, and I make no pre-tense that this is going to solve all theenergy problems in New England, but Ithink what the experts tell us is that itwill help reduce sharp increases inhome heating oil prices, which willsave a lot of money for senior citizenswho need those savings.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ques-tion this capacity for 10 million bar-rels. Is it empty at the present time?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it isnot 10 million barrels, as a matter offact.

Mr. REGULA. Two million barrels? Isthat what New York Harbor has is 2million barrels?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes.Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask

the gentleman, is it empty now?Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is

not empty now, as I understand it, butthey do have the capacity.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if theoil is there, if it is already in place,why are they not using it?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman asked me why we did notbuild a new facility; and the answer isthat there is excess capacity availablein New York Harbor.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, so thatfacility in New York Harbor is notbeing used to its fullest capacity?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that iscorrect.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, is thegentleman proposing that we purchasethe home heating oil and put it inthere?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, whatwe are proposing is that 2 million bar-rels be available to be released at thediscretion of any President, the Presi-dent, when heating oil prices zoom up.And what experts tell us and what weknow to be the fact is that that willhave an impact on those prices and infact lower them.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will respond, I think it isimportant we get these facts out. Whatis the daily consumption in a normalwinter period of home heating oil inNew England, the six States that com-prise New England?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I donot have those facts in my pocket.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, what Iam getting at is this. Is 2 million bar-rels going to solve the problem?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I sayto the gentleman, no, it is not. But thisis what it will do. What it will do issend a message that the Government isprepared to act.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thetime of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.REGULA) has expired.


Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I con-tinue to yield to the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, infact, my friend will remember that theone time, to the best of my knowledge,that SPR oil was threatened to be re-leased by President Bush had a verysignificant impact around the time ofthe Gulf War in terms of lowering oilprices.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, well,given that as a solution, why have wenot, then, threatened to use SPR oilthis time?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, manyof us thought that we should, and I amone of those who thought that weshould. There is wild ovation from allover the Northeast.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, has thegentleman talked to the President? Hecan do it by his own action.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I satdown with the President, along withmany other Members of the Northeast;and that is almost a unanimous re-quest that came out of the Northeast,release the SPR. That was our opinion,and it is my opinion today.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4552 June 15, 2000Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am

sure the people in Ohio would like itbecause gasoline has now spiked at $2 agallon.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, then Iask the gentleman to work with us, notagainst us.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I wantto work with the gentleman with SPR.But I just think we need to have a co-ordinated plan as we do this. And Ithink what we are talking about hereis temporary. Let us get a long-termenergy policy. Let us determine if notonly how to address problems withhome heating oil but diesel fuel, be-cause our industry is so dependent onthat.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let merephrase. My view is let us move shortterm and long term, but let us moveshort term, as well.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thinkI am reluctant to take $10 million outof SPR because we need the money tooperate it unless they can get the $10million somewhere else that will notimpact on the ability to manage SPRoil, because that too is an emergencysource for the entire country, I wouldresist the amendment.

I think if they could develop anothersource of financing, since apparentlythe facility is up and running. Do I un-derstand it correctly, that it can han-dle the 2 million barrels?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes.Mr. REGULA. And is that the full ca-

pacity of this, what is it, a tank farm?Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, it

is.The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The

time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.REGULA) has expired.


Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gen-tleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, it isour understanding that there is farmore capacity than the 2 million bar-rels of home heating oil capacity weare asking for.

This, as the gentleman from Vermont(Mr. SANDERS) said, will really give usa beginning to what we hope, as thechairman has said, would be a long-term national energy policy. But werecognize that, with the winter onlyabout 5 months away, that if we do notget this in place now, we could encoun-ter the same kind of problems withlack of supply.

In the Northeast, and when I say‘‘Northeast,’’ it is not just New Eng-land; we are talking about the HudsonRiver, we are talking about Bridgeport,Connecticut. What we had was a prob-lem with getting the oil from the GulfCoast States, the home heating oil, upto our States fast enough.

This would provide us a closer capac-ity in closer proximity to where the de-mand is, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Is-

land, in a quicker way. It is a short-term response to a long-term problem,without a doubt.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, I would ask the gen-tleman, how do we address the problemthat if we go in the marketplace at thispoint, and, of course, this bill wouldnot take effect until next year, for allpractical purposes, or on October 1, andbuy 2 million barrels, is that not goingto in itself push the price up consider-ably?

Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, notbased upon the consumption that wehave nationally. But certainly, whatwe saw this past winter in the North-east, the consumption of 2 million bar-rels would go very, very quickly.

Remember, the SPR is not homeheating oil. The SPR is crude. And so,for us to be able to not only trade or tomove that product to refineries andthen finally get it to the marketplacewould take a long time.

This would be to make available al-most immediately in the time of need,which is triggered only by the Presi-dent, that we could get that into themarket very quickly.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thetime of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.REGULA) has expired.


Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will continue to yield, whatthe chairman has discussed with usthis evening is the exact same con-versation we had with Secretary Rich-ardson, the President, the Secretary ofCommerce, and a host of other people.

We came up with the only solutionthat would help us right now. We con-cur 150 percent that we need to have anational energy policy that includesnot only production; it requires con-servation, and it requires capacity invarious parts of this country for diesel,for home heating oil, for a host of oth-ers.

Until we have that, we cannot justput our head in the sand and say to thepeople in the Northeast, well, we willwait for 3 or 4 years before we havethis. We need to do this now, otherwisewe could be in the same situation wewere this past January and February,where prices spiked up 78 cents in 3weeks. We know that in the Midwest itis happening right now with gasoline.It happens all the time.

We need to have the capacity tomove in there quickly to level off themarketplace so it does not spike inthat way ever again.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I askthe gentleman, would this oil be avail-able to the Midwest, also?

Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, wewould hope so. But maybe we need alittle bit more capacity to do so.

Actually, in the Midwest this pastyear, past January and February, theirincreases were about 10 to 25 cents agallon, where we were seeing 78 cents agallon, simply because our rivers were

iced up, as well as we did not have thecapacity. We need it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I hopewe can find a long-term solution. Be-cause I have been through a couple ofthese in my time in Congress, and wetend to go back and forget all about itwhenever the price goes down.

I hope all of my colleagues will joinme and others in having a long-termenergy strategy because we are an en-ergy-dependent Nation; and if we failto do that, we will be back with thissame old problem at some future time.

Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will continue to yield, Iwould agree wholeheartedly. It is notonly with home heating oil. It is alsowith regard to diesel, and it is alsowith regard to energy conservation andweatherization, the program we talkedabout earlier.

We need to have it, but we need thisamendment now; and I ask my col-leagues to support it.

b 1930

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

I rise in support of this amendment.I agree absolutely with the gentlemanfrom Ohio that this Nation has no en-ergy policy and that is part of the rea-son we are in such a desperate situa-tion. I would remind the Members thatwe are almost twice as dependent onimported oil now as we were during theCarter years. It is because we havebeen backward looking in many of ourpolicy areas, including the tax code. Ijoin with those who would like to seeus work on a more comprehensive en-ergy policy. Frankly I think the coalresearch, to be able to burn clean coalis part of that.

There are many facets to this. Iwould just like to put on the record,and it has probably been put on therecord before so I will make it verybrief, but to me it is an absolute out-rage that in 1998 the Department of En-ergy completed and announced a 2-yearstudy on regional storage facilities.They then buried the study because itindicated that it would be good for notonly the Northeast but for the entirecountry if a reserve was established inthe Northeast. It would be cost effec-tive to keep a government stockpile ofsome heating oil in the Northeast andit would benefit not only the Northeastbut other parts of the country, particu-larly the Midwest. I personally thinkthat had that stockpile been estab-lished and had the President actedpromptly to release some reserve, thatOPEC would have been motivated toreduce its cut in production far earlierand we would not have had thosemonths of shortage that helped sendprices up.

While I am well aware that OPEC’sdecision was not the only factor in thatconstraint of supplies and that increaseof prices, nonetheless it was a signifi-cant one and we were not in a positionto be able to rapidly deal with it. A


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4553June 15, 2000stockpile in the Northeast would bebeneficial to the interests of the Na-tion as well as to the Northeast, andtherefore I support this amendmentand commend the gentleman fromVermont for bringing it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will thegentlewoman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Iyield to the gentleman from Con-necticut.

Mr. SHAYS. I appreciate the gentle-woman yielding. I would like to pointout that on April 13, the House passedthe Energy Policy and ConservationAct through fiscal year 2003. What wedid in that act in section 3 is theNortheast Home Heating Oil Reserve.And then the act under section 181,subsection A, notwithstanding anyother provision of this act, the Sec-retary may establish, maintain and op-erate in the Northeast a NortheastHome Heating Oil Reserve. A reserveestablished under this part is not acomponent of the Strategic PetroleumReserve established under part B ofthis title. The reserve established inthis part shall contain no more than 2million barrels of petroleum distilled.

The bottom line is we have alreadyestablished this through, frankly, thegood work of the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS). It has beenauthorized, and we are really trying tocarry out the provisions. I would liketo point out to my colleagues that theEnergy Department in their study in1998 made it very clear that a 2-millionbarrel reserve would stabilize prices.That is the effort we are trying to do.It is not perfect, we have got problemsin a whole host of different areas, butthis makes sense to move forward. Itwill not solve all our challenges, but itwill, in fact, stabilize prices and carryout the act.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords. I rise in support of the amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree morewith the gentleman from Ohio that weneed a long-term solution. But it is un-likely that this Congress is going topass any long-term solutions. Back in1976 when we were passing new fueleconomy standards for automobiles,raising it up to an average of 271⁄2 milesa gallon per automobile, the averageautomobile as of 1976 still only got 13miles a gallon, which was the same asit was in 1930.

Now, if we had passed a law 4 or 5years ago or if we would pass a law thisyear that says that the average auto-mobile should get 40 miles to the gal-lon, we are not going to have manyproblems with oil. That is the crux ofour problem. That is where we putmost of the oil in our society, rightinto gasoline tanks. SUVs, trucks,automobiles. They are unbelievably in-efficient. But we are not going to passany fuel economy standards. So as a re-sult, what we are seeing in the Midwestright now is another energy crisis.Prices have spiked up to $1.80, two

bucks, $2.20, $2.45. Why? Because therewas a pipeline that went out fromTexas up to the Midwest. We had asimilar kind of unanticipated problemin the Northeast back during the win-ter. OPEC started raising prices. Whatwas the protection for our Americancitizens? Nothing. Or the Strategic Pe-troleum Reserve which if it goes un-used is nothing. And it was not used. Itshould have been.

So we cut a deal in the classic Aus-tin-Boston sense that made this insti-tution work so well for so many years.John McCormick and Sam Rayburn;Tip O’Neill and Jim Wright. We cut adeal earlier this year. For the Texans,what we said is we will give you a guar-antee of $15 a barrel for your oil, foryour stripper wells, and we will havethe oil purchased by the Strategic Pe-troleum Reserve. In return, the Texanssaid to those of us up in the Northeast,all of those from the oil States said tothose of us up in the Northeast, ‘‘We’llgive you the authorization for the con-struction of a regional home heatingoil reserve.’’ Austin-Boston, whatmakes the whole place click.

It is still hung up over in the Senatebut the gentleman from Vermont isjust asking quite sensibly for $10 mil-lion, so that the Department of Energycan have the money to make it work.We have already passed it through theHouse. So we know that there is plentyof oil in the Strategic Petroleum Re-serve. There is nothing in a regionalpetroleum reserve. We have alreadypassed it through this place. So byworking together, we make sure thatTexas and Oklahoma and Louisiana,the oil patch, we make sure that theNortheast, and we would make sure ifthe Midwest needed help that wehelped them as well. Because this oil isthe blood that ensures that our econ-omy is supplied with the energy that itneeds in order to function fully.

What we have seen over and overagain is short-term disruptions with-out adequate supply of the blood of oureconomy to supplant that which wastemporarily cut off. As a result, wehave seen catastrophic economic con-sequences. All that the gentleman fromVermont is asking for is a very smallamount of money coming out of an al-ready large Strategic Petroleum Re-serve fund which will work to ensurethat when, and I am afraid this is goingto happen, Mr. Chairman, when the re-fineries of America in response to theproblems in the Midwest that are goingon right now have to use more of theirrefining capacity to produce more gas-oline over the next several months todeal with their problem now, they arenot going to have enough capacity as aresult that they have dedicated to pro-viding for the home heating oil to theNortheast this coming winter.

So their problem today becomes ourproblem later on this year. We need aregional petroleum reserve. If we donot get one, we will have a mess on ourhands in the Northeast. The Congresstoday has it within its power to give us

the money that we need to put in placesomething that will protect our econ-omy this coming winter because whatis happening today to them is hap-pening to us this coming winter. Weare all part of one big economic arterysystem. If we do not take care of eachother, then all of us ultimately aregoing to be harmed.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). The time of the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts (Mr. MARKEY) hasexpired.

(On request of Mr. REGULA, and byunanimous consent, Mr. MARKEY wasallowed to proceed for 2 additionalminutes.)


Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gen-tleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. Will the gentleman de-scribe the New York facility? I am alittle confused. What is the capacity ofthis facility in New York Harbor intotal barrels? He is talking about buy-ing 2 million barrels and putting it ina reserve. But is that the maximum ca-pacity, or is that just part of it?

Mr. MARKEY. The capacity ulti-mately is unlimited. We are talkingabout unused storage facilities allacross the Northeast that could be usedfor these purposes. I would defer to thegentleman from Vermont for the spe-cific figure.


Mr. SANDERS. To the best of my un-derstanding, there is a 5.75 million bar-rel capacity in New York Harbor.

Mr. REGULA. Is this a tank farm?Mr. SANDERS. Amerada Hess.Mr. MARKEY. Yes, it is a tank farm.Mr. SANDERS. I am not all that fa-

miliar with tank farms. And in Albany,New York, it is my understanding isanother close to 3 million barrel capac-ity, excess capacity.

Mr. REGULA. Am I correct, then,that these facilities are essentiallyempty now, so they would be availableto receive oil?

Mr. SANDERS. I do not know.Mr. MARKEY. There is sufficient ex-

cess capacity in these facilities inorder to accommodate the oil. Wewould probably wind up with the Fed-eral Government leasing part of the fa-cilities that are now controlled bythese oil companies in order to accom-modate this purpose. We would have topay them a fee but the oil that wasstored in there would then be for theuse of the region, Pennsylvania, NewJersey, New York, New England.

Mr. REGULA. The $10 million wouldbe to have the Energy Department gointo the market and buy the $10 mil-lion worth of oil and put it into stor-age; is this the objective of the amend-ment?

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman is cor-rect.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords. Again I would appeal to my col-leagues that when we look across the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4554 June 15, 2000country, we find that in recent months,we have spent an enormous amount ofenergy, the Congress, to provide fundsto fight fires in the West. We helpedprovide flood control for regions thatare hit with floods. We worked to-gether to relieve disasters of earth-quakes.

What is clear is that there is a pend-ing disaster in the Northeast and ourcolleagues in this House together canprovide a very small amount of re-sources to make sure that a crisis doesnot turn deadly. This is not a com-plicated situation. Using resourcesmade available by the Federal Govern-ment, using existing storage capacity,leasing that storage capacity, keepingnumber 2 heating oil available so thatwhile the free marketplace may be ad-vantaged by a short supply that in acold snap drives up prices and profits,Government at that point is respond-ing to a crisis that is much more ex-pensive and that may put human livesin danger.

It is a small thing to ask for a regionof the country that pays so much intaxes and that has done so much forother regions of the country. We havenot turned our backs on the West withearthquakes and fires and droughts. Wehave not abandoned the South, not justnow but for decades. It is our taxpayersthat built the utilities that powermuch of the South and the West. Nowin this crisis we need to have somehelp, not a great deal of help butenough to make sure that our peopleare not put in danger this coming win-ter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of what the gentleman fromVermont and the other Members of thebody from the northeastern States aredoing here today with this amendment.I want to commend the gentlemanfrom Vermont for his very strong lead-ership in dealing with this and makingcertain that we do not let it pass by.The amendment is simple. Withoutbusting the caps, without takingmoney from other programs, theamendment provides $10 million for aNortheast home heating oil reserve. Inthe event of a sustained price hike, ahealthy reserve can be open then to themarket to drive prices back down to af-fordable and reasonable levels. It issomething that we all should support.In fact, this body already has voted tosupport it and has voted for it over-whelmingly. When the reauthorizationof the Strategic Petroleum Reservelegislation passed the House earlierthis year, it called for the establish-ment of a Northeast home heating oilreserve, and that legislation passed bya vote of 416–8. This amendment de-serves the same measure of support.

Mr. Chairman, the residual effects ofthe crisis that we in the Northeast en-dured last winter are being felt in rip-ples across the country. The coldweather and the astronomical heatingbills, of course, are gone, for the mo-

ment but the ongoing shortage of crudeoil in this country has rippled intohigh gasoline prices, and those pricesare getting higher. I am hearing thisweek that in Chicago and other placesin the Midwest, we are running intogasoline prices at the tank that arerunning somewhere in the $2.50 plusrange and are expected to go even high-er.

b 1945

There are many steps that we cantake to comprehensively address thisproblem as a whole. Among otherthings, we should accelerate the devel-opment of alternative energy sourcesand demand greater fuel efficiencyfrom every category and class of vehi-cles that is used in transportation.Those kinds of long-term measurestake a period of time. Right now, weneed a better emergency plan.

Winter will be back, and we will havedone absolutely nothing, because if wedo not do at least this as a startertoday, we will have done absolutelynothing, because those long-termmeasures, which are so obvious and ob-viously needed for, indeed, our longterm and will take a good deal of leadtime to implement. So I support thisamendment, and I urge my colleaguesto do the same.


Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I wantto thank the gentleman from Massa-chusetts (Mr. OLVER) for his strongsupport, but just say while my name ison the amendment, the truth of thematter is that all of the Membersthroughout New England in a bipar-tisan way have come forward to get thebill authorized in New York and else-where, in the Northeast and elsewherein the country.

So this really has been a joint bipar-tisan effort, and I thank the gen-tleman, and I look forward to seeingthis amendment pass.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, during debateon this bill, it had been my fervent hope tooffer an amendment to help America addressher primary strategic vulnerability, and that isour over dependence on imported foreign oil.Nearly two-thirds of the energy that the U.S.uses is imported, most from the Middle East-ern monarchies that comprise OPEC. Theyyank a chain around our necks at whim.

Headlines in my local Ohio newspapers tellthe story of gas prices soaring; the New YorkTimes this week reported on rising pricescoast to coast, some price hikes among thehighest in U.S. history.

Yet this bill, which has within its authoritythe Strategic Petroleum Reserve, does abso-lutely nothing to remedy the current situation,nor put America on a saner path to the future.

I have been urging the Clinton Administra-tion and the leadership of this Congress to re-lease some of the Reserve to help dampenprice hikes here at home. At the same time,my amendment would place more emphasison promoting renewable biofuels by directingthe Departments of Interior and Energy to

swap some of the current oil reserves andpurchase 300,000,000 gallons of ethanol and100,000,000 million gallons of biodiesel as aboost to a more self-sufficient future for Amer-ica. [Amendment]

Biofuels are competitively priced and holdsignificant promise as one major solution tomove America toward energy self sufficiency.Properly administered, swaps of crude oil fromthe Reserve can yield funds that can then bedirected toward biofuels purchases. Further,with the involvement of the Department of Ag-riculture the biofuels alternative can be shapedto benefit on-farm storage of biofuel inputsand yield income to rural America at a timewhen it is in deep recession.

Yet, I am being told I cannot offer thisamendment Thurs. It has not been made inorder. The basic attitude here is more of thesame; more of the same. That inertia is notwhat made America great. Boldness madeAmerica great.

Using biofuels to plot a path for cleaner andmore renewable energy sources is right forAmerica’s energy future. It is right for ruralAmerica. It is right for the environment. And itis right for America’s national security.

Sadly, this amendment and others havebeen muzzled by the leadership of this greatinstitution. But the American people will notstand for inertia. At some point, those whoblock progress will pay the price. Rising gasprices here at home matter a great deal to theAmerican people. Our efforts to plot a moresecure energy future will not be diminished bythis blocking tactic on this bill. For this primaryreason, it is my intention to oppose the legisla-tion, and use every opportunity on succeedingbills to draw the American people’s attentionto the do-nothing decisions this bill represents.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE

MARCY KAPTUR TO H.R. 4578, MAKING AP-PROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF IN-TERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THEFISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001Page 69, Line 10: After ‘‘until expended.’’

Add ‘‘Provided, That the Secretary of Energyshall annually acquire and store as part ofthe Strategic Petroleum Reserve 300,000,000gallons of ethanol and 100,000,000 gallons ofbiodiesel fuel. Such fuels shall be obtained inexchange for, or purchased with funds real-ized from the sale of, crude oil from the Stra-tegic Petroleum Reserve.’’

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong support of the amendment offered bythe gentleman from Vermont, Mr. SANDERS toprovide funding for a Northeast Home HeatingOil Reserve.

Just last winter, our nation, and particularlythe Northeast United States suffered a periodof extremely cold temperatures. Coupled withthe skyrocketing costs of oil, many Americansreceived a real sticker shock when they had topay their energy bills.

While only 12 percent of Americans heattheir homes with oil, that number rises to 40percent in NYS and 46 percent in my congres-sional district.

On average, my constituents who heat theirhomes with oil told me they saw their fuel billsdouble overnight. These same people endedup paying more than $1,000 extra just to heattheir homes for the winter.

I refer my colleagues to one of my constitu-ents from the Bronx. She tends to her 93-year-old father in the Williamsbridge neighbor-hood. She saw her bill jump from $246 to$346 in one month.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4555June 15, 2000Or Thomas Donohue of Woodside who saw

his monthly energy bill double to $410.000 amonth during this past January.

On average, my constituents who use homeheating oil witnessed an eye-popping increaseof $1,000 to heat their home for just the 3-month period of winter.

This is ludicrous.While the wealthy could afford this increase

and the poor had some of the costs borne byassistance from such worthwhile programs asthe Low Income Home Energy Assistance pro-gram (LIHEAP); it was the working and middleclass, seniors on a fixed income and smallbusinesses that suffered most.

I had a small trucking company in my dis-trict tell me that they had to lay off workers be-cause it became to expensive to operate thetrucks—it was cheaper to not work at all.

And I heard from far too many seniors whoinformed me that they had to wear a wintercoat in their apartment because they could notafford to keep their homes warm.

Due to this horrible reality, many here inCongress worked in a bipartisan manner toaddress this crisis.

One solution was to call for the establish-ment of a home heating oil reserve in theNortheast. Acting somewhat like the StrategicPetroleum Reserve, this home heating oil re-serve would serve a storage place for millionsof gallons of home heating oil, that could bereleased to the public in times of crippling highprices—as we saw this past winter.

This would ensure that small business don’thave to lay off workers in times of high gascosts; and that seniors do not have to weartheir winter coats indoors during the cold win-ter months.

The President supports the idea of this re-serve, as does the Secretary of Energy. TheHouse of Representatives also overwhelminglysupported this idea, included as part of theEnergy Policy and Conservation Act, on a voteof 416 to 8.

Unfortunately, the bill we debate today doesnot include any funding for the creation of thisreserve. If created this reserve would helpsoften the blow of any future price swings andprovide much needed assistance to millions ofAmericans, including many of my constituentsby providing a readily available, local, low-costenergy source to make it through the toughestparts of the winter.

Anyone who has ever visited New York Cityin January knows that heat is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Unfortunately, I had a numberof constituents who were forced to view heatas a luxury this past winter after seeing theirbills double, and realizing they did not havethe money to pay their heating bills.

I had constituents who wore down jacketsthroughout the day in their homes—this iswrong Mr. Chairman.

Today we have the opportunity to addresstheir situation and I hope that all Members willsupport the Sanders amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.PEASE.) The question is on the amend-ment offered by the gentleman fromVermont (Mr. SANDERS).

The question was taken; and theChairman pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 524, further

proceedings on the amendment offeredby the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.SANDERS) will be postponed.

SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEEOF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 524, pro-ceedings will now resume on thoseamendments on which further pro-ceedings were postponed in the fol-lowing order:

The amendment offered by the gen-tleman from California (Mr. ROYCE);

Amendment No. 28 offered by thegentleman from Vermont (Mr. SAND-ERS); and

Amendment No. 29 offered by thegentleman from Vermont (Mr. SAND-ERS).

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutesthe time for any electronic vote afterthe first vote in this series.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROYCE

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thepending business is the demand for arecorded vote on the amendment of-fered by the gentleman from California(Mr. ROYCE) on which further pro-ceedings were postponed and on whichthe nos prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will designate the amend-ment.

The Clerk designated the amend-ment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A re-corded vote has been demanded.

A recorded vote was refused.Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make

the point of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. TheChair will count for a quorum.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I with-draw my point of order that a quorumis not present.

So the amendment was rejected.AMENDMENT NO. 28 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thepending business is the demand for arecorded vote on Amendment No. 28 of-fered by the gentleman from Vermont(Mr. SANDERS) on which further pro-ceedings were postponed and on whichthe ayes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate theamendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amend-ment.


A recorded vote was refused.So the amendment was agreed to.


The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thepending business is the demand for arecorded vote on Amendment No. 29 of-fered by the gentleman from Vermont(Mr. SANDERS) on which further pro-ceedings were postponed and on whichthe ayes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate theamendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amend-ment.


A recorded vote was refused.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I makethe point of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. TheChair will count. A quorum is notpresent.

Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,the Chair will reduce to a minimum of5 minutes the period of time withinwhich a vote by electronic device, if or-dered, will be taken on the pendingquestion following the quorum call.Members will record their presence byelectronic device.

The call was taken by electronic de-vice.

The following Members responded totheir names:

[Roll No. 285]

AckermanAderholtAllenAndrewsArmeyBacaBachusBairdBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBassBatemanBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBlagojevichBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoswellBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCanadyCannonCappsCapuanoCardinCarsonChabotChenoweth-HageClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditCookCoxCoyneCramerCrowleyCubinCummingsCunninghamDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)

DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettFarrFattahFletcherFoleyForbesFossellaFowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GutierrezGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (IN)Hill (MT)HillearyHilliardHobsonHoeffelHoldenHolt

HornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKnollenbergKolbeKucinichKuykendallLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCreryMcGovernMcHughMcInnisMcKeonMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMica


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4556 June 15, 2000Miller (FL)Miller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMooreMoran (KS)MorellaMurthaNapolitanoNealNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOseOwensPackardPallonePascrellPastorPaulPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPickettPittsPomboPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstad

RegulaReyesReynoldsRileyRiversRodriguezRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonSchafferSchakowskyScottSensenbrennerSessionsShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusSimpsonSkeenSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SpenceStabenowStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpStupak

SununuSweeneyTalentTancredoTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonViscloskyVitterWaldenWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWeygandWhitfieldWilsonWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)

b 2010

The CHAIRMAN. Three-hundred-sixty-two Members have answered totheir names, a quorum is present, andthe Committee will resume its busi-ness.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. The pending busi-ness is the demand of the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. REGULA) for a recordedvote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5

minute vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-


[Roll No. 286]

AYES—193

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BassBentsenBerkleyBermanBishopBlagojevichBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoswellBoydBrady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuano

CardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCoyneCramerCrowleyCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDoyleEdwardsEshoo

EtheridgeEvansFarrFattahForbesFordFossellaFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGejdensonGephardtGilmanGonzalezGoodlingGordonGutierrezHastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHoeffelHoldenHoltHoughton

HoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)Johnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLarsonLeeLevinLewis (GA)LoBiondoLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McGovernMcHughMcKinney

McNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMillender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMorellaNapolitanoNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPomeroyPrice (NC)QuinnRahallReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSabo

SanchezSandersSaxtonSchakowskyScottShaysShermanSherwoodSlaughterSmith (NJ)SnyderStabenowStenholmStricklandStupakSweeneyTalentTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)ViscloskyWalshWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynn

NOES—195

AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBatemanBereuterBerryBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBluntBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCoxCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDooleyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFletcher

FoleyFowlerGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGoodeGoodlatteGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHornHostettlerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnJohnson, SamJones (NC)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLucas (OK)ManzulloMcCreryMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMica

Miller (FL)Miller, GaryMoran (KS)MurthaNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOsePackardPastorPaulPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPickettPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)RadanovichRamstadRegulaRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSandlinSanfordSawyerScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShimkusSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)

TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTraficantUpton

VitterWaldenWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)

WellerWhitfieldWilsonWolfWuYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—47

BartonBecerraBlileyBlumenauerBoucherCallahanCampbellCookseyCostelloCraneDannerEngelFilnerGreen (TX)GreenwoodHall (OH)

HinojosaHoekstraHooleyJeffersonKasichKlinkLazioLeachLofgrenMartinezMcCollumMcDermottMcIntyreMoran (VA)MyrickNadler

OxleyRangelRoemerRoukemaSerranoShowsShusterSisiskySkeltonSprattStarkToomeyVelazquezVentoWicker

b 2022

Mr. ENGLISH and Mr. GEKASchanged their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. MOORE and Mr. CRAMERchanged their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’


as above recorded.PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary in-quiry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, whatremedy exists under the rules if six ormore Members of the House are stand-ing in the well holding their card ask-ing to be recorded, and a rude and un-professional Member refuses them theright to vote, under our rules?

The CHAIRMAN. There is no remedyunder the rules to reopen the quorumcall.

PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR.DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, Imove that the Committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe motion offered by the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. DOGGETT).


RECORDED VOTE

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.



[Roll No. 287]

AYES—169

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBoniorBorskiBoyd

Brady (PA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonClayClaytonClyburnConditConyersCoyneCramerCummingsDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazio

DeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFordFrank (MA)


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4557June 15, 2000FrostGejdensonGephardtGonzalezGoodlingGordonHall (OH)Hastings (FL)Hill (IN)HilliardHincheyHoeffelHoldenHoltHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JohnJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKennedyKildeeKleczkaKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLarsonLeeLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoweyLucas (KY)Luther

Maloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McGovernMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)Millender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMoakleyMollohanMurthaNapolitanoNealOberstarObeyOlverOwensPallonePastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PhelpsPickettPomeroyPrice (NC)ReyesRiversRodriguezRothman

Roybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerScarboroughSchakowskyScottShermanSlaughterSmith (WA)SnyderStabenowStenholmStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)ViscloskyWatersWaxmanWeinerWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWuWynn

NOES—214

AderholtArcherArmeyBacaBachusBakerBallengerBarrett (NE)BartlettBassBatemanBereuterBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCoxCraneCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwing

FletcherFoleyFossellaFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatteGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GutierrezGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KasichKellyKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLeach

Lewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLoBiondoLucas (OK)ManzulloMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMenendezMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMingeMooreMoran (KS)MorellaMyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNussleOrtizOsePackardPascrellPaulPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRahallRamstadRegulaReynoldsRileyRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SanfordSaxtonSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadegg

ShawShaysSherwoodShimkusSimpsonSkeenSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuSweeney

TalentTancredoTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTraficantUptonVitterWaldenWalsh

WampWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—52

BarrBartonBecerraBlileyBlumenauerBoswellBoucherCallahanCampbellClementCookseyCostelloCrowleyDannerEngelFilnerForbesGanske

Green (TX)GreenwoodHinojosaHooleyJeffersonKilpatrickKlinkLazioLofgrenMartinezMcCollumMcDermottMcIntyreMoran (VA)NadlerNorwoodOxleyRadanovich

RangelRoemerRoganSalmonSerranoShowsShusterSisiskySkeltonSmith (MI)SprattStarkToomeyVelazquezVentoWicker

b 2042

Mr. BACA changed his vote from‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from‘‘present’’ to ‘‘no.’’

So the motion was rejected.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wouldapologize to Members for failing to no-tice them in the Chamber attemptingto record their presence until after hehad announced the result of quorumcall No. 285. The Chair mistakenly be-lieved that he had embarked on a sub-sequent vote and that it was too late topermit Members to record their pres-ence.

The Chair specifically apologizes tothe following Members: Mr. BISHOP,Mr. SCARBOROUGH, Mr. DOGGETT, Ms.MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Ms. MCKINNEY,and Mr. ABERCROMBIE, and if any otherMember feels similarly afflicted, ifthey would notify the Chair, the Chairwould be happy to include them in asubsequent announcement.

b 2045

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thechairman has been extraordinarilyeven-handed and polite with all Mem-bers and has done an extraordinary job,and I regret that this happened.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-woman from New York (Ms. SLAUGH-TER) for unanimous consent request.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Washingtonfor yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to add my thanks to thechairman who has done a wonderful jobtoday.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-sent that I be allowed to offer amend-ments that occur on page 85, line 7 and21 and on page 86 line 19, notwith-

standing the fact that that portion ofthe bill has not yet been read foramendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentlewomanfrom New York?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Iobject.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to

explain to the Members here that weare going to have something happenthat, in my 24 years here, is unprece-dented. We have had a good workingcomity with the other side. I havethroughout my career tried to work ef-fectively with the Republican side onevery piece of legislation that I haveever been involved with.

But just a few hours ago, we won anamendment. The gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) won anamendment to take $22 million out ofthe clean coal deferral account. Shewants to then have an amendment toadd this $15 million for the NationalEndowment for the Arts, $5 million forthe National Endowment for the Hu-manities, and $2 million for the Insti-tute of Museums and Library Services.

I am told, and the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) has con-firmed, that he is going to offer anamendment to take the $22 million andgive it to the Indian Health Service. Ijust wish that we were not $507 millionbelow the President’s budget request. Ithink this is very unfair.

We have offered offsets on all of ouramendments here today. This amend-ment that he is offering is not offset.We have tried to play the game by therules. But I really regret that we aregoing down this road, and it is going tomake it hard to cooperate on this bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, just to respond to thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS), and I understand his concernand the frustration that he feels, butlet me just add if I might that thereare differences on both sides as towhere the priorities should be in termsof the funding. I would say that, if thegentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) wishes and the gentlewomanfrom New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) wish-es, it is very easy to ask for and havea rollcall and decide that they do notwant to put these dollars that havenow been taken out, have been re-served, and not put them into IndianHealth Service and reserve them forthe purpose for which they would like.It is a matter of simply establishingpriorities.

Some people feel that if we havethese dollars available now in the billthat Indian Health Service should bethe first priority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we askedunanimous consent to present thisamendment en bloc so that the Housewould have a chance to work its will,could have a vote up or down, a vote to


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4558 June 15, 2000take $22 million of the Clean Coal de-ferral and give it to these other pro-grams.

Every time the gentlewoman fromNew York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) stands upto offer that amendment, the side ofthe gentleman from Arizona objects toit. I just think we are trying to have aspirit of comity here to work with mycolleagues on getting these billspassed, and this is not the way to do it.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaim-ing my time, again, the gentlemanfrom Washington is correct. But therules of the House do permit somebodyto object from considering this en bloc,and that was done. Now we are facedwith the issue of trying to decide onthe priority, where do we want to placethis money. The money has now beenreserved, and my colleagues have anoption. It does not have to go to IndianHealth Service.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gen-tleman will yield, why cannot we havea vote, as we did earlier, to put themoney into the National Endowmentfor the Arts, Humanities and MuseumServices, which clearly was the intentof the House when we had this priorvote.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman from Washington can have thatvote.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it happensthat the Indian Health Service comesbefore the National Endowment.

Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.Mr. DICKS. So the effort here by the

majority, again, is to take the moneynow in front of it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time.Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think I

have got the time, do I not?Mr. KOLBE. No. The gentleman from

Washington yielded back the time. Ihave got the time.

Mr. DICKS. We are having so muchfun.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaim-ing my time, I understand the frustra-tion of the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS). But the gentleman maynow have the opportunity to say thatthis is of such priority, a highest pri-ority, and ask the House to defeat themotion to place this money in IndianHealth Service, and then it would beavailable.

If that does not occur, when the op-portunity arises, when we get to thesection about the NEA and NEH in it,the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER) or the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) can offer an-other amendment and take the moneyfrom another place.

Mr. DICKS. But this was not so tac-tical, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield tothe gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Arizona for yield-ing to me. I appreciate that.

If the gentleman from Washington(Mr. NETHERCUTT) were serious aboutthe amendment, he would have an off-

set. Everybody here had to have an off-set today. We offered offsets. There isno offset here. He is taking our offset,the money that we voted on, and usingit for this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaim-ing my time, and this will be my finalcomment on this, I would just say thatthe offset is available at this point. Itis now open, and it can be considered.This body can work its will as towhether to place it here or to place itin another location.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move tostrike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to putthese numbers in perspective so thatwhat is happening here can becometransparent.

The gentlewoman from New York(Ms. SLAUGHTER) earlier asked a unani-mous consent request so that she couldconsider all four portions of her amend-ment at the same time. The Committeeon Rules has granted that many timesto other Members. They chose not togrant it to her. She renewed her re-quest here on the floor. She made herintention quite known when she offeredher original amendment. Her originalamendment, the first of four parts, wasadopted by the House. Clearly theHouse expressed an intention to followthrough on the Slaughter amendment.

Now we are being asked to believethat the majority party is sincere inoffering an amendment to put $22 mil-lion from that source into IndianHealth.


Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask thegentleman from Wisconsin, is that theexact amount of the Slaughter amend-ment?

Mr. OBEY. Yes.Mr. Chairman, to put that in perspec-

tive, the majority party has brought tothis floor a bill which cuts the IndianHealth Service by $507 million, and weobjected to that. We objected to that inour minority views.

Now we are being asked to believethat their effort to put $22 million froma tiny minuscule portion of the amountthat they have already cut from the In-dian Health Service, and we are askedto believe that that is somehow goingto make a wonderful difference in thelives of Native Americans.

It is obvious from the size of thenumbers that this is a transparent at-tempt to block our ability to fund thearts as the gentlewoman from NewYork (Ms. SLAUGHTER) is trying to do.

We do not want to deny Native Amer-icans every dollar that they need. Butwhen this amendment passes, it mustbe clearly understood why it is here. Itis here procedurally to block us fromfulfilling the clearly stated wishes ofthe House earlier this evening whenthey adopted the Slaughter amend-ment.

So the offering of this amendment issimply an effort by the majority party

which will be successful in denying thegentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER) the opportunity to com-plete her amendment. So it ought to beseen for what it is.

After you have done this tonight, donot go home and brag to your folksabout how much you care about thearts because it is clearly transparentthat you would do anything possible todeny us the ability to raise the amountof funds for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.The Clerk read as follows:

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

For necessary expenses in carrying out theactivities of the Energy Information Admin-istration, $72,368,000, to remain availableuntil expended.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OFENERGY

Appropriations under this Act for the cur-rent fiscal year shall be available for hire ofpassenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance,and operation of aircraft; purchase, repair,and cleaning of uniforms; and reimburse-ment to the General Services Administrationfor security guard services.

From appropriations under this Act, trans-fers of sums may be made to other agenciesof the Government for the performance ofwork for which the appropriation is made.

None of the funds made available to theDepartment of Energy under this Act shallbe used to implement or finance authorizedprice support or loan guarantee programsunless specific provision is made for suchprograms in an appropriations Act.

The Secretary is authorized to acceptlands, buildings, equipment, and other con-tributions from public and private sourcesand to prosecute projects in cooperationwith other agencies, Federal, State, privateor foreign: Provided, That revenues and othermoneys received by or for the account of theDepartment of Energy or otherwise gen-erated by sale of products in connection withprojects of the Department appropriatedunder this Act may be retained by the Sec-retary of Energy, to be available until ex-pended, and used only for plant construction,operation, costs, and payments to cost-shar-ing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing contracts or agreements: Providedfurther, That the remainder of revenues afterthe making of such payments shall be cov-ered into the Treasury as miscellaneous re-ceipts: Provided further, That any contract,agreement, or provision thereof entered intoby the Secretary pursuant to this authorityshall not be executed prior to the expirationof 30 calendar days (not including any day inwhich either House of Congress is not in ses-sion because of adjournment of more thanthree calendar days to a day certain) fromthe receipt by the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives and the President of theSenate of a full comprehensive report onsuch project, including the facts and cir-cumstances relied upon in support of the pro-posed project.

No funds provided in this Act may be ex-pended by the Department of Energy to pre-pare, issue, or process procurement docu-ments for programs or projects for which ap-propriations have not been made.

In addition to other authorities set forthin this Act, the Secretary may accept feesand contributions from public and privatesources, to be deposited in a contributedfunds account, and prosecute projects usingsuch fees and contributions in cooperationwith other Federal, State or private agenciesor concerns.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4559June 15, 2000DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

For expenses necessary to carry out theAct of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), the IndianSelf-Determination Act, the Indian HealthCare Improvement Act, and titles II and IIIof the Public Health Service Act with re-spect to the Indian Health Service,$2,084,178,000, together with payments re-ceived during the fiscal year pursuant to 42U.S.C. 238(b) for services furnished by the In-dian Health Service: Provided, That fundsmade available to tribes and tribal organiza-tions through contracts, grant agreements,or any other agreements or compacts au-thorized by the Indian Self-Determinationand Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25U.S.C. 450), shall be deemed to be obligatedat the time of the grant or contract awardand thereafter shall remain available to thetribe or tribal organization without fiscalyear limitation: Provided further, That$12,000,000 shall remain available until ex-pended, for the Indian Catastrophic HealthEmergency Fund: Provided further, That$394,756,000 for contract medical care shallremain available for obligation until Sep-tember 30, 2002: Provided further, That of thefunds provided, up to $17,000,000 shall be usedto carry out the loan repayment programunder section 108 of the Indian Health CareImprovement Act: Provided further, Thatfunds provided in this Act may be used for 1-year contracts and grants which are to beperformed in two fiscal years, so long as thetotal obligation is recorded in the year forwhich the funds are appropriated: Providedfurther, That the amounts collected by theSecretary of Health and Human Servicesunder the authority of title IV of the IndianHealth Care Improvement Act shall remainavailable until expended for the purpose ofachieving compliance with the applicableconditions and requirements of titles XVIIIand XIX of the Social Security Act (exclu-sive of planning, design, or construction ofnew facilities): Provided further, That fundingcontained herein, and in any earlier appro-priations Acts for scholarship programsunder the Indian Health Care ImprovementAct (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available forobligation until September 30, 2002: Providedfurther, That amounts received by tribes andtribal organizations under title IV of the In-dian Health Care Improvement Act shall bereported and accounted for and available tothe receiving tribes and tribal organizationsuntil expended: Provided further, That, not-withstanding any other provision of law, ofthe amounts provided herein, not to exceed$228,781,000 shall be for payments to tribesand tribal organizations for contract orgrant support costs associated with con-tracts, grants, self-governance compacts orannual funding agreements between the In-dian Health Service and a tribe or tribal or-ganization pursuant to the Indian Self-De-termination Act of 1975, as amended, prior toor during fiscal year 2001: Provided further,That funds available for the Indian HealthCare Improvement Fund may be used, asneeded, to carry out activities typicallyfunded under the Indian Health Facilities ac-count.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. NETHERCUTT:On page 71, line 24 after the dollar amount

insert ‘‘(increased by $22,000,000)’’.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr Chairman,this amendment adds $22 million to the

Indian Health Service to provide ur-gently needed medical service to theAmerican Indians and Alaska Nativesand to recruit and retain essentialmedical personnel for the provision ofthese services.

As a Member who represents severalIndian tribes, I have been on my res-ervations repeatedly to see the decrepitfacilities that are currently in exist-ence for Indian Health Services.

I happen to be very involved in thediabetes issue. Alaska Natives andAmerican Indians are 2.8 times as like-ly to have diagnosed diabetes as non-Hispanic whites of similar age. Ninepercent of all American Indians andAlaska Natives 20 years or older have adiagnosis of diabetes. Between 1991 and1997, the prevalence of diabetes in-creased to an all major high.

Indian tribes in every single State inwhich Indian populations reside haveterrible health problems, from dentalproblems to diabetes problems, toheart disease. It is an epidemic in somecases around this country. Diabetes isprevalent among Native Americans, insome cases at a rate of 65 percent of aparticular tribe. It is a disgrace.

Anybody who has been on an Indianreservation, whether it is in my Stateor elsewhere, and looks at the Indianhealth care facilities is stunned to seehow bad they are. This is a good ex-penditure of $22 million. Goodnessknows they need it. It can be used tothe benefit of the Indian population,American Indians and Alaskan natives.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesthat this is a good expenditure ofmoney for an account in this bill thatis woefully underfunded. The Presi-dent’s budget has been previously ter-ribly underfunded for the Indian popu-lations in this country. We owe themthat. We owe them $22 million. Let usserve the needs for diabetes and dentalhealth care and other health care needsof our Indian population.

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in opposition to the amend-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot sit in myseat and hear mendacious statementsmade concerning American Indians. Itis mendacity. It is mendacity becausethe same gentleman that stood to issuethis for American Indians, and there isno one here who has supported themmore than I have, but it pains me tosee unfairness being done. This is veryunfair, Mr. Chairman. The same gen-tleman who has so nobly stood here to-night and spoke out for the AmericanIndian voted for these cuts in the re-port that he signed on and voted upon.

This is mendacity, Mr. Chairman. Itdoes not come out right. It is shameful.It is immoral that we should let thisgo. These Indians need the health care,but did not someone know before nowthey needed it? Why use the mentalgymnastics my colleagues are using tohide the real motive. If my colleagueswant to vote down the motion for hu-manities and the arts, do that.

b 2100Be a man. Be a woman. Vote your

conscience and vote it down. But don’tcome back with some kind of gym-nastic statement to hide the real mo-tives. This is shameful, and I will standhere and say that.

I have Indians in my district. I havefought hard for Indians, and for all mi-norities, and for anyone who is under-served. So it does not serve us well to-night, Mr. Chairman, and we shouldsay shame on anybody that votes forthis amendment. I think each one ofyou should go against it and restorewhat she won in a very honest way, andgive the Indians what they need. Thereis enough money to go around for everyIndian Nation.

What’s wrong with that? What iswrong with my tax dollars going tohelp the Indian Nation? Each one ofyou, even if you do not have Indians inyour district, you have a heart and asoul in you, I hope. And some of ushave some mental capacity. And if youhave it, now is the time to use it, andbe sure that you give to the Indianswhat is due to them.

I stood on this floor once before andI said ‘‘White men speak with a forkedtongue.’’ Why should you do this?There is no reason for you to do this. Iam very shamed by this, Mr. Chairman,and I love everyone on this floor. Thisis wrong. Democrats, Republicans, Dix-iecrats, I do not care what party youare from, you have done the wrongthing here tonight.

If you want to vote her amendmentdown, vote it down. But if she wins it,give it to her, and then go back andgive the Indians what they deserve.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the lastword.

I rise in strong opposition to thisamendment. No, don’t clap; I havesome other things that aren’t so niceto say, too.

I rise in very strong opposition tothis amendment. We won fair andsquare a very tough vote to set asidemoney so we could provide some in-crease in funding for the NEA and theNEH and the museum services. We wonby a small margin. But for the firsttime in a long time, this House ex-pressed its support for increasing fund-ing. Now, that is very significant, andwe did it under very difficult cir-cumstances, because the amendmentactually didn’t provide the money tothe NEA, it just set money aside to beused later.

Now we find ourselves in the unfortu-nate situation of someone else usingthat money for a worthy purpose. I amgoing to oppose that worthy purposebecause that could have been funded inthe underlying bill. And, in fact, thismoney is specifically available becauseMembers on both sides of the aislethought that it would be used to fundan increase in the National Endowmentfor the Arts, the National Endowmentfor the Humanities and the museumservices.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4560 June 15, 2000However, one of the problems we are

running into, and this is very serious,is that I cannot count on the votes ofmy Democrat colleagues for the bill ifRepublicans join you in a motion to re-commit on the arts. Now, if 40 of youwill come forward and tell me that ifthe arts money passes on the motion torecommit you’ll vote for the bill, wecan have NEA funding. But because Ican’t count on that, and I don’t know,maybe by the time we get there we’llbe able to do that, but for this momentI am making this bill an issue for thearts.

And I will call for a recorded vote. Itwill put some people on both sides ofthe aisle in an awkward position tochoose between funding for Indianhealth and funding for the arts. But onthe motion to recommit, I can cer-tainly not urge my Members to votefor your motion to recommit if yourMembers have not signed in blood thatthey will vote for the bill if we get themoney.

So that is just the reality, folks.Life’s tough. We passed it once, weneed to pass it again. We need to winthis vote again, to reject this amend-ment, so that we can use this moneyfor the arts as we intended to. Thenyou’re going to have to help pass thebill. Because those who oppose the artsmoney won’t vote for it. And if youdon’t, we still won’t have money forthe arts. So you can’t have it bothways.

I have voted for many bills on thisHouse floor because I got some keybreakthrough in it. And if we get thisarts money through this vote and an-other vote, that will be a key break-through. But we cannot pass the finalbill without those arts supporters vot-ing for it, warts and all. A lot of wartswill come off in conference. But in con-ference we will gets arts money if westick to our guns. But that means vot-ing this amendment down, voting thearts amendment up, and voting for thebill, regardless of what is in it otherthan the arts money.

Life’s tough. If you’re for the arts,you’ll do it. If you’re not for the arts,you’ll vote for some of the amendmentsand not all.

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

I would like to bring a little realityback to the debate. If you would followthe logic of the gentlewoman, then theonly issue that we should be concernedabout in this bill is the arts. We careabout the arts, we care about the hu-manities, we also care about the NativeAmericans, we care about America’snational parks, we care about Amer-ica’s national forests, we care aboutAmerica’s energy resources, and werecognize, in contrast to you that wehave an obligation on all of thosefronts to meet national needs andhuman needs.

To follow the course suggested by thegentlewoman would have us acquiescein the fact that only 1 month after thisHouse posed for political holy pictures

and said that they wanted to spend $900million on public land acquisition,they bring forth a bill that has only$164 million to do that. Do you reallybelieve that’s sincere? Ha.

Look at the national parks and ref-uges; $100 billion below last year. Takea look at the Forest Service; $96 mil-lion below. Do you really believe weought to go home and explain thosecuts? You just had people stand hereand tell us we needed more lumber forhousing; you had people stand here andtell us how much you loved the land.Now you’re asking us to swallow a billwith these reductions?

If you want to provide a bill whichmeets our responsibilities, instead ofmaking us choose between saying no tothe arts and no to Native Americans,say no to your rich friends. Be willingto sweat a little about your campaigncontributions and instead say, no,we’re not going to give $200 billion intax cuts to the 400 richest people inthis country.

And don’t require, as a price for pass-ing a minimum wage bill that gives $11billion in benefits to the poorest work-ers in this society, don’t require a leg-islative extortion which in returnmakes this Congress also give $90 bil-lion in tax relief to people who makeover $300,000 a year. If you want mid-dle-class tax relief, yes! You want touse middle-class tax relief as a Trojanhorse to reward your rich friends;sorry, count us out!

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

Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier fromanother Member that we were going toattempt to inject a little reality intothe debate. The preceding attempt wasin vain, so let me do it for us assembledhere tonight.

My colleagues, there are differencesof opinion honestly held. But I wouldcaution us all not to become so ob-sessed with process that we fail to dealwith the issue at hand. The reality isthe gentleman from Washington has of-fered an amendment that I think is alltogether proper and one that we shouldall support because it adds greatlyneeded funds in an area where the needis acute: $24 million for the—I amsorry, $2 million—$22 million, forgiveme, I stand corrected, and I thank mycolleagues for that really unprece-dented bipartisan cooperation to getthe numbers right here tonight, $22million to help Americans who havebeen ravaged by a horrible disease.

That is the question. Not the otherprocess, not the alleged road map of in-trigue. This is the simple question, anup or down question on helping theseAmericans.

Now, something else important to re-member with reference to IndianHealth Service budgeting and what hasbeen appropriated. We have, in fact,added $30 million to that process. Butthis is a House where we do take intoaccount different priorities and dif-ferences of opinion honestly held, so I

will resist the temptation to go into abarn burner and just point out thefacts. Twenty-two million dollars toIndian health services for the most vul-nerable Americans, the most vulner-able to diabetes, the first Americans,who are too often the forgotten Ameri-cans, I think, is all together proper.

And those who want to impugn oth-ers with political intrigue can do so.And some have said in this Chamberthat life is tough. But I think all of us,regardless of our party affiliation orpolitical dispensation can stand here ingood conscience and cast an ‘‘aye’’ votebecause it is the right thing to do forthe people who need the help.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the req-uisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, despite the fact thatmost of us would rather be home rightnow, life isn’t really very tough for us.Tough is not choosing whether you’regoing to underfund one group orunderfund another. Tough is being inthe groups that are underfunded.

We have it, after all, relatively easy.The people who have it tough are thestruggling artists who could use someextra funds so they can make a cre-ative contribution, or the Indian chil-dren who are being underfunded. Andwhat is striking about this debate isthe implicit acknowledgment that theRepublican Party’s budget is wholly in-adequate to the moral needs of a greatNation. What we have is a dispute, in-cluding an intramural Republican dis-pute, about who among worthy peopleare we going to hurt the worst.

Yes, it is a terrible situation, andpeople will decide differently as to whothey are going to stiff. But let’s bevery clear. We are in this situationwhere we have to choose. And peoplehave said Indian health is woefully un-derfunded, and if we pass the gentle-man’s amendment it will be woefullyunderfunded plus 1 percent or 2 per-cent. People are admitting that the Re-publican budget gravely underfunds In-dian health. Many of us believe itunderfunds a number of other things.

There’s virtual unanimity in thisplace that we don’t have enough moneyto go around. Why? The economy isdoing well. Revenues are coming in ata greater than expected pace. The prob-lem is we have this philosophical com-mitment that holds amongst some Re-publicans that says government is bad.The problem is that while governmentis bad, virtually all of the componentsthat make up government are prettygood. And that’s why you’re in thisbind. Everybody wants to take creditsfor supporting the individual compo-nents.

Clean coal research. A lot of peoplewant to do that, and they are upset itis getting cut back.

The arts. Indian health. There arevirtually no programs in this entirebudget, in this entire appropriation,that anyone denounces.

We have this terrible paradox. Youknow what your problem is? You have


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4561June 15, 2000a whole that is smaller than the sum ofyour parts. You have the entity thatyou despise, government; but it’s madeup of a lot of components that youlike. So you do two things, you pass abudget that puts too little money intothe pot and then we fight about tryingto get these inadequate things out ofthe pot.

What this debate confirms is the in-adequacy of the budget. And the gen-tlewoman from Connecticut, and I ad-mire her courage in getting up as shedid, but I have two differences withher. First of all, she says, well, a lot ofwarts will come out in conference.

b 2115Let me translate that. In the con-

ference, thanks to the intervention ofthe President of the United States, pre-tending that the budget they are try-ing to operate under makes any senseat all will stop, the pretense of thatgrave mistake we made in 1997. And letme not be that generous. I did notmake it. I voted against that budget in1997. We have been lying about it andcheating on it and avoiding it andevading it and denouncing it eversince. But it is still there.

So what we are being told is vote foran appropriations bill which is admit-tedly inadequate, vote for an appro-priations bill that has too little moneyfor all of these important purposes, butvote for it if we can get a couple morenickels in the arts because in con-ference it will be made better.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yieldto the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Chairman, I just want to get the recordon the 1997 deal.

This administration has cut Medicaremore than the 1997 budget required.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.Chairman, reclaiming my time, Iagree. The gentlewoman has said thatthe President has also cut Medicare.And I will say for this purpose, aplague on both the Houses.

Yes, the President was wrong andthey were wrong. And if they takesome comfort that the President was inthis regard wronger than them, theyare entitled to it. But they were bothwrong, and some of us told them so atthe time.

They collaborated in cutting Medi-care to an unreasonable level, and theyalso collaborated in putting caps onthe budget.

The gentlewoman is the one who gotup and said, vote for this budget, wartsand all, i.e., vote for this inadequate,underfunded budget. Because in con-ference we will not be bound by thepretense of what we did in 1997 madeany sense. But they are still hobbled bythis philosophical commitment tohating government in general, eventhough on program after program afterprogram they want to improve govern-ment in the particular.

It does not work, and that is why weare in this terrible bind.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, time is draw-ing late tonight. I think we have hearda great deal of debate about the role ofgovernment and how much money weshould spend and whether we are goingto balance the budget or we should notbalance the budget. But, quite frankly,that is what the process is.

If you look at the history of this im-mediate amendment, some folks onthis side of the aisle voted for thatamendment to cut because they reallybelieved it should not have moremoney going in to coal research. Andsome people voted for it because theybelieve there should be money in coalresearch. That was the issue. And thatissue cut a certain amount of money.And that is open for debate on whetherwe should add it to other things.

Now, we have had a lot of debate. Wecan stand here tonight and pontificate,and we can posture and we can go wellinto the wee hours of the morning.There are no flights out of here. It israining outside. And we can have agreat old time, just a donnybrook.

But if we want to get the job donethat the American people send us hereto do, we can carry on a civil debate,we can discuss the merits of it, we canvote on these issues. I think everybodyknows where they are, whether theyare for it or against it. I am not surehow many people are getting theirminds changed in this great debate.But let us go forward, and let us getour work done. Let us carry through onwhat you feel strongly about and whatthese folks feel strongly about. Let usdo our work, and I ask that we moveforward.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, I move to strike therequisite number of words, and I riseagainst the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in most of my publiclife, I have been involved in the healthcare of Indians both in the Congressand before I came here. And it is rathersad to stand here tonight and tell mycolleagues the status of health care ofIndians in this country.

When we compare them to all theraces in the United States, the Indianpeople suffer a death rate that is 627times higher from alcoholism, 533times higher from tuberculosis, 249 per-cent higher from diabetes, 71 percenthigher from pneumonia and influenza.It is the saddest state of health carethat we have in the United States.There is no other population that com-pares to this.

But do my colleagues know whatthey should not do to people who sufferfrom these health care problems, topeople who have a death rate that is627 percent higher from alcoholism, 533percent higher from tuberculosis, 249percent higher from diabetes, and 71percent higher from pneumonia and in-fluenza? They should not take thosepeople and use them as a politicalpawn. They should not do it. They sim-ply should not do it.

They did not have the courage oftheir newfound convictions to put fullfunding for them in the budget or toeven put this $22 million in the budget.But here tonight, in their crusadeagainst the arts and the humanities,they are prepared to enlist the NativeAmericans of this country, the grandtribes of the grand nations, and to usethem for cannon fodder in their cru-sade against the arts.

I ask my colleagues to think about acommunity they might come fromwhere they have a 627 percent higherdeath rate from alcoholism than every-where else in the Nation and thinkabout if what they would do to thosepeople is to use them.

In a terribly cynical, cynical ap-proach to deny the arts their money,the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.Slaughter) her amendment, and thedue process in this House, I do notthink we should do this.

It is tempting; it is exciting to putone over on the Democrats. We get oneup. We get back to where we were. Butin the end, we have used these people.

I sit on the Committee on Resources.I sat there my entire time in Congress.And when we built the great waterprojects of the western United States,they always had an Indian componentin it, water was going to go to the Indi-ans, Central Arizona project. Up therein the Dakotas, water is going to go tothe Indians.

Do my colleagues know what? Thir-ty, 40, 50 years later, the Indians arestill waiting for the water, folks, butthe white folks all got their water.They are still waiting for the water inArizona. They are in court. Of course,they have to go to court to get theirwater, they cannot get it in Congress.

Quinten Burdick, the last thing hedid was come to me and said, can westrike a deal to finally give the waterto the Indians? We flooded their lands30 years ago.

Time and again we have marched outthe Indians of this country from the In-dian nations and used them for polit-ical purposes. Tonight we march outthe most unfortunate, those who sufferfrom these kinds of health care prob-lems. And my colleagues have notfound it in their heart in the last 6years to deal with them. Budgets belowthe President.

The President has not done a greatjob, either. But let us not suggest thatthis is the answer. Put the politicsaside. Recognize that they lost anamendment earlier today. Recognizethat there may be, the bill has got along way to go, there may be in factmoney for the arts. I do not knowwhether there will be or not. But let usnot do this to the Indian nations of thiscountry.


Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I justwant to point out that last year we put$150 million for Indian health, more


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4562 June 15, 2000than the President requested. Now thisyear he got some religion. But in the 6years that we have been funding the In-terior bill, the amount of money com-mitted to Indian health has been sub-stantially more than the previous 6years under the Democrat control.

So let us not denigrate our efforts onbehalf of the Indians.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California.Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Letme say to the gentleman that that de-bate between him and the President,this President, or any President, be-tween the Committee on Appropria-tions, and any administration is anhonest debate. That is about priorities.

This is not about a priority. This isabout a political trick. Fortunately,the chairman is not engaged in it. Andwe appreciate that.

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

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me wehave heard very sincere remarks onboth sides of the aisle. I would like tosuggest something that might solvethis problem. And there is no reasonthere cannot be a new rule of theHouse.

One thing is that any amendmentthat gets a majority vote in the Houseand needs to be funded, I would suggestthat we have a section at the end of thebill and that we permit in conference,because we know the Senate will comein with a higher mark generally on thisbill, and we would work that out withthem, with us and our own conferees;and they would have a mandate of theHouse of the majority on whether it beIndian health, arts, whatever.

It seems to me, and I have checked itwith the parliamentarian and theyhave said, well, that could be seen asviolating the rule of legislating on anappropriations bill. We do it all thetime. We go through the Committee onRules. There is no reason, by unani-mous consent, that we could not dothat tonight to solve this problem.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, thatthe Chair rule on that and see if wecould solve that. That would solve a lotof problems, get away from the par-tisan diatribes, and get to the people’sfeelings, which have been well ex-pressed on both sides of the aisle.

Would the chairman rule on that ifthat is possible?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is notgoing to rule in anticipation of anamendment that has not been offered.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, if we writeit out, will the Chair be inclined to ac-cept it?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, beingneither clairvoyant nor anything close,cannot rule in anticipation of some-thing that has not happened yet.

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

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I will first try a unan-imous consent request to deliver on theprevious gentleman’s intent.

I would make a unanimous consentrequest that we fund the arts, the addi-tional amount which was passed in theprevious vote, and that we increasefunding for Indian health by theamount proposed by the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. NETHERCUTT). Imake that as a unanimous consent re-quest in the spirit of the gentlemanwho just rose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is notable to entertain that unanimous con-sent request because it is not in theform of an amendment.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I wouldhope it would be offered as an amend-ment and hope that, if there is sin-cerity on both sides, that that is wherewe will end up.


Mr. DEFAZIO. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gen-tleman could ask the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) if hewould, by unanimous consent, amendhis amendment to cover both theseissues, which would cover the intent ofthat; and the gentleman from Wash-ington could amend his amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?


Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Icannot do that. Because there is $22million dollars to deal with; and I madean amendment, and I want a ruling onthis amendment.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, re-claiming my time, then, we would hopethat wiser heads can prevail and theranking member and the chairman canwork on this as I speak and as othersspeak, because I think there will be anumber of speeches.

There are few Members in this Housewho represent more tribes than I do.And we have heard a great deal, won-derfully, in the last few moments forthe first time, I think, in my career onthe floor of the House about concernfor the condition of the Indian peopleand their health and their well-being.And that is wonderful.

And I will admit that the Clinton ad-ministration has not been a tremen-dous advocate in these areas. And thegentleman has done a good job. Butthere is a different situation before ustonight.

For whatever reason, the administra-tion is now advocating significant in-creases, perhaps seeing the past prob-lems and understanding better theproblems of the Indian people. I havenot seen that concern reflected in ei-ther the Republican budget, whichpassed the House, the subcommitteebudget, which passed in the Committeeon Appropriations, the full committeebudget, or the consideration before ushere tonight.

We are talking now about 4 percent,4 percent, I would say to the gentlemanfrom Washington State (Mr.NETHERCUTT) of the increase proposedby the President.

How many additional doctors, doc-tors’ visits, nurses, nurse practitioners,treatments for persistent TB, treat-ments for alcoholism, very expensive,how much can we pay for with a 4 per-cent increase? A pathetic amount. Yes,we might help a few. But the needs aregreater. The needs are much greater.And I have not seen that concern be-fore here. I am pleased to see it to-night.

b 2130But I am discouraged to see it being

used in an attempt to thwart moneyfor the arts, that won fair and squarein a tough vote that was held for 25minutes on the floor of the House whilethe whip and others on that side at-tempted to twist arms because a verystrong political base on that side op-poses the National Endowment for theArts and the National Endowment forthe Humanities. You lost the vote fairand square. It is not a lot of money inthe context of this bill. We could dobetter than $22 million, I believe, forthe American Indian people. And wecan do at least as well as the votewhich prevailed by the gentlewomanfrom New York with great persistence.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?


Mr. NETHERCUTT. I just want to as-sure the gentleman that I am one whoincreased NEH in conference last year,and perhaps the way to handle this isto deal with it in conference when wehave a chance to analyze how muchmoney there is and is not and have achance to work through it.

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

Mr. DEFAZIO. I yield to the gen-tleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. OBEY. That is the same stalesong we have heard from that side onevery bill. What they are saying is,‘‘This is only the second step. We knowthese bills are inadequate, but some-body else will make them responsibledown the line.’’ That is, in my view, avery poor recommendation to go to thepublic with and ask to be returned tothis body.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gen-tleman. In reclaiming my time, this istruly a serious issue. Again, I wouldhope that perhaps cooler heads can pre-vail, and they can find other offsets inthe bill. I hope we could find $100 mil-lion for Indian health and that wecould find the minimum amount thatthe gentlewoman already gained forthe arts and humanities.

The arts and humanities are impor-tant. They are important to us as aculture, as a Nation. They are impor-tant to kids who drop out of school.They are important to people to enrichtheir lives.

And health is vitally important forpeople to be able to enjoy some ofthose cultural privileges of their ownculture, of the culture that might beprovided in the amendment by the gen-tlewoman from New York.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4563June 15, 2000I am just bemused. I am saddened,

and I am hopeful that we can somehowcome to an accommodation of bothneeds in this bill. I think the money isthere.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments thatwere offered today were offered on be-half of the Arts Caucus of the House ofRepresentatives, a bipartisan group.One of the things that helped us winthis afternoon were the 25 votes of theRepublican Members for which I am ex-traordinarily grateful. I thank my co-chair, the gentleman from California(Mr. HORN), for the hard work that hehas done and the gentlewoman fromConnecticut (Mrs. JOHNSON) for her te-nacious fight to try to do somethinghere. I am certainly grateful to all thepeople over here on my side who saw toit that we got that victory this after-noon and I thank them.

I cannot tell my colleagues how sadthis makes me. I am used to not doingvery well on this subject. I appreciatethat there are lots of things I couldcome up with every year that mightplease the crowd. I have always tried,the 14 years I have been here, to dealwith you as honestly and frankly as Ican. I have been persuaded over theyears of the great benefit that thesethree programs do to the people of theUnited States.

We are asking not for us. We get togo see To Kill a Mockingbird. We getinvited to all the good things. I amtalking about all the other people outthere, the people we represent, whowill line up to get to a performancewhen a play comes to town, and whowill struggle to make sure that theirchildren are associated with the arts inschool.

I appreciate again what everybodydoes. This is the first year, frankly,that we have been able not to just tryto keep it alive. People were electedhere, I understand that, to kill theNEA for some reason. It was like theHoly Grail. This little agency, when Icame here I think it had $178 millionworth of budget. It is down to $98 mil-lion. It will probably never rise again.Who knows? But it seems to loom solarge in people’s minds and in a waythat I think is totally wrong.

The agency has transformed itself inevery way the Congress has asked. Itsleadership has been extraordinary.Members of the House sit on the advi-sory committee. There is not a singlesoul in this House that could not goback to their district and point withgreat pride what little bits of seedmoney that came to them from the Na-tional Endowment for the Arts madethem be able to build things in theirown communities of which they couldbe proud.

This amount of money that we havehere would have done a lot for them. Ido not know how many little regionaltheaters may go dark now because wecannot fund the arts in this country.

We should understand that we fund itcheaper than any other country on theface of the Earth. I do not know howmany children may not ever be able tosee an artist perform.

I remember an artist who told meone day that her father and mother hadscrounged up enough money to takeher to see the Music Man, and that shehad never seen anything like it in herlife. She said to herself, ‘‘That’s ex-actly what I want to do.’’ She did it.She grew up, and she remembered whatthat meant to her as a very young per-son. And now Mary Steenburgen tellsus that every time before she goes onstage, she reaches down to take thatimaginary little girl by the hand andsays, ‘‘Let’s go out and do our best to-night, Mary. There may be childrenhere.’’

In my own district, a young man whowon the Arts Caucus program here sothat he could hang some art down inthe tunnel, he was 17 or so, and was se-verely troubled. We could not find himto tell him that he had won. He hadleft home. He had dropped out ofschool. But my staff in Rochester per-sisted. They finally found him. Theysaid, ‘‘Look. You’ve got to go to Wash-ington. You’ve got to go for this cele-bration and see how they hang this pic-ture and how it says something in theState of New York that you have beenchosen.’’ He did. We gave him an enor-mous good time.

The next time I saw that young manwas at a meeting again trying to keepthe foundation of the arts alive. Hesaid to me, ‘‘I am now a student atPratt. There was something about thatvalidation of hanging in the Capitol ofthe United States of America thatmade me think, by George, I may beworth something.’’ It completelyturned him around.

I saw little children in Harlem learn-ing to dance at the age of 3. They wereso cute you could hardly believe it.You wanted to hug and squeeze them,but they were not there for that. Theywere there to learn discipline and tolearn dance. We know what this does tothe human spirit. The National Endow-ment for the Humanities explains to usall the time and to everybody else whowe are, who we were, where we aregoing, where we have been, and that isimportant, because we do not want tobe the only society, do we, that onlyleaves behind their Styrofoam?

I know that we are not going to winthis battle here tonight. So, Mr.NETHERCUTT and Mr. REGULA, takeyour $22 million, because, as I said, ithas been said here before and muchbetter than I, I do not believe thisamendment was intended to help theIndians. I believe this amendment wasintended to use them. So take it. Ihope that it will be of some help tothem. And these little agencies willlimp along, and we will try again nextyear.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gen-tleman from Arizona for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I will be the first tocommend the gentlewoman for herwonderful speech and her wonderful re-marks and her heartfelt feelings aboutthe arts in this country. I have many ofthe same feelings despite what thisamendment may mean to her. And Iknow all of us feel passionately abouthow to spend the taxpayer dollars. It istough. We are in the majority. We haveto make this budget fit together.

There was a comment earlier abouthow much money we spend on Indianhealth care. We are $30 million of an in-crease from last year. It could be $500million that we need to spend. I wouldspend it gladly. This House has beenenergized by the idea that Indianhealth is a problem in this country.

I will respect the gentlewoman’s feel-ings about having kids see the arts. Iam a dad. I know. But I also feel pas-sionately that as I see little Indiankids suffering, and I mean this, I havespoken at diabetes health care con-ferences for Indian health in San Diegoand elsewhere in this country. It is adramatic problem. If we were all kingand queens, we could wish more moneyeverywhere. But we cannot.

So my sense is this: There is $22 mil-lion I think that Indian health carekids and families would benefit from.That is a priority of mine. I voted forthe National Endowment for the Artsallocation in this country. We are dealtthe hand we are dealt. We have tomake this budget fall together. Wewant to pay down this national debt.We want to save Social Security. Ourdefense condition is in trouble rightnow. So we cannot do it all.

This, I believe, is a better expendi-ture of money. When you look at therelative value, I think this is a betterexpenditure. That is my view. The gen-tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) hasa different view. The gentlewomanfrom New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) has adifferent view. The gentleman fromWashington (Mr. DICKS) feels dif-ferently. So does the gentleman fromArizona (Mr. KOLBE). God bless us.That is the way we are able to be inthis House. We make judgments, andwe make our best judgments. But Ihate to have you all ascribe bad mo-tives to us or trickery or fooling withthe system. I really feel this is the bestexpenditure. That is why I offered theamendment. I reject anybody who saysthat there is any other motive. This ismy best judgment based on the peoplethat I represent and the needs that Isee out in this country.

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

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Wisconsin.

Mr. OBEY. I would just ask this ofthe gentleman from Washington. If itis true that his heart is so concernedabout the plight of our Native Ameri-cans, then why did he not offer hisamendment in committee when itwould not be used as an effort to cut


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4564 June 15, 2000off the effort of the gentlewoman? Andwhy did he then vote for a bill whichcut Indian health services by over $500million?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, Irespect the gentleman from Wisconsin(Mr. OBEY) greatly. He is a good person,but he does not need to do this with re-spect to impugning my motives. Whenwe did not have $22 million in this ac-count when we were voting on it in thecommittee. And my friend knows it.There is $22 million sitting here. I havemade my best judgment as to how itcan be spent. If we would have been sit-ting in the committee, I probablywould have put it with diabetes re-search. That is one of my great things.Or defense spending. Or educationspending.

Mr. OBEY. Why did you vote for thecut?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Again, I votedfor a $30 million increase from lastyear. I did not vote for a cut. ThePresident’s budget has been lower foryears. He comes up higher this year,and you say it is a cut.

Mr. OBEY. You voted to cut thePresident’s budget by $500 million. Youvoted for that.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaim-ing my time, let me just reiteratesomething that I said this afternoon onthe floor, and I have been, and I thinksome in this body know and certainlythose that I have talked to in my Stateknow that I have been a strong sup-porter of the arts for a number of yearsand I believe very passionately in it.And I believe that there is a Federalrole.

I regret that we are finding ourselvesin the position where we are pittingone priority against another. But theFederal budget is not limitless. Thereare limits. We must establish prior-ities. That is really what we are aboutdoing here this evening. I believe thatthere will be additional dollars in theconference for the arts, but I believethat at this moment that it is not theappropriate time to do it because itwill not help us pass this bill.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a de-bate on this floor this evening thatshould make us all question why weare in this place and what we careabout. I cannot help but ask myself,are we to take the gentleman fromWashington seriously? This is the sameman who supported term limits andhas now reversed himself. We are askedto believe that this is about good pub-lic policy.

Well, it is not. This is about politics.This is not about an attempt to helpthe Indians. This is simply to providepolitical cover. This amendment adds amere $20 million to an account that theRepublicans already cut by $200 mil-lion. Native Americans are among themost impoverished people in theUnited States. Thirty percent of NativeAmericans are living below the povertyline.

b 2145

Native Americans suffer dispropor-tionately high rates of diabetes, can-cer, heart disease, and substance abuse.Half of the roads and bridges on Indianreservations are in a serious state ofdisrepair. The unemployment rateamong Native Americans is over 50 per-cent, and one-third of Native Americanchildren do not graduate from highschool.

Despite the pressing needs of our Na-tion’s first people, the funding in thisbill for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is$320 million below the budget requestsubmitted by the President. This billcut funding for the housing improve-ment program by $7 million below thefiscal year 2000 level and provided nofunds whatsoever for new housing con-struction.

The bill also cut funding for schoolconstruction, $13 million below the fis-cal year 2000 level and $180 millionbelow the President’s request. Fundingfor the Indian Health Service is an ap-palling $200 million below the Presi-dent’s request.

The American economy is extraor-dinarily healthy today. However, thepeople who live on Indian reservationsare some of the poorest people in ourNation. They desperately need fundingfor health care, education, school con-struction, housing and economic devel-opment.

This amendment that we are con-fronted with, in light of what has al-ready taken place in H.R. 4478 the Inte-rior Appropriations Act, is appalling. Ido not believe that any Member of thisHouse could comfortably support thisamendment and comfortably even sup-port this bill knowing how this can beviewed by our voting public.

The results of this can only bethought of as cynical. I would ask usall to oppose the amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, par-liamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, my par-liamentary inquiry is to inquire of theChair whether the remarks of the pre-vious speaker in ascribing motives toanother Member are appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will notrule on that specific instance in thecontext of a parliamentary inquiry.

The Chair would announce, however,and remind Members that by directingremarks in debate to the Chair, andnot one another in the second person,Members may better avoid personaltensions during the debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talkabout, I guess, the issue that hasplugged up the House with a great dealof rhetoric; to give my perspective onthe issue of the arts and the issue ofhealth care for Native Americans andthe issue that the gentlewoman from

New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) won earlierin the day; also to say that the gen-tleman from Washington (Mr.NETHERCUTT) is one of the finest Amer-icans and Members of Congress I haveever met. And he will always have myundying respect, as do most Memberson both sides of the aisle. We all rep-resent the finest that America has tooffer.

The gentlewoman from New York(Ms. SLAUGHTER) offered an amend-ment earlier today in anticipation ofraising, putting aside $22 million forthe arts, for the humanities, for themuseums, of which most of us agreewith.

I have voted in favor of those kindsof amendments in the past. I am fun-damentally in support of that type ofculture, because I think it brings tothe human being the kind of thoughtprocess, creativity, sensitivity, intel-lectual understanding that is necessaryand can only come from the arts.

Now, I voted earlier today againstthe gentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER), and I did not vote againstthe gentlewoman from New York (Ms.SLAUGHTER) because I was against thearts. I voted against the gentlewomanfrom New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) be-cause I also truly believe in certain en-vironmental issues, and one of those isto understand the nature of coal or howwe can improve the burning of coalthrough clean coal technology. That isthe reason I voted against the Slaugh-ter amendment, not because I amagainst the arts.

Now, we are in a democratic processwhere there are all kinds of thingsgoing on. We basically, though, fun-damentally have an exchange of infor-mation on this House floor and some-what a sense of tolerance for a dif-ferent opinion by somebody else, andthen we vote. And Oliver WendellHolmes said about 100 years ago, theChief Justice of the Supreme Court,that the Constitution was made forpeople with fundamentally differingviews. And so that is what we havehere.

Now, when this comes up for a vote,and if it does come up for a vote, Itruly believe in the arts; I bring thosekids here every year with their paint-ing. And we have a marvelous time,and they are hung in the Capitol.

My daughter, and I am very proud,won the art purchase award for ourhome county, which is the highestaward you can get. And she is going tocollege this year to major in art andmusic. And the joy she brings in ourfamily and the other people in thecounty is marvelous.

But I also truly believe in my heartwhenever there is an opportunity outthere that I grab ahold of an oppor-tunity and the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) wants $22million in Indian health care that wasnot there before, I am going to vote forthat, not because I am against the arts.

The arts are beautiful. Just listen toWilliam Blake, to see a world in the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4565June 15, 2000grain of sand, heaven in a wild flower,holding infinity in the palm of yourhand and eternity in an hour. That wasthe theme for the arts caucus from thefirst congressional district of Mary-land. And we gotten marvelous entries.

But there is desperate need in Indianhealth care; and so I am personallyvoting for that, because it just happensI have an opportunity to increase thatmoney for health care.

There are many people on both sidesof the aisle that are struggling withthis vote, not for political advantage,but for a real heart-felt sincere under-standing about what is best to do atany one given moment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I doubt seriously ifthere are very many people in thisHouse who do not recognize the insin-cerity and the cynicism that underliesthis amendment. If it had been truethat there was a genuine concern——


Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I amconcerned about the insinuation ofthis. What is the direction of the Chairin terms of words being appropriate? Iam trying, Mr. Chairman, if you willindulge me, and the House will, I amtrying not to go to have the gentle-man’s words taken down, but I wouldlike my friend from New York (Mr.HINCHEY) maybe to rethink what hesays.

Mr. Chairman, is it not true therehave been three opportunities to havewords struck down tonight, and is ittrue that if I was looking for an oppor-tunity, this might be one; but is it notalso true that the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. HINCHEY) may want torethink what he just said to avoid usfrom going there?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will notrule on that. The Chair would ask thegentleman to proceed in order, and thetime is now controlled by the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. HINCHEY).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gen-tleman from Georgia.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman from New York (Mr. HIN-CHEY), who I served with on the com-mittee and have great respect for, Iwould ask in terms of just a good rela-tionship here tonight that you mayrethink what you had just said, be-cause I am not sure that you meant itthe way we may have heard it.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I amvery interested in a good relationship.Reclaiming my time, I am very inter-ested in maintaining good relation-ships. I am very interested in main-taining comity. I am very interested inmaintaining respect. I am also very in-terested in maintaining respect for thework of our Members of the House.

And I mean no personal attack inany way on the gentleman who offeredthe amendment. However, I believethat there is an insincere result that

comes about as a result of it. If therehad been a sincere interest in address-ing the obvious needs, health careneeds of Native Americans, then thatattempt could have been made duringthe full committee. The gentleman is amember of the subcommittee. It couldhave been made during the sub-committee; it was not.

If there had been a sincere interest inaddressing the needs of Native Ameri-cans in terms of their health care, thatcould have been done during the fullcommittee by the gentleman who of-fered this amendment; it was not. Ifthere had been a sincere concern forthe legitimate health care needs of Na-tive Americans, this amendment thatwe have now could have come before usin the context of this debate which hasbeen going on for some time, and agreat many others who have offeredamendments have found offsets forthose amendments.

In fact, every single amendment thatcame from this side of the House hadan offset to it. It does not take a greatdeal of ingenuity to find offsets foryour amendments if you sincerely wishto find them outside of attacking thework that others have done before you.

We had here earlier today an honest,sincere, heartfelt debate on an impor-tant issue. As a result of that debate,this House decided to provide 22 mil-lion additional dollars for the NationalEndowment for the Arts, the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, andfor Museums around the country.

I believe that the Members of thisHouse did so sincerely because theyrecognized the value of NEA, NEH, andmuseums. They recognized their valueparticularly as educational vehiclesand as the harbors of culture withinour society.

And I believe the Members of thisHouse, the majority of them wanted todo everything they could within theconfines of a very restricted budget, ar-tificially so, I might add, but, never-theless, restricted budget, to do what-ever they could to enhance the arts,the humanities, and museums.

That issue was debated sincerely, ag-gressively, intelligently, enthusiasti-cally; and in the final result $22 millionwent for the arts, humanities, and mu-seums.

Now, at this late hour, we have an at-tempt to take that victory, not onlyfrom the Members of the House whovoted for it, but from all the millionsof Americans who will benefit as a re-sult of that additional funding forthese worthy subjects, and to do it in away that I believe does dishonor to thisHouse.

It is one thing to stand here and fightfor the things that you believe in. Weall do that. It is another thing to do itin a way that undercuts and under-mines the success of others in the con-text of what goes on here in these de-bates, and I believe that is what we arewitnessing.

Yes, I think that there is an elementof cynicism that comes about as a re-

sult of this action that is proposed forus to take at this moment. I think thatthere is an element of insincerity thatreeks in this House as a result of theeffort that has been placed before uswhich we are being asked to embrace.

And I think it would be a seriousmistake for the comity that we allseek, for the good judgment that wereach for, that the good relations thatwe hope to maintain, and the good re-sults above all that we hope to achieveas a result of these debates. I wouldhope that the gentleman would recog-nize some of this and that he wouldwithdraw the amendment.

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords. I seldom, rise on the floor. Itbothers me tonight that I see on bothsides that we are questioning the mo-tive of our members and hear wordsthat are being used about our NativeAmericans. Yes, I am from Oklahoma,basically meaning the home of the redman; Oklahoma, the State that has 22percent of all Native Americans in thiscountry.

b 2200

I grew up with the Choctaw Indiansin dirt-poor poverty. I was the onlynon-Indian on the baseball team. I wasthe minority but did not know it. Allthe rest of them were Native Ameri-cans. I gave eulogies at several of myNative American classmates’ funerals,so please do not question the motive ofpeople.

I have witnessed alcoholism amongmy Native Americans and their fami-lies. I was raised with them. Do notjudge the motives of people.

Yes, this budget is probably short intotal dollars. There could be a lot moredone. But right now as we stand beforeyou we must make a decision on thisamendment. I was not in appropria-tions. The amendment before us basi-cally is whether we use $22 million forIndian health service. As my colleaguethe gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.LARGENT) said, in Oklahoma we havethe smallest percentage of Indianhealth service funds for our NativeAmerican families.

I cannot undo the things of the past,but as I stand in front of you, I havegot an adopted Native Americandaughter. I have three Native Amer-ican grandchildren whom I would rath-er have in my arms tonight than beinghere listening to this kind of debate.

Let us not question others’ integrityor whether we are sincere or not sin-cere. We have an amendment before us.Let us address that amendment andmove forward.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, for 36 years now as alawmaker, 12 years in the Michiganlegislature, 24 years here, and for 6years in the Roman Catholic seminarywhere I worked with Indians, I havebeen working for all those years forjustice for Indians.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH4566 June 15, 2000My father, who was raised among In-

dians near Traverse City, Michigan, al-ways told me that the Indians havebeen treated unfairly, and they werethe people with the poorest healtharound Traverse City. Their land hadbeen stolen from them, all their land. Iwas determined when I entered theState legislature in 1964 in Michigan todo something for the Indians, and Ihave worked very closely with peopleon both sides of the aisle to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I have worked withpeople on both sides of the aisle tobring justice for Indians, and I have al-ways hoped that before I shuffle offfrom this mortal coil to meet myjudge, that I will have moved some-where towards that justice, and I havetaken some tough votes through theyears to do that.

There are some people who wouldtake money from the arts to give tothe Indian Health Service, but some ofthose same people, and this is whattroubles me, have voted for over $200billion worth of tax cuts. I votedagainst those tax cuts, and I got criti-cized back home for doing that, but Idid it because I want to make sure wetake care of the needs of those who arethe most needy. I voted against thosetax cuts, and I pay a political price forthat. I voted for a tax raise in 1993, andalmost lost my election because Ivoted for that tax raise, but I did be-cause I felt there were needy people inthis country.

I have made the real tough votes.Those are the tough votes. Those arethe ones that you do not put in yourcampaign literature, ‘‘I voted for a taxincrease and voted against a tax cut.’’Your opponent puts it in his or hers.

But those are the tough votes. Thatis really where you determine whetheryou are going to do something to helpalleviate the immorality here in Amer-ica, and the way we treat our Indians isimmoral. If we really want to helpthem, we cannot be giving money tothe wealthiest people and not givewhat is due to the neediest, the peoplewhose land we have stolen, changedtheir way of life, destroyed their lan-guage in many instances. We want togive money to the super wealthy andwithhold money from the poorest. Thatis the real moral issue here. That is thetough vote.

I voted those tough votes. When Ivoted in 1993, I thought I was lookingat my political grave, but I was willingto do that. Those are the tough votes.These votes here really emanate fromhow we are willing to take care andbalance the justice with the injusticein this country.

So it is really puzzling. When youfind people who are giving to the superwealthy and take from the America’spoorest, you find that at least puzzling.It is very puzzling to me.

I will always support justice for theIndians, in any instance and anychance I can, but I find tonight, in my36 years in public office, one of the sad-dest days. When we came here in Janu-

ary, this was all part of a process. Weraise so much money, we spend somuch money. We find our priorities.We find our priorities in tax cuts; wefind our priorities in expenditures.

This is a paradox. This is contradic-tory, what we are doing here tonight. Ifyou can look into your heart and say,okay, I voted against the tax cut,therefore I can without contradictiongo along cutting the President’s budgetfor IHS by $200 million as was done.And I don’t blame the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. REGULA). The gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. REGULA) is one of themost decent guys in this House, andwhen I go to his committee to testify,the gentleman, within the limitationshe has, does a great job for the Indians.

But I find this really sad. We have tolook at ourselves and say how do webalance how we raise the money, howdo we balance how we spend themoney? The two go together, and youcannot give a $200 billion-plus tax cutto the very wealthy, the most wealthy,and deny what is needed, the basicneeds, of America’s poor.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, somepeople are having a difficult decisionhere, and, you know, we are oftenasked to establish priorities. Some-times we are asked to decide whetherwe should fund an after-school programor special education. For some, that isa difficult decision. But tonight I donot think we are facing a difficult deci-sion. We have $22 million that we couldadd to Native American health care, orwe could subsidize the arts, humanitiesand museums.

Now, this industry of the arts is avery wealthy industry. The gentlemanfrom Michigan made a good pointabout how we are trying to make deci-sions between subsidizing the wealthyversus subsidizing a very needy cause.Well, Hollywood is full of millionaires;New York and Broadway are full ofmillionaires. Each year $9 billion isspent on the arts; jobs in the arts com-munity are growing 3.6 times fasterthan the regular economy; there aremore Americans that attend an artisticevent every year than attend sportingevents; and yet we are willing to makea choice to subsidize wealthy pro-ducers, actors, artists and all of thosewho contribute to the arts another $22million.

Some do not care if we turn ourbacks on the Native Americans, be-cause they want to subsidize and sup-port some of these wealthy Americansthrough the arts. Somewhere, someday in America, some child may see anartistic expression if we just add an-other $22 million to the industry, the $9billion industry, and we will do it atthe expense of Native Americans’health care? For me this is not a toughdecision.

For the downtrodden Native Ameri-cans, because I have seen their trou-bles, I have been to the reservations, Igrew up with Native Americans, Iplayed with them, I have worked withthem. Four of my fraternity brothers

were Native Americans. I watchedthree of the four pass away because ofsome reason that I hope would betaken care of by additional health care.I do not know if that would meet theneed, but it would be a long step to-wards a greater awareness in healthcare for the Indians.

So I think this is an easy decision to-night. I think we should support theNethercutt amendment because it is amuch higher priority than subsidizinga $9 billion industry. Let us vote to addthe $22 million to Native Americanhealth care.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my op-position to the amendment that is be-fore us. The real tragedy in the Houseis that a couple of months ago ourCommittee on the Budget gave us, andthis House approved in a partisan man-ner, unrealistic, not carefully thoughtout, 302(b) allocations, which are thebottom line numbers that each of thebudget bills must now work within.Those numbers were not fair 2 or 3months ago, and they are not fairtoday as we debate this most impor-tant issue, Native American healthcare, arts and humanities for Ameri-cans who deserve it.

I think we do this House a disservicewhen we are not realistic. This countryis doing better than it has done in adecade, in a generation. The budgetprojections that were made 2 monthsago are now today further off thanever. When this fiscal year closes onSeptember 30, our Treasury will haveover $100 billion more than we thoughtwe would have this time last year.

Why then are we going through thesetasks over the last couple of weeksnow, debating legislation with goodpriorities for American citizens, andyet we are not able to fund them? I sayto Members of the House, the reason isbecause the allocations initially ap-proved in a bipartisan manner a fewmonths ago were not realistic, theywere not fair, and they leave a lot ofmoney out that will be put in at theend of this process by 10 to 12 people inboth Houses, cutting out over 500 peo-ple who have been elected by peopleacross this country to represent themand to serve in this House and to makethe kinds of decisions we are makingtonight.

It is unfortunate that we cannot fundproperly Native American health care.They deserve it. As a minority myself,I would love to have my tax dollars goto them. The President was not right,this House is certainly not right, andwe can do better by health care for Na-tive Americans. It is unfortunate thatwe are not able to do that.

If we are a body elected by the peoplein the freest country in the world, andwe are, then we have a responsibilityto do what is right, and the amend-ment before us does not do that. Yes,we should fund Native American health


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4567June 15, 2000care, and the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) is a fine gen-tleman. The gentleman has offeredamendments in the committee, and Ihave supported him a number of times.

This one is not the right thing to do.All great civilizations are known bytheir arts, their culture, their human-ities, for hundreds of years after all ofus leave. This country has not fundedproperly the arts and humanities inour country, so that our children canbe beneficiaries of this great culturethat we live in.

So do we now use a process to takeaway an amendment that was passedlawfully on this floor juxtapose itagainst an amendment we really doneed, but not in this manner? I say toyou, Mr. Chairman, it is the wrong wayto do it and it is not proper; that as wego through the rest of the 5 or 6months, or less than that, 3 or 4months of this fiscal year, we will findthat the budget receipts in our Treas-ury are larger than we thought theywould be 3 months ago.

The country is doing well. Whyshould we have to choose between edu-cation and health care? Why should wehave to choose between the arts andfunding Native American health care?It is because the Republican Partywants to save hundreds of millions ofdollars, nearly $1 billion, I might add,for tax cuts that the American peoplehave already said they do not want.They want you to fund education andhousing and health care; they want youto fund the environment, roads andbridges and the like.

b 2215

So Mr. Chairman, the amendment,though it means good, is not the rightthing to do. Let us fund Native Amer-ican health care. They deserve it, forall the reasons that have already beenmentioned.

But at the same time, let us ade-quately fund the arts and humanities,so that our children and grandchildrencan attest to the fact that this is agreat country, and that 100 years fromnow they will look at this 106th Con-gress and say that we stood up for whatwas right for our country and for ourchildren.

Vote against the Nethercutt amend-ment, and let us continue with thework of this Congress.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I moveto strike the requisite number ofwords.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all aretalking at each other, not with eachother. I think we are about ready tovote on this issue.

Let me just say sincerely, I votedwith the gentlewoman from New York,and it is not because the gentlewomanfrom New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) is mycousin. I think we ought to remember,as we talk across the aisle, that we areall Americans, and sometimes we areeven family.

I am ready to vote with her again,not because she is my cousin, but be-

cause it represents my district. I amrepresenting my part of the world inthis body as I swore to do under theConstitution.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr.NETHERCUTT) is representing his dis-trict. I respect him for that. I respecthim now as a representative under hisconstitutional powers. I have a littleproblem with the ridiculing and the at-tacking of us doing what we are sup-posed to do under our constitutionalobligations.

I do not care who the gentleman fromWashington defeated to get this seat.That is not the point. He does rep-resent his district, and I expect him todo the best he can. He has found an op-portunity to aggressively represent hisdistrict. The gentlewoman from NewYork has aggressively represented herdistrict. We should not be attackingthem for doing that. We should be cele-brating the system working.

I just ask us to remember, this iswhat it is all about, representing ourdistricts, and the cumulative impact ofdoing that. I would be remiss withoutbringing up one fact, we would all rath-er be somewhere tonight. I would haverather been at the graduation, of mychildren, Patrick and Briana, thisweek, but we are working on an edu-cation bill, we are working on an Inte-rior bill. We are doing what we need todo.

I apologized to my children for notbeing there. I need that on the RECORD,and I apologize to the Members forsneaking this in. But I need to say sin-cerely, we have some opportunities towork together rather than sniping. Letus accept the fact that we do what wecan, we represent our districts, and letus go together, out of the fact that allof us are doing what the public in ourdistricts mandate and what the publicwants us to do.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding to me. I be-lieve basically that the will of theHouse is supreme, and what can bedone by some of its committees cer-tainly can be done by the whole body ofthe House.

We all know there is a rule that wecannot legislate on an appropriationsbill. We get that through the Com-mittee on Rules and it comes in hereregularly when we vote the rule.

There are three traditional things wecan do to get out of this situation. Oneis recommittal now. One is instruct theconferees. One is recommittal if theconference report comes back from theconference and does not satisfy any-body in here.

Again, I would suggest that by unani-mous consent we add to the legislation,the Interior appropriations bill, thatany amendment which has been adopt-ed by a majority vote in the House willbe funded in conference. I think thatwould solve it, because we know the

Senate is bringing in a much higherfigure than we are.f

REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OFFERED BY MR.HORN TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.NETHERCUTT

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent for that languageto be added, Mr. Chairman, out oforder, out of rules, and out of every-thing else, to get this thing solved.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlemanfrom California suggesting an amend-ment to the Nethercutt amendment?

Mr. HORN. That is one way, and wecould vote on it.

The CHAIRMAN. If that is the gen-tleman’s desire, then the gentlemanneeds to have an amendment in writingto the Nethercutt amendment.

Mr. HORN. It is here if the Page isaround.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair under-stands that the unanimous consent re-quest is a modification to theNethercutt amendment.

The Clerk will report the proposedmodification to the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Modification of amendment offered by Mr.

HORN:At the end of the Nethercutt amendment

add:Any amendment which has been adopted

by a majority vote in the House will be fund-ed in conference.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromCalifornia?


Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry,Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I justwanted the Clerk to re-read the amend-ment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk willreread the amendment.

The Clerk reread the amendment.The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman fromCalifornia?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, is thegentleman from California (Mr. HORN)asking for unanimous consent, or is heamending the Nethercutt amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. At this point, thegentleman from California is askingunanimous consent.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reserving the rightto object, Mr. Chairman, the concern Ihave is that there has been an insinu-ation that there was some victory onthe floor, and that victory has beensnatched.

There was a victorious battle, butthere was not a victorious war. We canwin one battle in legislative bodies andthen lose it in the next moment. I donot think there should be apologies orhandwringing about that.

If the Nethercutt amendment passes,then that is not the end of the road. Iam not a big NEA supporter, but I amgoing to vote for the bill and I amgoing to get to the resolution in com-mittee, in conference. That is the waylife is in the legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I object.The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


Documents

· 6/15/2000 · H4498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSEJune 15, 2000 Ose Oxley Packard Paul Pease Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Pombo Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich