THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
I have been dealing with bureaucracies for 25 years at State and now at the Federal Government level, and these are debates going on between bureaucracies and people they regulate. I have been involved forever in trying to bring fairness, because I find government lawyers are not always fair and government bureaucrats are not always fair and they should not be legislating, and they are legislating. What we are trying to do is work out to make sure the appropriate people study these issues and come up with the answers. So let us go through them.
I think the gentleman from Nevada adequately explained the hard rock mining regulation. It provides a one-year moratorium. Now, I am not a mining expert, but I was told when we had the debate on the floor and told by many people who know a lot more about mining than I do that that provision would prevent many of our mines from operating that are good mines. They could not work on that limitation of land with their waste. Impossible regulation to live with. Well, we should deal with that. We should make sure that this lawyer is being fair with the mining industry. It is a vital part of our future.
The oil valuation. There is nobody here who wants oil companies to get government oil cheaper than the market price. I do not know of anybody. I do not think there are members of the government who want to take oil out of the public land for less than the value. I do not. I do not know of other members that do.
But if there is a disagreement in how to come to that price, I think we have a right to look at and have a GAO study done that will resolve that issue. Why should we not do that? We should be fair.
The grazing issue. Another issue where people have been grazing on this land for years. The BLM is way behind in the backlog, not appropriately dealing with this issue. Are we going to punish those who graze? I do not think we should. We have given the BLM extra money, we have taken a 6 month
[Page: H10683] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, I think we should be fair. We in Congress should set the rules on mining, not some lawyer in a department. And if we do not agree with the valuation of the price, then we should legislate what is how we sell oil. We should resolve those issues and not let bureaucrats arbitrarily do what they feel is appropriate when it is not.
This is a good bill. It is thoughtful; it has been a well-worked out compromise; it is the best we are going to get; and I think we should support it and the President should sign it.
[Time: 18:00]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Appropriations, who has worked very tirelessly on all of these bills.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me start by stipulating that the chairman of the subcommittee is one of the finest Members of this institution. I have had the privilege of serving with him for many years, and I think he has graced this body with dedicated service. I think he is thoughtful. I think he is fair-minded, and I think he is a fine chairman of this subcommittee.
I wish that the bill that he brought to the floor was of the same quality as he is, because there would be no dispute if it were.
Let me simply say that we have heard a number of speeches from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle in which they have feigned surprise at the fact that there is so much opposition to this bill, given the fact that there were so many votes for this bill when it originally passed. I think if we want to understand why that is so, all we have to do is take a look at the motion to instruct conferees which passed this body just a few weeks ago.
This House, by a margin of over 20 votes, I believe, on a bipartisan basis, asked the conference committee to do a number of things. They asked us to go to the Senate level on funding for the arts. We did not do that in the conference committee. The conference committee made no compromise whatsoever with respect to the arts and brought the bill back still at the House level.
The motion to instruct that was adopted by this House on a bipartisan basis also asked the conferees to strip out all of the anti-environmental riders and, in fact, the conference committee did not. In fact, a number of these riders were not even in the House bill when the House bill passed originally. They were added in the other body.
So, again, this conference report does not measure up to the standards that this House set for it in its motion to instruct conferees, and we set those standards on a bipartisan basis with many people on that side of the aisle voting with us, urging the stripping of those riders.
That motion to instruct also asked them to drop the provision on mining so that mines cannot continue to go beyond the authority given to them under the 1872 law, in ruining the environment around them. Again, the conference did not drop that provision.
So I think we should not be surprised that this House is now going to find many votes opposed to this bill.
We are going to be voting against this bill essentially for three reasons. First of all, because the bill in many respects, with respect to the environmental riders is in worse shape than it was when it left the House originally.
Secondly, it contains a number of the provisions on these riders which the House asked the conference to strip and which the conference committee did not, in fact, carry out.
Thirdly, we feel that the conference report does not sufficiently take account of the opportunities available to us to save precious natural resources by meeting the President's request or something close to it for his Lands Legacy Program. That is all that is involved here. It should not be a surprise. From the beginning, from the get-go, we have known that this bill needed to be improved in order to achieve a large number of bipartisan votes, and under those circumstances, since the House leadership has chosen to bring that bill to us without the improvements that the House itself said it wanted when we first sent the conference committee to conference, we have no choice but to stick by our convictions and oppose the bill at this point.
I hope that after it goes down to the White House and is vetoed, the conference committee will take seriously the instructions of the House and take seriously the requests of the President of the United States. And when they do, with the few reasonable compromises, we can have a bill which will indeed reflect the same kind of quality that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA) has reflected in all of his years service in this House.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) for his comments, and I would say that always in our dealings maybe we disagreed but he has been honorable about it, and I think that is a great quality in this institution.
Let me just say to the Members that are here and that are out there in TV land that here is an opportunity to enhance the legacy that we leave, as legislators, an opportunity to ensure that our public lands will be better when we leave than they were when we came here; an opportunity to tell the people of America that we care about the experience they will have; that we want to ensure that they are well maintained and that we enhance them wherever possible and that they can enjoy in the future generations the same experience we have had with this legacy .
I saw the smile of the gentleman from Massachusetts who brought up the metaphor of baseball. Being from the Cleveland area, I was not in a position to say a whole lot, but if I had been from New York it would have been a little easier.
In any event, let me just close by saying to everyone, we have an opportunity today, by voting ``yes,'' to hit a home run for America.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Interior Appropriations Conference Report.
There are plenty of reasons to vote against this bill, from its anti-environmental riders to the dramatic cuts in the President's Land Legacy Initiative . But most distressing is that once again, in what has become an annual event, the Appropriations Committee has short-changed the National Endowment for the Arts of much-needed funding.
The NEA suffered a 40% cut in funding in 1996 to $99.5 million and it has been cut even further to $98 million the last two years, the lowest appropriation to the NEA since 1977, over 20 years ago. The bill that passed the House in July maintained this level once more. As the nation is experiencing historic levels of prosperity, it is time to increase our commitment to the arts. And it seemed, just a few weeks ago, that we had taken a first step toward renewing this commitment. This House voted to instruct our conferees to accept the Senate's modest $5 million increase to bring NEA funding to $103 million. But once again, we have fallen short of our promises. Indeed, our own conferees ignored the wishes of this House and insisted on level funding for the third consecutive year. This is a snub to our colleagues as well as to the arts community.
It is a tiny amount of money that we are talking about. A fraction of one percent of our entire federal budget. But these dollars yield dividends that far outweigh the investment. Throughout its thirty-year history, the National Endowment for the Arts has contributed to the tremendous growth of professional orchestras, non-profit theaters, dance companies, and opera companies throughout the country. The NEA helps support the non-profit arts industry which generates more than $36 billion of business annually, 1.3 million full-time jobs, and returns $3.4 billion in federal taxes every year.
The NEA also supports arts education, which is essential in developing critical thinking skills such as reading, math, and science. It builds important workplace skills such as creative problem solving, allocating resources, team building, and exercising individual responsibility. Arts education programs also help to discover and train the next generation of artists. These programs will all suffer as a result of our shortsightedness.
Let's remember that the NEA has an important impact on the arts throughout the country. The NEA stimulates the growth of local arts
[Page: H10684] GPO's PDF
And the NEA has made special efforts to expand its reach into every community in this nation. The funding increase was to go to ensure that it had the resources to carry out this initiative. So, I hope that none of my colleagues will complain next year that their district received no grants from the NEA because it is their own fault that its reach will be stunted.
Once more, the Republican leadership has worked to restrict the growth of the arts in America. And we cannot rely on private money to make up the shortfall when we withhold funding. In fact, since NEA funding is often matched by private organizations, when we withhold public dollars we stifle efforts to generate private donations.
Mr. Speaker, the NEA is a crucial tool in building a vibrant arts community across the nation. We must do more for our artists and cultural institutions. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose passage of H.R. 2466, the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Conference Report. Passage of this conference report is not only fiscally irresponsible, but it is also environmentally destructive. I urge everyone to oppose this bill.
Again and again, we have seen the majority bring conference reports to the floor that we simply cannot afford to pass if we intend to live within the budget caps. Anyone who is concerned about saving Social Security should vote against this report.
Just as bad, this bill contains virtually all of the anti-environmental riders from both the House and Senate versions of this legislation plus three new and equally harmful riders. For that reason as well I strongly oppose this conference report and will continue to oppose any legislation that weakens environmental laws, and infringes on public health, public lands, and the public treasury. I urge all of my colleagues to exercise fiscal and environmental responsibility, and vote `no' on this conference report.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I supported the Department of Interior appropriations conference report, and commend Chairman RALPH REGULA who, despite strict budget restraints and difficult negotiations with the Senate, crafted a good bill. However, I do wish to express my opposition to the many policy initiatives, or so-called riders, that were added by the Senate and included in the report. The legislation overwhelmingly passed by the House on July 15 was far superior to the product returned by us by the Senate.
I am concerned that these riders included in the conference report will delay the implementation of necessary rules and regulations that help protect the environment. Furthermore, I am very concerned that the riders single out certain industries and organizations for special protection which gives them an unfair advantage over others.
My biggest concern, however, is that these initiatives will be paid for by every hardworking taxpayer. We should not ask the American people to pay for the kind of inappropriate, costly measures that have not been properly considered or authorized. Major policy decisions, such as these, should be considered by the appropriate authorizing committee after hearings and debate.
Mr. Speaker, overall, I believe the conference product is a good one. In the future, however, we should resist the temptation to attach inapproirate policy intiatives appropriations bills.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his great appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA), Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, and to all members of the conference committee for the inclusion of a $10 million appropriation for the first phase of construction for a replacement Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska, to serve the Winnebago and Omaha tribes. Of course, the conference committee is already well-aware of the ongoing situation with this hospital. Indeed, last year the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee kept the process going by including funds to complete the design phase of the project for which this member and Native Americans in the three state region are very grateful. Now, construction dollars are needed.
Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget overruled Indian Health Service's FY2000 budget request for the first phase of construction, so there was no request by the Administration. Once the design is completed, it is important to begin funding for the first phase of construction without a delay. If there is a time lapse between completion of design and construction, it is very possible that costs will increase, making this project more expensive. That is why this appropriation action at this time is so critical.
In closing Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to acknowledge and express his most sincere appreciation for the extraordinary assistance that Chairman REGULA, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee staff have provided thus far on this important project and urges his colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. Since the Republicans took over the House, they have had the dubious distinction of using this spending bill to make substantive, and often controversial, policy changes. Most often, these decisions were in direct contrast to public interest and sentiment. Thus, it comes as no surprise, that we are on the floor debating mischievous attempts by the Republican majority today to undermine and roll back sound environmental policy originally designed by Congress to protect the land that each and every American rightly owns.
The most egregious example of this is the Majority's attempt to kill the oil valuation rule. Although it rolls back no environmental policy, it is a slap in the face to the American taxpayer and costs them millions of dollars every year. On October 1, 1998, the Department of the Interior attempted to correct the underpayment of $68 million a year in oil royalties not paid by cash laden oil producers to implement a new rule that would raise the royalty fees on oil and gas pumped from public lands. Specifically, the new sound royalty rate would tie the price of oil to the commodity market instead of murky negotiated deals between producers and buyers.
The effect of this rule was to curtail the practice of using posted prices to determine oil royalties. For two, now three straight appropriations processes, Congress has barred Interior from finalizing this rule in hopes that a compromise could be reached. It seems that the only compromise that can be reached regarding this issue is nothing short of the status quo, or if the oil industry had its way, they could pay the government in crude.
The oil industry has skillfully underpaid the government more than $3 billion and now they are complaining that the government is cheating them and driving them out of business. These accusations should infuriate everyone in this chamber. In the name of profit, big oil has cheated the American public, Indian tribes and our school children by denying them revenue for programs that rightly should benefit them. Delaying implementation of this rule any longer continues to
show how money talks and the publics' rights walk in halls of Congress.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents