Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6967-H7008] [[Page H 6967]] {time} 1548 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The Committee resumed its sitting. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I look around this Chamber and as I think about the promises in January, the notion was to come here and to end business as usual, and that is in fact the intent of many of us in this Congress. Ofttimes it involves reaching across the aisle, listening to different arguments, and basing our support or our opposition not on previous partisan labels, but taking a look and carefully examining the problems one by one. That is why I am pleased to stand in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I represent a large portion of the Navajo Nation, that sovereign nation within the Sixth District of Arizona and reaching beyond the borders of Arizona to several other States. I am mindful of the fact that in our treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation, we have a variety of promises that were made well over a century ago. Now, I stand here in support of this amendment not to criticize my friends on this side of the aisle, who believe we can look for other sources of funding, but, instead, to underline the importance of upholding these treaty obligations and looking to educate the children of the native American tribes, for it is a sacred obligation we have, and it is a proper role of the Federal Government to move in that regard. So, for that reason, again, I stand in strong support of the amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New Mexico and Wisconsin and myself. I want to make the distinction that while we are asking our colleagues to reexamine and recommit to restoring the $81 million for the Indian education program, I want us to understand that this is not duplicative of the program that is already there. This really has a distinct value in and above that, and it is supplementary and not duplicative. It means these are programs going to public schools to enable 92 percent of all Indians who live in this country to get additional supplemental education. It is an opportunity to make sure that those young people, who are falling through the cracks academically, have an opportunity to be competitive and do well. Further, Mr. Chairman, I would think our colleagues would find it unacceptable that $81 million would get in the way of doing what we should be doing for the very first inhabitants of this country. Further, I think we would want to support education as being consistent with self-sufficiency. I see all of these reasons and others as to why we should want to restore this to its full amount, and not reduce it to a lesser amount than it is presently. Really, it should be increased. In the spirit of keeping the budget constraints, we are saying restore it to the $81 million. So it really is a thoughtful amendment that recognizes under the constraints that all programs have to adjust. I would ask that my colleagues across both sides of the aisle understand, this is an opportunity really that we can say to the native Americans, that we do care about them, and that education is important. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I think unfortunately we know very little about the whole issue of treaty keeping, and I want to congratulate my Republican colleague from Arizona, who understands that we have a sacred trust responsibility to keep treaties. These education funds are just a tiny little downpayment, shall we say, on the land that we enjoy, which we have in our trust because the Indian tribes signed treaties many years ago. My colleague from North Carolina mentioned that 92 percent of Indian children are affected by this funding, and that is absolutely true. We are told it is duplicative, but in fact the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools do not meet more than 8 percent of the Indian children's educational needs. We can indeed, and my colleague has spoken of that, change the poverty that has so impacted native Americans by making sure that we live up to our responsibility, our treaty responsibility, a treaty which we swore to uphold when we became Members of this body. We cannot abandon these native American children; we cannot abandon this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I congratulate the gentlewoman and her colleagues for having brought this amendment forward. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in favor of this very important amendment. I think that this legislation, absent the Obey amendment, would be morally bankrupt and fatally deficient for this Congress to pass. We have an absolute commitment, and we should always remind ourselves that no matter how expensive we may perceive education to be, ignorance costs more. I come from the city of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and I just know that my constituents support fully this country's continuing commitment to Indian education. I hope that we would favorably approve the Obey amendment. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment to keep our commitment and our trust obligations, and to thank her and her colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Richardson, for this amendment. I rise in support of it and hope the House will pass this amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is an opportunity. Education is important. More important, it is an opportunity to say the American Indian children are important and they should be included in our commitment to all Americans. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that the time be equally divided. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will manage 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will manage 5 minutes. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, I want to express my strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations. The amendment simply restores the badly needed funds for education of American Indians and Alaskan Native children in public schools. Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a downright tragedy that the Congress of the United States would take away money from our American Indian children's future to fund other programs like timber sales management. Mr. Chairman, I also want to make it clear that funding for title IX is not duplicative of BIA directed funding. Title IX funding is for children in public schools, while BIA funding is for Indian children in BIA or tribally operated schools. Mr. Chairman, as so eloquently stated in a letter by my good friend from Alaska and chairman of the House Committee on Resources, why do we continue to pick on those who simply cannot defend themselves, the children? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment and restore the funds needed for the education of American native and Alaskan Native children. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 6968]] Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear what is going to happen here. We will have a vote on the Obey amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment because it takes the money out of fossil energy research. We have already cut that 10 percent. It impacts heavily on States like Ohio, California, Indiana, Illinois, New York, places where we are doing research. It takes money out of the Bureau of Mines. We have already cut them back. We just leave them enough to close out. If we take any more money, they cannot even do that. It takes money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserves. We have already cut that 20 percent. This is a function that generates $460 million a year in revenues. I think that we need to foster energy security. We are not arguing about giving the money for the native American education programs. This gives about $153 per child to schools to have enrichment programs for Indian children. We agree on both sides that this needs to be done. The question is where to get the money. We are going to have a Coburn amendment that is in title II, so it cannot be done immediately, but the Coburn amendment will do essentially the same thing, except it takes the money out of Forest Service administrative expenses. Because of the spend-out rate we only need to take $10 million from forest administration to provide the $52 million in the Coburn amendment to provide for the Indian education. I think it is important that we provide the funds for Indian education, but I think it is also very important that we use the financing mechanism provided in the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment, recognizing that you will get an opportunity shortly to vote yes on the Coburn amendment to take care of the Indian education, but the source of funding would be far less serious in its impact on the policies of the United States. Again, ``no'' on Obey, and very shortly when we get into title II, we will be able to vote for the Indian education with the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment that is coming up for a vote immediately, knowing that you can vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment to accomplish the same objective. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, noes 282, not voting 9, as follows: [Roll No. 501] AYES--143 Abercrombie Andrews Baesler Baldacci Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bereuter Berman Bishop Bonior Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Cardin Clay Clayton Clyburn Coburn Coleman Collins (IL) Conyers de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Flake Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gonzalez Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hayworth Hinchey Hoyer Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Matsui McDermott McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Minge Mink Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Pelosi Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Rangel Reed Richardson Rivers Roemer Rose Roth Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Towns Tucker Velazquez Vento Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Woolsey Wyden Yates Young (AK) NOES--282 Allard Archer Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hilliard Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson-Lee Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Manzullo Martini Mascara McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Payne (VA) Peterson (FL) Petri Pickett Pombo Porter Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Riggs Roberts Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Torricelli Traficant Upton Visclosky Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Wynn Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--9 Ackerman Bono Collins (MI) Fields (TX) Green Hefner Moakley Reynolds Tauzin {time} 1620 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against. Messrs. DAVIS, FRELINGHUYSEN, VOLKMER, and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. amendment offered by mr. gallegly Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Gallegly: Page 34, line 24, strike ``$69,232,000'' of which (1) $65,705,000 shall be'' and insert ``$52,405,000, to remain''. Page 34, line 25, strike ``technical assistance'' and all that follows through ``controls, and'' on line 1 of page 35. Page 35, strike lines 11 and 12 and insert: ``272): Provided''. Page 35, line 25, strike ``funding:'' and all that follows through line 23 on page 36 and insert ``funding.''. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. [[Page H 6969]] I am also offering this amendment with the support of the ranking member, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. My amendment, quite simply, would cut $16.8 million for funding of the obsolete Office of Territorial and International Affairs and its associated programs. The termination of this one Office will result in a 7-year savings of $120 million. In the previous Congress, a number of my colleagues joined me in cosponsoring legislation to abolish the office which formerly administered islands with appointed Governors and High Commissioners. This should have taken effect last October when the United Nations terminated the U.S. administered trusteeship. Earlier this year, Secretary Babbitt formally signaled that it was time to turn the lights out at the OTIA. As a result of this the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee conducted an extensive review and held hearings to reexamine existing policies affecting these island areas and also concluded that now was the time to terminate this Office. Subsequently, the subcommittee as well as the full Resources Committee passed H.R. 1332 with overwhelming bipartisan support. We expect to bring this legislation to the House floor very soon. Finally, during our hearings, Gov. Roy L. Schneider of the Virgin Islands testified that ``abolishing the Office will save the Federal Government money and will not harm the territories.'' The bottom line here, my colleagues, is that we have an opportunity to end a program which was begun when Alaska and Hawaii were territories and save the taxpayer $17 million. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend Mr. Regula, for his willingness to work with me on this effort. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to join in a substantive action to streamline the Federal Government, advance self- governance, and save taxpayer funds. I urge passage of the amendment. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the committee mark already poses a 22.5-percent reduction that is already in the bill for territorial programs. In addition, we have eliminated the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs. The bill takes the first steps. These are additional steps being proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. I urge that we adopt the amendment. I think that the Territorial Office is an anachronism in this period. It saves a considerable amount of money. I think it would be an excellent amendment and an excellent thing for us to accept. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr YATES. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that require answers. For example, we are told that in eliminating the territories' administrative fund, the Secretary of the Interior continues to be responsible for nearly $2 billion; the current Treasury balance is $310 million; that the future funding mandatory is $1,603,000,000. What happens to that money? Under his amendment, what would happen to that money? Can the gentleman answer my question, or can somebody on that side answer the question? The Secretary now has $2 billion belonging to the territories, for which he is responsible. There is $310 million in the current Treasury balance. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the proponent of this amendment, what happens to the almost $2 billion which is now with the Secretary of the Interior, which he is holding in trust for the territories? Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to try to respond. We still have 25 people in the inspector general's office that are prepared to administer those funds. We no longer need the OTIA to continue to provide that service. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman, then, to be saying that the administration of the territories will be moved to the inspector general's office? Mr. GALLEGLY. Only for the purpose of auditing the funds. Mr. YATES. Who will have the responsibility of supervising the territories, Mr. Chairman, until they have their freedom? Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, what the Secretary of the Interior has done is terminated the Office of Assistant Secretary of Territorial and Insular Affairs. In doing so, he is placing part of the responsibility to his Assistant Secretary for Budget and Planning. Within the Office of Budget and Planning, I am told that under the Deputy Assistant Secretary and further down the line there, he is going to establish an office which is called the director that is supposed to be keeping an eye, at least on behalf of the Secretary, on whatever is left to do with the territories. What we are trying to do here, if I might respond to the gentleman, the Secretary of Interior made an announcement based on our hearing that he was going to terminate the entire Office of Territorial Affairs. I assume that he is going to do it directly under the auspices of his office and assistants. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, however, I do not know how this would correct that situation. In other words, what the gentleman has been saying is the Secretary of the Interior has just practically relieved himself of administering the territories. Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the only thing I would like to say is that we no longer have trust territories. What we do have are elected Governors, democratically elected Governors of these territories. We are absolutely convinced that the territories really should have the right, and we have the confidence that they have the ability to self-govern. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, to respond further to him, Mr. Chairman, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshalls, and the Republic of Palau, are basically independent. Basically whatever funding Congress provides for them as part of the compact agreement is administered directly from the Secretary's office. I assume that it now falls in the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Budget. {time} 1630 Mr. YATES. The gentleman from American Samoa has just said the Secretary of the Interior has moved responsibility for the Territories to the Office of Planning and Budget. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Do I understand that your amendment will move supervision of the Territories, such as remains, from the Office of Planning and Budget in the Secretary of the Interior to the Office of the Inspector General? Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it does not, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. Mr. YATES. Where does it go, then? If it is not to remain in the Office of Planning and Budget, who will have supervision? Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield further, we are in a new era, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. We no longer are operating the way we have for the last many years. These Territories have elected Governors and legislators. They have the ability, and the time has come, as the Secretary has said, to allow them their own ability to self-govern. With the exception of the Northern Marianas, there is a Delegate to the House of Representatives, as is the case with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Every one of the Territories, with the exception of the Northern Marianas, has a Delegate in this body, and the Northern Marianas has a democratically elected governor. Mr. YATES. I continue to be concerned about the administration of the funding. Even though they are now self-governing, what happens in the even that there is a significant financial loss? Mr. GALLEGLY. As I said to the gentleman, they do have representation [[Page H 6970]] here in this body in the form of Delegates and representation in the committee. I do not see that as a problem. The Secretary of the Interior himself says the time has come to turn out the lights, and I am using his quote. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Congressman Gallegly's amendment to title I of H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Committee on Resources had approved by voice vote an authorization bill (H.R. 1332) which will, among other things, delete the position of Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs, terminate funding for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, terminate funding for four territorial assistance programs, provide multiyear funding for the territory of American Samoa, and add procedural improvements for the relocation of the people of Rongelap. H.R. 1332 will save the U.S. Government in excess of $100 million over the next 7 years. Regrettably, the Appropriations Committee has chosen not to accept the approach adopted by the Resources Committee. Earlier this year the Secretary of the Interior announced that he was going to close the Office of Territorial and International Affairs, within the Department of the Interior. Later, as the details became available, it became apparent that the administration wanted only to downgrade the office and reduce its size to approximately 25 people. Given that the territory of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are the only territories in which OTIA is actively involved, and given the increased level of self-autonomy already provided to the territories, I submit that 25 people is much too large a staff for this office, and believe it should be terminated or cut substantially. While the four assistance programs contained in the President's budget and the appropriations bill have been useful in the past, the time has come to terminate these programs as well, and move forward in our relations with the territories. Mr. Chairman, the Gallegly amendment is consistent with the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 and consistent with the actions of the authorizing committee this year. In effect, the authorizing committee, and the full House are moving in one direction on these issues, while the Appropriations Committee is moving in another. The Gallegly amendment cuts Federal spending, reduces Government bureaucracy, and moves the administration of the U.S. insular areas toward greater self-autonomy. Chairman Elton Gallegly and I have been working on an authorizing bill for the territories all year. Our approach has been approved by the Resources Committee, and will be a significant change in insular policy for our Government. This change has been a long time in coming, but the time has come. Mr. Chairman, Congress' move toward reduced Federal spending is causing significant pain throughout our Government. I am pleased that insular policy is one area in which the authorizing committee has achieved substantial bipartisan agreement. Insular policy is not an area followed closely by most of us, but those of us who work in the area see this as a positive change, and I urge my colleagues to support the Gallegly amendment and conform the appropriations bill to the budget resolution and the action of the authorizing committee. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. The amendment was agreed to. amendment offered by mrs. vucanovich Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Vucanovich: On page 33 line 17 strike ``67,145,000'' and in lieu thereof insert ``$75,145,000'' and on line 18 strike ``65,100,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$73,100,000''. Mrs. VUCANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Nevada? There was no objection. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores $8 million for the Pyramid Lake water rights settlement. Funds available from a previous amendment which reduced funding from the territorial assistance account is sufficient to offset this amendment. This water rights settlement is very important to the constituents within my congressional district. The final payment for the Pyramid Lake settlement is due next year, at which time an agreement will be implemented to supply much-needed water to the Reno-Sparks area. It is my understanding that the committee intends to fully fund this program in time to consummate this important water rights agreement. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side has no objection to this amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. This is an obligation of the U.S. Government. We have freed up the funds to do it because we are on a very tight budget. We are pleased that we are able to accept the amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the chairman very much. I urge the acceptance of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. The amendment was agreed to. Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Miller of California Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 32 printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified as set forth in the amendment I have at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment and report the modification. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert $14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``$14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$200,854,000''. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert ``$14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 17, after line 26, insert the following: For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501-2514), $5,000,000. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$195,854,000''. Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified. There was no objection. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be supported by all Members who care about our national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and public lands. This is an amendment that should be supported by those who care about our parks and outdoor recreation opportunities in our urban areas. No doubt about it, this amendment directly benefits people in every congressional district in this country. The land and water conservation fund is one of the most popular and successful programs that our government has run. Funded by a portion of [[Page H 6971]] the oil and gas revenues generated from leasing Federal lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, the land and water conservation fund helps to meet the increasingly heavy demand for hunting, fishing, and recreation areas, protects outstanding resources, and preserves the Nation's natural and historical heritage. In addition to Federal land acquisitions, the fund provides for direct grants to States for parks, open space and outdoor recreational facilities. Since 1965, over 37,000 State and local grants have been awarded, totaling $3.2 billion. The States and localities have matched this amount dollar for dollar to acquire $2.3 million acres of park land and open space and to develop more than 24,000 recreation sites. In fiscal 1996 there will be $11 billion in this trust fund, yet unappropriated for a lot of political reasons, but unfortunately the short fund, the recreational needs of this country. My amendment would fund the Land and Water Conservation Program at the same levels that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1995. In addition, my amendment provides for $5 million to fund the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. The current bill provides no funding for this program. My amendment would provide an increase of $183 million over the $51 million which is provided in the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The increased funds for land and water conservation provided in this amendment are offset by a corresponding $183 million reduction in the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development fund. It is true that the budget resolution which Congress has adopted calls for a 7-year freeze on Federal land acquisitions, but I would remind my colleagues that this House also had voted to abolish the Department of Energy, and yet the bill before us today would provide Department of Energy funding for fossil fuel research to the tune of $384 million. It is my understanding that this research appropriation greatly in excess of the $220 million level which the Committee on Science has authorized in H.R. 1816. By contrast, my amendment would bring the DOE spending within the Committee on Science limits by allowing $195 million for DOE's fossil research programs. This amendment presents a very real question of priorities. In my view, the national wildlife refuges, the national forests, the public lands and the urban park areas outweigh the need for the excessive and above the level the Committee on Science recommends for spending on DOE research for coal, oil and gas, research which can and should be done by those industries without these Federal subsidies. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment ought to be considered in the context of the debate on the Endangered Species Act and the private property rights. Members recently have received a July 10 ``Dear Colleague'' on the recent ``Sweet Home'' Supreme Court decision on the Endangered Species Act. In that ``Dear Colleague,'' the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, and five other Members state that if we are to have wildlife refuges and sanctuaries, we should go back to the right way of obtaining them, buy them or pay them for the use of the land for refuges. We will debate the merits of the Endangered Species Act at length when that legislation is reported to the floor. But what we must understand, that Members cannot continue to claim that they think the right way to provide for these lands is to pay for those private properties, which it is, and then not provide the money to do so when these lands are so important to helping our urban areas, our suburban areas and our rural areas meet the demands for recreation and for public space and to meet the needs of both endangered species and habitat. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a priority list of lands that include bear habitat within the Kodiak National Refuge, the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois; preserve the natural water flow patterns for the critical Everglades National Park in Florida; to promote the outdoor recreation of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York; to protect the historical integrity of the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania; to enhance the scenic and natural values of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in Los Angeles, the important national forests of the greater Yellowstone area in Montana; to help protect the salmon streams and the national forests in Oregon and Washington; and to provide resources to those urban areas who are trying to reclaim the recreational opportunities for their youth in cities throughout the country that are trying to bring back the streets, a very successful program where again local government has sought to participate far in excess of the moneys that are available, and without these moneys they simply will not be able to take care of those urban resources and to fully fund the backlog of acquisition and problems that we have. We have people who are inholders who want to get rid of their private lands, who want the Government to buy those lands. We have management problems created in some cases by those, but there is no money. This is the great backlog that we continue to discuss in this Congress where we continue to add to it. Hopefully we will not continue to add to it in the new Congress, but we ought to start getting rid of it out of fairness to those landholders and those people who are concerned about the integrity of our natural resource system. {time} 1645 So those are the priorities. The Congress can choose, as this bill does, to force feed energy research in oil and gas and coal far beyond the recommendation of the Committee on Science, or we can take that excess force feeding of those moneys and apply them to very high- priority items throughout the entire country to protect and preserve the environment, to protect and preserve our national parks, to protect and preserve our national forests, and to expand and protect and preserve the recreational opportunities for our citizens in our inner cities and suburban communities and small towns across the country. That is the choice that this amendment presents. It is neutrally funded. It costs no more money than to force feed this energy research. I would hope my colleagues would choose their local community that is requesting these funds. I would hope they would choose their local counties. I would hope they would choose their local States and the gems of the natural resource system of this country, the national parks, the national wilderness, and the national refuge system of the United States. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, so the Members understand the issue here clearly, this has an appeal, but let me say that the House-passed budget resolution that was adopted here some weeks ago, provided a 5-year moratorium on land acquisition, because when we buy land, we have to take care of it. If we buy land, it means more people, it means more of everything. We are talking about trying to get to a balanced budget in this Nation in 7 years. We cannot get to a balanced budget by buying more than we can take care of. That is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on land acquisition. This would scuttle that moratorium totally and go back to business as usual. The statement was made that we are force feeding programs in energy research. Let me tell my colleagues again, we have cut back considerably, but we have contractual obligations. We have a number of projects in fossil energy research that have contracts with the private sector. The private sector is putting up anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the money, which means that they believe that these will be successful. I think it is a big mistake in terms of national policy to cut back any further on fossil energy research. We are going to downsize it. We are going to get down to the numbers of the authorizing committee, maybe not as quickly as they would but we are headed that way. But we have to recognize our contractual obligations. If we suddenly pull our part of it out, we are subject to lawsuits for failure to perform on contracts that we have made. [[Page H 6972]] Let me also tell my colleagues that we did put in $50 million in an emergency fund for land acquisition. We recognize that there may be parcels of land that become available that we should take advantage of. So, we do have a cushion in the bill, in spite of the fact that the Committee on the Budget and the budget we passed called for a moratorium on land acquisition. The use of that money for land acquisition is subject to the reprogramming, so it has to come back, in effect, to the appropriate committees. The reason we reduced land acquisition was to fund operations. The money that might have otherwise been spent on land acquisition is put into the operations of the parks. We actually increased the operation money in the parks over 1995. We want to keep the parks open. We want to keep the forests open. As I said at the outset, these are must-do's. We must keep the facilities available to the public and therefore we have flat-funded them and used that money for the operations that we normally would have put in land acquisition, because we have a responsible number on fossil energy research. I think what we have done represents a balance. It represents the will of the House as reflected in the budget adopted here. It takes care of operations, and I do not think we ought to tamper with it. These are nice to do. It would be nice to go out and buy more land. It would be nice to fund the UPARR Program, but we cannot do it all when we have a 10-percent cut and we can look forward to more next year. We need to avoid doing things that have substantial downstream costs or otherwise we cannot leave as a legacy for future generations a strong economy that would be generated by a balanced budget. Mrs MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, on that point about not wanting to saddle the Federal Government with the maintenance cost for new acquisitions, I understand that motivation prompted the Committee on the Budget, of which I am a member, to put a freeze on the purchase. But the fundamental principle of the land and water conservation fund, so far as I am acquainted with it, is that there are acquisitions made on a local level and that the maintenance and the care and the development of these lands are basically turned over to the counties and to the States for their assumption of that future responsibility. And all that the land and water conservation fund does is to provide the moneys for acquisition. So, we are not transferring. By approving this amendment, we would not be transferring a future cost to the Federal Government; is that not true? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman from Hawaii is absolutely correct on the UPARR portion, but that is a small part of this amendment. A great bulk of what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] proposes to take out of fossil energy research is going to land acquisition on the national parks and other land management agencies. A very small part of what his amendment would delete would go to the mission that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has described. For that much of it, the gentlewoman is correct. But to put over $200 million in land acquisition, obviously, has to generate very substantial maintenance costs downstream for the U.S. Government and that is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on additional land acquisition and we tried to respond to the House-passed budget. (Mrs. MINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], because I feel that the set aside that we so wisely did in putting aside these oil exploration funds into this land and water conservation fund was for the future use and acquisition of these lands, which are the precious acquisitions for the entire country. It is not for one particular State of locale; it is acquisitions that go to the total assets of the United States. So I rise in very strong support of this amendment and I hope that the Members will agree and I yield to the offeror of this amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] raised the question, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] raised the question, about maintenance costs. in many instances, the land that is in the backlog waiting to be acquired is held by private landowners in the middle of a national forest, on the edge of a national forest, or surrounded on two sides or three sides or four sides by a national forest. These people want out. They are encumbered by the fact that the forest is there. The Forest Service or the Park Service or the Refuge Service would reduce their operational costs and administrative costs because of these in-holdings. These people in many cases have been standing in line for years after year after year. We have heard about them. And this committee is struggling. I do not doubt what they try to do every year. This committee has struggled to try to meet that demand. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and I have sat in our committee and continued to make sure that they never whittle the backlog down. the fact is, the backlog exists. I think that with the new Congress, the backlog is about to not be added to, if I hear what is going on in our committee correctly. But we owe it to those people who are waiting to have their lands purchased. And there is money available, but there is not if we choose to use it in the Department of Energy fossil fuel research; again, which many of these companies can do on their own and have the availability to do. It is a question of priorities. Let us understand that in many instances, this is about reducing administrative costs in Park Service units, in National Park Services, in wildlife refuge units. So, it is not all about that. This would give, obviously, the Forest Service and the Committee on Appropriations the ability to set priorities, but let us get rid of some of this backlog. It is not fair to these people to just leave them hanging there as we have purchased all the land around them. I would hope that we would support the amendment. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to a question from me, is not it true that this backlog that the gentleman speaks of are already acquisitions that the Congress has already acted upon to some extent? It is not as though we are coming in with a new acquisition, a new park idea or some new enhancement of our environment. These are items that have already been set down, but for a variety of reasons, the land and water conservation fund has not been tapped to do this purchase. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. Many of these properties are subject to congressional designation. Many these properties have a cloud on their title in one fashion or another because of what has taken place around them. And the question is do we start to whittle down that backlog? Let us understand something here. There is $11 billion in the land and water conservation fund and the agreement was with the American people that we would allow oil drilling off of the coast of this country and we would use those resources to add to the great resource base of this country for recreation and for public use. That promise was never kept; not by any Congress, not by any administration. It is a little bit of the kind of fraud that we have sometimes around the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund. We put the money in there and we say this is going to go for airport safety or this is going to go for improved highways. But then somehow this Congress starts dipping their fingers into this trust fund or one administration or the other wants to make the budget deficit smaller than it does. Who are the victims? The victims are the people who paid for the gasoline that expected better roads and safer roads. The victims are the people who bought an airline ticket and expected safer airlines. The victims are the people who agreed to have this oil explored [[Page H 6973]] off their coast and said that the tradeoff will be that we will create this trust fund. We have been robbing this trust fund for years. Now all we are suggesting is that we authorize them to spend some of the $11 billion. I do not think the Committee on Appropriations in the last few years has spent more than $100 million out of the trust fund for acquisition. That is how you get a backlog. You lie to the American people. You lie to the American people. All of these things that are on this list for acquisition are because Members of Congress thought they were terribly important and voted to pass them. We ought to keep faith with the American people, faith with the budget process, and vote for the Miller amendment. It is a hell of a good deal. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would add $184 million for land acquisitions for preservation of our natural resources. The Miller amendment attempts to restore the land and water conservation fund [LWCF] to fiscal year 1995 levels, through decreases in fossil energy research to authorized levels set forth by the Science Committee. There is $11.2 billion surplus in the Treasury for the LWCF. The Miller amendment appropriates a mere 2 percent of this surplus. The LWCF has been essential to the conservation in perpetuity of lands for recreational use since 1965. Under LWCF, local communities and States have the opportunity, through the fund's 50/50 matching grants, to directly invest in parks and recreation in local areas. A modest Federal role in the LWCF provides States and local officials primary responsibility and flexibility for such land acquisition and development projects made possible by the fund. The reduction in fiscal year 1996 appropriations out of the LWCF represents a serious threat to the promotion of America's national and historical heritage. My State acquired under LWCF Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, the very first refuge for forest birds in the country and a vital part of Hawaii's battle against an endangered species crisis. Of the 128 bird species that originally nested in the Hawaiian Islands, 58 have disappeared and 32 are on the endangered species list. Habitat for endangered waterbirds has been protected by the LWCF at the Kealia National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui, which consists of 700 acres of wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Service, through the LWCF, has worked with a private landowner to secure the 164-acre James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, which contains habitat supporting 35 species of birds making up the largest population of waterbirds in Hawaii. The LWCF funded the Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge in the Koolau Mountain range, which is on its way to being the first actively managed habitat for Hawaiian endangered and indigenous tree snails, birds, bats, and plants. The National Park Service has used the LWCF to augment Hawaii's two major national parks--Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island and Haleakala National Park on the Island of Maui. Since 1965, the LWCF has funded more than 37,000 projects with more than half of these projects invested in urban and suburban areas. To keep the fund at the level in H.R. 1977 would be to rob countless communities across the Nation of the ability to continue developing projects for which substantial sums have been invested, good faith commitments have been put into place with willing landowners, and timetables have been congressionally authorized. I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in favor of the Miller amendment to restore funding for land and water conservation fund acquisitions for purposes of conservation. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, but enthusiastically, rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Much of what the gentleman said is true, but let us keep in mind that these properties that we were supposed to be purchasing were set off limits by another Congress. In fact, if we look at the GAO report, which I requested with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], that was reported in 1995, we purchased in 1993, through the agencies, a little over 203,000 acres of land. The Forest Service purchased 72,000; the LM 27,000; the Fish and Wildlife, 82,000; the National Park Service, 22,000. What we have done in the past, and I will respectfully say, we have now hopefully addressed that issue with a commission that will look at our parks. We hope to come forth with another recommendation that we do not constantly create these units without proper scientific research and input. Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree that there is $11 billion in the fund to buy these properties. We have not. We have used them. All administrations, including this one, have used these moneys to balance the budget, or other purposes than what they were collected for. But more than that, we have stopped drilling off shore too. There is no drilling taking place in the United States, other than in the Mexican gulf. There is a little off of Alaska. There is none around the United States and I do not think anybody here is advocating that. None in Florida. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the gentleman from Ohio said that we did on this side, I am saying this for our Members, agreed to a budget target to balance it by a certain time. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to request, respectfully, we vote no on the gentleman's amendment, although much of his argument is correct as to how this has been misused. But I do believe if we want to reach that target, we should reject the amendment, support the chairman of the committee, and go forth with our business. {time} 1700 Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. You know, over and over again we have heard Members of the 104th Congress speaking very vocally, obviously very enthusiastically, in favor of protecting private property rights, and I do the same myself. But we have heard them say if you want to protect endangered species living on private lands, then buy the land. In fact, I got this interesting dear colleague letter from people on both sides of the aisle really saying the same thing. Well, this House has passed legislation requiring that the Federal Government purchases property at a landowners' request if the Government impacts its value more than 50 percent. But here we are, we have this bill which is just gutting the very account that would allow us to acquire land. So I would say to Members who are concerned about private property rights, I would say let us put our money where our mouths are. There are numerous examples of property owners ready, willing to sell their land to the Federal Government so that we can protect fish and wildlife. In Oregon, we have landowners along the Siletz and Nestucca Rivers who want to sell some of this region's most productive wetlands in order to provide habitat for bald eagles, snowy white plovers, and at- risk of salmon. That is great. We have a willing seller, a willing buyer, we have a good idea. Farther north on the Columbia River, the endangered Columbia white- tailed deer is a shining example where you have a good management plan, you can take the animal off the endangered species list. We need a little more land to make sure that that habitat is there. We have willing sellers. We need the money in this account to do that. Now, land acquisition, it seems to me, is a most cooperative, nonintrusive way to protect both the endangered species and private property rights. At a time when divisiveness has paralyzed many resources issues, land acquisition provides us with that win-win solution that we are all looking for. It is hypocritical to claim that you want to preserve the rights of private landowners or that you want to prevent species train wrecks, and then turn around and cut the funding for the land acquisition. If you colleagues support private property rights, and if you support the prevention of extinction of species, you have a great opportunity here. Vote ``yes'' on the Miller amendment. It is a win-win situation. Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in very strong support of the amendment by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I think it would be a very sad mistake for this new majority to miss an opportunity, and that opportunity is really to provide the preservation of some of our natural lands in this country. You know, these bills that we are looking at provide, and this particular [[Page H 6974]] legislation provides, opportunity to spend money on surveys and studies and administration. But, really, what do we leave the next generation? I tell you that we cannot do anything that would be more lasting for the next generation than to invest this small amount of money on preservation of lands, many of them endangered, throughout the United States. Let me speak from a personal standpoint. I and my family lived, and I grew up, in Miami, and I saw what happened to the Everglades there, how they became neglected and how we did not take the time to preserve that area. I now have the opportunity to represent central Florida, a beautiful area that has natural bodies of water and hundreds of lakes, and that area is endangered. You know, we have the Ocala National Forest to the north. The State has preserved some land around the urban areas. This area is impacted by tremendous growth, and we have the opportunity to acquire some land in a Federal-State partnership, and that money is not available, and that is sad and that is tragic because the same thing I saw happen as I grew up as a young man now is taking hundreds of millions, billions, of dollars to restore the Everglades. And because we did not make the investment that we needed, we may never get another chance. I have a photo of the area that I am talking about, the St. John's River, in my district, $15 million from the State, $15 million from the Federal. But we do not have a penny in this bill for land acquisition, and that is wrong, and it is wrong for this side of the aisle to reject this amendment. Because this should be a priority, and we will not get another chance to save these lands. So I urge my colleagues to look at this. A lot of the things we say here will not make any difference, but something we do here will make a big difference, and that big difference is preserving this land and these natural preserves for the future. We should be investing in that. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members in the entire House of Representatives, according to voting records, so I come here speaking not to spend money idly, not to spend money on pork projects, but to spend and make an investment in the future so we can leave a legacy for our children. So I strongly--I strongly advocate passage of this amendment. I had an amendment in here just to add a few more dollars to this, and I commend the gentleman for adding the many more dollars that can be well spent and well expended in the national interest, in the public interest and in the interest of our children. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman's statement, and I say to him, he need not worry, as I am sure he knows, about putting his conservative credentials at risk. The proposition on behalf of which he speaks is the most profoundly conservative proposition that could possi

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6967-H7008] [[Page H 6967]] {time} 1548 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The Committee resumed its sitting. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I look around this Chamber and as I think about the promises in January, the notion was to come here and to end business as usual, and that is in fact the intent of many of us in this Congress. Ofttimes it involves reaching across the aisle, listening to different arguments, and basing our support or our opposition not on previous partisan labels, but taking a look and carefully examining the problems one by one. That is why I am pleased to stand in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I represent a large portion of the Navajo Nation, that sovereign nation within the Sixth District of Arizona and reaching beyond the borders of Arizona to several other States. I am mindful of the fact that in our treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation, we have a variety of promises that were made well over a century ago. Now, I stand here in support of this amendment not to criticize my friends on this side of the aisle, who believe we can look for other sources of funding, but, instead, to underline the importance of upholding these treaty obligations and looking to educate the children of the native American tribes, for it is a sacred obligation we have, and it is a proper role of the Federal Government to move in that regard. So, for that reason, again, I stand in strong support of the amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New Mexico and Wisconsin and myself. I want to make the distinction that while we are asking our colleagues to reexamine and recommit to restoring the $81 million for the Indian education program, I want us to understand that this is not duplicative of the program that is already there. This really has a distinct value in and above that, and it is supplementary and not duplicative. It means these are programs going to public schools to enable 92 percent of all Indians who live in this country to get additional supplemental education. It is an opportunity to make sure that those young people, who are falling through the cracks academically, have an opportunity to be competitive and do well. Further, Mr. Chairman, I would think our colleagues would find it unacceptable that $81 million would get in the way of doing what we should be doing for the very first inhabitants of this country. Further, I think we would want to support education as being consistent with self-sufficiency. I see all of these reasons and others as to why we should want to restore this to its full amount, and not reduce it to a lesser amount than it is presently. Really, it should be increased. In the spirit of keeping the budget constraints, we are saying restore it to the $81 million. So it really is a thoughtful amendment that recognizes under the constraints that all programs have to adjust. I would ask that my colleagues across both sides of the aisle understand, this is an opportunity really that we can say to the native Americans, that we do care about them, and that education is important. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I think unfortunately we know very little about the whole issue of treaty keeping, and I want to congratulate my Republican colleague from Arizona, who understands that we have a sacred trust responsibility to keep treaties. These education funds are just a tiny little downpayment, shall we say, on the land that we enjoy, which we have in our trust because the Indian tribes signed treaties many years ago. My colleague from North Carolina mentioned that 92 percent of Indian children are affected by this funding, and that is absolutely true. We are told it is duplicative, but in fact the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools do not meet more than 8 percent of the Indian children's educational needs. We can indeed, and my colleague has spoken of that, change the poverty that has so impacted native Americans by making sure that we live up to our responsibility, our treaty responsibility, a treaty which we swore to uphold when we became Members of this body. We cannot abandon these native American children; we cannot abandon this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I congratulate the gentlewoman and her colleagues for having brought this amendment forward. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in favor of this very important amendment. I think that this legislation, absent the Obey amendment, would be morally bankrupt and fatally deficient for this Congress to pass. We have an absolute commitment, and we should always remind ourselves that no matter how expensive we may perceive education to be, ignorance costs more. I come from the city of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and I just know that my constituents support fully this country's continuing commitment to Indian education. I hope that we would favorably approve the Obey amendment. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment to keep our commitment and our trust obligations, and to thank her and her colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Richardson, for this amendment. I rise in support of it and hope the House will pass this amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is an opportunity. Education is important. More important, it is an opportunity to say the American Indian children are important and they should be included in our commitment to all Americans. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that the time be equally divided. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will manage 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will manage 5 minutes. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, I want to express my strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations. The amendment simply restores the badly needed funds for education of American Indians and Alaskan Native children in public schools. Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a downright tragedy that the Congress of the United States would take away money from our American Indian children's future to fund other programs like timber sales management. Mr. Chairman, I also want to make it clear that funding for title IX is not duplicative of BIA directed funding. Title IX funding is for children in public schools, while BIA funding is for Indian children in BIA or tribally operated schools. Mr. Chairman, as so eloquently stated in a letter by my good friend from Alaska and chairman of the House Committee on Resources, why do we continue to pick on those who simply cannot defend themselves, the children? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment and restore the funds needed for the education of American native and Alaskan Native children. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 6968]] Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear what is going to happen here. We will have a vote on the Obey amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment because it takes the money out of fossil energy research. We have already cut that 10 percent. It impacts heavily on States like Ohio, California, Indiana, Illinois, New York, places where we are doing research. It takes money out of the Bureau of Mines. We have already cut them back. We just leave them enough to close out. If we take any more money, they cannot even do that. It takes money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserves. We have already cut that 20 percent. This is a function that generates $460 million a year in revenues. I think that we need to foster energy security. We are not arguing about giving the money for the native American education programs. This gives about $153 per child to schools to have enrichment programs for Indian children. We agree on both sides that this needs to be done. The question is where to get the money. We are going to have a Coburn amendment that is in title II, so it cannot be done immediately, but the Coburn amendment will do essentially the same thing, except it takes the money out of Forest Service administrative expenses. Because of the spend-out rate we only need to take $10 million from forest administration to provide the $52 million in the Coburn amendment to provide for the Indian education. I think it is important that we provide the funds for Indian education, but I think it is also very important that we use the financing mechanism provided in the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment, recognizing that you will get an opportunity shortly to vote yes on the Coburn amendment to take care of the Indian education, but the source of funding would be far less serious in its impact on the policies of the United States. Again, ``no'' on Obey, and very shortly when we get into title II, we will be able to vote for the Indian education with the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment that is coming up for a vote immediately, knowing that you can vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment to accomplish the same objective. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, noes 282, not voting 9, as follows: [Roll No. 501] AYES--143 Abercrombie Andrews Baesler Baldacci Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bereuter Berman Bishop Bonior Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Cardin Clay Clayton Clyburn Coburn Coleman Collins (IL) Conyers de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Flake Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gonzalez Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hayworth Hinchey Hoyer Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Matsui McDermott McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Minge Mink Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Pelosi Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Rangel Reed Richardson Rivers Roemer Rose Roth Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Towns Tucker Velazquez Vento Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Woolsey Wyden Yates Young (AK) NOES--282 Allard Archer Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hilliard Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson-Lee Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Manzullo Martini Mascara McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Payne (VA) Peterson (FL) Petri Pickett Pombo Porter Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Riggs Roberts Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Torricelli Traficant Upton Visclosky Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Wynn Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--9 Ackerman Bono Collins (MI) Fields (TX) Green Hefner Moakley Reynolds Tauzin {time} 1620 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against. Messrs. DAVIS, FRELINGHUYSEN, VOLKMER, and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. amendment offered by mr. gallegly Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Gallegly: Page 34, line 24, strike ``$69,232,000'' of which (1) $65,705,000 shall be'' and insert ``$52,405,000, to remain''. Page 34, line 25, strike ``technical assistance'' and all that follows through ``controls, and'' on line 1 of page 35. Page 35, strike lines 11 and 12 and insert: ``272): Provided''. Page 35, line 25, strike ``funding:'' and all that follows through line 23 on page 36 and insert ``funding.''. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. [[Page H 6969]] I am also offering this amendment with the support of the ranking member, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. My amendment, quite simply, would cut $16.8 million for funding of the obsolete Office of Territorial and International Affairs and its associated programs. The termination of this one Office will result in a 7-year savings of $120 million. In the previous Congress, a number of my colleagues joined me in cosponsoring legislation to abolish the office which formerly administered islands with appointed Governors and High Commissioners. This should have taken effect last October when the United Nations terminated the U.S. administered trusteeship. Earlier this year, Secretary Babbitt formally signaled that it was time to turn the lights out at the OTIA. As a result of this the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee conducted an extensive review and held hearings to reexamine existing policies affecting these island areas and also concluded that now was the time to terminate this Office. Subsequently, the subcommittee as well as the full Resources Committee passed H.R. 1332 with overwhelming bipartisan support. We expect to bring this legislation to the House floor very soon. Finally, during our hearings, Gov. Roy L. Schneider of the Virgin Islands testified that ``abolishing the Office will save the Federal Government money and will not harm the territories.'' The bottom line here, my colleagues, is that we have an opportunity to end a program which was begun when Alaska and Hawaii were territories and save the taxpayer $17 million. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend Mr. Regula, for his willingness to work with me on this effort. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to join in a substantive action to streamline the Federal Government, advance self- governance, and save taxpayer funds. I urge passage of the amendment. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the committee mark already poses a 22.5-percent reduction that is already in the bill for territorial programs. In addition, we have eliminated the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs. The bill takes the first steps. These are additional steps being proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. I urge that we adopt the amendment. I think that the Territorial Office is an anachronism in this period. It saves a considerable amount of money. I think it would be an excellent amendment and an excellent thing for us to accept. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr YATES. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that require answers. For example, we are told that in eliminating the territories' administrative fund, the Secretary of the Interior continues to be responsible for nearly $2 billion; the current Treasury balance is $310 million; that the future funding mandatory is $1,603,000,000. What happens to that money? Under his amendment, what would happen to that money? Can the gentleman answer my question, or can somebody on that side answer the question? The Secretary now has $2 billion belonging to the territories, for which he is responsible. There is $310 million in the current Treasury balance. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the proponent of this amendment, what happens to the almost $2 billion which is now with the Secretary of the Interior, which he is holding in trust for the territories? Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to try to respond. We still have 25 people in the inspector general's office that are prepared to administer those funds. We no longer need the OTIA to continue to provide that service. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman, then, to be saying that the administration of the territories will be moved to the inspector general's office? Mr. GALLEGLY. Only for the purpose of auditing the funds. Mr. YATES. Who will have the responsibility of supervising the territories, Mr. Chairman, until they have their freedom? Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, what the Secretary of the Interior has done is terminated the Office of Assistant Secretary of Territorial and Insular Affairs. In doing so, he is placing part of the responsibility to his Assistant Secretary for Budget and Planning. Within the Office of Budget and Planning, I am told that under the Deputy Assistant Secretary and further down the line there, he is going to establish an office which is called the director that is supposed to be keeping an eye, at least on behalf of the Secretary, on whatever is left to do with the territories. What we are trying to do here, if I might respond to the gentleman, the Secretary of Interior made an announcement based on our hearing that he was going to terminate the entire Office of Territorial Affairs. I assume that he is going to do it directly under the auspices of his office and assistants. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, however, I do not know how this would correct that situation. In other words, what the gentleman has been saying is the Secretary of the Interior has just practically relieved himself of administering the territories. Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the only thing I would like to say is that we no longer have trust territories. What we do have are elected Governors, democratically elected Governors of these territories. We are absolutely convinced that the territories really should have the right, and we have the confidence that they have the ability to self-govern. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, to respond further to him, Mr. Chairman, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshalls, and the Republic of Palau, are basically independent. Basically whatever funding Congress provides for them as part of the compact agreement is administered directly from the Secretary's office. I assume that it now falls in the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Budget. {time} 1630 Mr. YATES. The gentleman from American Samoa has just said the Secretary of the Interior has moved responsibility for the Territories to the Office of Planning and Budget. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Do I understand that your amendment will move supervision of the Territories, such as remains, from the Office of Planning and Budget in the Secretary of the Interior to the Office of the Inspector General? Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it does not, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. Mr. YATES. Where does it go, then? If it is not to remain in the Office of Planning and Budget, who will have supervision? Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield further, we are in a new era, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. We no longer are operating the way we have for the last many years. These Territories have elected Governors and legislators. They have the ability, and the time has come, as the Secretary has said, to allow them their own ability to self-govern. With the exception of the Northern Marianas, there is a Delegate to the House of Representatives, as is the case with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Every one of the Territories, with the exception of the Northern Marianas, has a Delegate in this body, and the Northern Marianas has a democratically elected governor. Mr. YATES. I continue to be concerned about the administration of the funding. Even though they are now self-governing, what happens in the even that there is a significant financial loss? Mr. GALLEGLY. As I said to the gentleman, they do have representation [[Page H 6970]] here in this body in the form of Delegates and representation in the committee. I do not see that as a problem. The Secretary of the Interior himself says the time has come to turn out the lights, and I am using his quote. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Congressman Gallegly's amendment to title I of H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Committee on Resources had approved by voice vote an authorization bill (H.R. 1332) which will, among other things, delete the position of Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs, terminate funding for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, terminate funding for four territorial assistance programs, provide multiyear funding for the territory of American Samoa, and add procedural improvements for the relocation of the people of Rongelap. H.R. 1332 will save the U.S. Government in excess of $100 million over the next 7 years. Regrettably, the Appropriations Committee has chosen not to accept the approach adopted by the Resources Committee. Earlier this year the Secretary of the Interior announced that he was going to close the Office of Territorial and International Affairs, within the Department of the Interior. Later, as the details became available, it became apparent that the administration wanted only to downgrade the office and reduce its size to approximately 25 people. Given that the territory of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are the only territories in which OTIA is actively involved, and given the increased level of self-autonomy already provided to the territories, I submit that 25 people is much too large a staff for this office, and believe it should be terminated or cut substantially. While the four assistance programs contained in the President's budget and the appropriations bill have been useful in the past, the time has come to terminate these programs as well, and move forward in our relations with the territories. Mr. Chairman, the Gallegly amendment is consistent with the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 and consistent with the actions of the authorizing committee this year. In effect, the authorizing committee, and the full House are moving in one direction on these issues, while the Appropriations Committee is moving in another. The Gallegly amendment cuts Federal spending, reduces Government bureaucracy, and moves the administration of the U.S. insular areas toward greater self-autonomy. Chairman Elton Gallegly and I have been working on an authorizing bill for the territories all year. Our approach has been approved by the Resources Committee, and will be a significant change in insular policy for our Government. This change has been a long time in coming, but the time has come. Mr. Chairman, Congress' move toward reduced Federal spending is causing significant pain throughout our Government. I am pleased that insular policy is one area in which the authorizing committee has achieved substantial bipartisan agreement. Insular policy is not an area followed closely by most of us, but those of us who work in the area see this as a positive change, and I urge my colleagues to support the Gallegly amendment and conform the appropriations bill to the budget resolution and the action of the authorizing committee. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. The amendment was agreed to. amendment offered by mrs. vucanovich Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Vucanovich: On page 33 line 17 strike ``67,145,000'' and in lieu thereof insert ``$75,145,000'' and on line 18 strike ``65,100,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$73,100,000''. Mrs. VUCANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Nevada? There was no objection. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores $8 million for the Pyramid Lake water rights settlement. Funds available from a previous amendment which reduced funding from the territorial assistance account is sufficient to offset this amendment. This water rights settlement is very important to the constituents within my congressional district. The final payment for the Pyramid Lake settlement is due next year, at which time an agreement will be implemented to supply much-needed water to the Reno-Sparks area. It is my understanding that the committee intends to fully fund this program in time to consummate this important water rights agreement. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side has no objection to this amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. This is an obligation of the U.S. Government. We have freed up the funds to do it because we are on a very tight budget. We are pleased that we are able to accept the amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the chairman very much. I urge the acceptance of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. The amendment was agreed to. Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Miller of California Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 32 printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified as set forth in the amendment I have at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment and report the modification. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert $14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``$14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$200,854,000''. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert ``$14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 17, after line 26, insert the following: For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501-2514), $5,000,000. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$195,854,000''. Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified. There was no objection. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be supported by all Members who care about our national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and public lands. This is an amendment that should be supported by those who care about our parks and outdoor recreation opportunities in our urban areas. No doubt about it, this amendment directly benefits people in every congressional district in this country. The land and water conservation fund is one of the most popular and successful programs that our government has run. Funded by a portion of [[Page H 6971]] the oil and gas revenues generated from leasing Federal lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, the land and water conservation fund helps to meet the increasingly heavy demand for hunting, fishing, and recreation areas, protects outstanding resources, and preserves the Nation's natural and historical heritage. In addition to Federal land acquisitions, the fund provides for direct grants to States for parks, open space and outdoor recreational facilities. Since 1965, over 37,000 State and local grants have been awarded, totaling $3.2 billion. The States and localities have matched this amount dollar for dollar to acquire $2.3 million acres of park land and open space and to develop more than 24,000 recreation sites. In fiscal 1996 there will be $11 billion in this trust fund, yet unappropriated for a lot of political reasons, but unfortunately the short fund, the recreational needs of this country. My amendment would fund the Land and Water Conservation Program at the same levels that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1995. In addition, my amendment provides for $5 million to fund the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. The current bill provides no funding for this program. My amendment would provide an increase of $183 million over the $51 million which is provided in the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The increased funds for land and water conservation provided in this amendment are offset by a corresponding $183 million reduction in the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development fund. It is true that the budget resolution which Congress has adopted calls for a 7-year freeze on Federal land acquisitions, but I would remind my colleagues that this House also had voted to abolish the Department of Energy, and yet the bill before us today would provide Department of Energy funding for fossil fuel research to the tune of $384 million. It is my understanding that this research appropriation greatly in excess of the $220 million level which the Committee on Science has authorized in H.R. 1816. By contrast, my amendment would bring the DOE spending within the Committee on Science limits by allowing $195 million for DOE's fossil research programs. This amendment presents a very real question of priorities. In my view, the national wildlife refuges, the national forests, the public lands and the urban park areas outweigh the need for the excessive and above the level the Committee on Science recommends for spending on DOE research for coal, oil and gas, research which can and should be done by those industries without these Federal subsidies. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment ought to be considered in the context of the debate on the Endangered Species Act and the private property rights. Members recently have received a July 10 ``Dear Colleague'' on the recent ``Sweet Home'' Supreme Court decision on the Endangered Species Act. In that ``Dear Colleague,'' the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, and five other Members state that if we are to have wildlife refuges and sanctuaries, we should go back to the right way of obtaining them, buy them or pay them for the use of the land for refuges. We will debate the merits of the Endangered Species Act at length when that legislation is reported to the floor. But what we must understand, that Members cannot continue to claim that they think the right way to provide for these lands is to pay for those private properties, which it is, and then not provide the money to do so when these lands are so important to helping our urban areas, our suburban areas and our rural areas meet the demands for recreation and for public space and to meet the needs of both endangered species and habitat. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a priority list of lands that include bear habitat within the Kodiak National Refuge, the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois; preserve the natural water flow patterns for the critical Everglades National Park in Florida; to promote the outdoor recreation of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York; to protect the historical integrity of the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania; to enhance the scenic and natural values of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in Los Angeles, the important national forests of the greater Yellowstone area in Montana; to help protect the salmon streams and the national forests in Oregon and Washington; and to provide resources to those urban areas who are trying to reclaim the recreational opportunities for their youth in cities throughout the country that are trying to bring back the streets, a very successful program where again local government has sought to participate far in excess of the moneys that are available, and without these moneys they simply will not be able to take care of those urban resources and to fully fund the backlog of acquisition and problems that we have. We have people who are inholders who want to get rid of their private lands, who want the Government to buy those lands. We have management problems created in some cases by those, but there is no money. This is the great backlog that we continue to discuss in this Congress where we continue to add to it. Hopefully we will not continue to add to it in the new Congress, but we ought to start getting rid of it out of fairness to those landholders and those people who are concerned about the integrity of our natural resource system. {time} 1645 So those are the priorities. The Congress can choose, as this bill does, to force feed energy research in oil and gas and coal far beyond the recommendation of the Committee on Science, or we can take that excess force feeding of those moneys and apply them to very high- priority items throughout the entire country to protect and preserve the environment, to protect and preserve our national parks, to protect and preserve our national forests, and to expand and protect and preserve the recreational opportunities for our citizens in our inner cities and suburban communities and small towns across the country. That is the choice that this amendment presents. It is neutrally funded. It costs no more money than to force feed this energy research. I would hope my colleagues would choose their local community that is requesting these funds. I would hope they would choose their local counties. I would hope they would choose their local States and the gems of the natural resource system of this country, the national parks, the national wilderness, and the national refuge system of the United States. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, so the Members understand the issue here clearly, this has an appeal, but let me say that the House-passed budget resolution that was adopted here some weeks ago, provided a 5-year moratorium on land acquisition, because when we buy land, we have to take care of it. If we buy land, it means more people, it means more of everything. We are talking about trying to get to a balanced budget in this Nation in 7 years. We cannot get to a balanced budget by buying more than we can take care of. That is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on land acquisition. This would scuttle that moratorium totally and go back to business as usual. The statement was made that we are force feeding programs in energy research. Let me tell my colleagues again, we have cut back considerably, but we have contractual obligations. We have a number of projects in fossil energy research that have contracts with the private sector. The private sector is putting up anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the money, which means that they believe that these will be successful. I think it is a big mistake in terms of national policy to cut back any further on fossil energy research. We are going to downsize it. We are going to get down to the numbers of the authorizing committee, maybe not as quickly as they would but we are headed that way. But we have to recognize our contractual obligations. If we suddenly pull our part of it out, we are subject to lawsuits for failure to perform on contracts that we have made. [[Page H 6972]] Let me also tell my colleagues that we did put in $50 million in an emergency fund for land acquisition. We recognize that there may be parcels of land that become available that we should take advantage of. So, we do have a cushion in the bill, in spite of the fact that the Committee on the Budget and the budget we passed called for a moratorium on land acquisition. The use of that money for land acquisition is subject to the reprogramming, so it has to come back, in effect, to the appropriate committees. The reason we reduced land acquisition was to fund operations. The money that might have otherwise been spent on land acquisition is put into the operations of the parks. We actually increased the operation money in the parks over 1995. We want to keep the parks open. We want to keep the forests open. As I said at the outset, these are must-do's. We must keep the facilities available to the public and therefore we have flat-funded them and used that money for the operations that we normally would have put in land acquisition, because we have a responsible number on fossil energy research. I think what we have done represents a balance. It represents the will of the House as reflected in the budget adopted here. It takes care of operations, and I do not think we ought to tamper with it. These are nice to do. It would be nice to go out and buy more land. It would be nice to fund the UPARR Program, but we cannot do it all when we have a 10-percent cut and we can look forward to more next year. We need to avoid doing things that have substantial downstream costs or otherwise we cannot leave as a legacy for future generations a strong economy that would be generated by a balanced budget. Mrs MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, on that point about not wanting to saddle the Federal Government with the maintenance cost for new acquisitions, I understand that motivation prompted the Committee on the Budget, of which I am a member, to put a freeze on the purchase. But the fundamental principle of the land and water conservation fund, so far as I am acquainted with it, is that there are acquisitions made on a local level and that the maintenance and the care and the development of these lands are basically turned over to the counties and to the States for their assumption of that future responsibility. And all that the land and water conservation fund does is to provide the moneys for acquisition. So, we are not transferring. By approving this amendment, we would not be transferring a future cost to the Federal Government; is that not true? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman from Hawaii is absolutely correct on the UPARR portion, but that is a small part of this amendment. A great bulk of what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] proposes to take out of fossil energy research is going to land acquisition on the national parks and other land management agencies. A very small part of what his amendment would delete would go to the mission that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has described. For that much of it, the gentlewoman is correct. But to put over $200 million in land acquisition, obviously, has to generate very substantial maintenance costs downstream for the U.S. Government and that is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on additional land acquisition and we tried to respond to the House-passed budget. (Mrs. MINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], because I feel that the set aside that we so wisely did in putting aside these oil exploration funds into this land and water conservation fund was for the future use and acquisition of these lands, which are the precious acquisitions for the entire country. It is not for one particular State of locale; it is acquisitions that go to the total assets of the United States. So I rise in very strong support of this amendment and I hope that the Members will agree and I yield to the offeror of this amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] raised the question, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] raised the question, about maintenance costs. in many instances, the land that is in the backlog waiting to be acquired is held by private landowners in the middle of a national forest, on the edge of a national forest, or surrounded on two sides or three sides or four sides by a national forest. These people want out. They are encumbered by the fact that the forest is there. The Forest Service or the Park Service or the Refuge Service would reduce their operational costs and administrative costs because of these in-holdings. These people in many cases have been standing in line for years after year after year. We have heard about them. And this committee is struggling. I do not doubt what they try to do every year. This committee has struggled to try to meet that demand. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and I have sat in our committee and continued to make sure that they never whittle the backlog down. the fact is, the backlog exists. I think that with the new Congress, the backlog is about to not be added to, if I hear what is going on in our committee correctly. But we owe it to those people who are waiting to have their lands purchased. And there is money available, but there is not if we choose to use it in the Department of Energy fossil fuel research; again, which many of these companies can do on their own and have the availability to do. It is a question of priorities. Let us understand that in many instances, this is about reducing administrative costs in Park Service units, in National Park Services, in wildlife refuge units. So, it is not all about that. This would give, obviously, the Forest Service and the Committee on Appropriations the ability to set priorities, but let us get rid of some of this backlog. It is not fair to these people to just leave them hanging there as we have purchased all the land around them. I would hope that we would support the amendment. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to a question from me, is not it true that this backlog that the gentleman speaks of are already acquisitions that the Congress has already acted upon to some extent? It is not as though we are coming in with a new acquisition, a new park idea or some new enhancement of our environment. These are items that have already been set down, but for a variety of reasons, the land and water conservation fund has not been tapped to do this purchase. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. Many of these properties are subject to congressional designation. Many these properties have a cloud on their title in one fashion or another because of what has taken place around them. And the question is do we start to whittle down that backlog? Let us understand something here. There is $11 billion in the land and water conservation fund and the agreement was with the American people that we would allow oil drilling off of the coast of this country and we would use those resources to add to the great resource base of this country for recreation and for public use. That promise was never kept; not by any Congress, not by any administration. It is a little bit of the kind of fraud that we have sometimes around the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund. We put the money in there and we say this is going to go for airport safety or this is going to go for improved highways. But then somehow this Congress starts dipping their fingers into this trust fund or one administration or the other wants to make the budget deficit smaller than it does. Who are the victims? The victims are the people who paid for the gasoline that expected better roads and safer roads. The victims are the people who bought an airline ticket and expected safer airlines. The victims are the people who agreed to have this oil explored [[Page H 6973]] off their coast and said that the tradeoff will be that we will create this trust fund. We have been robbing this trust fund for years. Now all we are suggesting is that we authorize them to spend some of the $11 billion. I do not think the Committee on Appropriations in the last few years has spent more than $100 million out of the trust fund for acquisition. That is how you get a backlog. You lie to the American people. You lie to the American people. All of these things that are on this list for acquisition are because Members of Congress thought they were terribly important and voted to pass them. We ought to keep faith with the American people, faith with the budget process, and vote for the Miller amendment. It is a hell of a good deal. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would add $184 million for land acquisitions for preservation of our natural resources. The Miller amendment attempts to restore the land and water conservation fund [LWCF] to fiscal year 1995 levels, through decreases in fossil energy research to authorized levels set forth by the Science Committee. There is $11.2 billion surplus in the Treasury for the LWCF. The Miller amendment appropriates a mere 2 percent of this surplus. The LWCF has been essential to the conservation in perpetuity of lands for recreational use since 1965. Under LWCF, local communities and States have the opportunity, through the fund's 50/50 matching grants, to directly invest in parks and recreation in local areas. A modest Federal role in the LWCF provides States and local officials primary responsibility and flexibility for such land acquisition and development projects made possible by the fund. The reduction in fiscal year 1996 appropriations out of the LWCF represents a serious threat to the promotion of America's national and historical heritage. My State acquired under LWCF Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, the very first refuge for forest birds in the country and a vital part of Hawaii's battle against an endangered species crisis. Of the 128 bird species that originally nested in the Hawaiian Islands, 58 have disappeared and 32 are on the endangered species list. Habitat for endangered waterbirds has been protected by the LWCF at the Kealia National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui, which consists of 700 acres of wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Service, through the LWCF, has worked with a private landowner to secure the 164-acre James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, which contains habitat supporting 35 species of birds making up the largest population of waterbirds in Hawaii. The LWCF funded the Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge in the Koolau Mountain range, which is on its way to being the first actively managed habitat for Hawaiian endangered and indigenous tree snails, birds, bats, and plants. The National Park Service has used the LWCF to augment Hawaii's two major national parks--Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island and Haleakala National Park on the Island of Maui. Since 1965, the LWCF has funded more than 37,000 projects with more than half of these projects invested in urban and suburban areas. To keep the fund at the level in H.R. 1977 would be to rob countless communities across the Nation of the ability to continue developing projects for which substantial sums have been invested, good faith commitments have been put into place with willing landowners, and timetables have been congressionally authorized. I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in favor of the Miller amendment to restore funding for land and water conservation fund acquisitions for purposes of conservation. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, but enthusiastically, rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Much of what the gentleman said is true, but let us keep in mind that these properties that we were supposed to be purchasing were set off limits by another Congress. In fact, if we look at the GAO report, which I requested with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], that was reported in 1995, we purchased in 1993, through the agencies, a little over 203,000 acres of land. The Forest Service purchased 72,000; the LM 27,000; the Fish and Wildlife, 82,000; the National Park Service, 22,000. What we have done in the past, and I will respectfully say, we have now hopefully addressed that issue with a commission that will look at our parks. We hope to come forth with another recommendation that we do not constantly create these units without proper scientific research and input. Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree that there is $11 billion in the fund to buy these properties. We have not. We have used them. All administrations, including this one, have used these moneys to balance the budget, or other purposes than what they were collected for. But more than that, we have stopped drilling off shore too. There is no drilling taking place in the United States, other than in the Mexican gulf. There is a little off of Alaska. There is none around the United States and I do not think anybody here is advocating that. None in Florida. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the gentleman from Ohio said that we did on this side, I am saying this for our Members, agreed to a budget target to balance it by a certain time. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to request, respectfully, we vote no on the gentleman's amendment, although much of his argument is correct as to how this has been misused. But I do believe if we want to reach that target, we should reject the amendment, support the chairman of the committee, and go forth with our business. {time} 1700 Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. You know, over and over again we have heard Members of the 104th Congress speaking very vocally, obviously very enthusiastically, in favor of protecting private property rights, and I do the same myself. But we have heard them say if you want to protect endangered species living on private lands, then buy the land. In fact, I got this interesting dear colleague letter from people on both sides of the aisle really saying the same thing. Well, this House has passed legislation requiring that the Federal Government purchases property at a landowners' request if the Government impacts its value more than 50 percent. But here we are, we have this bill which is just gutting the very account that would allow us to acquire land. So I would say to Members who are concerned about private property rights, I would say let us put our money where our mouths are. There are numerous examples of property owners ready, willing to sell their land to the Federal Government so that we can protect fish and wildlife. In Oregon, we have landowners along the Siletz and Nestucca Rivers who want to sell some of this region's most productive wetlands in order to provide habitat for bald eagles, snowy white plovers, and at- risk of salmon. That is great. We have a willing seller, a willing buyer, we have a good idea. Farther north on the Columbia River, the endangered Columbia white- tailed deer is a shining example where you have a good management plan, you can take the animal off the endangered species list. We need a little more land to make sure that that habitat is there. We have willing sellers. We need the money in this account to do that. Now, land acquisition, it seems to me, is a most cooperative, nonintrusive way to protect both the endangered species and private property rights. At a time when divisiveness has paralyzed many resources issues, land acquisition provides us with that win-win solution that we are all looking for. It is hypocritical to claim that you want to preserve the rights of private landowners or that you want to prevent species train wrecks, and then turn around and cut the funding for the land acquisition. If you colleagues support private property rights, and if you support the prevention of extinction of species, you have a great opportunity here. Vote ``yes'' on the Miller amendment. It is a win-win situation. Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in very strong support of the amendment by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I think it would be a very sad mistake for this new majority to miss an opportunity, and that opportunity is really to provide the preservation of some of our natural lands in this country. You know, these bills that we are looking at provide, and this particular [[Page H 6974]] legislation provides, opportunity to spend money on surveys and studies and administration. But, really, what do we leave the next generation? I tell you that we cannot do anything that would be more lasting for the next generation than to invest this small amount of money on preservation of lands, many of them endangered, throughout the United States. Let me speak from a personal standpoint. I and my family lived, and I grew up, in Miami, and I saw what happened to the Everglades there, how they became neglected and how we did not take the time to preserve that area. I now have the opportunity to represent central Florida, a beautiful area that has natural bodies of water and hundreds of lakes, and that area is endangered. You know, we have the Ocala National Forest to the north. The State has preserved some land around the urban areas. This area is impacted by tremendous growth, and we have the opportunity to acquire some land in a Federal-State partnership, and that money is not available, and that is sad and that is tragic because the same thing I saw happen as I grew up as a young man now is taking hundreds of millions, billions, of dollars to restore the Everglades. And because we did not make the investment that we needed, we may never get another chance. I have a photo of the area that I am talking about, the St. John's River, in my district, $15 million from the State, $15 million from the Federal. But we do not have a penny in this bill for land acquisition, and that is wrong, and it is wrong for this side of the aisle to reject this amendment. Because this should be a priority, and we will not get another chance to save these lands. So I urge my colleagues to look at this. A lot of the things we say here will not make any difference, but something we do here will make a big difference, and that big difference is preserving this land and these natural preserves for the future. We should be investing in that. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members in the entire House of Representatives, according to voting records, so I come here speaking not to spend money idly, not to spend money on pork projects, but to spend and make an investment in the future so we can leave a legacy for our children. So I strongly--I strongly advocate passage of this amendment. I had an amendment in here just to add a few more dollars to this, and I commend the gentleman for adding the many more dollars that can be well spent and well expended in the national interest, in the public interest and in the interest of our children. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman's statement, and I say to him, he need not worry, as I am sure he knows, about putting his conservative credentials at risk. The proposition on behalf of which he speaks is the most profoundly conservative proposition that could possibly come before us. It is litera

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6967-H7008] [[Page H 6967]] {time} 1548 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The Committee resumed its sitting. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I look around this Chamber and as I think about the promises in January, the notion was to come here and to end business as usual, and that is in fact the intent of many of us in this Congress. Ofttimes it involves reaching across the aisle, listening to different arguments, and basing our support or our opposition not on previous partisan labels, but taking a look and carefully examining the problems one by one. That is why I am pleased to stand in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I represent a large portion of the Navajo Nation, that sovereign nation within the Sixth District of Arizona and reaching beyond the borders of Arizona to several other States. I am mindful of the fact that in our treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation, we have a variety of promises that were made well over a century ago. Now, I stand here in support of this amendment not to criticize my friends on this side of the aisle, who believe we can look for other sources of funding, but, instead, to underline the importance of upholding these treaty obligations and looking to educate the children of the native American tribes, for it is a sacred obligation we have, and it is a proper role of the Federal Government to move in that regard. So, for that reason, again, I stand in strong support of the amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New Mexico and Wisconsin and myself. I want to make the distinction that while we are asking our colleagues to reexamine and recommit to restoring the $81 million for the Indian education program, I want us to understand that this is not duplicative of the program that is already there. This really has a distinct value in and above that, and it is supplementary and not duplicative. It means these are programs going to public schools to enable 92 percent of all Indians who live in this country to get additional supplemental education. It is an opportunity to make sure that those young people, who are falling through the cracks academically, have an opportunity to be competitive and do well. Further, Mr. Chairman, I would think our colleagues would find it unacceptable that $81 million would get in the way of doing what we should be doing for the very first inhabitants of this country. Further, I think we would want to support education as being consistent with self-sufficiency. I see all of these reasons and others as to why we should want to restore this to its full amount, and not reduce it to a lesser amount than it is presently. Really, it should be increased. In the spirit of keeping the budget constraints, we are saying restore it to the $81 million. So it really is a thoughtful amendment that recognizes under the constraints that all programs have to adjust. I would ask that my colleagues across both sides of the aisle understand, this is an opportunity really that we can say to the native Americans, that we do care about them, and that education is important. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I think unfortunately we know very little about the whole issue of treaty keeping, and I want to congratulate my Republican colleague from Arizona, who understands that we have a sacred trust responsibility to keep treaties. These education funds are just a tiny little downpayment, shall we say, on the land that we enjoy, which we have in our trust because the Indian tribes signed treaties many years ago. My colleague from North Carolina mentioned that 92 percent of Indian children are affected by this funding, and that is absolutely true. We are told it is duplicative, but in fact the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools do not meet more than 8 percent of the Indian children's educational needs. We can indeed, and my colleague has spoken of that, change the poverty that has so impacted native Americans by making sure that we live up to our responsibility, our treaty responsibility, a treaty which we swore to uphold when we became Members of this body. We cannot abandon these native American children; we cannot abandon this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I congratulate the gentlewoman and her colleagues for having brought this amendment forward. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in favor of this very important amendment. I think that this legislation, absent the Obey amendment, would be morally bankrupt and fatally deficient for this Congress to pass. We have an absolute commitment, and we should always remind ourselves that no matter how expensive we may perceive education to be, ignorance costs more. I come from the city of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and I just know that my constituents support fully this country's continuing commitment to Indian education. I hope that we would favorably approve the Obey amendment. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment to keep our commitment and our trust obligations, and to thank her and her colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Richardson, for this amendment. I rise in support of it and hope the House will pass this amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is an opportunity. Education is important. More important, it is an opportunity to say the American Indian children are important and they should be included in our commitment to all Americans. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that the time be equally divided. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will manage 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will manage 5 minutes. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, I want to express my strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations. The amendment simply restores the badly needed funds for education of American Indians and Alaskan Native children in public schools. Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a downright tragedy that the Congress of the United States would take away money from our American Indian children's future to fund other programs like timber sales management. Mr. Chairman, I also want to make it clear that funding for title IX is not duplicative of BIA directed funding. Title IX funding is for children in public schools, while BIA funding is for Indian children in BIA or tribally operated schools. Mr. Chairman, as so eloquently stated in a letter by my good friend from Alaska and chairman of the House Committee on Resources, why do we continue to pick on those who simply cannot defend themselves, the children? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment and restore the funds needed for the education of American native and Alaskan Native children. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 6968]] Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear what is going to happen here. We will have a vote on the Obey amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment because it takes the money out of fossil energy research. We have already cut that 10 percent. It impacts heavily on States like Ohio, California, Indiana, Illinois, New York, places where we are doing research. It takes money out of the Bureau of Mines. We have already cut them back. We just leave them enough to close out. If we take any more money, they cannot even do that. It takes money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserves. We have already cut that 20 percent. This is a function that generates $460 million a year in revenues. I think that we need to foster energy security. We are not arguing about giving the money for the native American education programs. This gives about $153 per child to schools to have enrichment programs for Indian children. We agree on both sides that this needs to be done. The question is where to get the money. We are going to have a Coburn amendment that is in title II, so it cannot be done immediately, but the Coburn amendment will do essentially the same thing, except it takes the money out of Forest Service administrative expenses. Because of the spend-out rate we only need to take $10 million from forest administration to provide the $52 million in the Coburn amendment to provide for the Indian education. I think it is important that we provide the funds for Indian education, but I think it is also very important that we use the financing mechanism provided in the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment, recognizing that you will get an opportunity shortly to vote yes on the Coburn amendment to take care of the Indian education, but the source of funding would be far less serious in its impact on the policies of the United States. Again, ``no'' on Obey, and very shortly when we get into title II, we will be able to vote for the Indian education with the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment that is coming up for a vote immediately, knowing that you can vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment to accomplish the same objective. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, noes 282, not voting 9, as follows: [Roll No. 501] AYES--143 Abercrombie Andrews Baesler Baldacci Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bereuter Berman Bishop Bonior Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Cardin Clay Clayton Clyburn Coburn Coleman Collins (IL) Conyers de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Flake Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gonzalez Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hayworth Hinchey Hoyer Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Matsui McDermott McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Minge Mink Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Pelosi Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Rangel Reed Richardson Rivers Roemer Rose Roth Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Towns Tucker Velazquez Vento Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Woolsey Wyden Yates Young (AK) NOES--282 Allard Archer Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hilliard Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson-Lee Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Manzullo Martini Mascara McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Payne (VA) Peterson (FL) Petri Pickett Pombo Porter Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Riggs Roberts Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Torricelli Traficant Upton Visclosky Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Wynn Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--9 Ackerman Bono Collins (MI) Fields (TX) Green Hefner Moakley Reynolds Tauzin {time} 1620 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against. Messrs. DAVIS, FRELINGHUYSEN, VOLKMER, and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. amendment offered by mr. gallegly Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Gallegly: Page 34, line 24, strike ``$69,232,000'' of which (1) $65,705,000 shall be'' and insert ``$52,405,000, to remain''. Page 34, line 25, strike ``technical assistance'' and all that follows through ``controls, and'' on line 1 of page 35. Page 35, strike lines 11 and 12 and insert: ``272): Provided''. Page 35, line 25, strike ``funding:'' and all that follows through line 23 on page 36 and insert ``funding.''. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. [[Page H 6969]] I am also offering this amendment with the support of the ranking member, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. My amendment, quite simply, would cut $16.8 million for funding of the obsolete Office of Territorial and International Affairs and its associated programs. The termination of this one Office will result in a 7-year savings of $120 million. In the previous Congress, a number of my colleagues joined me in cosponsoring legislation to abolish the office which formerly administered islands with appointed Governors and High Commissioners. This should have taken effect last October when the United Nations terminated the U.S. administered trusteeship. Earlier this year, Secretary Babbitt formally signaled that it was time to turn the lights out at the OTIA. As a result of this the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee conducted an extensive review and held hearings to reexamine existing policies affecting these island areas and also concluded that now was the time to terminate this Office. Subsequently, the subcommittee as well as the full Resources Committee passed H.R. 1332 with overwhelming bipartisan support. We expect to bring this legislation to the House floor very soon. Finally, during our hearings, Gov. Roy L. Schneider of the Virgin Islands testified that ``abolishing the Office will save the Federal Government money and will not harm the territories.'' The bottom line here, my colleagues, is that we have an opportunity to end a program which was begun when Alaska and Hawaii were territories and save the taxpayer $17 million. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend Mr. Regula, for his willingness to work with me on this effort. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to join in a substantive action to streamline the Federal Government, advance self- governance, and save taxpayer funds. I urge passage of the amendment. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the committee mark already poses a 22.5-percent reduction that is already in the bill for territorial programs. In addition, we have eliminated the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs. The bill takes the first steps. These are additional steps being proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. I urge that we adopt the amendment. I think that the Territorial Office is an anachronism in this period. It saves a considerable amount of money. I think it would be an excellent amendment and an excellent thing for us to accept. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr YATES. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that require answers. For example, we are told that in eliminating the territories' administrative fund, the Secretary of the Interior continues to be responsible for nearly $2 billion; the current Treasury balance is $310 million; that the future funding mandatory is $1,603,000,000. What happens to that money? Under his amendment, what would happen to that money? Can the gentleman answer my question, or can somebody on that side answer the question? The Secretary now has $2 billion belonging to the territories, for which he is responsible. There is $310 million in the current Treasury balance. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the proponent of this amendment, what happens to the almost $2 billion which is now with the Secretary of the Interior, which he is holding in trust for the territories? Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to try to respond. We still have 25 people in the inspector general's office that are prepared to administer those funds. We no longer need the OTIA to continue to provide that service. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman, then, to be saying that the administration of the territories will be moved to the inspector general's office? Mr. GALLEGLY. Only for the purpose of auditing the funds. Mr. YATES. Who will have the responsibility of supervising the territories, Mr. Chairman, until they have their freedom? Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, what the Secretary of the Interior has done is terminated the Office of Assistant Secretary of Territorial and Insular Affairs. In doing so, he is placing part of the responsibility to his Assistant Secretary for Budget and Planning. Within the Office of Budget and Planning, I am told that under the Deputy Assistant Secretary and further down the line there, he is going to establish an office which is called the director that is supposed to be keeping an eye, at least on behalf of the Secretary, on whatever is left to do with the territories. What we are trying to do here, if I might respond to the gentleman, the Secretary of Interior made an announcement based on our hearing that he was going to terminate the entire Office of Territorial Affairs. I assume that he is going to do it directly under the auspices of his office and assistants. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, however, I do not know how this would correct that situation. In other words, what the gentleman has been saying is the Secretary of the Interior has just practically relieved himself of administering the territories. Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the only thing I would like to say is that we no longer have trust territories. What we do have are elected Governors, democratically elected Governors of these territories. We are absolutely convinced that the territories really should have the right, and we have the confidence that they have the ability to self-govern. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, to respond further to him, Mr. Chairman, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshalls, and the Republic of Palau, are basically independent. Basically whatever funding Congress provides for them as part of the compact agreement is administered directly from the Secretary's office. I assume that it now falls in the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Budget. {time} 1630 Mr. YATES. The gentleman from American Samoa has just said the Secretary of the Interior has moved responsibility for the Territories to the Office of Planning and Budget. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Do I understand that your amendment will move supervision of the Territories, such as remains, from the Office of Planning and Budget in the Secretary of the Interior to the Office of the Inspector General? Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it does not, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. Mr. YATES. Where does it go, then? If it is not to remain in the Office of Planning and Budget, who will have supervision? Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield further, we are in a new era, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. We no longer are operating the way we have for the last many years. These Territories have elected Governors and legislators. They have the ability, and the time has come, as the Secretary has said, to allow them their own ability to self-govern. With the exception of the Northern Marianas, there is a Delegate to the House of Representatives, as is the case with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Every one of the Territories, with the exception of the Northern Marianas, has a Delegate in this body, and the Northern Marianas has a democratically elected governor. Mr. YATES. I continue to be concerned about the administration of the funding. Even though they are now self-governing, what happens in the even that there is a significant financial loss? Mr. GALLEGLY. As I said to the gentleman, they do have representation [[Page H 6970]] here in this body in the form of Delegates and representation in the committee. I do not see that as a problem. The Secretary of the Interior himself says the time has come to turn out the lights, and I am using his quote. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Congressman Gallegly's amendment to title I of H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Committee on Resources had approved by voice vote an authorization bill (H.R. 1332) which will, among other things, delete the position of Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs, terminate funding for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, terminate funding for four territorial assistance programs, provide multiyear funding for the territory of American Samoa, and add procedural improvements for the relocation of the people of Rongelap. H.R. 1332 will save the U.S. Government in excess of $100 million over the next 7 years. Regrettably, the Appropriations Committee has chosen not to accept the approach adopted by the Resources Committee. Earlier this year the Secretary of the Interior announced that he was going to close the Office of Territorial and International Affairs, within the Department of the Interior. Later, as the details became available, it became apparent that the administration wanted only to downgrade the office and reduce its size to approximately 25 people. Given that the territory of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are the only territories in which OTIA is actively involved, and given the increased level of self-autonomy already provided to the territories, I submit that 25 people is much too large a staff for this office, and believe it should be terminated or cut substantially. While the four assistance programs contained in the President's budget and the appropriations bill have been useful in the past, the time has come to terminate these programs as well, and move forward in our relations with the territories. Mr. Chairman, the Gallegly amendment is consistent with the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 and consistent with the actions of the authorizing committee this year. In effect, the authorizing committee, and the full House are moving in one direction on these issues, while the Appropriations Committee is moving in another. The Gallegly amendment cuts Federal spending, reduces Government bureaucracy, and moves the administration of the U.S. insular areas toward greater self-autonomy. Chairman Elton Gallegly and I have been working on an authorizing bill for the territories all year. Our approach has been approved by the Resources Committee, and will be a significant change in insular policy for our Government. This change has been a long time in coming, but the time has come. Mr. Chairman, Congress' move toward reduced Federal spending is causing significant pain throughout our Government. I am pleased that insular policy is one area in which the authorizing committee has achieved substantial bipartisan agreement. Insular policy is not an area followed closely by most of us, but those of us who work in the area see this as a positive change, and I urge my colleagues to support the Gallegly amendment and conform the appropriations bill to the budget resolution and the action of the authorizing committee. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. The amendment was agreed to. amendment offered by mrs. vucanovich Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Vucanovich: On page 33 line 17 strike ``67,145,000'' and in lieu thereof insert ``$75,145,000'' and on line 18 strike ``65,100,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$73,100,000''. Mrs. VUCANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Nevada? There was no objection. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores $8 million for the Pyramid Lake water rights settlement. Funds available from a previous amendment which reduced funding from the territorial assistance account is sufficient to offset this amendment. This water rights settlement is very important to the constituents within my congressional district. The final payment for the Pyramid Lake settlement is due next year, at which time an agreement will be implemented to supply much-needed water to the Reno-Sparks area. It is my understanding that the committee intends to fully fund this program in time to consummate this important water rights agreement. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side has no objection to this amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. This is an obligation of the U.S. Government. We have freed up the funds to do it because we are on a very tight budget. We are pleased that we are able to accept the amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the chairman very much. I urge the acceptance of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. The amendment was agreed to. Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Miller of California Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 32 printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified as set forth in the amendment I have at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment and report the modification. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert $14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``$14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$200,854,000''. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert ``$14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 17, after line 26, insert the following: For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501-2514), $5,000,000. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$195,854,000''. Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified. There was no objection. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be supported by all Members who care about our national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and public lands. This is an amendment that should be supported by those who care about our parks and outdoor recreation opportunities in our urban areas. No doubt about it, this amendment directly benefits people in every congressional district in this country. The land and water conservation fund is one of the most popular and successful programs that our government has run. Funded by a portion of [[Page H 6971]] the oil and gas revenues generated from leasing Federal lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, the land and water conservation fund helps to meet the increasingly heavy demand for hunting, fishing, and recreation areas, protects outstanding resources, and preserves the Nation's natural and historical heritage. In addition to Federal land acquisitions, the fund provides for direct grants to States for parks, open space and outdoor recreational facilities. Since 1965, over 37,000 State and local grants have been awarded, totaling $3.2 billion. The States and localities have matched this amount dollar for dollar to acquire $2.3 million acres of park land and open space and to develop more than 24,000 recreation sites. In fiscal 1996 there will be $11 billion in this trust fund, yet unappropriated for a lot of political reasons, but unfortunately the short fund, the recreational needs of this country. My amendment would fund the Land and Water Conservation Program at the same levels that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1995. In addition, my amendment provides for $5 million to fund the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. The current bill provides no funding for this program. My amendment would provide an increase of $183 million over the $51 million which is provided in the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The increased funds for land and water conservation provided in this amendment are offset by a corresponding $183 million reduction in the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development fund. It is true that the budget resolution which Congress has adopted calls for a 7-year freeze on Federal land acquisitions, but I would remind my colleagues that this House also had voted to abolish the Department of Energy, and yet the bill before us today would provide Department of Energy funding for fossil fuel research to the tune of $384 million. It is my understanding that this research appropriation greatly in excess of the $220 million level which the Committee on Science has authorized in H.R. 1816. By contrast, my amendment would bring the DOE spending within the Committee on Science limits by allowing $195 million for DOE's fossil research programs. This amendment presents a very real question of priorities. In my view, the national wildlife refuges, the national forests, the public lands and the urban park areas outweigh the need for the excessive and above the level the Committee on Science recommends for spending on DOE research for coal, oil and gas, research which can and should be done by those industries without these Federal subsidies. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment ought to be considered in the context of the debate on the Endangered Species Act and the private property rights. Members recently have received a July 10 ``Dear Colleague'' on the recent ``Sweet Home'' Supreme Court decision on the Endangered Species Act. In that ``Dear Colleague,'' the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, and five other Members state that if we are to have wildlife refuges and sanctuaries, we should go back to the right way of obtaining them, buy them or pay them for the use of the land for refuges. We will debate the merits of the Endangered Species Act at length when that legislation is reported to the floor. But what we must understand, that Members cannot continue to claim that they think the right way to provide for these lands is to pay for those private properties, which it is, and then not provide the money to do so when these lands are so important to helping our urban areas, our suburban areas and our rural areas meet the demands for recreation and for public space and to meet the needs of both endangered species and habitat. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a priority list of lands that include bear habitat within the Kodiak National Refuge, the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois; preserve the natural water flow patterns for the critical Everglades National Park in Florida; to promote the outdoor recreation of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York; to protect the historical integrity of the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania; to enhance the scenic and natural values of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in Los Angeles, the important national forests of the greater Yellowstone area in Montana; to help protect the salmon streams and the national forests in Oregon and Washington; and to provide resources to those urban areas who are trying to reclaim the recreational opportunities for their youth in cities throughout the country that are trying to bring back the streets, a very successful program where again local government has sought to participate far in excess of the moneys that are available, and without these moneys they simply will not be able to take care of those urban resources and to fully fund the backlog of acquisition and problems that we have. We have people who are inholders who want to get rid of their private lands, who want the Government to buy those lands. We have management problems created in some cases by those, but there is no money. This is the great backlog that we continue to discuss in this Congress where we continue to add to it. Hopefully we will not continue to add to it in the new Congress, but we ought to start getting rid of it out of fairness to those landholders and those people who are concerned about the integrity of our natural resource system. {time} 1645 So those are the priorities. The Congress can choose, as this bill does, to force feed energy research in oil and gas and coal far beyond the recommendation of the Committee on Science, or we can take that excess force feeding of those moneys and apply them to very high- priority items throughout the entire country to protect and preserve the environment, to protect and preserve our national parks, to protect and preserve our national forests, and to expand and protect and preserve the recreational opportunities for our citizens in our inner cities and suburban communities and small towns across the country. That is the choice that this amendment presents. It is neutrally funded. It costs no more money than to force feed this energy research. I would hope my colleagues would choose their local community that is requesting these funds. I would hope they would choose their local counties. I would hope they would choose their local States and the gems of the natural resource system of this country, the national parks, the national wilderness, and the national refuge system of the United States. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, so the Members understand the issue here clearly, this has an appeal, but let me say that the House-passed budget resolution that was adopted here some weeks ago, provided a 5-year moratorium on land acquisition, because when we buy land, we have to take care of it. If we buy land, it means more people, it means more of everything. We are talking about trying to get to a balanced budget in this Nation in 7 years. We cannot get to a balanced budget by buying more than we can take care of. That is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on land acquisition. This would scuttle that moratorium totally and go back to business as usual. The statement was made that we are force feeding programs in energy research. Let me tell my colleagues again, we have cut back considerably, but we have contractual obligations. We have a number of projects in fossil energy research that have contracts with the private sector. The private sector is putting up anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the money, which means that they believe that these will be successful. I think it is a big mistake in terms of national policy to cut back any further on fossil energy research. We are going to downsize it. We are going to get down to the numbers of the authorizing committee, maybe not as quickly as they would but we are headed that way. But we have to recognize our contractual obligations. If we suddenly pull our part of it out, we are subject to lawsuits for failure to perform on contracts that we have made. [[Page H 6972]] Let me also tell my colleagues that we did put in $50 million in an emergency fund for land acquisition. We recognize that there may be parcels of land that become available that we should take advantage of. So, we do have a cushion in the bill, in spite of the fact that the Committee on the Budget and the budget we passed called for a moratorium on land acquisition. The use of that money for land acquisition is subject to the reprogramming, so it has to come back, in effect, to the appropriate committees. The reason we reduced land acquisition was to fund operations. The money that might have otherwise been spent on land acquisition is put into the operations of the parks. We actually increased the operation money in the parks over 1995. We want to keep the parks open. We want to keep the forests open. As I said at the outset, these are must-do's. We must keep the facilities available to the public and therefore we have flat-funded them and used that money for the operations that we normally would have put in land acquisition, because we have a responsible number on fossil energy research. I think what we have done represents a balance. It represents the will of the House as reflected in the budget adopted here. It takes care of operations, and I do not think we ought to tamper with it. These are nice to do. It would be nice to go out and buy more land. It would be nice to fund the UPARR Program, but we cannot do it all when we have a 10-percent cut and we can look forward to more next year. We need to avoid doing things that have substantial downstream costs or otherwise we cannot leave as a legacy for future generations a strong economy that would be generated by a balanced budget. Mrs MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, on that point about not wanting to saddle the Federal Government with the maintenance cost for new acquisitions, I understand that motivation prompted the Committee on the Budget, of which I am a member, to put a freeze on the purchase. But the fundamental principle of the land and water conservation fund, so far as I am acquainted with it, is that there are acquisitions made on a local level and that the maintenance and the care and the development of these lands are basically turned over to the counties and to the States for their assumption of that future responsibility. And all that the land and water conservation fund does is to provide the moneys for acquisition. So, we are not transferring. By approving this amendment, we would not be transferring a future cost to the Federal Government; is that not true? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman from Hawaii is absolutely correct on the UPARR portion, but that is a small part of this amendment. A great bulk of what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] proposes to take out of fossil energy research is going to land acquisition on the national parks and other land management agencies. A very small part of what his amendment would delete would go to the mission that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has described. For that much of it, the gentlewoman is correct. But to put over $200 million in land acquisition, obviously, has to generate very substantial maintenance costs downstream for the U.S. Government and that is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on additional land acquisition and we tried to respond to the House-passed budget. (Mrs. MINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], because I feel that the set aside that we so wisely did in putting aside these oil exploration funds into this land and water conservation fund was for the future use and acquisition of these lands, which are the precious acquisitions for the entire country. It is not for one particular State of locale; it is acquisitions that go to the total assets of the United States. So I rise in very strong support of this amendment and I hope that the Members will agree and I yield to the offeror of this amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] raised the question, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] raised the question, about maintenance costs. in many instances, the land that is in the backlog waiting to be acquired is held by private landowners in the middle of a national forest, on the edge of a national forest, or surrounded on two sides or three sides or four sides by a national forest. These people want out. They are encumbered by the fact that the forest is there. The Forest Service or the Park Service or the Refuge Service would reduce their operational costs and administrative costs because of these in-holdings. These people in many cases have been standing in line for years after year after year. We have heard about them. And this committee is struggling. I do not doubt what they try to do every year. This committee has struggled to try to meet that demand. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and I have sat in our committee and continued to make sure that they never whittle the backlog down. the fact is, the backlog exists. I think that with the new Congress, the backlog is about to not be added to, if I hear what is going on in our committee correctly. But we owe it to those people who are waiting to have their lands purchased. And there is money available, but there is not if we choose to use it in the Department of Energy fossil fuel research; again, which many of these companies can do on their own and have the availability to do. It is a question of priorities. Let us understand that in many instances, this is about reducing administrative costs in Park Service units, in National Park Services, in wildlife refuge units. So, it is not all about that. This would give, obviously, the Forest Service and the Committee on Appropriations the ability to set priorities, but let us get rid of some of this backlog. It is not fair to these people to just leave them hanging there as we have purchased all the land around them. I would hope that we would support the amendment. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to a question from me, is not it true that this backlog that the gentleman speaks of are already acquisitions that the Congress has already acted upon to some extent? It is not as though we are coming in with a new acquisition, a new park idea or some new enhancement of our environment. These are items that have already been set down, but for a variety of reasons, the land and water conservation fund has not been tapped to do this purchase. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. Many of these properties are subject to congressional designation. Many these properties have a cloud on their title in one fashion or another because of what has taken place around them. And the question is do we start to whittle down that backlog? Let us understand something here. There is $11 billion in the land and water conservation fund and the agreement was with the American people that we would allow oil drilling off of the coast of this country and we would use those resources to add to the great resource base of this country for recreation and for public use. That promise was never kept; not by any Congress, not by any administration. It is a little bit of the kind of fraud that we have sometimes around the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund. We put the money in there and we say this is going to go for airport safety or this is going to go for improved highways. But then somehow this Congress starts dipping their fingers into this trust fund or one administration or the other wants to make the budget deficit smaller than it does. Who are the victims? The victims are the people who paid for the gasoline that expected better roads and safer roads. The victims are the people who bought an airline ticket and expected safer airlines. The victims are the people who agreed to have this oil explored [[Page H 6973]] off their coast and said that the tradeoff will be that we will create this trust fund. We have been robbing this trust fund for years. Now all we are suggesting is that we authorize them to spend some of the $11 billion. I do not think the Committee on Appropriations in the last few years has spent more than $100 million out of the trust fund for acquisition. That is how you get a backlog. You lie to the American people. You lie to the American people. All of these things that are on this list for acquisition are because Members of Congress thought they were terribly important and voted to pass them. We ought to keep faith with the American people, faith with the budget process, and vote for the Miller amendment. It is a hell of a good deal. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would add $184 million for land acquisitions for preservation of our natural resources. The Miller amendment attempts to restore the land and water conservation fund [LWCF] to fiscal year 1995 levels, through decreases in fossil energy research to authorized levels set forth by the Science Committee. There is $11.2 billion surplus in the Treasury for the LWCF. The Miller amendment appropriates a mere 2 percent of this surplus. The LWCF has been essential to the conservation in perpetuity of lands for recreational use since 1965. Under LWCF, local communities and States have the opportunity, through the fund's 50/50 matching grants, to directly invest in parks and recreation in local areas. A modest Federal role in the LWCF provides States and local officials primary responsibility and flexibility for such land acquisition and development projects made possible by the fund. The reduction in fiscal year 1996 appropriations out of the LWCF represents a serious threat to the promotion of America's national and historical heritage. My State acquired under LWCF Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, the very first refuge for forest birds in the country and a vital part of Hawaii's battle against an endangered species crisis. Of the 128 bird species that originally nested in the Hawaiian Islands, 58 have disappeared and 32 are on the endangered species list. Habitat for endangered waterbirds has been protected by the LWCF at the Kealia National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui, which consists of 700 acres of wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Service, through the LWCF, has worked with a private landowner to secure the 164-acre James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, which contains habitat supporting 35 species of birds making up the largest population of waterbirds in Hawaii. The LWCF funded the Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge in the Koolau Mountain range, which is on its way to being the first actively managed habitat for Hawaiian endangered and indigenous tree snails, birds, bats, and plants. The National Park Service has used the LWCF to augment Hawaii's two major national parks--Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island and Haleakala National Park on the Island of Maui. Since 1965, the LWCF has funded more than 37,000 projects with more than half of these projects invested in urban and suburban areas. To keep the fund at the level in H.R. 1977 would be to rob countless communities across the Nation of the ability to continue developing projects for which substantial sums have been invested, good faith commitments have been put into place with willing landowners, and timetables have been congressionally authorized. I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in favor of the Miller amendment to restore funding for land and water conservation fund acquisitions for purposes of conservation. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, but enthusiastically, rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Much of what the gentleman said is true, but let us keep in mind that these properties that we were supposed to be purchasing were set off limits by another Congress. In fact, if we look at the GAO report, which I requested with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], that was reported in 1995, we purchased in 1993, through the agencies, a little over 203,000 acres of land. The Forest Service purchased 72,000; the LM 27,000; the Fish and Wildlife, 82,000; the National Park Service, 22,000. What we have done in the past, and I will respectfully say, we have now hopefully addressed that issue with a commission that will look at our parks. We hope to come forth with another recommendation that we do not constantly create these units without proper scientific research and input. Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree that there is $11 billion in the fund to buy these properties. We have not. We have used them. All administrations, including this one, have used these moneys to balance the budget, or other purposes than what they were collected for. But more than that, we have stopped drilling off shore too. There is no drilling taking place in the United States, other than in the Mexican gulf. There is a little off of Alaska. There is none around the United States and I do not think anybody here is advocating that. None in Florida. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the gentleman from Ohio said that we did on this side, I am saying this for our Members, agreed to a budget target to balance it by a certain time. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to request, respectfully, we vote no on the gentleman's amendment, although much of his argument is correct as to how this has been misused. But I do believe if we want to reach that target, we should reject the amendment, support the chairman of the committee, and go forth with our business. {time} 1700 Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. You know, over and over again we have heard Members of the 104th Congress speaking very vocally, obviously very enthusiastically, in favor of protecting private property rights, and I do the same myself. But we have heard them say if you want to protect endangered species living on private lands, then buy the land. In fact, I got this interesting dear colleague letter from people on both sides of the aisle really saying the same thing. Well, this House has passed legislation requiring that the Federal Government purchases property at a landowners' request if the Government impacts its value more than 50 percent. But here we are, we have this bill which is just gutting the very account that would allow us to acquire land. So I would say to Members who are concerned about private property rights, I would say let us put our money where our mouths are. There are numerous examples of property owners ready, willing to sell their land to the Federal Government so that we can protect fish and wildlife. In Oregon, we have landowners along the Siletz and Nestucca Rivers who want to sell some of this region's most productive wetlands in order to provide habitat for bald eagles, snowy white plovers, and at- risk of salmon. That is great. We have a willing seller, a willing buyer, we have a good idea. Farther north on the Columbia River, the endangered Columbia white- tailed deer is a shining example where you have a good management plan, you can take the animal off the endangered species list. We need a little more land to make sure that that habitat is there. We have willing sellers. We need the money in this account to do that. Now, land acquisition, it seems to me, is a most cooperative, nonintrusive way to protect both the endangered species and private property rights. At a time when divisiveness has paralyzed many resources issues, land acquisition provides us with that win-win solution that we are all looking for. It is hypocritical to claim that you want to preserve the rights of private landowners or that you want to prevent species train wrecks, and then turn around and cut the funding for the land acquisition. If you colleagues support private property rights, and if you support the prevention of extinction of species, you have a great opportunity here. Vote ``yes'' on the Miller amendment. It is a win-win situation. Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in very strong support of the amendment by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I think it would be a very sad mistake for this new majority to miss an opportunity, and that opportunity is really to provide the preservation of some of our natural lands in this country. You know, these bills that we are looking at provide, and this particular [[Page H 6974]] legislation provides, opportunity to spend money on surveys and studies and administration. But, really, what do we leave the next generation? I tell you that we cannot do anything that would be more lasting for the next generation than to invest this small amount of money on preservation of lands, many of them endangered, throughout the United States. Let me speak from a personal standpoint. I and my family lived, and I grew up, in Miami, and I saw what happened to the Everglades there, how they became neglected and how we did not take the time to preserve that area. I now have the opportunity to represent central Florida, a beautiful area that has natural bodies of water and hundreds of lakes, and that area is endangered. You know, we have the Ocala National Forest to the north. The State has preserved some land around the urban areas. This area is impacted by tremendous growth, and we have the opportunity to acquire some land in a Federal-State partnership, and that money is not available, and that is sad and that is tragic because the same thing I saw happen as I grew up as a young man now is taking hundreds of millions, billions, of dollars to restore the Everglades. And because we did not make the investment that we needed, we may never get another chance. I have a photo of the area that I am talking about, the St. John's River, in my district, $15 million from the State, $15 million from the Federal. But we do not have a penny in this bill for land acquisition, and that is wrong, and it is wrong for this side of the aisle to reject this amendment. Because this should be a priority, and we will not get another chance to save these lands. So I urge my colleagues to look at this. A lot of the things we say here will not make any difference, but something we do here will make a big difference, and that big difference is preserving this land and these natural preserves for the future. We should be investing in that. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members in the entire House of Representatives, according to voting records, so I come here speaking not to spend money idly, not to spend money on pork projects, but to spend and make an investment in the future so we can leave a legacy for our children. So I strongly--I strongly advocate passage of this amendment. I had an amendment in here just to add a few more dollars to this, and I commend the gentleman for adding the many more dollars that can be well spent and well expended in the national interest, in the public interest and in the interest of our children. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman's statement, and I say to him, he need not worry, as I am sure he knows, about putting his conservative credentials at risk. The proposition on behalf of which he speaks is the most profoundly conservative proposition that could possi

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6967-H7008] [[Page H 6967]] {time} 1548 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The Committee resumed its sitting. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I look around this Chamber and as I think about the promises in January, the notion was to come here and to end business as usual, and that is in fact the intent of many of us in this Congress. Ofttimes it involves reaching across the aisle, listening to different arguments, and basing our support or our opposition not on previous partisan labels, but taking a look and carefully examining the problems one by one. That is why I am pleased to stand in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I represent a large portion of the Navajo Nation, that sovereign nation within the Sixth District of Arizona and reaching beyond the borders of Arizona to several other States. I am mindful of the fact that in our treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation, we have a variety of promises that were made well over a century ago. Now, I stand here in support of this amendment not to criticize my friends on this side of the aisle, who believe we can look for other sources of funding, but, instead, to underline the importance of upholding these treaty obligations and looking to educate the children of the native American tribes, for it is a sacred obligation we have, and it is a proper role of the Federal Government to move in that regard. So, for that reason, again, I stand in strong support of the amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New Mexico and Wisconsin and myself. I want to make the distinction that while we are asking our colleagues to reexamine and recommit to restoring the $81 million for the Indian education program, I want us to understand that this is not duplicative of the program that is already there. This really has a distinct value in and above that, and it is supplementary and not duplicative. It means these are programs going to public schools to enable 92 percent of all Indians who live in this country to get additional supplemental education. It is an opportunity to make sure that those young people, who are falling through the cracks academically, have an opportunity to be competitive and do well. Further, Mr. Chairman, I would think our colleagues would find it unacceptable that $81 million would get in the way of doing what we should be doing for the very first inhabitants of this country. Further, I think we would want to support education as being consistent with self-sufficiency. I see all of these reasons and others as to why we should want to restore this to its full amount, and not reduce it to a lesser amount than it is presently. Really, it should be increased. In the spirit of keeping the budget constraints, we are saying restore it to the $81 million. So it really is a thoughtful amendment that recognizes under the constraints that all programs have to adjust. I would ask that my colleagues across both sides of the aisle understand, this is an opportunity really that we can say to the native Americans, that we do care about them, and that education is important. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I think unfortunately we know very little about the whole issue of treaty keeping, and I want to congratulate my Republican colleague from Arizona, who understands that we have a sacred trust responsibility to keep treaties. These education funds are just a tiny little downpayment, shall we say, on the land that we enjoy, which we have in our trust because the Indian tribes signed treaties many years ago. My colleague from North Carolina mentioned that 92 percent of Indian children are affected by this funding, and that is absolutely true. We are told it is duplicative, but in fact the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools do not meet more than 8 percent of the Indian children's educational needs. We can indeed, and my colleague has spoken of that, change the poverty that has so impacted native Americans by making sure that we live up to our responsibility, our treaty responsibility, a treaty which we swore to uphold when we became Members of this body. We cannot abandon these native American children; we cannot abandon this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I congratulate the gentlewoman and her colleagues for having brought this amendment forward. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in favor of this very important amendment. I think that this legislation, absent the Obey amendment, would be morally bankrupt and fatally deficient for this Congress to pass. We have an absolute commitment, and we should always remind ourselves that no matter how expensive we may perceive education to be, ignorance costs more. I come from the city of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and I just know that my constituents support fully this country's continuing commitment to Indian education. I hope that we would favorably approve the Obey amendment. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment to keep our commitment and our trust obligations, and to thank her and her colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Richardson, for this amendment. I rise in support of it and hope the House will pass this amendment. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is an opportunity. Education is important. More important, it is an opportunity to say the American Indian children are important and they should be included in our commitment to all Americans. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that the time be equally divided. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will manage 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will manage 5 minutes. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, I want to express my strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations. The amendment simply restores the badly needed funds for education of American Indians and Alaskan Native children in public schools. Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a downright tragedy that the Congress of the United States would take away money from our American Indian children's future to fund other programs like timber sales management. Mr. Chairman, I also want to make it clear that funding for title IX is not duplicative of BIA directed funding. Title IX funding is for children in public schools, while BIA funding is for Indian children in BIA or tribally operated schools. Mr. Chairman, as so eloquently stated in a letter by my good friend from Alaska and chairman of the House Committee on Resources, why do we continue to pick on those who simply cannot defend themselves, the children? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment and restore the funds needed for the education of American native and Alaskan Native children. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 6968]] Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear what is going to happen here. We will have a vote on the Obey amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment because it takes the money out of fossil energy research. We have already cut that 10 percent. It impacts heavily on States like Ohio, California, Indiana, Illinois, New York, places where we are doing research. It takes money out of the Bureau of Mines. We have already cut them back. We just leave them enough to close out. If we take any more money, they cannot even do that. It takes money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserves. We have already cut that 20 percent. This is a function that generates $460 million a year in revenues. I think that we need to foster energy security. We are not arguing about giving the money for the native American education programs. This gives about $153 per child to schools to have enrichment programs for Indian children. We agree on both sides that this needs to be done. The question is where to get the money. We are going to have a Coburn amendment that is in title II, so it cannot be done immediately, but the Coburn amendment will do essentially the same thing, except it takes the money out of Forest Service administrative expenses. Because of the spend-out rate we only need to take $10 million from forest administration to provide the $52 million in the Coburn amendment to provide for the Indian education. I think it is important that we provide the funds for Indian education, but I think it is also very important that we use the financing mechanism provided in the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment, recognizing that you will get an opportunity shortly to vote yes on the Coburn amendment to take care of the Indian education, but the source of funding would be far less serious in its impact on the policies of the United States. Again, ``no'' on Obey, and very shortly when we get into title II, we will be able to vote for the Indian education with the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment that is coming up for a vote immediately, knowing that you can vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment to accomplish the same objective. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, noes 282, not voting 9, as follows: [Roll No. 501] AYES--143 Abercrombie Andrews Baesler Baldacci Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bereuter Berman Bishop Bonior Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Cardin Clay Clayton Clyburn Coburn Coleman Collins (IL) Conyers de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Durbin Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Flake Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gonzalez Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hayworth Hinchey Hoyer Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kaptur Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Matsui McDermott McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Minge Mink Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Pelosi Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Rangel Reed Richardson Rivers Roemer Rose Roth Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Skaggs Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Towns Tucker Velazquez Vento Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Woolsey Wyden Yates Young (AK) NOES--282 Allard Archer Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Clinger Coble Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hilliard Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson-Lee Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Manzullo Martini Mascara McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Payne (VA) Peterson (FL) Petri Pickett Pombo Porter Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Riggs Roberts Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Torricelli Traficant Upton Visclosky Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Wynn Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--9 Ackerman Bono Collins (MI) Fields (TX) Green Hefner Moakley Reynolds Tauzin {time} 1620 The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote: Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against. Messrs. DAVIS, FRELINGHUYSEN, VOLKMER, and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. amendment offered by mr. gallegly Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Gallegly: Page 34, line 24, strike ``$69,232,000'' of which (1) $65,705,000 shall be'' and insert ``$52,405,000, to remain''. Page 34, line 25, strike ``technical assistance'' and all that follows through ``controls, and'' on line 1 of page 35. Page 35, strike lines 11 and 12 and insert: ``272): Provided''. Page 35, line 25, strike ``funding:'' and all that follows through line 23 on page 36 and insert ``funding.''. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. [[Page H 6969]] I am also offering this amendment with the support of the ranking member, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. My amendment, quite simply, would cut $16.8 million for funding of the obsolete Office of Territorial and International Affairs and its associated programs. The termination of this one Office will result in a 7-year savings of $120 million. In the previous Congress, a number of my colleagues joined me in cosponsoring legislation to abolish the office which formerly administered islands with appointed Governors and High Commissioners. This should have taken effect last October when the United Nations terminated the U.S. administered trusteeship. Earlier this year, Secretary Babbitt formally signaled that it was time to turn the lights out at the OTIA. As a result of this the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee conducted an extensive review and held hearings to reexamine existing policies affecting these island areas and also concluded that now was the time to terminate this Office. Subsequently, the subcommittee as well as the full Resources Committee passed H.R. 1332 with overwhelming bipartisan support. We expect to bring this legislation to the House floor very soon. Finally, during our hearings, Gov. Roy L. Schneider of the Virgin Islands testified that ``abolishing the Office will save the Federal Government money and will not harm the territories.'' The bottom line here, my colleagues, is that we have an opportunity to end a program which was begun when Alaska and Hawaii were territories and save the taxpayer $17 million. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend Mr. Regula, for his willingness to work with me on this effort. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to join in a substantive action to streamline the Federal Government, advance self- governance, and save taxpayer funds. I urge passage of the amendment. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the committee mark already poses a 22.5-percent reduction that is already in the bill for territorial programs. In addition, we have eliminated the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs. The bill takes the first steps. These are additional steps being proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. I urge that we adopt the amendment. I think that the Territorial Office is an anachronism in this period. It saves a considerable amount of money. I think it would be an excellent amendment and an excellent thing for us to accept. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr YATES. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that require answers. For example, we are told that in eliminating the territories' administrative fund, the Secretary of the Interior continues to be responsible for nearly $2 billion; the current Treasury balance is $310 million; that the future funding mandatory is $1,603,000,000. What happens to that money? Under his amendment, what would happen to that money? Can the gentleman answer my question, or can somebody on that side answer the question? The Secretary now has $2 billion belonging to the territories, for which he is responsible. There is $310 million in the current Treasury balance. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the proponent of this amendment, what happens to the almost $2 billion which is now with the Secretary of the Interior, which he is holding in trust for the territories? Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to try to respond. We still have 25 people in the inspector general's office that are prepared to administer those funds. We no longer need the OTIA to continue to provide that service. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman, then, to be saying that the administration of the territories will be moved to the inspector general's office? Mr. GALLEGLY. Only for the purpose of auditing the funds. Mr. YATES. Who will have the responsibility of supervising the territories, Mr. Chairman, until they have their freedom? Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, what the Secretary of the Interior has done is terminated the Office of Assistant Secretary of Territorial and Insular Affairs. In doing so, he is placing part of the responsibility to his Assistant Secretary for Budget and Planning. Within the Office of Budget and Planning, I am told that under the Deputy Assistant Secretary and further down the line there, he is going to establish an office which is called the director that is supposed to be keeping an eye, at least on behalf of the Secretary, on whatever is left to do with the territories. What we are trying to do here, if I might respond to the gentleman, the Secretary of Interior made an announcement based on our hearing that he was going to terminate the entire Office of Territorial Affairs. I assume that he is going to do it directly under the auspices of his office and assistants. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, however, I do not know how this would correct that situation. In other words, what the gentleman has been saying is the Secretary of the Interior has just practically relieved himself of administering the territories. Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the only thing I would like to say is that we no longer have trust territories. What we do have are elected Governors, democratically elected Governors of these territories. We are absolutely convinced that the territories really should have the right, and we have the confidence that they have the ability to self-govern. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, to respond further to him, Mr. Chairman, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshalls, and the Republic of Palau, are basically independent. Basically whatever funding Congress provides for them as part of the compact agreement is administered directly from the Secretary's office. I assume that it now falls in the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Budget. {time} 1630 Mr. YATES. The gentleman from American Samoa has just said the Secretary of the Interior has moved responsibility for the Territories to the Office of Planning and Budget. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is correct. Mr. YATES. Do I understand that your amendment will move supervision of the Territories, such as remains, from the Office of Planning and Budget in the Secretary of the Interior to the Office of the Inspector General? Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it does not, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. Mr. YATES. Where does it go, then? If it is not to remain in the Office of Planning and Budget, who will have supervision? Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield further, we are in a new era, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. We no longer are operating the way we have for the last many years. These Territories have elected Governors and legislators. They have the ability, and the time has come, as the Secretary has said, to allow them their own ability to self-govern. With the exception of the Northern Marianas, there is a Delegate to the House of Representatives, as is the case with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Every one of the Territories, with the exception of the Northern Marianas, has a Delegate in this body, and the Northern Marianas has a democratically elected governor. Mr. YATES. I continue to be concerned about the administration of the funding. Even though they are now self-governing, what happens in the even that there is a significant financial loss? Mr. GALLEGLY. As I said to the gentleman, they do have representation [[Page H 6970]] here in this body in the form of Delegates and representation in the committee. I do not see that as a problem. The Secretary of the Interior himself says the time has come to turn out the lights, and I am using his quote. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Congressman Gallegly's amendment to title I of H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Committee on Resources had approved by voice vote an authorization bill (H.R. 1332) which will, among other things, delete the position of Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs, terminate funding for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, terminate funding for four territorial assistance programs, provide multiyear funding for the territory of American Samoa, and add procedural improvements for the relocation of the people of Rongelap. H.R. 1332 will save the U.S. Government in excess of $100 million over the next 7 years. Regrettably, the Appropriations Committee has chosen not to accept the approach adopted by the Resources Committee. Earlier this year the Secretary of the Interior announced that he was going to close the Office of Territorial and International Affairs, within the Department of the Interior. Later, as the details became available, it became apparent that the administration wanted only to downgrade the office and reduce its size to approximately 25 people. Given that the territory of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are the only territories in which OTIA is actively involved, and given the increased level of self-autonomy already provided to the territories, I submit that 25 people is much too large a staff for this office, and believe it should be terminated or cut substantially. While the four assistance programs contained in the President's budget and the appropriations bill have been useful in the past, the time has come to terminate these programs as well, and move forward in our relations with the territories. Mr. Chairman, the Gallegly amendment is consistent with the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 and consistent with the actions of the authorizing committee this year. In effect, the authorizing committee, and the full House are moving in one direction on these issues, while the Appropriations Committee is moving in another. The Gallegly amendment cuts Federal spending, reduces Government bureaucracy, and moves the administration of the U.S. insular areas toward greater self-autonomy. Chairman Elton Gallegly and I have been working on an authorizing bill for the territories all year. Our approach has been approved by the Resources Committee, and will be a significant change in insular policy for our Government. This change has been a long time in coming, but the time has come. Mr. Chairman, Congress' move toward reduced Federal spending is causing significant pain throughout our Government. I am pleased that insular policy is one area in which the authorizing committee has achieved substantial bipartisan agreement. Insular policy is not an area followed closely by most of us, but those of us who work in the area see this as a positive change, and I urge my colleagues to support the Gallegly amendment and conform the appropriations bill to the budget resolution and the action of the authorizing committee. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. The amendment was agreed to. amendment offered by mrs. vucanovich Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Vucanovich: On page 33 line 17 strike ``67,145,000'' and in lieu thereof insert ``$75,145,000'' and on line 18 strike ``65,100,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$73,100,000''. Mrs. VUCANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Nevada? There was no objection. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores $8 million for the Pyramid Lake water rights settlement. Funds available from a previous amendment which reduced funding from the territorial assistance account is sufficient to offset this amendment. This water rights settlement is very important to the constituents within my congressional district. The final payment for the Pyramid Lake settlement is due next year, at which time an agreement will be implemented to supply much-needed water to the Reno-Sparks area. It is my understanding that the committee intends to fully fund this program in time to consummate this important water rights agreement. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side has no objection to this amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. This is an obligation of the U.S. Government. We have freed up the funds to do it because we are on a very tight budget. We are pleased that we are able to accept the amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the chairman very much. I urge the acceptance of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. The amendment was agreed to. Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Miller of California Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 32 printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified as set forth in the amendment I have at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment and report the modification. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert $14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``$14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$200,854,000''. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert ``$14,750,000''. Page 11, line 16, strike ``14,100,000'' and insert ``$67,300,000''. Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$84,550,000''. Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$3,240,000''. Page 17, after line 26, insert the following: For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501-2514), $5,000,000. Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert ``$65,310,000''. Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$195,854,000''. Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified. There was no objection. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be supported by all Members who care about our national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and public lands. This is an amendment that should be supported by those who care about our parks and outdoor recreation opportunities in our urban areas. No doubt about it, this amendment directly benefits people in every congressional district in this country. The land and water conservation fund is one of the most popular and successful programs that our government has run. Funded by a portion of [[Page H 6971]] the oil and gas revenues generated from leasing Federal lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, the land and water conservation fund helps to meet the increasingly heavy demand for hunting, fishing, and recreation areas, protects outstanding resources, and preserves the Nation's natural and historical heritage. In addition to Federal land acquisitions, the fund provides for direct grants to States for parks, open space and outdoor recreational facilities. Since 1965, over 37,000 State and local grants have been awarded, totaling $3.2 billion. The States and localities have matched this amount dollar for dollar to acquire $2.3 million acres of park land and open space and to develop more than 24,000 recreation sites. In fiscal 1996 there will be $11 billion in this trust fund, yet unappropriated for a lot of political reasons, but unfortunately the short fund, the recreational needs of this country. My amendment would fund the Land and Water Conservation Program at the same levels that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1995. In addition, my amendment provides for $5 million to fund the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. The current bill provides no funding for this program. My amendment would provide an increase of $183 million over the $51 million which is provided in the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The increased funds for land and water conservation provided in this amendment are offset by a corresponding $183 million reduction in the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development fund. It is true that the budget resolution which Congress has adopted calls for a 7-year freeze on Federal land acquisitions, but I would remind my colleagues that this House also had voted to abolish the Department of Energy, and yet the bill before us today would provide Department of Energy funding for fossil fuel research to the tune of $384 million. It is my understanding that this research appropriation greatly in excess of the $220 million level which the Committee on Science has authorized in H.R. 1816. By contrast, my amendment would bring the DOE spending within the Committee on Science limits by allowing $195 million for DOE's fossil research programs. This amendment presents a very real question of priorities. In my view, the national wildlife refuges, the national forests, the public lands and the urban park areas outweigh the need for the excessive and above the level the Committee on Science recommends for spending on DOE research for coal, oil and gas, research which can and should be done by those industries without these Federal subsidies. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment ought to be considered in the context of the debate on the Endangered Species Act and the private property rights. Members recently have received a July 10 ``Dear Colleague'' on the recent ``Sweet Home'' Supreme Court decision on the Endangered Species Act. In that ``Dear Colleague,'' the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, and five other Members state that if we are to have wildlife refuges and sanctuaries, we should go back to the right way of obtaining them, buy them or pay them for the use of the land for refuges. We will debate the merits of the Endangered Species Act at length when that legislation is reported to the floor. But what we must understand, that Members cannot continue to claim that they think the right way to provide for these lands is to pay for those private properties, which it is, and then not provide the money to do so when these lands are so important to helping our urban areas, our suburban areas and our rural areas meet the demands for recreation and for public space and to meet the needs of both endangered species and habitat. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a priority list of lands that include bear habitat within the Kodiak National Refuge, the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois; preserve the natural water flow patterns for the critical Everglades National Park in Florida; to promote the outdoor recreation of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York; to protect the historical integrity of the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania; to enhance the scenic and natural values of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in Los Angeles, the important national forests of the greater Yellowstone area in Montana; to help protect the salmon streams and the national forests in Oregon and Washington; and to provide resources to those urban areas who are trying to reclaim the recreational opportunities for their youth in cities throughout the country that are trying to bring back the streets, a very successful program where again local government has sought to participate far in excess of the moneys that are available, and without these moneys they simply will not be able to take care of those urban resources and to fully fund the backlog of acquisition and problems that we have. We have people who are inholders who want to get rid of their private lands, who want the Government to buy those lands. We have management problems created in some cases by those, but there is no money. This is the great backlog that we continue to discuss in this Congress where we continue to add to it. Hopefully we will not continue to add to it in the new Congress, but we ought to start getting rid of it out of fairness to those landholders and those people who are concerned about the integrity of our natural resource system. {time} 1645 So those are the priorities. The Congress can choose, as this bill does, to force feed energy research in oil and gas and coal far beyond the recommendation of the Committee on Science, or we can take that excess force feeding of those moneys and apply them to very high- priority items throughout the entire country to protect and preserve the environment, to protect and preserve our national parks, to protect and preserve our national forests, and to expand and protect and preserve the recreational opportunities for our citizens in our inner cities and suburban communities and small towns across the country. That is the choice that this amendment presents. It is neutrally funded. It costs no more money than to force feed this energy research. I would hope my colleagues would choose their local community that is requesting these funds. I would hope they would choose their local counties. I would hope they would choose their local States and the gems of the natural resource system of this country, the national parks, the national wilderness, and the national refuge system of the United States. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, so the Members understand the issue here clearly, this has an appeal, but let me say that the House-passed budget resolution that was adopted here some weeks ago, provided a 5-year moratorium on land acquisition, because when we buy land, we have to take care of it. If we buy land, it means more people, it means more of everything. We are talking about trying to get to a balanced budget in this Nation in 7 years. We cannot get to a balanced budget by buying more than we can take care of. That is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on land acquisition. This would scuttle that moratorium totally and go back to business as usual. The statement was made that we are force feeding programs in energy research. Let me tell my colleagues again, we have cut back considerably, but we have contractual obligations. We have a number of projects in fossil energy research that have contracts with the private sector. The private sector is putting up anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the money, which means that they believe that these will be successful. I think it is a big mistake in terms of national policy to cut back any further on fossil energy research. We are going to downsize it. We are going to get down to the numbers of the authorizing committee, maybe not as quickly as they would but we are headed that way. But we have to recognize our contractual obligations. If we suddenly pull our part of it out, we are subject to lawsuits for failure to perform on contracts that we have made. [[Page H 6972]] Let me also tell my colleagues that we did put in $50 million in an emergency fund for land acquisition. We recognize that there may be parcels of land that become available that we should take advantage of. So, we do have a cushion in the bill, in spite of the fact that the Committee on the Budget and the budget we passed called for a moratorium on land acquisition. The use of that money for land acquisition is subject to the reprogramming, so it has to come back, in effect, to the appropriate committees. The reason we reduced land acquisition was to fund operations. The money that might have otherwise been spent on land acquisition is put into the operations of the parks. We actually increased the operation money in the parks over 1995. We want to keep the parks open. We want to keep the forests open. As I said at the outset, these are must-do's. We must keep the facilities available to the public and therefore we have flat-funded them and used that money for the operations that we normally would have put in land acquisition, because we have a responsible number on fossil energy research. I think what we have done represents a balance. It represents the will of the House as reflected in the budget adopted here. It takes care of operations, and I do not think we ought to tamper with it. These are nice to do. It would be nice to go out and buy more land. It would be nice to fund the UPARR Program, but we cannot do it all when we have a 10-percent cut and we can look forward to more next year. We need to avoid doing things that have substantial downstream costs or otherwise we cannot leave as a legacy for future generations a strong economy that would be generated by a balanced budget. Mrs MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, on that point about not wanting to saddle the Federal Government with the maintenance cost for new acquisitions, I understand that motivation prompted the Committee on the Budget, of which I am a member, to put a freeze on the purchase. But the fundamental principle of the land and water conservation fund, so far as I am acquainted with it, is that there are acquisitions made on a local level and that the maintenance and the care and the development of these lands are basically turned over to the counties and to the States for their assumption of that future responsibility. And all that the land and water conservation fund does is to provide the moneys for acquisition. So, we are not transferring. By approving this amendment, we would not be transferring a future cost to the Federal Government; is that not true? Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman from Hawaii is absolutely correct on the UPARR portion, but that is a small part of this amendment. A great bulk of what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] proposes to take out of fossil energy research is going to land acquisition on the national parks and other land management agencies. A very small part of what his amendment would delete would go to the mission that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has described. For that much of it, the gentlewoman is correct. But to put over $200 million in land acquisition, obviously, has to generate very substantial maintenance costs downstream for the U.S. Government and that is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on additional land acquisition and we tried to respond to the House-passed budget. (Mrs. MINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], because I feel that the set aside that we so wisely did in putting aside these oil exploration funds into this land and water conservation fund was for the future use and acquisition of these lands, which are the precious acquisitions for the entire country. It is not for one particular State of locale; it is acquisitions that go to the total assets of the United States. So I rise in very strong support of this amendment and I hope that the Members will agree and I yield to the offeror of this amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] raised the question, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] raised the question, about maintenance costs. in many instances, the land that is in the backlog waiting to be acquired is held by private landowners in the middle of a national forest, on the edge of a national forest, or surrounded on two sides or three sides or four sides by a national forest. These people want out. They are encumbered by the fact that the forest is there. The Forest Service or the Park Service or the Refuge Service would reduce their operational costs and administrative costs because of these in-holdings. These people in many cases have been standing in line for years after year after year. We have heard about them. And this committee is struggling. I do not doubt what they try to do every year. This committee has struggled to try to meet that demand. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and I have sat in our committee and continued to make sure that they never whittle the backlog down. the fact is, the backlog exists. I think that with the new Congress, the backlog is about to not be added to, if I hear what is going on in our committee correctly. But we owe it to those people who are waiting to have their lands purchased. And there is money available, but there is not if we choose to use it in the Department of Energy fossil fuel research; again, which many of these companies can do on their own and have the availability to do. It is a question of priorities. Let us understand that in many instances, this is about reducing administrative costs in Park Service units, in National Park Services, in wildlife refuge units. So, it is not all about that. This would give, obviously, the Forest Service and the Committee on Appropriations the ability to set priorities, but let us get rid of some of this backlog. It is not fair to these people to just leave them hanging there as we have purchased all the land around them. I would hope that we would support the amendment. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to a question from me, is not it true that this backlog that the gentleman speaks of are already acquisitions that the Congress has already acted upon to some extent? It is not as though we are coming in with a new acquisition, a new park idea or some new enhancement of our environment. These are items that have already been set down, but for a variety of reasons, the land and water conservation fund has not been tapped to do this purchase. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. Many of these properties are subject to congressional designation. Many these properties have a cloud on their title in one fashion or another because of what has taken place around them. And the question is do we start to whittle down that backlog? Let us understand something here. There is $11 billion in the land and water conservation fund and the agreement was with the American people that we would allow oil drilling off of the coast of this country and we would use those resources to add to the great resource base of this country for recreation and for public use. That promise was never kept; not by any Congress, not by any administration. It is a little bit of the kind of fraud that we have sometimes around the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund. We put the money in there and we say this is going to go for airport safety or this is going to go for improved highways. But then somehow this Congress starts dipping their fingers into this trust fund or one administration or the other wants to make the budget deficit smaller than it does. Who are the victims? The victims are the people who paid for the gasoline that expected better roads and safer roads. The victims are the people who bought an airline ticket and expected safer airlines. The victims are the people who agreed to have this oil explored [[Page H 6973]] off their coast and said that the tradeoff will be that we will create this trust fund. We have been robbing this trust fund for years. Now all we are suggesting is that we authorize them to spend some of the $11 billion. I do not think the Committee on Appropriations in the last few years has spent more than $100 million out of the trust fund for acquisition. That is how you get a backlog. You lie to the American people. You lie to the American people. All of these things that are on this list for acquisition are because Members of Congress thought they were terribly important and voted to pass them. We ought to keep faith with the American people, faith with the budget process, and vote for the Miller amendment. It is a hell of a good deal. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would add $184 million for land acquisitions for preservation of our natural resources. The Miller amendment attempts to restore the land and water conservation fund [LWCF] to fiscal year 1995 levels, through decreases in fossil energy research to authorized levels set forth by the Science Committee. There is $11.2 billion surplus in the Treasury for the LWCF. The Miller amendment appropriates a mere 2 percent of this surplus. The LWCF has been essential to the conservation in perpetuity of lands for recreational use since 1965. Under LWCF, local communities and States have the opportunity, through the fund's 50/50 matching grants, to directly invest in parks and recreation in local areas. A modest Federal role in the LWCF provides States and local officials primary responsibility and flexibility for such land acquisition and development projects made possible by the fund. The reduction in fiscal year 1996 appropriations out of the LWCF represents a serious threat to the promotion of America's national and historical heritage. My State acquired under LWCF Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, the very first refuge for forest birds in the country and a vital part of Hawaii's battle against an endangered species crisis. Of the 128 bird species that originally nested in the Hawaiian Islands, 58 have disappeared and 32 are on the endangered species list. Habitat for endangered waterbirds has been protected by the LWCF at the Kealia National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui, which consists of 700 acres of wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Service, through the LWCF, has worked with a private landowner to secure the 164-acre James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, which contains habitat supporting 35 species of birds making up the largest population of waterbirds in Hawaii. The LWCF funded the Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge in the Koolau Mountain range, which is on its way to being the first actively managed habitat for Hawaiian endangered and indigenous tree snails, birds, bats, and plants. The National Park Service has used the LWCF to augment Hawaii's two major national parks--Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island and Haleakala National Park on the Island of Maui. Since 1965, the LWCF has funded more than 37,000 projects with more than half of these projects invested in urban and suburban areas. To keep the fund at the level in H.R. 1977 would be to rob countless communities across the Nation of the ability to continue developing projects for which substantial sums have been invested, good faith commitments have been put into place with willing landowners, and timetables have been congressionally authorized. I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in favor of the Miller amendment to restore funding for land and water conservation fund acquisitions for purposes of conservation. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, but enthusiastically, rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Much of what the gentleman said is true, but let us keep in mind that these properties that we were supposed to be purchasing were set off limits by another Congress. In fact, if we look at the GAO report, which I requested with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], that was reported in 1995, we purchased in 1993, through the agencies, a little over 203,000 acres of land. The Forest Service purchased 72,000; the LM 27,000; the Fish and Wildlife, 82,000; the National Park Service, 22,000. What we have done in the past, and I will respectfully say, we have now hopefully addressed that issue with a commission that will look at our parks. We hope to come forth with another recommendation that we do not constantly create these units without proper scientific research and input. Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree that there is $11 billion in the fund to buy these properties. We have not. We have used them. All administrations, including this one, have used these moneys to balance the budget, or other purposes than what they were collected for. But more than that, we have stopped drilling off shore too. There is no drilling taking place in the United States, other than in the Mexican gulf. There is a little off of Alaska. There is none around the United States and I do not think anybody here is advocating that. None in Florida. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the gentleman from Ohio said that we did on this side, I am saying this for our Members, agreed to a budget target to balance it by a certain time. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to request, respectfully, we vote no on the gentleman's amendment, although much of his argument is correct as to how this has been misused. But I do believe if we want to reach that target, we should reject the amendment, support the chairman of the committee, and go forth with our business. {time} 1700 Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. You know, over and over again we have heard Members of the 104th Congress speaking very vocally, obviously very enthusiastically, in favor of protecting private property rights, and I do the same myself. But we have heard them say if you want to protect endangered species living on private lands, then buy the land. In fact, I got this interesting dear colleague letter from people on both sides of the aisle really saying the same thing. Well, this House has passed legislation requiring that the Federal Government purchases property at a landowners' request if the Government impacts its value more than 50 percent. But here we are, we have this bill which is just gutting the very account that would allow us to acquire land. So I would say to Members who are concerned about private property rights, I would say let us put our money where our mouths are. There are numerous examples of property owners ready, willing to sell their land to the Federal Government so that we can protect fish and wildlife. In Oregon, we have landowners along the Siletz and Nestucca Rivers who want to sell some of this region's most productive wetlands in order to provide habitat for bald eagles, snowy white plovers, and at- risk of salmon. That is great. We have a willing seller, a willing buyer, we have a good idea. Farther north on the Columbia River, the endangered Columbia white- tailed deer is a shining example where you have a good management plan, you can take the animal off the endangered species list. We need a little more land to make sure that that habitat is there. We have willing sellers. We need the money in this account to do that. Now, land acquisition, it seems to me, is a most cooperative, nonintrusive way to protect both the endangered species and private property rights. At a time when divisiveness has paralyzed many resources issues, land acquisition provides us with that win-win solution that we are all looking for. It is hypocritical to claim that you want to preserve the rights of private landowners or that you want to prevent species train wrecks, and then turn around and cut the funding for the land acquisition. If you colleagues support private property rights, and if you support the prevention of extinction of species, you have a great opportunity here. Vote ``yes'' on the Miller amendment. It is a win-win situation. Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in very strong support of the amendment by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I think it would be a very sad mistake for this new majority to miss an opportunity, and that opportunity is really to provide the preservation of some of our natural lands in this country. You know, these bills that we are looking at provide, and this particular [[Page H 6974]] legislation provides, opportunity to spend money on surveys and studies and administration. But, really, what do we leave the next generation? I tell you that we cannot do anything that would be more lasting for the next generation than to invest this small amount of money on preservation of lands, many of them endangered, throughout the United States. Let me speak from a personal standpoint. I and my family lived, and I grew up, in Miami, and I saw what happened to the Everglades there, how they became neglected and how we did not take the time to preserve that area. I now have the opportunity to represent central Florida, a beautiful area that has natural bodies of water and hundreds of lakes, and that area is endangered. You know, we have the Ocala National Forest to the north. The State has preserved some land around the urban areas. This area is impacted by tremendous growth, and we have the opportunity to acquire some land in a Federal-State partnership, and that money is not available, and that is sad and that is tragic because the same thing I saw happen as I grew up as a young man now is taking hundreds of millions, billions, of dollars to restore the Everglades. And because we did not make the investment that we needed, we may never get another chance. I have a photo of the area that I am talking about, the St. John's River, in my district, $15 million from the State, $15 million from the Federal. But we do not have a penny in this bill for land acquisition, and that is wrong, and it is wrong for this side of the aisle to reject this amendment. Because this should be a priority, and we will not get another chance to save these lands. So I urge my colleagues to look at this. A lot of the things we say here will not make any difference, but something we do here will make a big difference, and that big difference is preserving this land and these natural preserves for the future. We should be investing in that. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members in the entire House of Representatives, according to voting records, so I come here speaking not to spend money idly, not to spend money on pork projects, but to spend and make an investment in the future so we can leave a legacy for our children. So I strongly--I strongly advocate passage of this amendment. I had an amendment in here just to add a few more dollars to this, and I commend the gentleman for adding the many more dollars that can be well spent and well expended in the national interest, in the public interest and in the interest of our children. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman's statement, and I say to him, he need not worry, as I am sure he knows, about putting his conservative credentials at risk. The proposition on behalf of which he speaks is the most profoundly conservative proposition that could possibly come before us. It is litera