DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003
(House of Representatives - July 17, 2002)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H4773-H4819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 483 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5093.

                              {time}  1052


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5093) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
16, 2002, the amendment by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) had 
been disposed of and the bill was open from page 4, line 1 through page 
74, line 23.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing 
the various accounts in this bill be inserted in the Record at this 
point.
  The tabular material is as follows:

[[Page H4774]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.001



[[Page H4775]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.002



[[Page H4776]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.003



[[Page H4777]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.004



[[Page H4778]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.005



[[Page H4779]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.006



[[Page H4780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.007



[[Page H4781]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.008



[[Page H4782]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.009



[[Page H4783]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.010



[[Page H4784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.011



[[Page H4785]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.012



[[Page H4786]]

                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rahall

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall:
       Page 50, beginning on line 19, strike ``expended'' and all 
     that follows through ``Congress: Provided further,'' on line 
     6, page 51, and insert ``expended: Provided,''.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I begin by commending the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Interior. He has brought a very sound bill to the floor. I commend the 
gentleman for his leadership and salute him upon his retirement from 
this body. I salute, as well, the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who I understand may oppose this 
amendment, but has been very courteous to me in allowing this amendment 
to proceed.
  I offer this amendment with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). 
It is my understanding the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) on the 
majority side has a keen interest in this matter and may want to speak 
as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I did vote against the rule governing debate on this 
measure because it waived all points of order against the bill on 
matters which constitute an authorization on an appropriation measure 
with the exception of an issue relating to the Everglades.
  In this regard, I am particularly concerned with one authorizing 
provision in particular that is so unfair, so callous in my view that 
since it was protected from a point of order under the rule, it has 
prompted me to offer this amendment.
  This provision is nothing more and nothing less than a gag order on 
thousands of American Indians who are seeking a proper accounting from 
the Federal Government of royalties that are owed to them. It is a most 
repressive provision.
  Simply stated, this provision in the bill prohibits the government 
from accounting for amounts owed to more than 300,000 Indians prior to 
1985. It is unfortunate, but true, that through both Democrat and 
Republican administrations, the Department of the Interior has acted 
like the Enron of Federal agencies when it comes to managing Indian 
trust assets.
  Over the years, countless investigative reports by the Congress, the 
GAO, the Inspector General, and others have been issued on the failure 
of the Department of the Interior to properly account for and manage 
Indian trust funds. This matter is in litigation and the contention is 
that the Department of the Interior has squandered more than $10 
billion in royalties owed to these individuals. Compared to this 
scandal, the Teapot Dome scandal was chump change.
  But rather than allowing the litigation to go forward, rather than 
allowing for a full and proper accounting of these trust fund accounts, 
H.R. 5093 places an arbitrary cutoff date of 1985. That would be like 
telling Americans who have placed money in a savings account all of 
their adult lives and have proper records that we will have the bank 
tell the investor what is in their account regardless of what the 
investor's records show. If the investor's records show an investment 
of $100,000 in the bank, but the bank says they have only $50,000, then 
the bank figure would stand, and there is no recourse.
  That is what this provision in H.R. 5093 says to these American 
citizens. They are our first Americans. They have died in our wars. 
They have invested and contributed to our society. And today they are 
being treated with the most callous disregard, no better than the heads 
of Enron and WorldCom treated their investors.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for adoption of this amendment. I ask that my 
colleagues in support be recognized as well.


                        Request to Limit Debate

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes to 
be equally divided and controlled.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have a 
number of requests on this side of the aisle for time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Would the gentleman agree to an hour?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, at this 
time I would like to reserve the option to see how many more speakers 
may come to the floor.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Since fiscal year 
1996, the Subcommittee on the Interior has taken the steps necessary to 
have the Department of the Interior and the Indian community clean up 
decades of trust fund mismanagement. After appropriating hundreds of 
millions of dollars for this purpose, it has become clear that a number 
of ``good government'' legislative changes were necessary to ensure 
that trust fund reform can go forward. If trust reform is to succeed, 
these provisions must be enacted into law.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let us begin by 
acknowledging that this is not a partisan issue. We have had Interior 
secretaries under Democrat administrations and under Republican 
administrations that have struggled with this that have been subject to 
court orders and contempt of court and employees in both 
administrations. This has been an extraordinarily difficult issue.
  Let us put a little perspective on this. Let us understand what is 
involved with this. It was 1996 when five plaintiffs filed a class 
action suit against the Department of Treasury and Interior on behalf 
of themselves and 300,000 individual Indian money accountholders. It is 
called the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit for breach of trust in handling 
Indian funds.
  Now, it is not as though the subcommittee and the House of 
Representatives and the Congress have not recognized the problem. Over 
the years, we have appropriated $45 million for the trust fund 
accounting system, $43 million for the trust asset accounting 
management system, $22 million for data cleanup, and $20 million for a 
transaction-by-transaction historical accounting of the named 
plaintiffs and their predecessors to serve as a benchmark to determine 
future funding requirements for this type of activity. This amount, 
about $130 million, is in addition to all of the other things that we 
are doing on a day-to-day basis in the operations of the trust account.
  Meanwhile, we have had the courts making and the plaintiffs making 
life very difficult for employees. They have had contempt of court 
motions filed against them. They are being advised to purchase their 
own personal liability insurance. As a result, many of them have 
recused themselves and they were not able to get employees to work on 
this accounting system. It is becoming an almost impossible situation 
for everybody within the department. We need to get this thing 
resolved.
  Now, the reason we have this limitation, this historical accounting 
limitation, is because it would do all accounts that were opened as of 
December 31, 2000, going back as far as January 1985. That is virtually 
the vast majority of them. We are talking about going back to infinity 
in time to the very beginning of time, and we are talking about 
something that is almost impossible to do, and it is estimated that it 
would cost about $2.4 billion, $2.4 billion to do the accounting. It is 
extraordinarily expensive, but it is not going to yield the desired 
results because of the missing data that we have. So what we are 
talking about is trying to narrow this down to something that is 
reasonable that we can actually accomplish.
  If we were required to undertake an extensive historical accounting, 
we would have to divert funds from other high priority Indian programs 
and it is going to have a disastrous effect on Native Americans.
  We are likely to spend, even with this limited amount, we are likely 
to spend $200 million over the next several years.
  Mr. Chairman, in my view, what we are trying to do is the responsible 
thing, to act in a responsible way to make sure that we can get this 
historical accounting done for the vast majority of the Native 
Americans who deserve to have this done. One of the things we need to 
make sure that we do is to release the Ernst & Young report

[[Page H4787]]

that has been held up by the Court; the Court has denied its being 
released. It has been denied by the Court. We need to do that so we 
could see what we would have in the way of historical accounting for 
the numbers of people that would be affected. We need to give some 
compensation to employees for their litigation expenses. We need to 
have new members of the Special Trustee Advisory Board and, I think, 
ultimately, we need to limit this historical accounting to the 300,000 
individual accounts.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOBLE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding 
and, certainly, as I said in my opening comments, this is something 
that has gone on through a Republican and Democrat administration. I 
would agree with the gentleman that it is very hard to get an 
historical accounting, a true accounting of these monies that are owed, 
and the Interior Department said that in our Committee on Resources 
during our hearings on this issue. They said that on numerous 
occasions.
  But I think what we must recognize is that this issue is in 
litigation at the current time, as the gentleman has noted, and as we 
are all very much aware. That litigation should be allowed to proceed. 
I would fear, by the language in the pending bill, that we are 
prejudging the outcome of that litigation, and that is my concern.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since I think my time is 
limited at this point, I would just say that it is in litigation, but 
it is not exactly the first time that the Congress of the United States 
has stepped in when there has been litigation to try to resolve 
something. This is litigation that has absolutely no end in sight; 
none. There is no prospect of this litigation ever coming to a 
resolution; there is no prospect of ever resolving this issue. We are 
trying to put some parameters around it so that we can get an 
historical accounting for the people who really need it. I urge this 
amendment be defeated.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as cochair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, 
I strongly urge the House to support the amendment to strike the 
provision in the Interior appropriations that would limit government 
accountability to Indians by restricting an historical accounting of 
Indian trust funds.
  This provision would limit the legal claims against the Federal 
Government for mismanaging Indian trust funds by limiting the 
accounting from 1985 forward.
  Further, the provisions would presume the balances as of 1985 are 
correct, even though the government admits the money has been 
mismanaged for decades.
  It would also overturn a central provision of the American Indian 
Trust Management Reform Act, legislation enacted in 1994 after many 
hearings and deliberations on this issue. That act requires that the 
Secretary of the Interior provide a full accounting for ``all funds 
held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Indian tribes 
or individual Indians.''
  The Federal courts have also mandated that the government provide 
Indians with an historical accounting based on trust principles that 
apply to all Americans. The D.C. Federal District Court and a unanimous 
D.C. Circuit have already ruled that the government owes Indians an 
historical accounting of all funds from the date the funds were 
deposited into Federal accounts for Indians.
  To overturn the earlier mandate of the Congress and the Federal 
courts for this important act of government accountability fails the 
poorest Americans: Indians, who rely on money from their lands to whom 
the Federal Government owes a trust responsibility.
  This provision also raises new claims that this proposed 
congressional action constitutes an unconstitutional taking of Indians' 
property: their money.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the Indians' money, not the government's. It is 
not from a Federal program or entitlement, but from the leases of 
Indian lands. Money comes directly into the Interior Department in 
trust from Indians from payments for use of Indian lands for grazing, 
timber, and mineral royalties. The United States has admitted that it 
mismanaged and lost the money.
  This amendment would absolve the government for accounting for that 
mismanagement while opening up the government to new legal claims based 
upon unconstitutional taking of property.
  In effect, this provision we seek to strike legalizes years of 
malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance. In some instances, it 
legalizes actual theft of Indian property.
  Right now, a Tribal Task Force on Trust Reform is currently working 
with the Department of Interior on a trust fund proposal that, upon 
completion, will be submitted to the committees of jurisdiction for 
review. Let us let them finish their work, and we are working with 
them. I have been in contact with them, this Indian task force and the 
Department of the Interior. They are seeking a solution to this 
themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike these 
provisions from the Interior funding bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we spend $16 billion a year on foreign aid. Should we 
not at least be willing to render justice to our Native Americans at a 
much less cost when it is their own money?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great interest to the 
debate, and I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for bringing this to the floor to discuss. I also 
happen to agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). This issue has been with us 
since 1906, and if anybody has a responsibility, it is this body, the 
Congress. Because it is our estimate, and when I say ours, the 
different accounting firms and not Andersen, but different accounting 
firms, there is about $12 billion unaccounted for that belonged to the 
American Indians. In my State alone since 1971, we cannot account for 
the BIA $800,000, and that is a short period of time.
  But I will say that what the committee is trying to do here, and I 
hope that as we go through this process, what I am worried about, and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) mentioned, this is the 
Indians' money, and he is absolutely right, but what is happening is it 
is going to be the lawyers' money. It is going to be the lawyers' 
money. What the committee has tried to do, and whether they are right 
or wrong, and why they picked 1985 I do not know, is try to, in fact, 
pick the date that has the modern communications system for accounting, 
the computer system that is in place so that they can account for that 
period of time.
  I do not believe, and if I could ask, although I do not see the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) here, but somebody, perhaps the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) or the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp), is there somebody who can tell me, this does not preclude 
or close off other investigations prior to 1985. Can anybody address 
that? Does anybody know? Is anybody listening?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the gentleman 
from Alaska, and I believe that the gentleman is actually giving a very 
good description of the situation we are in, and I am going to double-
check that, if the gentleman will give me 1 minute.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will get 
back to the gentleman.
  What I am suggesting here is I do not want to see this happen, this 
to go on and on and on, and never be settled. If we can get the money 
from 1985 and not preclude the money beyond that and the earlier years, 
then I think we have achieved a goal. But right now, we know who is 
making the money out of this, and that is the lawyers who are 
presenting the cases and it is the lawyers for the government who are 
defending against government inaction, a malfeasance. So I am just 
saying, let us try to bring a conclusion to this, and let us really 
work on making sure from now on that the system works.

[[Page H4788]]

  Now, I will say when Ms. Norton became Secretary, the first thing I 
did was call her up and said get rid of the BIA and that accounting 
firm for the trust fund because it is not working. Mr. Babbitt was 
cited for contempt. But that is not the only person, the person before 
him, all the way to 1906, the government has not acted as I think they 
should, and I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), 
that is absolutely wrong. But right now we have to try to get this 
thing started so from now on we do not have the misuse of these funds 
and, in fact, the loss of these funds.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Even 
if we were to adopt this arbitrary cutoff date of 1985, from 1985 on, 
we cannot even get a proper accounting. Mr. Tommy Thompson, one of the 
special trustees before our committee, testified as such when he said 
that we cannot get a grasp of the short-term leases that have been 
recorded post-1985. So we still have an accounting nightmare out there 
in which we cannot track everything.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that means 
that we have to address that issue. We have to address that issue, 
maybe not in this legislation; I will be honest with the gentleman on 
that, I am not sure this will do it. But I am saying somewhere along 
the line we have to solve this problem. Create a grand master, make an 
accounting firm that will handle that and get out of the BIA, because 
as long as the BIA is where it is, we will never have a good system of 
accounting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Young of 
Alaska was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is going to cost about $900 
million just to do the accounting back to 1985. The department does not 
have all of these records, or they would have done it. We have to have 
a settlement. At some point this Congress is going to have to impose a 
settlement on this issue. I have done one before, the Puyallup Indian 
land claim settlement, a very comprehensive settlement which Congress 
supported. We are going to have to craft a settlement.
  Now, if these gentlemen who have come here to the floor today to help 
us, if their committees would get busy and develop a compromise and do 
a settlement on this issue, it could be coming from the Congress. 
Somehow we have to resolve this, because we do not have enough money.
  I think there is a lot of wishful thinking that suggests that this is 
all going to come out of the Justice Department. It may not come out of 
the Justice Department. If there is malfeasance, Mitch Daniels is going 
to say, Interior, you repay this $2.5 billion, 5 billion, whatever the 
number is. So that is a possibility.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with 
the gentleman. What I am suggesting to the people and those of us who 
support the American Indians, as I do, I think it is the responsibility 
of Congress. Because if we look at the trust, if we look at the trust, 
if we look at what is said about the American Indians, the trust 
belongs to the Congress.

                              {time}  1115

  We have been neglectful in not pursuing and making sure that this 
issue had been solved in previous years.
  So I am asking us to sit down, as the gentleman mentioned before, and 
say, let us solve this problem, because they owe their money to 
themselves. We have spent that money somewhere. It is our 
responsibility.
  Like the gentleman says, they will say, we will not appropriate, we 
do not have the money. But somewhere along we have to step up to the 
plate and say listen, we have spent that money, we owe it to them, and 
we ought to take it and get it to them as soon as possible and shut the 
doors.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
this is why they cannot get this done, they do not have all the 
records. There is no possible way to do this. Someone is going to make 
an estimate of what is there, and it can either be done by the court, 
which is not helping us, by the way, or by the Congress.
  If we do not do it there, between the parties, then it has to be done 
by the Congress. Congress has to step in, the authorizing committee has 
to step in, and come up with a legislative settlement of this issue.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues who 
have been speaking so far this morning.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield for one 
minute, this is something unrelated that I think the gentleman will 
support dispensing with.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) have 1 additional minute to answer the 
question.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who objected to that time 
limit on this amendment.
  It is my understanding that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) will not object to other amendments in title I as long as title 
I is not closed up, which would reserve the gentleman's right to offer 
amendments to title I at a later time.
  So when we consider other amendments under title I, such as the 
amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), we can agree to 
a time limit without the gentleman's objection.
  Is that the gentleman's position?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding to me.
  I would say to the gentleman from Tennessee, we do have a number of 
additional amendments which we would certainly reserve the right to 
introduce. However, we recognize many Members have important 
amendments, and in the interest of cooperation here and in giving 
everybody their opportunity, we would agree to not object to any 
agreements on time limits on the amendments that the gentleman would 
like to offer in title I, provided that when the gentleman finishes 
with his amendment, the committee rises without closing out title I.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for 
yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again I want to say that I have a great 
deal of respect for those who have spoken so far. I know that they are 
well intentioned, but I am very disturbed by some of the comments and 
the procedure that we are following this morning.
  Let me say that I understand perfectly what the gentleman from Alaska 
said, but this is a debate that really does not belong here. I know we 
are dealing with money and trust reform, and one could argue that 
somehow it is appropriations related, but I think the very fact that 
there is such a debate, and so many questions about what we should be 
doing with the trust funds means that it should not be done on an 
appropriations bill.
  There should be a hearing, or perhaps a series of hearings that are 
being held in the Committee on Resources, in the authorizing committee, 
not here on the floor, when we are dealing with this larger bill.
  I think it is a huge mistake. The very nature of the debate shows it 
is a mistake, and why we should support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Beyond that, I was very disturbed by some of the comments the 
gentleman

[[Page H4789]]

from Arizona made. He talked about how we have spent a million here or 
a million there in order to try to deal with this trust issue. But we 
are talking about a scandal, I use the term ``scandal'' because that is 
what it is, that affects about $10 billion in funds that may or may not 
be owed, depending on the amount, to American Indians.
  We have had problems over the last few weeks and the last few months 
with the corporate scandals and the accountants that we have had in 
Enron and WorldCom and everything else, and everybody on a bipartisan 
basis has been on this floor saying that we have to take responsibility 
and the CEOs have to take responsibility and do the right thing to make 
sure that the accounting is proper.
  Why is that any different for the Federal Government? Why is it any 
different for this Congress? This Congress has the same responsibility. 
I am not interested in whether the employees at the Interior Department 
are going to be harmed in some way, or whether or not they are going to 
have to go out and get a lawyer in some way because of something they 
may have done wrong.
  We are talking about people who historically have been harmed by this 
Congress. We have a special burden here. There are 100 or 200 years of 
harm to American Indians, and they do not trust us. I understand why 
they do not trust us, because of the things that have happened 
historically with this Congress and with the Federal Government.
  There is a special burden here, a special burden that goes beyond the 
Enrons and the WorldComs, so they do not think that everything that 
they do and everything that Congress does is going to harm them and be 
discriminatory against them.
  I know it is very easy for us to say here that we have to worry about 
this money and we have to worry about that money, but I think for us to 
suggest here today that we are going to have some sort of cutoff pre-
1985, or we are going to have some sort of cutoff after the year 2000, 
and say that we are going to limit the accounting or what the liability 
should be without having consultation with American Indian tribes is a 
huge mistake.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) mentioned that there is now 
a task force within the tribes in the American Indian community that is 
sitting down with the Interior Department, with Members of Congress, 
with our Committee on Resources, and talking about a process that we 
should go about, in consultation with them, to decide how to deal with 
this essentially accounting issue.
  We need the time for that task force to sit down, to come back to the 
authorizing committee, the Committee on Resources, and discuss what 
should be done so that American Indians do not continue to be harmed.
  It is not fair for us in this little debate today, even though my 
friends are well-intentioned, and I am not suggesting they are not, it 
is not fair for us in this half hour or hour of debate to make cutoffs 
and arbitrarily decide what we want to do, even if it is for monetary 
reasons, because there is too much money involved, there is too much of 
a history of discrimination involved. And given what we have seen with 
the corporate sector over the last few weeks and the last few months, I 
think we have a particular responsibility as elected officials and as 
representatives of the Federal Government to not do the same things in 
trying to protect the CEOs or, in this case, the government officials 
who have the responsibility to deal with this issue.
  It is wrong to have that discussion here. This amendment should be 
passed, if for no other reason than this is not the forum and this is 
not the time to be taking this action.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as the House is in the Committee of the Whole House to 
consider this, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, 
acknowledging what I believe to be good-faith efforts of the 
appropriators for what is a very difficult problem. Indeed, simply to 
call this a very difficult problem may be the understatement of this 
new century, and maybe the understatement, quite candidly, Mr. 
Chairman, of almost 3 centuries.
  I was honored, upon first arriving in this House, to join my 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, in a bipartisan fashion co-
chairing a task force dealing with this very problem. In 1994, this 
Congress required the Secretary of the Interior to provide an 
accounting of all funds held in trust by the United States for the 
benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indians.
  There is a body of law, ratified treaties, the long-standing tribal 
trust relationship, the sacred trust, that this government must 
exercise. And there are larger questions, not only from an 
institutional perspective, where, despite the good faith of our 
friends, the appropriators, they are actually stepping in to what the 
authorizing committee, my colleagues and I who serve on the Committee 
on Resources, should be working out.
  We have taken steps, and I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from 
West Virginia, and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan. We have held 
some hearings. My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, quite 
correctly pointed out that the tribes themselves, working with the 
Department of the Interior, and let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the 
current Secretary of the Interior takes this seriously. She has worked 
on this every day. The contempt citation offered by Judge Lambert is 
something that she takes seriously.
  Good people can disagree; but it seems to me if we are involved in 
forensic accounting, the point has been made in a variety of news 
analyses that when we look at the hocus-pocus of either maladroit or 
unethical accounting, whatever the corporate world has done cannot 
eclipse, for whatever reason, what has gone on for a long time in the 
halls of government.
  So, Mr. Chairman, let it begin here. Our first genuine efforts at 
accounting reform, let it begin with the first Americans, the first 
Americans, who have taken steps in good faith with the Secretary of the 
Interior, who has taken steps in good faith with an authorizing 
committee that wants to work together in good faith to address this 
problem.
  It is a challenge, to say the least. But the remedy offered, however 
well-intentioned, by the Committee on Appropriations today is something 
we should thank them for, but ultimately reject. That is why I support 
this bipartisan amendment. We will work this in good order and move to 
accept this amendment. I thank my friends who have spoken on behalf of 
it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Arizona or the subcommittee aware 
of any formal requests from the administration for this provision?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not aware of any 
formal requests for this particular provision. I think it offers 
another compelling reason why we thank the appropriators, given the 
magnitude of the task, but reassert the role of the authorizing 
committee, and recognize the good but challenging work that has been 
done thus far to try and deal with this problem.
  So again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. This 
amendment strikes a provision that would limit a historical accounting 
of Indian trusts. The accounting would only cover the period from 1985 
to 2000. How can we limit the accounting to such a short period when 
the accounting practices in question date back over 300 years?
  At a time when we are trying to increase accounting responsibility in 
the corporate world, can we really say that these standards apply only 
to them, and I say, only apply to them, Native American Indians? Can we 
really be that unfair to Native American brothers and sisters, once 
again, to our Native American Indians being unfair?
  The President and Congress has made it clear that the proper 
accounting goes hand in hand with high moral standards. Should we not 
expect the same standards to be applied to the Federal Government 
accounting Indian

[[Page H4790]]

trust funds? Morality and ethics should be applied to all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision undermines a Federal law that this House 
passed requiring a full accounting of all trust funds. It also 
undermines a Federal court decision requiring an accounting of all 
funds, regardless of dates deposited.
  Most importantly, it undermines our moral and ethical values. We 
cannot argue for fairness in corporate accounting and act in such a way 
which is unfair today, as we are to Native Americans who have made a 
contribution, who are the first Native Americans of this country, who 
have contributed so much to our society. We have a trust responsibility 
and a moral responsibility to provide full and fair accounting of all 
Indian trust funds. I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to do is kind of go through some of the 
questions that have been brought up here. One of the questions was, 
Does the administration know about this? Does the administration 
support it?
  The administration does know about this language and the 
administration does support this bill. Certainly, the Department of the 
Interior has fly-specked it as carefully as they can. As we all know, 
Democrats and Republicans and the administration are quick to point out 
what they like or dislike on anything we are doing here on the Hill.
  The second issue I wanted to touch base on was one that the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) raised about precluding any dispute prior to 
1985. It is the intention of this committee to not permanently preclude 
any accounting for other accounts for other periods. Why is the 1985 
date the one we are starting with? We are starting with that because 
that was the beginning of the electronic era, when it became a little 
easier to track this.
  Why are we in this situation to begin with? We go back, and this 
actually does span hundreds of years, the dates might not be exactly 
accurate, but say 1820-ish. At that time, there were Indian 
reservations. In 1833, there was an act of Congress that busted them 
up, and it was called the Land Allotment Act, 1833 and 1834.

                              {time}  1130

  And at that time much of this previous reservation land was returned 
into the hands of Native Americans. And then through a number of 
unscrupulous moves they lost a lot of this land. The Federal Government 
came back and said this is not fair. We have got to get the land back 
to the people who own it, and so they started a system of leasing land.
  Now, let us say you were a Native American in 1840 and you owned 240 
acres of land, easy, clear to understand. But fast forward down the 
road 100 years, and you have got a thousand people, a thousand heirs 
who are claiming that 240 acres, and in many cases smaller tracts of 
lands and more heirs are claiming it. So it is very difficult to 
administer this thing.
  To give you an idea what we are talking about, some of these 
leaseholders are getting paid 3 and 4 cents, Mr. Chairman, and it costs 
$30 or $40 a lease to administer the payment to them.
  So what the committee is trying to do in this confusion is bracket 
the problem off and say, tell you what, the year is 2002, let us go 
back to 1985 where we had hard core electronic records of the land. Let 
us start with that. Let us try to figure this out in this bracket. Now 
we are not saying we will not go back, but we are saying from this 
point on let us clean up the mess that we have because this portion is 
more manageable.
  It is not, again, the intent of the committee to preclude any 
accounting problems prior to 1985. But one thing I want to say, if we 
do not put a bracket on it, we are looking at $2.4 billion in 
accounting. And a lot of money, this money, as the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) has pointed out, is going to wind up in the hands of 
lawyers, not in the hands of the Native American landowners. So the 
committee is trying to find some reasonable balance and it is 
bipartisan.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I think the thing we want to emphasize here is that we are 
trying to get this thing resolved without spending what has been 
estimated. If we go the route we are going, it could cost from $500 to 
$700 million out of the Interior Department budget to do this 
historical accounting. What we have proposed is let us take the period 
from the year 2000 going back to 1985, let us do that first, that is 
going to cost approximately $900 million. That is still going to come 
out of the Interior Department budget. Then, if the Congress, if the 
authorizers who we see here today, want to, we could then have a 
subsequent congressional act that would, go back 100 years and try to 
reach some kind of an accounting, estimate, or settlement on what would 
be fair considering the facts that we do not have the accounts.
  What we are faced with is we have got a broken main here. And money 
is gushing out because of this lawsuit. It could be up to a billion 
dollars, $500 to $700 million up to a billion. On 5 individuals they 
spent $20 million. And that is the finding that the judge will not 
release to the Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kingston was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a very tough problem and 
there are some who may not realize that this is already hurting all of 
the other tribes because this money comes out of the Interior budget 
and is not available for other programs.
  Now, Babbitt tried as hard as he could. I believe that Norton is 
trying as hard as she can. But you have litigants who are going after 
the people in the agency who are trying to do the work, forcing them to 
be recused and threatening them with civil liabilities. This is an 
outrageous act of legal activity aimed at trying to destroy the 
Department of Interior and its ability to function. In fact, people are 
being held personally liable under lawsuits because of their work in 
this particular matter.
  I just think that this is broken. We have got to fix it here. It is a 
possible way to move forward with a reasonable amount of money. We 
could spend a billion dollars and still not get the information because 
it is not there, the information pre-1985 is not there in any definable 
way. You cannot do this job. And if you just keep throwing money at it 
and say, do it, and they cannot do it, then we cannot get anything 
done.
  I am a very practical guy. At some point if it is broke, let us fix 
it. Let us come up with a settlement. Let us get the authorizers to do 
something and create a settlement here and pass it through the Congress 
that is fair and equitable. Listen to all the witnesses. Listen to the 
best information you can get, the best estimates you can. Do a 
settlement, not this litigation which is broken.
  We have a judge that is out of control who is saying the Department 
cannot use the Internet. To me it is one of the most outrageous things 
that I have witnessed in my career. We have to stop it. If the 
Democrats are worried about saving some money, this is a place to do 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kingston was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I want to make the point, this is 
not an arbitrary move by the Committee on Appropriations. There were 
budget hearings on this, oversight hearings and annual appropriations 
committees. All we are trying to do, as the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) has said, is just start with some certainty from 1985, from 
here on, that point on, we are going to clean it up. And that cost is 
going to be about $900 million. If we do not have that 1985 bracketed, 
we are looking at two things: A cost of about 2.4 billion according to 
the Department of Interior's Office of Historical Trust Accounting. And 
what is worse than that, we will not be able to resolve it.
  Mr. DICKS. There is $143 million this year in this budget for this 
activity.

[[Page H4791]]

This is broken. We need somehow to get our hands around this and try to 
come up with a settlement. Congress is going to have to do it or we are 
going to spend billions on something that we cannot do.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, this helps a lot of people in that 
1985 to 2000 and on bracket. There are lots who are not going to be 
benefitted either way but these people will be helped tremendously.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am impressed with the sincerity, I think, that is 
being offered by our various points of view in different perspectives 
on the floor here. However, the longer I serve in Congress, this is an 
area where I do not just feel worse, I feel guilty as an American about 
the treatment of our Native American citizens. And it seems to me the 
efforts here to establish an arbitrary date, which is arbitrary, which 
is not going to stop litigation, which is not going to solve confusion, 
is not going to help make the process work. By all means, treat it as 
the crisis that it is.
  I identify with the comments from my friend from New Jersey who 
talked about how people are pulling all sorts of rabbits out of the hat 
around here dealing with corporate responsibility, including putting 
bills on this floor that have never been to committee, that we never 
had a chance to analyze, that have had significant ramifications 
because there is a scent of scandal in the air.
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is a scandal of monumental 
proportions. And I would hopefully, respectfully suggest that instead 
of trying to jimmie it, to cut the ground out from underneath it, to 
try and take a small portion of it, that we move forward, give it the 
treatment that it accords. Work with the authorizing committee. Work 
with others here who have the sincere effort to move it forward. Put 
serious money behind it. It is going to cost a huge amount of money, 
but it seems to me that it is not going to move us forward by trying to 
arbitrarily bracket it here in the appropriations bill.
  I strongly support the amendment from the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall). I hope that we can use this as a way to start 
forward, taking the good will that has been expressed on a bipartisan 
basis, the acknowledgment of the financial contribution that is going 
to have to be made, approve the amendment, but move forward with a 
comprehensive approach.
  I know that there are Members of this Congress who would like to do 
some serious legislating. This is an area where I think people would 
step up to the plate for Congress to finally accept its responsibility. 
I would not like this to be perceived by our friends in the Native 
American community as another chapter in this long, sad history.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I rise in 
strong support of this amendment.
  I think when we come to this floor and we find ourselves in a time 
like this, I am excited. I see a ray of light that can finally maybe 
work for this problem. I agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks). This issue is so complicated it should not be on this bill. We 
need to support the Rahall amendment, and we need to fix it this issue. 
And the positive side of this, we see Members from both sides of the 
aisle recognize that, A, that this problem is difficult, that it has 
been festering for too long and that it is wrong of what our government 
has done to Native Americans.
  How many of us, when we walked out of Dances With Wolves, felt sad? 
Probably sad that in what we have done to the Native Americans. What 
about Wounded Knee? What about Code Talkers? I do not have a 
reservation in my district. There is one in San Diego.
  I want to tell you what these Native Americans are trying to do. They 
are trying to stand on their own two feet, and every time they stand 
and they may just get one leg up, this government takes and whacks them 
and knocks them down.
  This is a chance for us to come together as Members of Congress, both 
in the House and in the other body, and really do some good. I want to 
thank my colleague, and I think that it is time that we act. Members 
will find that I think most of us on this side of the aisle are very, 
very supportive.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, be limited to 30 minutes, 
to be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is the 
request that the limit be 30 minutes equally divided between the 
opponents of the amendment and the proponent, myself? Fifteen minutes 
each side, is that the request?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the gentleman's request.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, it is the intent to do 30 
minutes total, but if the gentleman would want to substitute to another 
number, I think that would be appropriate.
  Mr. RAHALL. I have no problem with 30 minutes. I just wanted to make 
sure I understood the division of time therein.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Fifteen minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request is to limit debate to 30 
minutes, 15 minutes divided and controlled by the gentleman on this 
amendment and on all amendments thereto, equally divided between the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
like to address in colloquy with the chairman. Would the gentleman be 
opposed to making that 40 minutes, primarily the next amendment? We 
have many, many speakers.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is just this amendment and any amendments to this 
amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the unanimous consent request is 
granted.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) controls 
15 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time.
  I think it has become clear that the language in the appropriations 
bill has become unacceptable. I think somebody said earlier on the 
Republican side of the aisle, we should thank them for the language but 
we should reject it because I think it does not deal with this in a 
proper fashion.
  We have all understood and many of us have been struggling for many 
years on a bipartisan basis on many committees to get around the 
mismanagement of these funds, to get an accounting and get the money to 
the people who deserve it. It is a massive mismanagement of the funds 
by the Federal government and people have been hurt and damaged by this 
and we must resolve it.
  I think the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has made some good 
points. I think the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and others have 
made some points that we are at a point here where to some extent the 
Department of Interior does not want to admit that they cannot 
reconcile the accounts, and we keep giving them money to do a job that 
maybe they cannot do.
  Other people are not interested in a settlement at this point, but my 
concern here with bracketing this to 1985 is we really have not 
discussed what we do with the others. I appreciate people said our 
intent is not to close it off, but maybe we ought to reject this 
language; and hopefully between now and the conference committee be 
discussing with the parties that this is a staged operation. What 
happens to the people before 1985 or the accounts in 1985. Is there a 
parallel negotiations that can be entered into, because everybody has 
pointed out those records will not be full and complete.

[[Page H4792]]

                              {time}  1145

  I am afraid that this alone leaves us with kind of a large unanswered 
question, what happens pre-1985, and I know the Members of the 
committee have expressed, well, this really, we can come along and 
authorize that later, but that puts a lot of people at a disadvantage.
  So I think we ought to reject this language, but we ought to do it in 
the spirit of what people have said both on the Committee on 
Appropriations and on the authorizing committee about, I do not know 
that we can direct in legislative language a settlement, but we have 
got to direct the parties that we cannot keep funding this sort of 
Alice in Wonderland attempt at accounting when it will not resolve the 
issue in the end, and it is taking money away from vital programs.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I completely concur with the gentleman. I 
think the gentleman laid this out correctly. That is what needs to 
happen in terms of having some mechanism created to deal with pre-1985 
so that we get some expert estimate, and negotiate that.
  Our hope was to take to the present, forward where we believe the 
records are sufficient, and get that done as quickly as possible. I do 
not know how we are going to have to that structured, but that is what 
we need to do. I would love to work with the gentleman on this to try 
to see if we cannot move something like that forward.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the concern 
here is that some people are affected 1985 to 2000 and other people are 
affected 1785 to 1985. I think that we have got to make sure that we 
can assure both parties that their rights will be protected, but we 
also have to get them to understand that no matter what we do, no 
matter what the accounting is, even 1985 to 2000, it is going to be 
disputed. So we are going to end up at some point in settlement, and 
those settlements must go forward.
  I am afraid that the Department keeps asking for money to do the 
accounting. Part of that is trying to insulate themselves from 
liability, that they are working on the issue, but they are digging a 
hole.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, they are directed by the judge to do this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Exactly.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, then the litigants go after the people doing 
the work, saying they are not acting in good faith, and then they have 
to be recused, subject to litigation, personal liability, I might add, 
which we have tried to take care of in this bill.
  This thing is broken; and somehow all the people that are here today 
expressing their wonderful concern, there is going to be a tomorrow, 
and we will see if anybody really wants to stand up with the majority 
side obviously having to be involved and work on this. This has to be 
done. We have got to get something done here.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I perfectly agree with the statements that 
have been said. We want to settle this. We want a settlement. Let us 
allow the current litigation to go forward or get a settlement.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, what efforts 
have been made by the Committee on Resources to foster a settlement?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think, with all due 
respect, it is very clear, I am sorry to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and others, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), when he 
came here with his special commission.
  Part of this was about getting the administration, the past 
administration and others to recognize that they had real liability for 
these funds. Let us not forget that we were being pushed back by the 
Department of the Interior for many, many years to somehow this problem 
did not really exist. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to his 
credit, is the one who really broke it open.
  Now they recognize that they cannot escape that liability. They had 
had preliminary discussions about settlement. We have got to encourage 
that to go forward, but we cannot make this decision about 1985 here 
and now without the consultation of the other parties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) wish to 
control time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to control the time; 
and I reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall), a valuable member of our Committee on Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time, and let me just first thank the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his leadership on this bill. The chairman is 
from my home State of New Mexico. He has always served New Mexico very 
well, many years of distinguished service, and so I just want to say to 
him, I know this is going to be the last bill he manages on the floor, 
that we are all going to miss him very much, and he has been somebody I 
think that has always been there for New Mexico. So I thank the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  I want to rise in support of this amendment, the Kildee-Hayworth 
amendment. This is a bipartisan amendment; and I think the important 
thing, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said, is that 
Native American issues should not be partisan issues. This Congress 
should address these issues in a bipartisan way, and that is what we 
are trying to do on the Committee on Resources.
  We have two senior Members that have offered this amendment. It is a 
good, solid amendment, and basically what it does is take out these 
provisions that hurt Native Americans. What specifically it does is 
when we talk about a court case, we are talking about the current court 
case of Cobell v. Norton. That court case is a case which arose from 
major officials violating their trust responsibilities to Native 
Americans.
  The court has said in the strongest of terms and condemned the 
actions of Federal officials and how they have dealt with these 
accounts. So there is absolutely no doubt that there has been a 
violation by the Federal Government, and the provisions in this bill 
cut off Native American rights. There are very specific deadlines in 
there, and all of those need to be taken out; and the important thing 
here is this bill language comes at a time when the Nation is focused 
on accounting responsibility.
  The President and the Congress have made it clear that accounting 
must be marked by transparency and high moral standards. We expect the 
same standards to be applied to the Federal Government accounting for 
Indian trust funds and not to allow the Federal Government to absolve 
itself of accounting responsibility.
  So these provisions would throw the Native Americans out of court, 
and I do not think that is the way we want to go.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) raises, I think, a very 
good point when he says we need to move this case toward settlement. I 
do not think there is any doubt that we need to move this case toward 
settlement. We should be working on the settlement issue, and we should 
let all of the attorneys know we want to move towards settlement.
  The key issue here, the committee that should be working on this is 
the Committee on Resources. We have had hearings on this issue. We have 
had Secretary Norton in the Committee on Resources as recently as 
February 6, 2002; and unfortunately, she will not admit that she does 
not have the records. Very pointedly, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, specifically asked her, Do you have 
the records? Can you do this accounting? She would not admit that she 
could not do the accounting.
  So part of the responsibility for prolonging this comes from the 
Department, which is not willing to admit

[[Page H4793]]

that they do not have the records. They should step forward, say they 
cannot do this, and that would lead to some kind of settlement.
  The last issue I want to raise is this issue of attorneys' fees, and 
the issue has come up that attorneys are getting rich on this. The lead 
plaintiffs in this case are the Native American Rights Fund. It is a 
nonprofit. It is a law firm that is dedicated to protecting Native 
American rights. They are only allowed to get their attorneys' fees. No 
attorneys are getting rich in the Native American Rights Fund, and so I 
would just say that that attorneys' fee issue, we ought to move that to 
the side, and as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) says, in 
terms of the committee, let us get on with settlement and move in that 
direction.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think we made some progress here today. I 
want to make sure there is clear understanding that the committee, this 
committee has been one of the strongest advocates for Native Americans. 
We have increased every year that I have been on this committee; we 
have had added money for Native Americans.
  This is not an effort by the committee to do something to harm the 
tribes that are affected here. What we are trying to do is to get them 
money in a reasonable period of time without decimating the interior 
appropriations bill every single year. I want that $143 million to be 
used for other programs that will help Native Americans. I do not want 
to waste $1 billion in going out and trying to do accounting that is 
not going to give us the information pre-1985.
  I have talked to the chairman and the staff. We are prepared to work 
with the authorizers on language that would deal with the pre-1985 
period between now and the conference committee and maybe we can put 
together a package as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
has laid out previously, which I think makes some sense, so that we can 
move expeditiously on the period between 2000 and 1985; and then we 
craft an approach for a settlement of some sort pre-1985 so that we 
move the game forward, get this thing moving in the right direction so 
that the tribes will get some money.
  To do just historical accounting every single year and let this 
litigation fester is not accomplishing anything to help the tribes. 
They are not going to get the money. It is going to be years and years 
and years before this will be resolved. It will go through litigation. 
It will go to the circuit court of appeals. It will go to the United 
States Supreme Court. We need to work out a settlement; and this 
amendment was offered in the spirit of trying to break this logjam, 
trying to move this thing forward.
  I would like to see the authorizers agree with us today that we 
should work together collectively to try to come up with some pre-1985 
language. The chairman and his people are willing to work with us on 
this, and I think we could make some very significant progress and move 
this thing forward.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, we strike the pre-1985 accounts and then 
give them some vague promise that we may restore that, and I have been 
working in Indian matters now as a legislator for 38 years, and many 
promises have been made.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman wants to make his 
speech, make it on the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) 
time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, may I make my next point then?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I think what we do with this language that 
we have in the bill is just invite new litigation with more cost to the 
government, because as soon as this becomes law, new litigation will 
break out because we are taking property unconstitutionally.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are not doing very well the way we are 
going, and again, the prospects are we are going to spend between 500 
and $700 million on the historical accounting. It could go to $1 
billion if we go the way we are going; and if we try this approach, we 
may be able to limit the amount of money spent to $100 million on the 
1985 to the current accounting, then work out an approach pre-1985. It 
has got to be a settlement because they do not have the records. It has 
got to be a settlement, and we ought to work on the language.
  I resent the intonation that it is some vague promise. The gentleman 
from Washington has never ever made a commitment that I have not kept 
in my years in this Congress. When I say we are willing to sit down and 
work on something, that is not a vague promise.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say to my good friend from Washington, and fellow classmate, that I 
do not believe I was referring to any vague promises.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it was not 
you. It was the previous speaker.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the comments he made 
as far as his word and ability to work with everybody.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about settling today, and I 
certainly agree with that. I think we all want to settle this very 
complicated and very unjust provision that does affect our Native 
Americans. I happen to believe, and the reason I offered this 
amendment, was that the provision in the pending legislation happens to 
hamper us in that effort and perhaps even prejudges the outcome of 
current litigation.
  My good friend from Washington has suggested that we perhaps work on 
this between the floor and the conference. And with all due respect, 
and I know he realizes, there are perhaps some scoping problems if that 
were to be done. I would suggest as an alternative using the framework 
of the gentleman from California, using the framework of the gentleman 
from Washington, whoever else's framework wants to resolve this in a 
fair manner, that we start with a clean slate. And in order to do that, 
we have to delete the current provision of the pending legislation.
  I would note as well that the Department of Interior, as I have 
already noted in this debate, will never be able to conduct a full 
historical accounting of these trust fund accounts, and the Department 
has admitted that to us during hearings before our Committee on 
Resources. In my opinion, the Department should be sitting down with 
the plaintiffs in the current Cobell litigation and settle this matter 
and move on.
  Something that has been referred to earlier is the lawyers' fees; 
that this is making the lawyers rich. I would note that the lawyers are 
working for fees only, no percentages, and I do not believe they could 
be described as getting rich on this issue. But, instead, I think some 
in the Department, and again this is not a partisan comment, but it has 
been occurring over time, have engaged in sleights of hand. They have 
thought to shuffle the deck chairs and intended to dilute their 
responsibility, and that is just truly unfair.
  I would suggest that we delete this provision and allow litigation to 
come to a proper and fair resolution. And I would note as well that any 
settlement of this litigation would not be paid for by this 
appropriation bill; rather, any settlement of this litigation would 
come out of the Claims and Judgment Fund at the Justice Department, 
which is set up when the United States loses any legal case, not just 
in this matter but any others. That is where the settlement would come 
from.
  It is not the intention of this gentleman to see this matter drag on 
any longer than it has. However, I cannot stand idly by while the 
rights of thousands of citizens are trampled upon by the limitation 
that is contained in the pending legislation. I think it is a dangerous 
precedent. It is one we should not be establishing, and especially in 
these times of widespread accounting scandals in the corporate world.
  So, in conclusion, we all agree we must settle this, but I fear that 
the provision in the current legislation would harm our bipartisan 
efforts to settle this important matter for our Native Americans in a 
fair manner, and I would urge adoption of the pending amendment.

[[Page H4794]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to make a 
few closing points that I think are very important.
  Number one, on the question of 1985, it has been called an arbitrary 
date. It is not an arbitrary date. That is the date of the electronic 
records. If my colleagues do not like the 1985 date, what date do they 
want? 1980, 1975, 1979? And then with that gap, what records will you 
have? If you have the records for the period prior to 1985 to any other 
date certain, please come up with it.
  Number two, this does not preclude claims that happened before 1985. 
It simply gets us started.
  Number three, we are looking at now making real progress, getting the 
job done, or at least taking the first very significant step at a cost 
of about $900 million versus a cost of $2.4 billion. Earlier, on this 
bill, last night, we had lots of debate and heartaches about the money 
this bill was spending. It seems odd to me that now people would say, 
well, let us just spend $1.5 billion.
  And that money, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 
pointed out, may never get to the people who we all want to get the 
money to eventually. It has been said that the lawyers are not making 
money. Well, lawyers do tend to do things for a profit. The court 
monitors in 2001, for example, were paid about $342,000. The court 
monitor was paid $342,000 and the special master was paid $354,000. 
That is compensation well over $400,000 a year. So I think what was 
asserted earlier, that the lawyers are making money on this thing, I 
think is important to say.
  This committee has long stood up for Native Americans. This is the 
committee that funds the Native American programs. This is the 
committee that advocates for Native Americans, and it is in that regard 
that we are saying let us get this job started with the 1985 date, do a 
good job on those that we know are certain, and then go back.
  I want to point out that this bill has $2.9 billion for Indian health 
services, new hospitals, critical health care services, research on 
diabetes and treatment. It has $1.8 billion for the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs' operation of Indian programs. That, Mr. Chairman, means 
education programs, money for new computers, money for new teachers, 
money for new transportation so school kids can get to schools. And, 
also, this bill, at the advocacy of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) and many, many others, puts $22 million in Indian program 
increases, which will help build six new schools and continues critical 
hospital and clinic construction.
  This bill does a lot of things because this committee, on a 
bipartisan basis, does everything it can for our Native Americans.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the one thing I want to correct, and I know 
the gentleman from West Virginia did not intend it, but there is an 
assumption being made by the proponents of this amendment that any 
claim in this issue will be paid for out of the Justice Department 
funds. We have had just recently a Ramah settlement, $80 million, that 
came out of the claims fund, and OMB directed the Department of the 
Interior to take money from their accounts and put it back into the 
Justice Department.
  So this is not a clear-cut case. And there could be an effort to make 
the Department of the Interior pay this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Just on that point, Mr. Chairman, it 
would be a travesty of justice if the Indian programs ended up getting 
punished because of the mismanagement by the Federal Government of 
Indian trust funds.
  I appreciate OMB may direct them to do that, but I cannot believe the 
Congress is going to go along with that directive.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
would not be just the Indian programs. All the programs of the 
Department of the Interior would have to be taxed for the $80 million 
to pay back to the claims.
  The point I am making is the gentleman from West Virginia stood up 
here and said that it is an automatic deal for the Justice Department 
to have to take care of this settlement. That is not an automatic deal. 
I want the House and the Members to understand that.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to 
H.R. 5093 offered by Mr. Nick Rahall of West Virginia that would strike 
provisions in the Interior Appropriations bill that rob the legal 
rights of Native Americans. The provision in question limits the 
Federal Government's accountability to Native Americans by restricting 
an historical accounting of Indian Trust Funds.
  Mr. Chairman, these trust funds have been entrusted to the care of 
the Federal Government for over a century and for nearly as long the 
trust has experienced rampant mismanagement of funds, destruction of 
records, and blatant dissembling by those charged with management. And 
the provision of the Interior Appropriations bill would seek to limit 
billions of dollars in claims against the Federal Government, claims 
that are legal and just, by mandating accurate accounting of the trust 
funds only from 1985 forward. The trust has been in existence since 
1887--that is the date from which accurate accounting should be given.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision is not only unjust, it's downright 
illegal, overturning a central provision of the American Indian Trust 
Management Reform Act that requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide a full accounting of ``all funds held in trust by the United 
States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indians.'' If a 
Congressional act were not enough, the federal courts have also 
demanded a full accurate accounting from the date the funds were 
deposited into Federal accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, these trust funds are not entitlements, they are monies 
that come directly from the sale or lease of Native American owned 
property and is held in trust by the Department of the Interior. This 
is Native American money. And the Federal Government has admitted the 
funds' mismanagement and an inexplicable ``loss'' of its money.
  Mr. Chairman, the sort of mismanagement of accounts and destruction 
of records the Department of the Interior has performed makes the 
scandals of Enron seem like stealing from a piggy bank. If the House of 
Representatives truly wants to make a statement about fair accounting 
and accountability, it will start here by supporting the Rahall 
Amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rahall Amendment 
and urge its adoption by the House. Included in the Interior bill are 
several provisions relating to trust reform efforts and the Cobell v. 
Norton litigation. These legislative provisions will limit an 
historical accounting of trust funds from the period of 1985 to 2000, 
which will assume all records before 1985 are correct. There is also 
language included in the bill that would not provide an accounting for 
funds held in an account closed as of December 31, 2000.
  I believe these provisions undermine existing Federal law requiring a 
full accounting of all trust funds and a Federal court decision 
requiring an accounting of all funds regardless of the date deposited.
  As a former Chairman of the Native American and Insular Affairs 
Committee of the House Resources Committee, I have heard countless 
times the concerns of Native Americans who say they just want an 
historical accounting done by the government entrusted with managing 
their assets. They have waited long enough.
  I would strongly encourage the House to vote for the Rahall 
Amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the federal government 
has failed its responsibility in handling American Indian trust funds. 
But parties, Republicans and Democrats, agree that the governments has 
mismanaged these trust funds and there is definite need for reform.
  Previously, trust reform legislation has passed Congress twice. In 
addition, a Task Force is currently working with Members of Congress, 
the Administration and the tribal communities on how to best reform how 
Indian Trust Funds are managed.
  Unfortunately, current provisions in this bill would limit true fund 
reform. By accepting the provisions in the Interior bill, Congress must 
assume that the records and accounting are correct prior to 1985. This 
is hard to believe, due to the fact that the trust funds have been 
mismanage for decades. The Federal Government is responsible for these 
funds, and to simply suggest that everything is perfect prior to 1985 
is a slap in the face to our Native

[[Page H4795]]

Americans. Through legislation, Congress has asked for historical 
accounting of these trust funds and a Federal Court has ordered it as 
well. The provisions in the bill would overturn legislation already 
passed and could possibly open up the government to even more lawsuits. 
It is imperative for historical accounting to take place, which 
includes the years and decades prior to 1985.
  The issue of Trust Fund reform is extremely important to me and the 
Tribes I represent in the state of South Dakota. Their voice needs to 
be heard whenever decisions are being made regarding Indian Trust 
Funds. I have heard from them, and they are adamantly opposed to these 
provisions of the bill.
  We must remember that the funds we are talking about are not federal 
programs or entitlements, but money that Native Americans have earned 
from the lease of their lands for mining, grazing and timber. This is 
their money, and the Federal Government has failed to honor its 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment to strike the 
provisions of this bill, and the continuation of true Indian Trust Fund 
reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       Strike section 141.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes to 
be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to inquire of the chairman if this is on the Hayworth amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, this is on the Hayworth amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, is it his amendment and all amendments 
thereto?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes.
  Mr. DICKS. And we would split it 30-30, or would it be 15?
  Mr. SKEEN. Thirty-thirty.
  Mr. DICKS. And then it would be split, the time in opposition?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. A further point of clarification. Again, this would be 
time divided between opponents and proponents, instead of along party 
lines?
  Mr. DICKS. As I understand it, the gentleman from Arizona would have 
30 minutes and the chairman and I would split the other 30 minutes, 15 
minutes each in opposition.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends for the clarification 
on a bipartisan basis. Appreciate where we are headed.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 30 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for a simple reason: The current 
language in title I provides for yet another study of Native American 
gaming. Mr. Chairman, I am holding here in my hand a recitation of 
recent studies, most of them in the 1990s, a couple from the 1980s, but 
73 studies in total dealing with Indian Country health, infrastructure, 
economic development, education and housing; and, more specifically, 
Mr. Chairman, to the question of the influence of organized crime on 
Indian gaming, no fewer than three studies already conducted by our 
Federal Government.
  So 73 studies total, six of them directly linked to my good friend 
from Virginia. Let me say in defense of the work he does, I understand 
his intent and his sincerity, but I come to this floor to say that we 
must strike section 141 because it offers yet another study of 
something we have studied before and we have studied time and again.
  The money involved here, I realize by Washington standards, does not 
even qualify as something to come out of Uncle Sam's change scoop. But, 
Mr. Chairman, a couple hundred thousand dollars would go a long way in 
Bylas, Arizona. A couple hundred thousand dollars would help my Native 
American constituents, who are dealing with fire and the aftermath of 
what went on in the White Mountains. This is real money. And to take 
this from programs of the BIA and apply it to yet another study, no 
matter how well intentioned, is exactly the wrong policy at the wrong 
time for what might be sincere reasons.
  Not only is it ill-advised policy, Mr. Chairman, but once again we 
are getting into a situation where this House could find itself in 
violation of rule XXI. No matter what mores or customs of the House 
have been observed here, the fact is, in the final analysis, by 
allowing this language to stay in the bill, this is a legislative rider 
on appropriations legislation. This takes from the purview of the 
authorizing committee the public policy that the authorizing committee 
should continue to control.
  The exact language of this proposal is already found in H.R. 2244, a 
bill that is pending before the Committee on Resources. So not only, in 
my opinion, do we have an ill-advised study, number 74 on the list, and 
not only is it spending money that could be better utilized, but again 
it is a usurpation of the prerogatives of the authorizing committee.
  For those reasons, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and 
join in striking section 141 of this title I.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) controls 15 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) controls 15 
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Let me just say that what the gentleman said, the scope of this is 
totally new. Totally. There has never been a study of these issues with 
regard to the tribal relationship regarding the surrounding 
communities.
  I worked at the Department of Interior for 5 years under Secretary 
Morton. I am sure for those who have ever gone on any reservation they 
have seen the utter despair that is on those reservations. This 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, will hurt Native Americans.
  Eighty percent of the Native Americans in this country, 80 percent, 
have never received one penny from gambling.

                              {time}  1215

  The Hopi, the Navajos, most of the tribes do not want gambling; but 
in many respects this has given an opportunity and allowed the country 
and allowed the government and the Congress to neglect Native 
Americans. Indians and Native Americans have suffered more and have not 
been treated well by this Congress and not been treated well by this 
administration or previous administrations.
  The poverty level that afflicts Native Americans, they are in the 36 
percent category. The gentleman says there have been other studies, but 
they have

[[Page H4796]]

not worked; and we all know and anyone who has been on an Indian 
reservation knows that what has been tried has not worked. Why do 
Members oppose something that is going to study something to see if we 
can do something to help Native Americans?
  With regard to stroke, they have one of the highest rates in the 
country, so that is not working; and the study over there is not 
working. Lung cancer, the highest; breast cancer, the highest; suicide, 
the highest. So the policies of the Congress and the policies of both 
Republican and Democrat administrations have not worked. Why do Members 
oppose something that will bring members all together to come up with a 
study to help them?
  The death rate among Native Americans is higher in seven major 
categories. Alcoholism, the death rate is 627 percent higher than other 
categories. TB, 533 percent higher than other categories. Diabetes, 249 
percent higher than other categories. Accidents, 204 percent higher 
than other categories. Homicide, it is dangerous, 63 percent higher 
than other categories. Housing, and those Members who have been on 
Indian reservations know that housing is miserable; it is absolutely 
miserable. We all like to live in a good house and our constituents 
like to live in a good house. Why can they not have the same 
opportunity?
  Crime is twice the national average on the reservation. Education is 
miserable. This is a commission, and what the amendment of the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) does is strike this. It says we are going to put our head 
in the sand and say we do not know how bad alcoholism and education is. 
We are not going to look at it.
  We have seen the movies, and the gentleman from San Diego has talked 
about the movie ``Wounded Knee'' and other things, we have seen the 
movies; but we are not going to look at it and see if we can come up 
with something different. Maybe an economic development administration, 
maybe an EDA like what has been used in Appalachia, maybe something 
constructive, something new that we can do to help. We must not be 
afraid to at least look at it.
  The 13-member commission will include representatives of State 
Governors. That should not frighten us. Attorney generals, members of 
the Departments of Treasury, Interior and Commerce, and the National 
Indian Gaming Commission, they are going to be participating. A local 
or municipal government official, a small businessperson from areas 
near the reservation, two representatives from nongambling Indian 
tribes, and they should be heard from. We should not just hear from 
those who have gambling and also two representatives from tribes that 
are operating gambling casinos. And thanks to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we will work with others who represent Indian 
interests.
  So what will this commission do? It will take a thorough look at the 
living standards on Indian country, including health care, 
infrastructure, economic development, and education and housing. Now 
that is not a bad thing. That is not a bad thing to look at.
  If Members lived on some of these reservations, Members would not 
object to us looking to see if we could come up with some constructive 
ideas to see if we could improve the situation. The commission will 
look at the effectiveness of current Federal programs designed to 
improve standards in these designated areas. That is not a bad thing. 
That is not a bad thing to look at. That will not hurt. That will not 
hurt.
  Go on an Indian reservation and ask them whether they object to us 
seeing if we can improve housing and education and health care. Whether 
they have gambling or not, they will not object to this.
  Crime control on Indian reservations, we all like to live in a safe 
community. Would it hurt for Congress to look at crime on Indian 
reservations? What would be wrong with that? What would be wrong with 
looking at crime on Indian reservations? We would also look at the 
influence of non-Native American private investors on the Indian 
Federal recognition process. We know there have been Inspector General 
reports that the process is becoming corrupt. We know it. The Wall 
Street Journal knows it; the Boston Globe knows it. The London Day in 
Connecticut knows it. Papers know there are problems here.
  They know in the previous administration, one person came in the day 
after the administration left and signed the recognition thing. And 
non-Indians are exploiting those in certain cases and taking advantage 
of them. So what would be wrong with looking at that, the economic, the 
environmental, the social impact? So after an 18-month review, the 
commission will submit to Congress a report containing legislative 
recommendations as to the welfare of Native Americans, including health 
care and infrastructure and housing and education.
  I, frankly, think we in the government have failed Native Americans. 
I think we have used the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to 
provide gambling as a staple of Native American policies. Since that 
act, our investment in Federal programs intended to improve the health 
and welfare of tribes has declined significantly.
  Mr. Chairman, gambling has been an excuse to reduce the commitment of 
the Federal Government to the Nation's first citizens. A bad excuse. 
The overall portrait of America's most impoverished group continues to 
be dominated by disease, by unemployment, by infant mortality, and by 
school dropout rates that are among the highest in the Nation. We can 
do something today to make a difference in the lives of the Nation's 
first citizens. We can quit hiding behind gambling as a panacea for 
Native Americans and take action to improve their health, their lives, 
and their welfare. I do not believe that those Members supporting the 
amendment believe any differently. I think we should do this. I urge 
defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, from 1989 until now, there have been no fewer than one 
dozen studies dealing with the spectre of crime on Indian reservations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee), the co-chairman of the Native American Caucus.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as cochair of the Native American Caucus, I 
would like to express my strong opposition to provisions included in 
the fiscal year 2003 interior appropriations bill relating to 
establishing a commission on Native American policy. I support the 
bipartisan amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), 
whose knowledge and concern of Indian matters is of the highest order, 
and his credentials among Indians are held in the highest regard.
  The commission proposed in this bill would address several areas 
including Indian gaming examined recently by the National Gambling 
Impact Study Commission. In 1996, Congress authorized $5 million to 
fund this study. In fact, since 1980, more than 70 federally funded 
reports have been published that address the same areas that the 
commission would study.
  Provisions similar to the amendment are included in H.R. 2244, a bill 
pending in the Committee on Resources, the committee of jurisdiction. 
These provisions will take Federal funds from badly needed Indian 
programs.
  The funding for the commission would come from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs operation of Indian programs line item, which pays for welfare 
assistance payments, housing improvements, roads, education, tribal 
courts, law enforcement, and other programs that improve the quality of 
life and the economic potential of those on Indian reservations.
  Congress does not need another study to tell us that these programs 
require more funding, not less, to assist tribes and their members. 
Millions of Federal dollars have already been spent studying the same 
areas that the proposed commission would study. Congress should not 
waste taxpayers' dollars by duplicating studies on the same subject 
matter.
  Congress should not take Federal dollars from Federal programs 
designed to assist tribal governments that continue to suffer from high 
unemployment rates, inadequate educational systems, poor road 
conditions,

[[Page H4797]]

and insufficient health care systems. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Hayworth amendment to strike these provisions.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment and in support of the proposal for a commission in this 
bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  I fail to understand why we do not need this kind of study. In 14 
years since the 1988 bill, we have seen enormous problems of poverty, 
school dropout, disease, infant mortality and unemployment. Since 1994, 
because we passed a more enlightened policy for the rest of America, we 
have reduced poverty among children in American 3 consecutive years. We 
have never done that. And the deepest reductions in poverty were among 
black kids. Why is it that we just ignore the fact that poverty among 
Indian children is terrible? Why do we not notice or study the impact 
on families of the level of substance abuse on the reservations. We 
have known it is there. Why do we keep appropriating dollars when we 
know they are not changing lives?
  I see no reason to fear this commission, and I see every reason to 
look at what is Federal policy in regard to our reservations, and how 
does it compare to Federal policy in regard to the rest of Americans. 
Why is it Federal policy has reduced poverty in America but not for 
reservations? Why is it we are making progress on some of the child-
abuse issues in the States and our Federal level, and we are not 
strengthening families on the reservations? Why is it that the school 
dropout rate is so extraordinary? What are the policy comparisons? What 
are the policies that we as Federal lawmakers are supporting in these 
different areas?
  As one who is increasingly affected and frankly more aware of and 
knowledgeable about Federal policy toward tribes, I would have to say 
it is distressing to watch outsiders come in, finance big-stakes 
casinos, and watch the people in the surrounding towns pay for the 
hospitals that everybody has to use. I do not see the little guys 
getting the same benefit as the big guys.
  It is time to look at this. I do not see that it is a danger, and I 
do not see that it is duplicative. Recognizing that on Indian issues I 
am not one of the more knowledgeable Members, but seeing Indians from 
my perspective in a community where they have benefited from all these 
resources, and we do not have the poverty, but seeing the big money 
going to some and not others, we need this study. It is disgraceful not 
to do it.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the chairman emeritus, in fact, vice chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  I think most of you heard me yesterday on the floor. This provision 
should not be in this bill. This legislation was introduced in the 
Committee on Resources and it never had a hearing because we did not 
want one. We do not believe it is necessary. It has been repeated 
before. There have been many studies. The studies show, in fact, that 
the native groups are doing quite well in the gaming industry.
  Let us not kid ourselves, this is what this is all about. But also 
let us answer the question. I listened to my good friend, and I do 
respect him a great deal, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and 
his opposition to this amendment. He is really trying to target the 
gaming. Let us be knowledgeable about that and recognize that, and he 
has that right to do so. But he talks about the suicides and the 
poverty and the poor housing and the education level and the sewer 
problems, all those things that every Native American has faced over 
these years. Let us not kid ourselves. This is nothing new.
  But you ask why that occurs. I will tell you why it occurs. One of 
the basic reasons why is they are tired of having people study them and 
tell them how to solve their problems, of having the people come in 
with their briefcases, the Governors and this person and that person 
and say, ``We're going to study you,'' and they have to respond to the 
study. It happens every day.
  I live with them. I am close to them. My wife is native, my kids are 
Native American Indians, and I am proud of it. I think I have a little 
bit of knowledge about this. If you really want to help the Native 
Americans, let them help themselves, provide the money, but let them 
make the decisions, and not some commission. We know the problems. They 
know the problems. Let them solve those problems with their knowledge 
and their will and they will do it. We do not need another government 
study to explain this to everybody and spend that money out of needed 
funds. That is where these moneys are coming from. Let us give them 
credit. Intelligent, smart, persevering, if they have an opportunity 
and not the government to tell them how to do it and what they cannot 
do.
  Let us say you can do it and we will help you. You know the old 
saying, a hand down will help everybody up. Let us not put our hand on 
their head again with another study. My God, if you go back to the 
history of this Congress, how many studies have we had and spent that 
money to take and identify the problem? In my case I will tell you. My 
12 regional corporations know the problem. They are addressing the 
problem. They know what can be done and they want to do it themselves 
and the money that is being spent on this commission ought to go to 
solving those problems and letting them do it themselves. That is what 
we ought to be doing today. It should not be in this bill. I told the 
leadership it should not be in this bill. We should not attempt to try 
to do it again and again and again. It solves nothing.
  There are those who will say this is about gambling. I guess maybe 
those that oppose this, taking it out, is about gambling. I happened to 
be the author of that original gambling bill with Mr. Udall. Some of 
you object to gambling and I understand that. I do not gamble myself, 
other than being elected once in a while. That is a gamble. But I will 
tell you one thing. I have visited most of these gambling 
establishments and seen what the people say about what it has done for 
their tribes. And, yes, there is outside involvement. You would not 
expect them not to have that. They hire the best. They do the job. If 
there is something illegally happening, then let us address that and we 
do that under the gambling commission and under the Justice Department. 
Both of those say there is nothing happening there that is illegal.
  If you want to be against gambling, and I am all for that, let us 
eliminate all gambling. Let us not have racetracks in Virginia. They do 
not have racetracks, but lotto, pull tabs. What else? Racetracks in 
every other State. Gambling in some States. Let us look at that. But 
let us not have a so-called quasi-study to take and identify the 
problems when we know what the problems are. I urge this Congress to 
think about that a moment.
  Let us let them help them lift themselves up. Let us not have a 
commission dictating to them what is wrong with their great race of 
people. That is all I ask you. Vote for this amendment. The gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is right on. I believe the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is right on.
  For you appropriators again, it is not your fault. I say this. I do 
blame the Committee on Rules and the leadership for not making this 
issue for a point of order. It should never have been protected. We 
would not have had this debate if we had gone through the legislative 
process.
  Vote for the Hayworth amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this bipartisan amendment, I 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the 
ranking member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on 
Resources.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding time. I commend him on his effort here today and his 
leadership, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment to strike the provision

[[Page H4798]]

which authorizes the establishment of the Commission on Native American 
Policy to study Indian Country. This provision sets up a fiscally 
irresponsible study which is underfunded, far-reaching and duplicative 
of numerous other Federal studies.
  As the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Resources, I do 
oppose the way this commission is being forced down the throats of 
Indian Country. Clearly, authorizing a study of this magnitude and the 
value of such a study is the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Resources. Yet we have not had the opportunity to study or hold 
hearings on this matter at all.
  This language has not been publicly vetted and Indian tribes have not 
been permitted to participate in crafting this provision. So we should 
not be surprised that the commission and its study is set up to fail. 
It is simply wrong to set this up without allowing for open 
consultation with Indian tribes.
  Funding for this commission is set so low that it would virtually 
guarantee a flawed study being conducted. In addition, these moneys 
would be taken from Federal Indian programs where they are badly needed 
for housing, transportation, welfare assistance, tribal courts and law 
enforcement.
  As we have heard, Mr. Chairman, since 1980 more than 70 federally 
funded reports have been released addressing the same areas that this 
commission would study. Most of those reports were well thought out, 
narrow in scope and appropriately funded to assure accurate and 
comprehensive findings. Sadly, that is not the case with this 
commission.
  It is clear, and nobody is being misled here, that the Committee on 
Appropriations can establish this commission and with the support of 
the Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House, we are at a 
severe disadvantage in trying to delete the provision, make no mistake 
about it. But just because the appropriators can do it to Indian 
Country does not mean that the appropriators should do it to Indian 
Country.
  If you want to spend money and set up a flawed study, do not do it 
out of the paltry Indian program budget. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Hayworth amendment to strike the Commission on Native 
American Policy from this bill and once again to be fair to our Native 
American Indians.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  (Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment by 
the gentlemen from Arizona and Michigan, both fine and excellent 
Members of this body, but like many Americans, I am concerned that 
gambling is a panacea for the real problems of poverty on Indian 
reservations. As gambling has become more and more a part of Native 
American policy, investment in Federal programs intended to improve the 
health and welfare of tribes has declined.
  While the intent of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was to 
allow Native Americans to lift themselves out of poverty through self-
reliance, today nearly 80 percent of Native Americans do not receive 
anything from gambling revenues. The reality is that most tribes, which 
are located in areas not economically viable for a casino, live in 
poverty.
  The National Indian Gaming Commission, which is now in the bill, 
would be struck by this amendment. This would be unfortunate because 
the Indian Gaming Commission would undertake a study of a number of 
problems which impact the Native American community, including the 
welfare of Native Americans, including health, infrastructure, housing, 
economic development and educational opportunities; the relationship 
between tribal entities and nontribal communities; and regulations that 
govern tribal gaming to produce potential for abuse or exploitation by 
organized crime and the gaming industry.
  This commission, I believe, provides a much-needed review of Federal 
policy on Native Americans. Given the current state of affairs, I urge 
my colleagues to preserve the National Indian Gaming Commission and to 
oppose the Hayworth-Kildee amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and a genuine American hero.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Virginia said that 80 
percent of the Native Americans never receive funds. That is not 
factual. It is absolutely untrue. The study that he himself proposed 
cost $5 million. He said this would only cost $200,000. Well, this 13-
board commission also receives full per diem, airline tickets for 18 
months. This is going to cost another million bucks. And study after 
study after study generated by the gentleman from Virginia. He can be 
opposed to gaming, that is fine. But do not try and do it with study 
after study, because the studies that he proposed found out many of the 
same things he is asking in this study. The only problem is he did not 
get the answers that he wants, so you do another study until you get 
the answers that you want. It is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, the Interior appropriations bill before the House does 
include these provisions, and it is wrong. No hearings. In the dead of 
night--actually it was the daytime--all of a sudden the gentleman from 
Virginia inserts an amendment on an appropriations bill, not 
authorized, not studied but in the appropriations bill. I was told by 
staff that if I did not object in the committee, this would be killed. 
And here I find it is okayed by the rules. Why? The gentleman is a 
cardinal and leadership recognized that. But it does not make it right. 
It should be eliminated.
  The chairman of this committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen), is going to vote for this amendment because it is bad policy, 
terrible policy. There have been studies from the Department of 
Justice, memos from the Department of Justice to the anticrime, all 
recognizing the issues that the gentleman from Virginia is talking 
about. And you want to talk about Indian health care and education and 
those things. Absolutely. But visit some of these tribes. I do not have 
it in my district, but they are in San Diego and I visit them because 
they used to come down to my ranch to swim, the kids. I want to tell 
you, they did not have an education center. They do now. They did not 
have a health care center. They do now. As a matter of fact, that 
center studies alcoholism, which is a primary problem with Native 
Americans, and tied to that is diabetes. These people have pulled 
themselves up by their bootstrings. Just because you are against 
gambling, do not try to hamfist them and tie them down from doing the 
things that help them the most. It is just wrong.
  We all want to do what is right and promised, but how many times have 
we looked at Native Americans and tied them down in every type of 
endeavor? Oil on their land. We took it. Their hunting rights. We 
stopped them. Water rights. They have to fight tooth, hook and nail 
even for water rights on their own land. We took it.

                              {time}  1245

  And here, for the first time, they found something that is viable. 
The study that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) commissioned 
found that there is no other viable, long-term, across-the-board 
resource that can help as much as this issue. They are doing everything 
that we ask. They spend millions of dollars to fund the gaming 
commission. They spend millions of dollars internally to fund it, and 
they are doing it right; and because someone is opposed to gaming, they 
want to stop it. That is wrong. Support the Hayworth amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond.
  The study does show, as the Boston Globe piece demonstrates, which we 
are bringing over, that 80 percent of the Indians have never received 
anything. Fifty percent of all of the revenues have gone to 2 percent. 
It is actually an area of location, where you are is what you do, and 
Indians on the tribes and the reservations in most parts of the country 
have received absolutely nothing.
  Secondly, it did not say what the gentleman said in that report.
  Lastly, what the report that we are asking for talks about is looking 
at the welfare of native Americans, including health, which everyone 
will acknowledge, and I stipulate the goodness of

[[Page H4799]]

the gentleman on the other side; the health infrastructure, housing, 
and economic development, and educational, educational opportunities. 
They are all things that we all want for our families and for our 
constituents and others.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My 
State of Connecticut is home to two of the world's, the world's largest 
casinos. In fact, both of these casinos are about a 15-minute drive 
from my home; both are Indian casinos, and both were built within the 
last decade.
  When gaming came to Connecticut in the early 1990s, it was a 
fortuitous event. The Cold War had ended, defense cutbacks had affected 
our defense industry, our economy was in decline. Unemployment was 
high, and there was actually a net loss of population from the region. 
Indian casinos created thousands of jobs. They increased the State's 
revenues, and spared the region from an economic recession.
  The casinos purchase goods and services and pay upwards of $300 
million a year to the State of Connecticut. Tribal members have been 
personally generous with their new wealth and support numerous 
community projects and charities.
  But with all of these benefits come some very real problems. Indian 
casinos place a substantial burden on small, local municipalities who 
have no right to tax, to zone, or to plan for these facilities. Small 
State and local roads are overburdened, again, with no offsetting tax 
revenues. Volunteer fire and ambulance services are overwhelmed to the 
point that some have shut down their operations altogether. Land taken 
into trust is removed from the tax rolls. Gambling addiction creates 
problems at home, in the schools, and in the workplaces.
  While Indian casino gambling in Connecticut has made two tribes very 
wealthy and has motivated other groups in Connecticut to seek Federal 
recognition, the fundamental question remains: To what extent has 
casino gambling improved the health and the wealth of Indian country as 
a whole, and what are the costs involved?
  I have read that 365 of the 561 Indian tribes do not have casinos. I 
am told that up to 80 percent of American Indians do not receive any 
benefit from gambling revenues, and we know that many continue to live 
in terrible poverty. That is why I support the provision of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). A commission would examine how we 
can do a better job to help Indian tribes for whom gambling is not an 
option, either because of their geographic location or for other 
reasons; and it would also help examine how gambling affects the 
welfare of Indian tribes.
  Earlier amendments have focused on substantial increases in funding 
within this bill overall; tens, actually hundreds of millions of 
dollars. But this recommendation to establish a commission costs merely 
$200,000. It is a small price to pay. It is an insignificant price to 
pay.
  Recently, my hometown newspaper, The New London Day, editorialized in 
favor of the Wolf provision and they said, ``His amendment will ruffle 
some feathers, but Representative Wolf is asking questions worth 
answering.''
  I concur with the editor, and I cannot understand why current 
information on an important issue is a problem. It would seem to me 
that current information on an important issue would be a plus, not a 
minus.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, continuing with the bipartisan support of 
this amendment, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), a fellow member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to what the gentleman from 
Connecticut said and the gentleman from Virginia said and, again, just 
as on the previous amendment that we discussed today, there are a lot 
of important issues here, but it does not belong on an appropriations 
bill. The Wolf amendment is before the Committee on Resources. We 
should have a hearing. We should have an opportunity for all sides to 
be heard, not bring it up today in this debate in the context of the 
appropriations bill.
  I just want to remind those who are opposed to this amendment that 
the law is clear that Indian nations are sovereign. They make a 
decision, just like a State makes a decision, about whether they want 
to have gambling or what kind of gambling they want to have; and as 
long as States are allowed to have it, they should be allowed to make 
those decisions as well. A lot of sovereign Indian nations have decided 
they do not want gambling, but a lot of them have decided that they do 
want it because they know that it is a way for them to achieve economic 
self-sufficiency.
  Now, I do not hear any proposal here to say to, for example, a State 
or even my own State, well, why do you not have a Federal body that is 
going to look into gambling and see whether it is a good thing or not? 
This is only being imposed on tribes. That is not fair. There is no 
indication, as the gentleman from Virginia said, that somehow Indian 
gambling is corrupt versus gambling in other aspects. In fact, we have 
had many, many studies that have shown, in fact, that that is not the 
case; that it is well regulated; that it is not in any way a victim of 
corruption. In fact, there may be corruption in other types of 
gambling, but where is the indication that it is strongly or in any way 
significantly influences Indian gambling? There is not any.
  I know that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is well 
intentioned. I have seen him stand up for press people, and I know that 
he is not influenced by any special interests. But let me tell my 
colleagues, not him, but a lot of the people that are making the 
allegations about corruption in Indian gambling is because they resent 
the competition from Indian gambling. These media interests that are 
being cited here that are criticizing Indian gaming, they are not 
operating with clean hands. They represent special interests. So do not 
impose this on Indian nations and not talk about it in terms of other 
States or other groups that do the gambling. If someone is opposed to 
gambling, then look at it in general, but do not pick on Indian tribes, 
once again.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hayworth 
and the Kildee amendment to strike the Wolf language from this 
appropriations bill.
  Like my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I stand in 
strong support of the first Americans; and I believe they need to be 
given every opportunity as we work to ensure that they are full 
Americans. Our Constitution, as I have learned over the years, gives 
full sovereignty to our Native American tribes; and I think we all 
respect their efforts to be self-determined and self-sufficient.
  The question is, Why do we need one more commission? Now, a lot of 
times when we talk to the tribes and they wonder, because they have 
already had 70 of these kinds of commissions, and what good is one more 
group of guys in suits carrying brief cases saying, we are here from 
Washington and we are here to help and we are going to study you and we 
need you to fill out these forms. We are going to take you away from 
all of your other activities, so, hopefully, we can get some results 
that we want for whatever our agenda is.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Virginia. I have admired 
his perseverance. He is a leading opponent of commercial gaming in 
America, and I have admired his perseverance about that, and that is 
what this is all about. What this study is being proposed for is to 
eliminate Indian gaming. That is the agenda here. Whether we support 
Indian gaming or not, the tribes have the right, under our national 
laws, to be able to engage in commercial gaming activities. If it is 
going to be discussed whether or not to take it away, it should be 
fully and thoroughly discussed in the Committee on Resources, which has 
jurisdiction over this language. It is the authorizing committee of 
this language. I would note that the Committee on Resources has not 
held a hearing on this bill and has not moved this legislation, 
probably because they recognize there have already been 70 other 
studies.
  Now, if one opposes gaming, I would note that the National Gaming 
Impact Study Commission and National Indian

[[Page H4800]]

Gaming Commission have already thoroughly discussed these issues. 
Please vote for the Hayworth-Kildee amendment. It is the right thing to 
do. Let us not harass the tribes any more.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. What the gentleman 
said is not accurate. My good friend from Illinois said it is to 
eliminate, and that is not true. There is nothing in the bill that says 
that, and it is not fair to go down to the well of the House and say 
something that is not in the bill. That is not fair. I would urge the 
gentleman from Illinois, my friend, to read what it says. It does not 
say that.
  I have a Boston Globe piece right here, Mr. Chairman. It said the 
plight of the native Americans is the unemployment rate, which is 43 
percent. We argue in this body over is it going to go to 4 to 5 to 6 
percent for non-Native Americans. Forty-three percent, says the Boston 
Globe. Employed, but living below poverty, 33 percent. I stand 
corrected; I just said it was 26 percent. It is 33 percent. Suicide 
rate for ages 15 to 24, the flower of the youth, 37.15 percent. We have 
to look at that. We have to look at that.
  So what the gentleman says, and he is a good friend, it is not to 
eliminate; it is to look at other ways in addition. We do not say that.
  Lastly, with regard to diabetes, my figure was too low; it is 9 
percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kildee-Hayworth 
amendment and in support of establishing a commission to examine the 
Federal Government's policy towards Native Americans.
  Our Nation has a responsibility to Native Americans. This commission 
would go a long way in finding out if the Federal Government is meeting 
this responsibility.
  It is important for us to establish conditions so that we can examine 
what we are doing right, what we are doing wrong and what more needs to 
be done for the Native American community. Studies suggest the overall 
portrait of the community is failing in the areas of poverty, health 
care, housing, crime, education, and economic development.
  Finally, I fail to see any harm in establishing a commission which 
would make recommendations on how we can improve the performance of 
Federal assistance programs. I see only a positive.
  A commission will examine what the true effect of the Federal 
Government's reliance on gaming to the societal ills on reservations 
and answer the long-standing question of what it means for the Native 
American community at large.

                              {time}  1300

  I would also suggest that whatever we are doing today for Native 
Americans is simply not succeeding. I have wondered for a long time why 
we failed to have any real, meaningful dialogue in the committee on why 
conditions are so bad for Native Americans.
  I happen to believe that, sadly, gaming has helped in some 
communities simply because the Federal Government has failed to do its 
job. Gaming cannot be a substitute for what we need to be doing as the 
Federal Government to help our Native Americans.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca), continuing with the bipartisan support for this 
amendment.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Hayworth 
amendment. This amendment strikes a provision that would create a 
Commission on Native American Policy to conduct more studies related to 
Native American communities.
  This provision violates House rules that prohibit legislation on an 
appropriation bill.
  We talked earlier about needing a study. The problem with this bill 
is it does not appropriate additional dollars. It does not appropriate 
additional dollars.
  The studies have already been done. We know that. What we need to do 
is provide more funding. What we are doing right now is we are taking 
Federal funding away from Indian bureaus when we should be providing 
the additional funding for education, for housing, for law enforcement.
  Yes, that is what we should be doing right now, but we are not doing 
it. All we are asking for is an additional study with no appropriation 
monies. We all have the information in front of us. What we should be 
doing is providing the funding.
  Yes, I have been to Indian reservations. I have visited the schools. 
When schools are going on, we see a child who does not have a computer, 
does not have the technology; and when we look at people who do not 
have the clothing, we need to make sure that we provide the funding.
  This study does not do anything for us. Let us make sure that we 
provide the assistance and support for the Kildee-Hayworth amendment 
right now that strikes this provision.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  It does not take it away from housing. It does not. It takes it away 
from the administration. It takes it away from the administration. We 
cannot come down and say things that are not accurate on the bill. It 
takes it away from administration; it does not take it away from 
housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I personally find this a very difficult 
issue. On one hand, I think it should be abundantly clear that gambling 
is corroding the fundamental moral fabric of our Nation, as hard work 
is being disconnected from financial success. We see more and more 
Americans thinking that somewhere it is in the lottery or by 
manipulation through the stock market or manipulating the bank 
statements of different companies; that there is an easy way out.
  The more we see the advertising for the lotteries, the ads for the 
casinos, it is undermining the moral fabric. We are also seeing 
families deprived of the income that they need. As adult members of 
their family blow their savings, thinking they are going to see some 
pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow, it is hitting their potential 
to actually care for the health care or the education needs of their 
children because of the gambling epidemic we have in our country.
  That said, this is still a complicated issue, because I believe that 
some seem to argue that the only people who should not be allowed to 
have gaming are the tribal nations of America; that it is okay for all 
the politicians to run lotteries; it is okay for them to have the 
casinos, and not the Indian nations.
  I think it is indisputable that there have been some financial gains 
to the Indian nations from this, and it has caused some transformation 
of the different nations. I have also seen in the State of Indiana 
where the Potowatomie Indians are being deprived their tribal status 
because competing gaming interests, as well as those of us who oppose 
gambling, do not want to see them own a casino.
  The Miami Indians of Indiana have been deprived tribal status, even 
though they unanimously voted not to have a casino. Because of the fear 
that they might do a casino, they cannot get their tribal status 
recognized because of the opposition to gambling. Plus, those people 
have a vested interest in the gambling people.
  That said, we still have a fundamental question that needs to be 
looked at. Yes, we have had studies. We have studies on child abuse all 
the time. We have studies on juvenile delinquency all the time. We have 
studies on drug abuse all the time because conditions change, variables 
change, and also the different studies change.
  This government would not be spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars, billions of dollars in studies, if the criteria for a study 
was, oh, we researched that before. We research all the time looking 
for new angles and information.
  There are a couple of questions that clearly need to be looked at. 
While, superficially, additional dollars are being brought in to the 
Indian nations, but net, what is being actually transformed in those 
communities, and is it reaching the communities?
  Or, secondarily, are there damages being done that are going to be 
very

[[Page H4801]]

difficult to undermine? Are there dependency things, and are we 
substituting quick financial success for the real things that we need 
to do: how to develop an infrastructure and an independence for these 
communities?
  Secondly, when I was just in New Mexico, we could see every pueblo 
had been turned into a big casino operation; and the historic 
structures and things that historically were the way people viewed the 
Pueblan people were not the way they do them currently. Most of those 
cars at those casinos were not, there are not enough Indians to fill 
those casinos.
  It is also having an impact on the communities around them. We need 
to be looking at the broader impact, in addition to the Indian nations.
  I hope we will go ahead with this study. I am not hostile in 
particular to whether Native Americans should have casinos and the 
government should be allowed to do this, but I do believe we need to 
look at the impact on the peoples themselves and whether we have 
reached the limit, whether it is a corrupting influence on the families 
there and outside, and what the balances are.
  I believe the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is 
important. Where we get the money should not be the fundamental 
question; it is that we need this information to do a wise job managing 
funds.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp), a fellow member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in support of the Hayworth amendment in this bipartisan effort 
to remove the Wolf language creating a Commission on Native American 
Policy from the interior appropriations bill.
  I have great personal respect for the gentleman from Virginia, and we 
agree on most things; but the Wolf provision is unnecessarily 
duplicative, and it violates rule XXI by legislating on an 
appropriations bill.
  What is particularly troubling to me is that there was no process, no 
hearings, no authorization, no consultation. The Wolf language would 
direct available funds from the very tight budget of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs to create a commission.
  Others have said the proposed commission would duplicate existing 
reports to Congress. I will not go through all of that, but each of 
these questions has been answered a number of times, at great cost to 
the American taxpayer, millions of dollars.
  If there has been any thread tying together centuries of failed 
United States Government policy toward the First Americans, it is the 
lack of consultation. In the name of trying to help Native Americans, 
there has been untold heartache and much loss of life. At a minimum, 
Native Americans should be part of any process and have the same 
respect and opportunity to be heard as any other group who is being 
considered to have legislation in the United States Congress.
  Let us let the committee of jurisdiction deal with this issue. Let us 
have hearings. The United States Constitution recognizes the 
sovereignty of the First Americans. I would hope this House would do 
so, as well, and support the Hayworth amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), former chairman of the 
committee, continuing with the support for the bipartisan amendment we 
offer.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me, Mr. Chairman, and for offering this amendment.
  Let us just begin that by understanding for $200,000 we are not going 
to get a quality study covering this range of issues. It is just simply 
impossible, and to assemble the expertise for the time and effort to do 
that. That is why we spent $5 million just on gaming in that 
commission.
  Let us all understand that to say that 80 percent of the Native 
Americans do not participate in gaming does not tell us anything. Many 
States do not allow gaming. Many do not allow gaming at all. Many 
reservations cannot participate because it is not economically viable. 
Many have chosen voluntarily not to do that.
  That does not tell us anything about the benefits of Indian gaming. 
What we ought to do is spend more time on reservations and see the kind 
of economic development, the kind of economic diversity, the kind of 
opportunity that is being presented now that did not exist.
  I sat on the Committee on Resources and watched this Committee on 
Appropriations appropriate millions and millions and hundreds of 
millions of dollars in economic development that went nowhere, that 
went nowhere, just disasters across Indian country. Now we have an 
opportunity to have some success. They may not like that it is based in 
gaming, but the fact is that it is successful and it is providing that 
economic opportunity.
  I have listened to this ruse argument about organized crime from the 
day we wrote the first statute to the Supreme Court, and nobody has 
been able to prove it; nobody has been able to show it. These people 
operate their casinos under more restrictions than any other operators 
in the country. This is just disingenuous. Disingenuous is what this is 
about.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
said is not accurate with regard to more regulations than any other. In 
Atlantic City there are 12 casinos, and there are roughly 800 people, 
totally, who regulate them, 100 every day. In Indian casinos, there are 
roughly 200 casinos and there are a few dozen, probably about 36. So 
what the gentleman said, again, is really not accurate.
  Again, the fact deserves a cap on how much we are regulating. But 
that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about 
health care and those other issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hayworth-Kildee amendment.
  I understand the concerns people have about gambling in America. They 
are very real concerns, and there is much that we can do as a Congress 
and much we can do as a country to deal with some of the tragedy that 
occurs from gambling around the country.
  But this has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with it. 
This is a study on Indian gaming when studies have already occurred. It 
is focusing only on Indian gaming. It is a mistake.
  If the issue really is, and I acknowledge and I support and I have 
been involved in efforts to deal with some ancillary problems, and they 
are very real and serious problems about gaming in America, then let us 
address them. Let us have the Congress do oversight investigations. Let 
us do hearings on those issues.
  Really, there is much we can do. There is absolutely much we can do 
in terms of research in terms of addictive gambling and things like 
that. But through this process, this is just a mistake; and the 
amendment should be supported and the study not go on.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself in support 
of the Kildee-Hayworth amendment. I do have the utmost respect for my 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia, and his efforts, never questioning 
his integrity nor his sincerity about the proposed amendment.
  But Mr. Chairman, I submit, the Pacific Island cultures and the First 
Americans have been studied to death. We have had enough studies 
already: 11 Federal studies on health and economic needs of Native 
Americans; four Federal studies on economic development; nine Federal 
studies on educational needs of the First Americans; nine Federal 
studies of housing for First Americans; four Federal studies on 
infrastructure development; nine Federal studies on the effectiveness 
of the current programs that we are giving to the First Americans; 12 
Federal studies on crime control in Indian reservations; six Federal 
studies on influence

[[Page H4802]]

on non-Native American private investors dealing with Indian gaming; 
three Federal studies on influence of organized crime, supposedly.
  I want to submit, Mr. Chairman, the Indian gaming industry is 
controlled by the Federal Government under the auspices of the 
Congress. That is not the case with State gaming operations, and that 
makes a distinction here. There is no organized crime involvement in 
this effort. I submit, Mr. Chairman, we do not need this proposed 
amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as vice-
chairman of the Native American Caucus to express my support for the 
Kildee-Hayworth amendment, and encourage my colleagues to strike this 
measure from the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that since I was first elected to Congress, 
I have strongly supported efforts that would seek to expose the long 
history and failure of this country to recognize the deep poverty 
within Native American country.
  I applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for continuing to 
expose that. But the answer is not to take away the one vehicle that so 
many tribes have used to even take themselves out of poverty. The 
answer is, we need to put more money into Indian health services, more 
money into education, more money into Indian law enforcement. These are 
the answers.
  Until we have those answers, we do not pull the leg out of the stool 
that is the one thing that many Native American tribes are standing on. 
That happens to be gaming.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman on the other side.
  To read from the Boston Globe, here is what it said: ``Congress in 
the Reagan administration embraced Indian gambling as a vehicle to 
foster tribal self-sufficiency in 1988, after a decade of steadily 
cutting per capita spending on six major programs for Native Americans 
from 6,000 to 3,000 measured in 1997 dollars, a time when spending on 
social services aimed at the rest of America was on the rise.'' It goes 
on to say, ``The result is untold riches for a few smaller tribes. 
Annual revenues are 100 million or more for a couple of dozen of 
additional tribes near major urban centers and continued poverty for 
the vast majority of Indians spread across rural America.''
  We are talking, Mr. Chairman, as I said, 43 percent unemployment. If 
we had 43 percent unemployment in our district, we would be upset. We 
would say let us study it. We would be saying let's storm the Bastille 
doors to do something. But today we are complaining about a study to 
see. Thirty-three percent live below poverty. Why would not we want to 
find out today? You have different computers in your offices than you 
had 5 years ago. Did you say we do not want to study new computers? We 
do not want to change? So a study was done 5 years ago. We do it again 
today. But would it not be worth it to spend $200,000 to do it?
  The suicide rate is 37.5 percent. The national average is 13 percent 
of those ages 15 to 24.
  I urge defeat of the Hayworth-Kildee amendment and urge that we can 
move on and study these issues so we can truly come together. And let 
me say there are Indian tribes who have gambling and who do not have 
gambling who were on this commission, good people. And I spoke to my 
friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), saying we can come 
together, if I happen to be successful, come together and try to find 
out the very best minds that are around in the country to see if we can 
come up with some new ideas to really make life better for these people 
who have suffered so much.
  I thank the gentleman on the other side for the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, last Sunday I was driving up on the Tulalip 
reservation in northwest Washington. I was going to a memorial service 
for a good friend of mine, and I noticed a really nice white building 
on the Tulalip reservation in Tulalip, Washington. It was a beautiful 
place on the water. And when I got to the service I asked my friend 
what that new building was, and he said that was the Tulalip Boys and 
Girls Club, and that was the first Boys and Girls Club on an Indian 
reservation in America ever.
  It has been supremely successful. And the reason it has been 
supremely successful, in part, is because this group of folks have 
developed an industry to make this possible.
  Now, I know many people have very sincere concerns about gaming, but 
I just hope that when we vote on this, we will think of the faces of 
those young boys and girls of Tulalip people who are learning respect 
for elders, discipline, team work in that building that has been 
allowed because this industry has been allowed to blossom.
  I hope we reject this amendment, sincere as it is, for that reason, 
so these people can continue those American values of the first 
American people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes studies of the obvious are important. But it 
is obvious that across the width and breadth of the country we have the 
first Americans, quite candidly, oftentimes dealing with Third World 
conditions. Economic opportunity should know no bounds. If there are 
those who dispute some endeavors, God bless them. They have that right. 
But to again study, to add now to the grand total study number 74 of 
what we know to be problematic, I think is wrong. Support this 
bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be one of the supporters of 
this amendment to strike language in the Fiscal Year 2003 Interior 
Appropriations bill that would create yet another commission to study 
the benefits of gaming to the Native American community.
  The Commission on Native American Policy created by the Interior bill 
would report to Congress on whether Indian gaming benefits Indian 
communities, whether Tribal government gaming is regulated and whether 
Tribal government gaming is influenced by organized crime. I oppose 
this language because it would be legislating on an appropriations 
bill. This provision has not been subject to any hearings or debate in 
the Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over Native American 
issues. I addition, because these issues have been thoroughly studied 
before, I believe this language wastes valuable taxpayer resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is more important for Congress to continue 
to focus funding towards providing the educational, healthcare and 
economic needs of the Native American community. I urge the House to 
adopt this amendment.
  Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       Under the heading ``Departmental Management--salaries and 
     expenses'' in title I, insert after the dollar amount on page 
     49, line 16, the following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Under the heading ``National Endowment for the Humanities--
     grants and administration'' in title II, insert after the 
     dollar amount on page 114, line 18, the following: 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Under the heading ``Challenge America Arts Fund--challenge 
     america grants'' in title II, insert after the dollar amount 
     on page 115, line 14, the following: ``(increased by 
     $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) for a unanimous consent request.

[[Page H4803]]

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes 
to be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) will 
control 30 minutes and a Member opposed will control 30 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is our annual rite of passage on the Interior 
bill. I remember that one of my colleagues recently said in the last 
debate that it just is not right to come down here and lie.
  Well, we are accustomed to that. It seems that every year something 
comes up that people view with great alarm by the National Endowment 
for the Arts. This year is a very interesting one. This one comes from 
Eagle Forum and they say something like 167, I believe, which is an odd 
number, but 167 naked go-go dancers put on a performance sponsored by 
the NEA. Not so, Mr. Chairman.
  The group called Broadway Cares, which was in Equity, fights AIDS, 
was given a $10,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts for 
a single performance to be held in September of this year. It has not 
been held. They are master classes conducted by some of the most 
prestigious companies in modern dance, including the Alvin Ailey Dance 
Theater, the Merce Cunningham Dance Company, and the Tricia Brown 
Company. The festival will include performances by notable dancers 
including current and former dancers of the New York City Ballet, 
Ballet Hispanico, Sean Curr and Company, Alpha Omega, and that is the 
only project of Broadway Cares sponsored by the NEA. So that one bites 
the dust.
  Today comes a new Dear Colleague saying that NEA has lined up with 
Planned Parenthood for a dance group, $10,000 again, they do not have 
many grants, for young people to stop teen pregnancy. And I say hooray 
for that. But I am proud of my colleagues who every year have seen 
through this verbiage and understand that the NEA is a very important 
part.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as I do every year to offer an amendment 
to try to offer a very modest increase in the National Endowment for 
the Arts and also for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  We can and we should appropriate an additional $10 million to the NEA 
and an additional $5 million to the NEH because these agencies both 
remain well below the funding level from a decade ago.
  A recent economic impact study clearly shows that investing in the 
arts has a profound economic impact on our States and local 
communities. The Arts and Economic Prosperity Study which was conducted 
by the Americans for the Arts just recently, and mostly in rural 
America and smaller cities, reveals that the nonprofit arts industry, 
this is so important, I do not want anybody to miss this. The nonprofit 
arts industry generates $134 billion annually in economic activity.
  Now, over $80 billion of this stems from related spending by the arts 
audiences. At the parking lots where they park their cars, the 
restaurants where they eat before or after performances, at the gift 
shops where they buy souvenirs, at the hotels where they spend the 
night, and on and on.
  I have this chart here to give you some idea of what we get. The $134 
billion that comes back into the Federal Treasury, it creates 4.58 
million full time equivalent jobs. The resident household income of the 
people who work in arts is 89.4 billion. The local government revenue 
is 6.6 billion. State government revenue, 7.3 billion. Federal income 
tax revenue, 10.5 billion. I challenge anybody to tell me of any other 
program which we give a very modest amount to, $116 million in this 
case, that comes back with this kind of return, and this is just the 
economic return.
  There are many others. The things that it does for young children; 
their developing minds; as we have mentioned a while ago, cutting down 
on teenage pregnancy.
  Let me go on with some of these figures that I think are very 
important. The patrons spend an average of $22.87 per person over the 
price of admission which is being spent in our local communities, 
supporting the businesses and sustaining the local jobs. As you can 
see, this is a very important investment that we make here and we get a 
great deal back for the modest amount we put in.
  Now the 232 million the Federal Government invested in NEA and NEH 
last year, as I said, has returned $134 billion and I think that is a 
good investment. The study also shows that the kids who are exposed to 
art, their SAT scores in high school go up 57 points. It improves their 
critical skills in math, reading, language development and writing. 
That, again, is cheap at the price to get that kind of return for money 
for arts in schools. For example, the study shows that learning dance 
and drama help to develop skills that improve creative writing.
  Probably what they are worried about this morning with Planned 
Parenthood will teach young women that they have a better hope in life 
other than being a teenage mother.
  Skills learned in music increases a student's understanding of 
concepts in math. That is so important to us.
  More broadly, the study concludes student attendance and retention is 
better for those involved in the arts. Additionally, student learning 
experiences in drama, music, dance and other art activities assist in 
conflict resolution and lead to improved self-confidence and social 
tolerance.

  I think as I go through these things you can say these are things we 
devoutly wish for the children of the United States.
  These results demonstrate the importance of incorporating arts into 
our schools. So it is time for us to give them a portion of the 
financial support they deserve.
  This amendment goes just to support the NEA's Challenge America 
program which is targeted specifically for communities that have been 
underrepresented among the NEA direct grants.
  Challenge America has successfully supported arts education and 
community arts development in many communities nationwide. The program 
facilitates State and local arts partnerships and regional touring arts 
programs. We need to extend this great program and the amendment will 
provide part of the funds to be able to do that.
  State and local and regional arts associations receive vital support 
from the NEA, bringing arts close to home. The NEA also supports the 
after-school programs and activities in underserved communities that 
allow our youth to understand the benefits of arts learning.
  The NEH. NEH is a wonderful program, bringing into our communities 
the humanities; subjects such as history and literature or foreign 
languages and philosophy and geography. For example, they support a 
summer teacher training program that prepares and encourages teachers 
to bring humanities alive in the classroom. They teach us well who we 
were, what we hope to be, and what we can become.
  The NEH actively supports historic preservations of books, 
newspapers, official documents and material culture collections that 
are so important for us to understand our history. These efforts are 
vital to preserving America's historical and cultural heritage.
  I commend the President for recognizing the critical role the arts 
play in our schools and communities. Now it is time to show us the 
money. The administration's budget request includes a very slight 
increase, actually not any increase at all, just inflation. But if we 
want to leave no child behind, if we really want to encourage growth in 
this economy, we need to increase the funding for these two agencies 
because they are proven, proven like no other to do exactly that: 
Encourage growth in the economy and leaving no child behind.
  So we request $10 million more for the NEA, $5 million for the NEH by 
making minor correspondent reductions in the administrative budget in 
the Department of the Interior.
  The account, which is appropriated an increase in the underlying 
bill, would be increased by less than half of 1 percent. This offset 
ought to be acceptable to all of my colleagues.
  Less than 1 percent of our entire budget is committed to arts. In 
other

[[Page H4804]]

words, it costs each year less than 40 cents a year to support art. 
Yet, our small Federal investment in the arts reaps rewards, as we have 
said here, many, many times over. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment cosponsored by my good friend and cochairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn), and by the ranking member on this 
committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) who fights 
valiantly every year for this program in committee, and for whom we are 
very grateful, to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Please support this modest increase in the NEA and NEH. It is the 
least we can do to invest in cultural and economic well-being of our 
Nation. And once again, I ask my colleagues to reject the fearmongering 
that comes out every year. To tell the truth, I almost wait with some 
anticipation to see what they will dig up year after year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  The CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I do; and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) for yielding me the time, and last night, many of us commended 
all the good things he has done and I want to say it again. He helped 
parks and he has cared about the students in rural America. I grew up 
on a farm, and I am talking about the National Endowment for the Arts, 
which includes not just urban America but also rural America. That is 
when I first saw a symphony and that was in the WPA. He will remember 
that and I will, in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, the WPA, and that was 
the wonderful job they did to have young children that never would have 
to do it any other way than in that.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) was highlighting the 
enormous benefits of the arts to our economy and to our local 
communities. A recent economic impact study from Georgia Institute of 
Technology, which she used, and I want to put this again, nonprofit 
arts industries in America generate $134 billion for our Nation's 
economy. That is an outstanding return on taxpayers' investment, and 
that is about $10.5 billion for the Internal Revenue Service; and the 
children also benefit from the arts and the educational curriculum, as 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) noted. And we obviously 
want arts education, and it has happened in math, reading, language 
development, and writing.
  This is a new NEA in the sense that they have a lot of common sense 
now in that group, and I would hope that all of us could vote for that 
and see the arts that percolate through our secondary schools, our 
community colleges, our research centers, our State humanities council; 
and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment to 
increase funding for the national endowment for the arts and the 
national endowment for the humanities.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her leadership on these 
issues over the years. She has been tireless, and with those Members 
that are supporting this Member, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Just to give my colleagues a little bit of a picture of what happens 
in a rural State like Maine and the importance of the arts and 
humanities, there are many areas of America, particularly rural America 
and rural Maine, that cannot afford some of the luxuries of major urban 
areas; and it is important to have organizations like the NEA and NEH 
provide resources to rural communities so that they can have an 
opportunity to participate and be exposed to the arts programs.
  In my home State, the Maine Humanities Council has developed several 
programs that have greatly served our State. Current programs run by 
the council promote literacy for all ages, provide teacher enrichment. 
They have seminars in preserving cultural heritage. In addition, they 
have grant programs that provide the support to Maine libraries and 
museums, historical societies and schools.
  One of their programs, literature and medicine, has become so 
successful that the national council has just received a significant 
grant application and awarded Maine a national endowment grant for the 
humanities to expand this program to eight other States.
  Clearly, we must continue the support of these programs. Even on top 
of all of that, the economic opportunity that was highlighted earlier 
generated over $134 billion in economic opportunity. This gives rural 
States like Maine a real opportunity to focus on this creative cluster 
of development opportunities in our region; so that in a lot of rural 
areas we are manufacturing textiles and the agriculture have seen some 
declines, that there is an opportunity to create new economic growth in 
opportunities in terms of our art galleries, art exhibits and the 
promotion of the arts.
  So we are very much in support of this effort, very much asking my 
colleagues to support this increase. It does a great job. It does a 
great job in Maine, and it does a great job in the Nation.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time; and Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the arts, but I rise 
in opposition to this amendment.
  The President's budget provides a budget request of $116,489,000. 
Last year, fiscal year 2002, the enacted budget appropriation was 
$115,234,000. So we are over a $1 million increase already in the 
President's budget, essentially flat-funding it, but increasing it 
slightly.
  The request today is for $116,489,000 for the National Endowment for 
the Arts; and the committee, in a bipartisan way, supported that. They 
supported it because it believed it is an adequate amount to pay for 
the Federal share of contribution to the arts, and I believe that, too. 
I think $116,489,000 is a fair amount. It is a fair number.
  I point out to my colleagues that this was an increase last year of 
over $10 million a year ago for the National Endowment for the Arts. It 
was $104 million, went up to $115 million. So we have already added 
over $10 million a year ago and now to come back and add another $10 
million this year, in addition to the $1 million that the President has 
already requested and the committee, in a bipartisan way, has already 
approved, I think is wrong.
  When is enough enough? I have serious questions about the $134 
billion that is generated, allegedly generated, by nonprofit arts 
groups; and I know they do a great job. They do it in my State, and I 
support them very strongly. However, that is like saying if we buy 
little league uniforms for the teams in America, we are going to 
generate all the money that goes to little league or high school or 
sports. It is a big universe, in other words; and I will give credit to 
some amount of money that is generated by the $115 million that we put 
in last year and that we are going to put in $116 million this year. I 
think that is a fair expenditure. For some it is too much; for some it 
is too little. But I think it is just right.
  I would just urge my colleagues, when is enough enough? I will say to 
the sponsors of the amendment, this is money that is going to be cut 
out of the Interior Department operations accounts. We have held these 
operations accounts in the bill down. We have not even fully funded 
their inflationary request; and so if we are going to further cut into 
the Interior Department operations accounts, I think it is going to 
have an impact on the national parks operations. It is going to have an 
impact on public lands administration, on refuges that a lot of people 
go to see and enjoy the wildlife refuges in this country, and other 
programs that are part of the interior appropriations process.
  The interior bill has a lot of responsibilities. We have a documented 
backlog in repairs for public facilities of over $12 billion. Ten 
million can make a big difference in that $12 billion

[[Page H4805]]

backlog maintenance problem. We are trying to make prudent investment 
in our land management agencies, in Indian health programs, in energy 
research. They can use $10 million, too, if we really want to look at 
the cumulative effect of having dollars invested and benefits to the 
public.
  I am not going to say the arts are not valuable, they are; but $116 
million is enough, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment, finding that $116 million is adequate.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleague from 
Washington State that just applauding the arts is not enough, and I 
yield 2 minutes to the other gentleman from Washington State (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thought that the study was very 
professionally done, and I think the arts generate probably more than 
$134 billion in economic activity. The most important number was the 
Federal revenues, $10.5 billion for a $116 million investment. I do not 
think we are going to do any better than that on return in investment.
  The other thing I would point out, when the House of Representatives 
was under the control of the Democratic Party in 1994, we provided $162 
million for the National Endowment for the Arts on a very bipartisan 
basis. I see many Members here on the floor supported that level of 
funding; and then, of course, in 1995 that was reduced to less than 
$100 million, we had this dramatic Draconian cut in funding.
  We have come back, and last year we had a vote on the floor of the 
House of Representatives for an increase of $15 million: $10 million 
for the endowment for the arts, because it was cut more severely than 
the endowment for the humanities, $3 million for humanities, $2 million 
for museums and library services. We do not have museum services 
anymore in this bill, so it is $10 million for the arts, $5 million for 
the humanities this year.
  We can go to every part of this country now and we can see the 
consequences, the impact of these efforts, the Challenge America 
program. These moneys are going all over the country. We made sure that 
all the arts are not in the big cities. They are now everywhere; and 
that is why they are creating all this economic activity, creating 
these jobs and giving audiences all over the country a chance to enjoy 
the arts and the humanities.
  This is a good, positive thing to do. Let us support it. Let us get 
back to where we used to be back in the good old days in 1994.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, let me just talk about the good old 
days. The good old days, for my dear friend from Washington State, were 
days when there was deep criticism of the National Endowment for the 
Arts for putting pornographic material in grants that they offered. I 
mean, that is what resulted in the cut. The representatives in the 
House of Representatives and the Senate and the country were disgusted 
with the way that the National Endowment for the Arts was distributing 
grants. They were wasting taxpayers' money. So just as a matter of 
historical reference, that is why they were cut back was because they 
were granting sort of disgusting material for grants with taxpayer 
money.
  So what we did not see before 1994 was a limitation on the amount of 
money that went to big museums and big cities and people with all the 
money and the resources in the world. Thanks to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and others, we put in these reforms after 
1995 and 1996, which said put a cap on the amount of funds that one 
State can receive, that State grant programs and State set-asides 
increased to 40 percent of the total grants. That is what we did in the 
post-1994 period.
  Anti-obscenity requirement for grants supported by a Supreme Court 
decision in 1998. Put six Members of Congress on the National Council 
of the Arts to monitor what went through the system. We reduced the 
Presidentially appointed council members to 14 instead of 26. We 
prohibited grants to individuals except for literature fellowships and 
National Heritage fellowships or American Jazz Masters fellowships. 
Prohibited self-granting or full seasonal support grants. Allowed the 
NEA and the NEH to solicit vest private funds to support the agencies.
  That is a beef that I have had for quite a while is that we give 
grants to people. With all due respect for the good work they do, they 
go out and make a tremendously good commercial success, but they do not 
give back; and my argument has been commercially successful people 
ought to be able to come back and give back to the big pot to help 
everybody, the fledgling artists and others who are out there trying to 
get some help instead of reaping the commercial benefit at taxpayers' 
expense.

                              {time}  1345

  We have provided granting priority for projects to underserved 
populations. That is very important, as I come from a relatively rural 
area. We have provided priority for education, understanding and 
appreciation of the arts, and emphasis for grants to community music 
programs. These were all post-1994 reforms.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, then, we have a bipartisan consensus that we made 
these changes. Then let us give them back the money they so desperately 
need to fund the program all over the country. They need this money.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman 
if $116 million is not enough.
  Mr. DICKS. No. No.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thought the gentleman would say that. Back in the 
1970s, when this program first came out, it had zero. So now we have 
grown it to $116 million. One hundred sixteen million is enough. Let us 
give it a one-year hiatus. We have a war going on, we are trying to 
provide for people in New York, we have a defense bill, and homeland 
security. Let us give it a rest. Let us economize.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  What we have heard on this floor for years on this subject is that we 
should not fund amendments like this simply because at some time in the 
past the arts program was not perfect. Well, I grant that. But for how 
we ought to view them today, I once again consult my sociological 
bible, my friend archie the cockroach, and here is what archie said 
about the arts.
  ``They are instinctively trying to hand the public some kind of stuff 
that wins the audience away from the often sordid surface of existence. 
They may do it badly, they may do it obviously, they may do it crudely, 
but they do have the hunch that what the millions want is to be shown 
that there is something possible to the human race besides the dull 
repetition of the triviality which is so often the routine of common 
existence. . . .  And every now and then they have blundered into doing 
something with the touch of the universal in it.''
  That, to me, is what is so great about this little program. I do not 
much care about what this program does for the big cities in this 
country. I do not represent a city over 40,000. What I care about is 
what these programs help to deliver by way of cultural experiences, 
door-opening experiences for kids and for working families who, in the 
rural parts of this country and the small towns of this country, would 
otherwise never be exposed to it. And sometimes it may not be perfect, 
but a lot of times it is awfully good and it has a profoundly enriching 
experience on young people's lives. That is why this amendment ought to 
be passed.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Let me just tell my colleagues why we are introducing this amendment 
that I am a coauthor of. The National Endowment for the Humanities will 
get 5 million more dollars because they carry enormously important 
national

[[Page H4806]]

responsibilities, like dealing with brittle books and the problem of 
documents that are critical to our heritage and to future generations, 
needing a lot of care and a lot of restoration.
  They are also in libraries in very small towns, bringing experts on 
poetry to do readings and workshops, and provide inspiration and 
guidance for those who want to learn to write poetry or short stories 
or get acquainted with the body of literature that has developed the 
culture of the Western world.
  In the arts, we put $10 million more into the Challenge America 
program. That is the grassroots. Let me tell my colleagues what 
grassroots sounds like and looks like in my district.
  I walked into a HOT school the other day. Now, HOT schools are funded 
by national NEA money flowing through our Connecticut Commission on the 
Arts. And I asked this young girl who was touring me around, a 5th 
grader, I said, what is a HOT school? She said, well, it is a Higher 
Order of Thinking School. And as we went through the school, there was 
a kid who was drawing everything we did, and there were several kids 
who were scribing down everything we did so they could do a report.
  We saw the exhibition of art, portraits done by the kindergartners in 
the style of Miro. How wonderful for these kids to see the abstraction 
of portraiture done in that very modern style, so they could begin to 
think about who they really were, who the next person was, and how do 
we conceptualize the world around us.
  There is just overwhelming evidence that strong arts develop higher 
test scores on math and reading. Why? Because it develops the mind, not 
just the tables, but the abstraction of mathematics.
  Then we went on to the older grades where they had studied the 
Lascaux caves and how those drawings in the caves represented the 
history and the way people lived in that era, and they thought about 
it. They thought about not only the substance of life, but the artistic 
expression and how we communicate.
  Then, every month, they have an assembly in which they have a 
competition for the best poetry, the best drawing. This has changed the 
lives of these inner-city children. It changed their lives and elevated 
their thinking. It has made them think that education is fun and 
powerful. So let us not neglect to fund the arts.
  My Governor, a Republican in Connecticut, put more money into the 
arts than had ever been invested because the arts help revitalize our 
cities economically. So this is about education, it is about 
achievement, it is about excellence, it is about communication, it is 
about history, it is about culture, it is about inspiration, and it is 
about the dollars and cents of a strong economy. Support the amendment 
to increase funding for the arts.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
restoring funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.
  While the proposed increases still will not return the support we 
knew in 1995, it is so important to the children of our country that we 
make this progress.
  I want to cite what many of my colleagues have talked about today. 
Many people think of the NEA and the NEH grants as large grants to 
communities, but, actually, what we have are a number of grants that go 
to small organizations. I think even the fact that they are out there 
really inspires many, many organizations to put forth initiatives that 
they otherwise would never have put together, would never have 
explored.
  In San Diego, we have many, many connections and many, many links. 
The National Endowment for the Arts supports major organizations in my 
area, like the San Diego Opera Association in its symphony outreach to 
students and the Old Globe Theater in their Teatro Meta program.
  We also have a Challenge America grant, which enabled the San Diego 
Youth & Community Services to artist-led activities that link students 
in the Teen Connection program with actors from the La Jolla Playhouse 
and the Diversionary Theater.
  Another grant enabled a partnership with the Metropolitan Area 
Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty for the Teen Producers Project, and 
that provides after-school media arts education to young people living 
in public housing.
  There are many, many of these grants, and all children deserve this 
opportunity to explore new arts interests and develop their talent, the 
kind of opportunities that the NEA and the NEH grants offer to enrich 
their lives.
  My colleagues, if looking into the eyes of children who become 
inspired by the arts is not sufficient, I would point out, as my 
colleagues have, that the multiplier effect on the economy of every 
dollar spent on the arts also enriches all of our communities.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and as I sit here and listen to this bill, now going close 
to 24 hours, I am reminded of a Dr. Seuss character that I think was 
called a Push Me-Pull You. I do not really remember what it was all 
about, but it seemed to me that the character was unwilling to be 
pushed, unwilling to be pulled.
  I think that must be the description of the Interior bill; that it is 
a very delicately balanced bill, and we can push it one way, but it is 
not going to pass; or we can pull it another way, and it is not going 
to pass. That is why this is kind of a thin-ice situation here. There 
are a lot of good arguments for this, but put one more straw on the 
camel's back, and then we lose on our side 24 votes. Same way on the 
other side; they lose 25 votes. That is why I think it is important 
that we leave the language and the numbers where they are in this 
particular bill on this amendment.
  I support the arts, and I think everybody in Congress supports the 
arts. That is why it is very important to not confuse the NEA with the 
arts. We in Congress provide a $10 billion tax credit that is 
authorized for people who donate to art galleries and to art-related 
theaters and so forth. That is $10 billion. The Democrats are fond of 
saying how much is this costing? Well, $10 billion.

  What about all the art that the Federal Government purchases, the 
paintings in this Capitol? We just underwent a renovation of the 
rotunda. That is in support of the arts. What about art education? All 
the programs on the State level, on the local level, on the Federal 
level that we as taxpayers of America support the arts on? We are very 
pro art in America. But to confuse the NEA with the art statement of 
America is truly misleading.
  I believe that art is magical. I heard a songwriter say a good song 
takes you someplace else. And that is true, because, doggone it, I 
cannot drive my car without the radio going, because, Mr. Chairman, I 
do not always want to go to work. I like to hear the song about, I miss 
the planes out in Africa or the land down under in Australia. I think 
that is why we listen to music, because it does take us to a different 
place.
  When we look at this picture of Lafayette over here, and think about 
the inspiration of a great Frenchman who comes over here and fights for 
America during the Revolutionary War. We get inspired when we look at 
the portrait of George Washington with the sword carefully painted out 
to show that this is not an institution that uses violence but that we 
use the weapons of words to clash our ideas together.
  It is inspirational, as we look at the dynamics of both of these 
people, and to look up to the ceiling in the rotunda, and to think 
about a good drama that we all get invited to every now and then at 
JFK. It is truly inspirational. We need to all be protective of art.
  And I want to say that I think the NEA has gone a long way in kind of 
cleaning up their act. The NEA, I think, has come a long way. The 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has cited it well. And I can 
say that on our side of the aisle, as the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) knows, some of the strong offended feelings, and I saw it 
was included in this regarding some of the

[[Page H4807]]

shenanigans of the NEA in the past, I have to say that, actually, it 
was cleaned up probably more by the Supreme Court than by Congress.
  I will yield to my friend in a minute, but as the gentleman 
remembers, it was the famous case of a woman who was dipped in 
chocolate, and the question was is that a proper use of the taxpayer 
dollars or should it be artistic freedom. I believe in artistic 
freedom, but let her leap in a whole vat of chocolate. I am all for it. 
A new definition of Hershey's Kisses. But when I am paying for it, or I 
am asking a guy who is driving a truck for $6 an hour back in Georgia, 
maybe we should not do that. Maybe we should just stick with the 
picture of the cow standing by the mill stream.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point we tried to make before, and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) did a good job, as has the 
gentleman from Georgia, in going back to those issues, but we reformed 
those things. We put provisions in the bill that emphasized quality, 
and those have all been adopted.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly why I 
bring it up, is to acknowledge the changes that have been made. And the 
gentleman and I have both sat through hearings, through Democrat and 
Republican administrators over there, and I think they have cleaned it 
up, and I am glad. Some of it has been with a hammer, some of it has 
been more willing, but a lot has gone on.
  I would also like them to continue to decentralize the NEA. I do 
think, and if I were the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) I 
would be pushing it hard, because so much of the money is concentrated 
in New England, but there is a lot of art outside of New York City. 
When these theater groups come down and they do a little ballet for the 
rural folks down home, and they say, well, we kept the hicks from the 
sticks happy, now we can go home, I do not think it is anything that 
great and wonderful. I would love to see the NEA have a distribution 
formula where they say we have to push that stuff out and distribute it 
more in Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Chairman, my point is NEA, I think, has moved forward in a good 
direction. Unlike years past when I have voted to cut the NEA, I will 
vote to support the NEA. But I know as the vice chairman of this 
committee, to put more money in it means that we are going to lose 
votes, so I must oppose this amendment.
  On the NEH, I am a big NEH supporter. I would support the NEH 
increase, but I cannot do it on the floor of the House because that is 
going to run off votes. I think there are some things to talk about in 
the process which I look forward to engaging in as the months go by.
  Right now, all of the issues that we have gotten together with the 
Westerners and the Easterners and the folks on Native American issues, 
we need to keep the precarious balance of this bill where it is because 
it is a Push Me-Pull You.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Slaughter-Dicks amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-
Johnson-Morella amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to give 
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) additional appropriations of 
$10 million and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) an 
additional $5 million. The value of the NEA lies in its ability to 
nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts 
organizations and artists in every corner of the country, making the 
performing, visual, literary, media and folk arts available to millions 
of Americans.
  Even in this time of fiscal restraint and budget deficits, the value 
of the NEA cannot be overstated. Additional appropriations are still 
required, as the NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of 
every community in the country. A recent study conducted by the Georgia 
Institute of Technology found that the nonprofit arts industry alone 
generates $134 billion annually in economic activity, supports 4.85 
million full time jobs and returns $10.5 billion to the Federal 
Government in income taxes. While the economic benefit of the arts 
industry is integral to our Nation's economy, affording children access 
to the arts through education yields more significant dividends to our 
society. The U.S. Department of Justice found that arts education 
reduced delinquency in San Antonio by 13 percent, increased 
communication skills of Atlanta students by 57 percent, and improved 
cooperation skills of Portland youth by 57 percent. In addition, the 
College Board has shown that college bound students who are involved in 
the arts have higher overall SAT scores than other students.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities is the largest single 
funder of humanities programs in the United States, enriching American 
intellectual and cultural life through support to museums, archives, 
libraries, colleges, universities, state humanities councils, public 
television and radio, and to individual scholars. A small investment 
through NEH reaps large rewards, providing seed money for high quality 
projects and programs that reach millions of Americans each year. This 
money, and NEH's reputation, leverage millions of dollars in private 
support for humanities projects. NEH is critical to addressing the 
Nation's future needs in education. More than two-thirds of our 
Nation's K-12 curriculum is dedicated to the humanities; 2 million new 
teachers will be needed in our classrooms over the next decade, and 4 
out of 5 teachers feel inadequately prepared in their subject area. NEH 
summer seminars and institutes address these very issues, and are the 
catalyst for revitalized teachers for tens of thousands of students 
each year.
  America's creative industries are our Nation's leading export with 
over $60 billion annually in overseas sales, including the output of 
artists and other creative workers in publishing, audiovisual, music 
and recording and entertainment businesses.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities plays an important role in 
the American arts enterprise. NEH grants provide critical funding for 
work in art history, theory and criticism, including: university based 
and independent research projects; professional development seminars 
for K-12 and college teachers; film and radio programs; museum 
exhibitions and exhibition catalogs; and material culture preservation.
  In my home state of Missouri, our Humanities Council currently is 
planning an array of public programs for distribution in Missouri 
during the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition, 2003 through 
2006. The planning is supported by grants from the National Endowment 
for the Humanities and the Missouri Lewis and Clark Bicentennial 
Commission. The NEH planning grant supporting these trial programs is 
intended to produce program templates that can be deployed successfully 
with local participation by Native American spokespersons in Missouri, 
Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, serving communities within a day-trip's 
distance of the Missouri River. These programs will provide Missouri 
youth an important lesson in American history in an entertaining 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend all arts advocates today on their continued 
dedication to arts in education. I strongly urge for increased 
resources for arts education in this year's appropriations process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
increase, although it is so minimal I hesitate to call it an increase. 
We have still not recovered from the grave cuts of 1994, but I strongly 
support this amendment and wish I had time to talk about how important 
the arts are to New York and this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my enthusiastic support for the 
Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.
  The $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and the $5 
million for the National Endowment for the Humanities will continue the 
process of restoring Federal funding for the arts to appropriate 
levels.
  It is difficult to call it an increase since the amount is so 
minimal. These organizations have not recovered from the severe cuts of 
1994.
  NEA funds do more than simply support individual programs, they 
support entire communities.
  NEA funds help encourage private donors to give to a program, so 
every dollar we spend pays dividends.
  When we invest in the arts, entire neighborhoods benefit. Studies 
show that children who are involved in the arts, concentrate better, 
learn how to listen and do better in school.

[[Page H4808]]

  Every community has their own example of a program that has 
benefitted from NEA grants. I'll give a small example from my district. 
The New York Ballet Theater received a $15,000 grant from the NEA last 
year. They are a terrifically innovative program that teaches young 
people to dance and introduces children to the ballet.
  More importantly, they recruit students from the shelter system, 
along with their more wealthy pupils. Their work has literally saved 
lives, taking at risk children and giving them a future.
  One student, Steven Melendez, a 15-year-old boy from the shelter 
system, has literally had his life changed. He is a phenomenally 
talented dancer who has a future because of the New York Ballet 
Theater. His dancing received national recognition and he has been 
offered a place at the world renowned American Ballet Theatre. His 
story shows what a difference NEA funding can make in the lives of our 
young people.
  I urge my colleagues to support the slaughter amendment, to enable 
the NEA to reach more programs.
  In addition, the nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in 
economic activity yearly and over $20 billion in taxes.
  Millions of Americans are employed in arts organizations, and they 
depend on the U.S. Government to continue to fund their industry.
  We can help them, help our children, improve our economy, and create 
an enduring cultural legacy--all by passing this necessary amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to enable the NEA and 
NIH to reach more programs.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Dicks 
amendment to benefit the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities. The arts and the humanities 
enrich all of our lives; and as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has pointed out, the arts enrich not just our lives 
figuratively, they enrich us economically. They not only challenge us 
to think, they deepen our understanding of the world around us and help 
us to understand ourselves and each other.
  Not surprisingly, they help us in a number of other ways, in building 
spatial reasoning skills and improving performance in math and science 
in our children, language development and reading skills. The arts and 
humanities affect every American. In fact, they are central to being 
American. Our rights of speech and assembly have fueled works of art.
  I ask Members to look around this beautiful Capitol building. This 
symbol of our democracy is a work of art. The NEA provides tens of 
millions of dollars, along with State arts agencies for more than 
7,000, almost 8,000, arts education programs in thousands of 
communities all over America, large and small towns. The NEA offers 
lifetime learning opportunities through a range of public programs.
  This budget-neutral amendment represents a small, but meaningful, 
increase for the arts and humanities. The arts give back to all of us 
many times over. This is not enough funding, but at least let us do 
this much.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to question this 
amendment, the fact that if we were awash in money, if we were in a 
surplus, if we had lots of cash to spread around, I think this 
amendment might be appropriate. But when it really comes down to it, we 
have gotten by the original NEA debate in this country. A lot of 
positive changes have happened. A lot of the things that upset the 
American public have been changed. But is it really a priority in 
America to have almost a 10 percent increase in the arts when we have 
an economy that is in trouble, when we have poor people in this country 
who have lost their jobs, we have people underemployed, unemployed? Is 
this a prudent expenditure of our funds? When we are in economic 
trouble, is there no line item that can be level-funded? And this is 
not level-funded; it is increased. Does it really stand up to a test of 
almost a 10 percent increase? I think not.
  The arts and entertainment community in America is the richest of the 
rich. I applaud them for what they do. But this is a time that they can 
step up and help expand the arts to all Americans. I find it 
interesting that those who are vehemently supporting this 10 percent 
increase oppose across-the-board tax cuts because some of them go to 
the more successful Americans.
  We all know when we cut taxes across the board, we stimulate the 
economy because we give American employers more money to invest in 
their businesses. I think it is the wrong time to ask for a major 
increase. We have gotten by the debate of the past. Let us stay there. 
Let us not revive that issue at this time when America is struggling to 
balance its budget. We cannot willy-nilly hand out 9 and 10 percent 
increases to nice things.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is an inappropriate amendment. I think it is 
not well thought out. I think it revives the debate we could get by 
this year if we do not do it. I urge Members to say ``no'' to this 
amendment. It is the wrong time, the wrong place, and sends the wrong 
message to the poor of America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is completely offset by a 
very small cut in administrative expenses. Because of the offset, the 
money is not going to be taken from here and moved over to some worthy 
cause. This is a worthy cause because we have created this enormous 
industry in this country that have jobs, economic activity surrounding 
the arts.
  We started this endowment back in 1964. My good friend, Livingston 
Biddle, was the staff person who worked with Senator Pell to get this 
thing created. Ever since then, we have seen the growth of the arts 
throughout the country because of the seed money that comes from the 
endowment. Even with this 10 percent increase, we are still 30 percent 
below where we were in 1994. If we had inflation, it would be 50 
percent below. We are just trying to get back to a reasonable level of 
funding, and this House supported this amendment last year. I urge a 
vote for it this year.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) for all the gentleman has done over the years. But despite how 
much I like the gentleman from New Mexico, what an embarrassment. Once 
again, the House of Representatives is considering a Department of 
Interior appropriations bill that does not sufficiently fund the arts 
and the humanities.
  Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was cut dramatically 
in 1995 by more than 40 percent, and it has never returned to adequacy. 
Shame on us.
  Opponents of this amendment call for fiscal discipline, as if the 
richest Nation in the world needs to be culturally impoverished. Shame 
on us.
  We all know that it is not the lack of money that keeps funding for 
the NEA and the NEH so low, because the funding we invest provides a 
huge economic return on our Federal investment, both in dollars and in 
jobs. According to a recent study by Americans for the Arts, the 
nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity 
every year, creating more than 4 million jobs. The arts industry is a 
money maker, not a money taker. Another study, this one by the Arts 
Education Partnership, provides hard evidence that children who 
participate in the arts improve their critical learning skills in math, 
reading, language development, and writing. In addition, NEA funds 
programs like Positive Alternatives for Youth, which lowers the rate of 
juvenile crime by creating artist-led after-school programs for our 
youth.
  When we deprive the NEA or the NEH of needed funds, we deprive this 
entire Nation of an active cultural community. It is a battle that has 
been going on since the stockades were used to control creativity in 
Puritan times, and it is absolutely wrong-headed.
  The arts teaches us to think, encourages us to feel and see and to 
look in

[[Page H4809]]

different ways. This is a good amendment, and it must be passed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Solis).
  (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise today in support of the 
Slaughter-Dicks amendment, which would increase the funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million.
  In our country, 76.2 million adults attend performing arts events or 
exhibition events every year. Arts and humanities play a big role in 
our lives.
  This year I had the honor of serving as co-chair with the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley) for the Congressional Arts Competition. Not 
too long ago, we had 308 students from across this country come here 
and exhibit their artwork. We were all very proud to see them here, for 
them to realize their talents and skills, and to maybe someday think 
that they could also receive a grant to continue their profession.
  I cannot tell Members how heartfelt it was for me to see a student 
from my district compete in this competition and know that they have a 
career ahead of them. Coming from a life of poverty, living in a 
trailer park could somehow be able to actualize their talents and 
skills. I think we need to support this amendment. We need to continue 
to increase funding, especially for our young, disadvantaged youth that 
were discussed earlier. Let us not leave any child behind. Let us give 
them an opportunity to participate in a civic way in the arts, to give 
good examples and allow them to extend their talents and share that 
with the entire world.
  NEA funds 249 grants throughout the country called the Challenge 
American Positive Alternative Youth Program. I am in support of this 
program. Just remember, Members, when we walk through the tunnel 
between our buildings and the Capitol, look at the artwork. Think about 
what young people have been helped, and let us give them a chance to be 
a part of the artistic discoveries in our country.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in listening to this debate, Members 
would think that in fact prior to the establishment of the National 
Endowment for the Arts, prior to the hundreds of millions of dollars 
that we have taken away from our taxpayers and given to that 
organization, if we do not pass this amendment, there will be no art.
  All of the wonderful things that art has done through our history has 
been recounted by the supporters of this particular amendment. Of 
course, who can argue that art is not a good thing? It is a great 
thing. It is a wonderful thing. I am all for art. And I can assure 
Members, if we defeat this amendment, and if we struck all funding for 
the National Endowment for the Arts, there would still be art.

                              {time}  1415

  It actually existed before the National Endowment for the Arts. It 
actually was able to thrive, to be nurtured by individuals, to somehow 
find its way into the public life before the National Endowment for the 
Arts and certainly before this amendment was even thought of.
  We have heard over and over again about the effect of art on 
students, that they learn more. The effect of art on the general 
population, that we are all somehow made better individually as a 
result of having art out there. That is probably true. I will not even 
deny that there is some effect on children's learning, on just the 
general nature of the population if you have a lot of art available to 
you. I have heard these things stated so far: It changed their lives, 
elevated their thinking, improved their test scores. It is about 
inspiration.
  Mr. Chairman, every single one of those things can be attributed to 
another aspect of our culture, and that is religion. As a matter of 
fact, children who come from religious households do score better on 
test scores. It is something that improves all of our lives, at least I 
believe. So why do we not appropriate $100 million a year to religion? 
It does all of the same things that this particular amendment does or 
that the National Endowment for the Arts says they do, but, of course, 
we do not appropriate money to religion because we would then argue 
about whose religion should be centered and identified and given the 
money. You are right. We should not do that. We should not appropriate 
money for religion. We should not appropriate money for the arts 
because it is in the eye of the beholder as to what is art. And to take 
money away from somebody in my district to determine what somebody in 
your district thinks is art is, I think, unfair.
  This amendment is, of course, unfair. The National Endowment for the 
Arts, as far as I am concerned, should not be funded at all. Certainly 
it should not be given the opportunity to have another grab at the 
apple.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, think about where we stand in 
the world today with our concentration of wealth and power. It is 
comparable almost to the great Greek and Roman civilizations.
  But what do we remember about those civilizations? It is their art, 
their striving for their greatest aspirations of the human spirit. We 
want to leave that to our future generations. Sure, the private sector 
could do it. But let me tell you about Denyce Graves, one of the 
greatest opera singers we have today. She grew up in Washington, D.C., 
a few blocks away from the Kennedy Center. But if she could, if we 
allowed it, she would be on the floor today telling us the Kennedy 
Center might as well have been a world away because she could never 
have gotten to the Kennedy Center if she had not gotten an NEH grant to 
be able to perform. It was that grant that was invested in the District 
of Columbia that gave her the opportunity to show what she was capable 
of. There are thousands, maybe millions, of people all over the country 
that have benefited from this ability to leverage money in arts 
throughout America, in our smallest communities and our largest 
communities. This is something we will be proud of for generations to 
come.
  Let us better fund the arts. Vote for the Slaughter-Dicks amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I have listened intently to this argument, to 
this debate, and to this discussion.
  I represent a district that is rich in diversity, rich in pluralism, 
rich in people from different walks of life, different backgrounds. 
What this program activity does is provide for people to understand 
each other better, to know what is going on with other people, to know 
what is in their thoughts and minds and ideas. And so we are not 
talking about funding a program. We are talking about funding a way of 
life, to help keep America the diverse, understanding, pluralistic 
Nation that it is and that is what happens.
  The Illinois Humanities Council does an outstanding job of bringing 
people together throughout our State. I guarantee you that my 
residents, the people I represent, would want us to fund this 
amendment. I am pleased to stand and speak in favor of it and urge its 
passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter amendment to 
increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. Chairman, as the country becomes more diverse and more 
pluralistic it is important, necessary, as a matter of fact, it is 
absolutely essential that we find ways to acquaint each other with 
cultural contributions, mores and folkways of different groups within 
our society and although we recognize the economic plight of our 
nation, we know that inordinate resources must be devoted to anti-
terrorism and homeland security measures but we also know that 
education and the transference of understanding are necessary to 
maintain and grow our democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent an area rich in diversity and rich in 
understanding of the need to pay attention to not just programs; but 
also to a way of life, a way of life that keeps alive the American 
dream and a way of life that keeps music, art, culture and hope ever 
present in our lives.

[[Page H4810]]

  Mr. Chairman, the Illinois Humanities Council and others like them 
throughout the nation do outstanding jobs of dividing and allocating 
these resources, they spread them around and we get the biggest bang 
for our bucks; therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this amendment, the Slaughter-Dicks amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. All 
of the civilizations throughout history which we want our children to 
study and which we admire, every one of them subsidized the arts at the 
national level. We should do no less. If we have any respect for 
ourselves and respect for our place in history, we ought to have an 
understanding of the importance of art in the development of our 
culture and the expression of ourselves as a people around the world.
  A gentleman recently on that side of the aisle said that there was 
art here in the United States prior to the National Endowment for the 
Arts. To an extent, that is true. But that art was limited. It was 
limited to the elites, to small groups of the wealthiest and best 
situated people. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities brings the humanities and the arts to 
people all across this country. The funding that is in this bill and 
that which would be increased by this amendment goes out to virtually 
every congressional district across America, thereby benefiting the 
people, in elementary schools, in secondary schools, and communities 
all across this Nation.
  Finally, if this amendment is passed, the amount of money that it 
adds to this bill will still not bring us to the level of support that 
the arts and humanities enjoyed in 1993-1994. We need to pass this 
amendment. We need to express ourselves as a people in this positive 
way. We need to show Americans across this country that we appreciate 
arts, the arts and artists, and show people around the world that we 
are a human country and appreciate and expound this great expression of 
ourselves as a people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to refute what was said by a previous speaker, that the NEA 
does not have a distribution formula. It is very important, I think, 
that we get this information out to the populace here. As we have said, 
the NEA serves every nook and cranny of the United States. Forty 
percent of the total budget is distributed to all of the 50 States 
through the State arts agencies and distributed at the State level. 
That is 40 percent of it. The remaining 60 is awarded from the NEA at 
the Federal level and the distribution formula says that no individual 
State can get more than 15 percent of the NEA's budget.
  I wish that people could understand that because this again comes up 
year after year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 2\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a very lively debate 
today. I want to commend all the speakers who have spoken on support 
for the arts and I want to even commend the positive attitude of the 
people who have reservations about this amendment but who also say that 
they strongly support the arts in our country. I have been on this 
subcommittee a long time, this is my 26th year. Before that, I worked 
on the staff of Senator Warren Magnuson, and have followed the National 
Endowment for the Arts almost from its inception.
  The point that I want to make is that this investment has caused a 
tremendous explosion in private funds in support of the arts. Now we 
see with this newest study that this has become a $134 billion 
industry, providing 4.5 million jobs in this country, at a time when we 
are in a recession. I think this is a very prudent investment. We are 
increasing the funding here by $15 million, $10 million for the arts, 
$5 million for the humanities. It is completely offset by a very 
innocuous reduction in administrative expenses. If my friend from 
Washington finds that onerous, we will fix it in conference, okay? So 
just to make sure, nobody is being hurt here. This is a positive 
amendment that will do a lot for our country.
  I was at the opening of the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Washington, a 
facility constructed at the leadership of George Russell. I saw young 
children in the glass art center creating glass art. We have had kids 
in Tacoma who used to be juvenile delinquents now are leading a program 
in creating glass art. This is something that is important for every 
young person in this country. Education is enhanced by the arts and 
humanities.
  This is a very modest amendment. It is a chance for us to say to the 
endowments that they have done a good job, have listened to the 
Congress, have adopted the reforms that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and I and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) have 
proposed over the years to correct the problems. They are emphasizing 
quality. This is an administration that is also strongly committed to 
the arts. I think this is a small amendment but a good one. Let us 
approve it and let us move on.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to close on this debate. 
It has been a good debate. I appreciate the tone from all parties who 
spoke very fervently about their belief in the arts and their support 
of the arts.
  I would argue that there is not one person in the House of 
Representatives who does not support the arts. Period. The question is, 
does everyone support a $10 million increase in the National Endowment 
for the Arts? I think we have to make sure everybody understands that 
this is an issue of how much can we afford. How much can we spend on 
different accounts in this particular bill? I would argue, Mr. 
Chairman, that we have got $116 million in this bill, about a $1 
million increase over last year, which last year was about an $11 
million increase over the year before. I guess my thinking is, it can 
never be enough. If you really want to take the arguments of the 
proponents of this amendment to their logical extension, it will never 
be enough. I would argue that this is enough at this time, at this 
place, given the circumstances of this bill, given the circumstances of 
our economy and our national priorities.
  Much has been made of Members saying, well, we have to treat the 
Federal Treasury like our family budget. I would argue to you that if 
you got your mortgage and you got your food and your transportation and 
all the other necessary accounts to run your family, that maybe you say 
at some point, ``Until things get a little better, I'm not going to go 
to the movies this weekend. In fact, I'm going to stay home and read a 
book.'' I think that is what we have to do with this amendment. We have 
to say, $116 million is enough. It is enough. And we do not need at 
this point to spend another $10 million just to demonstrate our 
commitment to the arts in this country.
  Very few speakers today spoke of the direct relationship between the 
NEA and their love of the arts. We can love the arts, and we all do. We 
all appreciate the value of music and artistic expression. It is 
valuable. But I hasten to point out, we spend 20 percent of the $116 
million on the administrative cost of the NEA. I know this amendment 
speaks to that, but still we are spending 20 cents, 25 cents out of 
every dollar spent on the NEA in administrative cost. My argument is in 
this amendment let us stick to the balance that has been provided by 
the chairman, by the ranking member, by the entire full Committee on 
Appropriations when we reported this bill out.
  The gentleman from Washington said it is an innocuous reduction in 
the Department of Interior accounts. I would argue that reduction in 
land management for fires, for Indian Health Service, for BIA education 
or other accounts that this will come out of in the land management 
agencies for us in the West is not the right time to spend more money 
on arts and less money on the administration of fire suppression and 
other accounts that this is likely to be taken out of. So I would argue 
that this is not innocuous. It is not an innocuous addition. It is $10 
million of addition to this account that already has $116 million.

[[Page H4811]]

  I would just say this. We can be relatively assured, I will say 
almost positively assured, that the other body will want to add even 
more than this. I know that satisfies some Members who want more money. 
But if we are going to be fiscally responsible and if we are going to 
keep the balance in this bill and we have relatively, even most likely, 
the assurance that the money is going to go in in even greater amounts 
when we get with the other body in conference, I say hold the line.

                              {time}  1430

  On this day, at this moment, with these pressures on our economy, 
with these pressures on our homeland security, on our post-September 11 
activity, with the recession that we are trying to come out of in this 
country, let us not spend money to go to the movies; let us say, let us 
stay home and read a book. I argue that these Department of Interior 
accounts that are being cut today are going to have a greater impact on 
reducing spending and administration of existing accounts for Members 
of the House of Representatives than will this particular $10 million 
increase affect Members in a similar manner.
  So I would just say I think again, the argument has been in favor of 
the arts and we all favor the arts. The challenge that the proponents 
have to exercise is, is this NEA distribution, the money going to the 
Federal agency, going to have the same impact that $10 million might 
have in other accounts of the interior agencies that are affected by 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from 
Washington.
  I respect their commitment, let there be no mistake. I know they feel 
strongly about this. But I think the rest of us must feel strongly 
about protecting the Federal purse, protecting the integrity of the 
appropriations process, protecting the integrity of the challenge, the 
pressure that is going to be on the land management agencies as we have 
droughts and natural disasters and challenges to Indian health service 
and Indian education and all of the other accounts that are part of the 
interior bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the defeat of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nethercutt was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the Chair and the 
Members that after this series of votes, we will continue with 
amendments to title I under regular order. Then we will proceed to 
title II under regular order. Members are asked that if they have 
amendments to title I and the remainder of the bill, to come to the 
floor and submit their written amendments to the desk.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support 
this critical amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  A similar amendment passed on the House floor last year and I hope we 
are again able to demonstrate clear congressional support for arts and 
humanities funding today.
  From the beginning of my political career, I have worked to increase 
funding for the arts and appreciation for the public value they add to 
our communities.
  As a local county commissioner I crafted the first local government 
``percent for art'' program and saw first-hand the multiplier effect it 
had on investment in the arts.
  In Oregon, the arts and cultural industry has a tremendous economic 
value. The non-profit arts industry alone employs more than 28,000 
people and generates $64 million annually.
  Nationally, the nonprofit arts industry pumps $134 billion into our 
economy every year and provides a huge economic return on our small 
federal investment.
  This industry provides 4.85 million jobs; $89.4 billion in household 
income; $10.5 billion in federal income tax revenues; $7.3 billion in 
state government tax revenues; and $6.6 billion in local government tax 
revenues.
  The arts and humanities have more than an economic impact--they 
enrich our neighborhoods, our schools and our cities;
  Each year, NEH grants are awarded in every U.S. state and territory, 
going to non-profit cultural institutions such as museums, archives, 
libraries, colleges, universities, research centers, and state 
humanities councils; to film, television and radio producers; and to 
individual scholars.
  Providing strong federal funding is also what the majority of the 
American public expects from Congress.
  79 percent of Americans believe that ``there should be federal, 
state, and local councils for the arts to . . . provide financial 
assistance to worthy arts organizations.''
  Unfortunately Since 1995, when funding for the NEA was reduced by 40 
percent, the NEA has had to cut most grants to individual artists, 
funding for seasonal support, and has had to limit the scope of their 
focus dramatically.
  Yet this is about far more than money and public opinion. The arts 
and humanities are what make a community vibrant, unique and lively.
  Today's modest yet effective increase in the Interior Appropriations 
bill will help improve our federal commitment and is vital to promoting 
livable communities where our families are safe, healthy and more 
economically secure.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson 
amendment to increase arts funding.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support 
of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella amendment to the fiscal 
year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill. This amendment will give $10 
million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and $5 million to 
the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
  Funding from the NEA and NEH leverage millions of dollars each year 
in private support for arts projects all across the country. We also 
know that arts education has been proven to increase skills in math, 
reading, language development and writing.
  While New Mexico proudly proclaims itself as the State of many 
cultures--some call it a melting pot, others a mosaic--we all have at 
least one thing in common, and that is keeping together our strong 
connection to the history and traditions of our State through the arts. 
Funding through the NEA and NEH have showcased numerous Native 
American, Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo cultures by artists young and 
old.
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA has approved thousands of dollars in federal 
funding for several arts organizations located in my Congressional 
District and throughout New Mexico. I would like to highlight a few of 
those organizations:
  Santa Fe Opera--$50,000. Funding will support the American premiere 
of the opera L'amore de loin by Finnish composer Kaija Saariaho with 
libretto by French-Lebanese author Amin Maalouf. Approximately 6,000 
persons are expected to attend three performances of the opera at the 
Santa Fe Opera Theater.
  New Mexico CultureNet, Santa Fe--$30,000. Funding will support a 
project called InterLAC which links local arts councils throughout New 
Mexico via web-based services, workshops, and an annual conference.
  Taos Talking Pictures--$7,500. Funding will be used to support the 
Taos Talking Picture Film Festival. The spring event showcases films by 
independent filmmakers working in all genres.
  Pueblo of Zuni--$20,000. Zuni Fish and Wildlife Department. Funding 
will support an architectural design for an eagle aviary compound. In 
this second phase of the project an eagle breeding ground, visitor 
facilities, orchards, and landscape features will be added to the 
existing facility.
  When it comes to private partnerships between private, state and 
federal funding of the arts by requiring that these grant recipients 
match federal monies dollar for dollar, the NEA set an outstanding 
example. According to the NEA, one federal dollar attracts $12 or more 
from state and regional arts agencies as well as corporations, 
businesses and individuals.
  These are just a few of the many projects that funding through the 
NEA and NEH go to support. I'm sure that every member of this chamber 
could share similar project successes in their respective districts. I 
would like to remind my colleagues that a similar amendment passed the 
House on June 21, 2001 by a bipartisan margin of 221-193 in last year's 
Interior bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment to increase funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  I support this modest amendment and believe increased funding would 
have an enormous impact by bringing the arts to under-served 
communities, like our inner-cities and rural areas, and by encouraging 
more support for preserving and promoting our cultural heritage.
  Federal funding helps symphonies, theaters, musical productions, 
ballet and educational programs.
  I grew up in an arts family. My mom and dad, both performing actors, 
met in the theater. I know the arts make a significant contribution to 
our lives.
  The arts improve the lives of many people, including children, the 
elderly and those on a

[[Page H4812]]

limited budget, who might not otherwise have the opportunity to see 
some very beautiful and enriching performances. And federal funding 
helps enable talented individuals to pursue careers in the arts.
  Besides the cultural benefit, the economic impact of the arts is 
staggering.
  I urge you to support the amendment and increase funding for the NEA 
and NEH.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today for this modest 
bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Slaughter, Dicks, Horn, 
Johnson and Morella to increase funds for the National Endowment for 
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  As a Member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I value the tremendous 
role arts funding and arts education programs play in the lives of our 
citizens.
  Several academic studies demonstrate the connection between music, 
dance, visual arts, and the development of the human brain. It is well 
known among researchers that arts education cultivates critical 
thinking skills so important in our information age economy.
  Let me tell you about some of the programs in my community that 
received NEA and NEH funds this past year.
  Artist-in-residence programs in elementary schools to encourage 
student and teacher involvement. A program in my district that 
incorporates traditional music and dance from diverse cultures to 
improve student relations, coordination and memory. An amateur chamber 
orchestra. A fellowship program at a library and museum for art 
instructors who will, in turn, teach our artists of tomorrow.
  But this debate is not simply about the arts alone. Children who 
learn to read music or play an instrument show improved proficiency in 
math.
  This increase of $15 million under the Interior Appropriations for 
the NEA and NEH will go to fund so many rich programs offered and so 
many opportunities for us all.
  Last month, an economic study, Americans for the Arts, found that 
America's nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in annual 
economic activity. This number includes full time jobs, household 
income and local, state and federal tax revenue. This study includes 
more than $80 billion in event-related spending by audiences. This is 
additional clear evidence that opportunities funded through NEA and NEH 
continue to bring us to new levels in our economy, culture, language, 
music, art and life.
  By supporting the arts and the humanities, the Federal Government has 
the ability to partner with state and local efforts to bolster the arts 
and educational opportunities in our communities.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, today we debate the level of 
our federal commitment to arts and humanities programs. We have an 
opportunity to ensure that the children who today dip their hands in 
pots of fingerprints and sit listening to storybooks will grow up to be 
active members of a creative nation, rich and beauty and ideas.
  We all deserve arts and humanities.
  All children and adults deserve the opportunity to learn to create, 
to express their ideas and their visions. They deserve the opportunity 
to learn history, languages, philosophy, painting, sculpture, music, 
and dance.
  We all need arts and humanities.
  Arts and humanities do more than just offer us entertainment and 
distraction from turmoil in our lives, they provide insight and 
perspective, they offer comfort and hope.
  Arts and humanities give us ways to understand and find meaning in 
what is happening in our nation, and what has happened centuries ago. 
They give us ways to share that meaning with our children.
  Last September, we witnessed some use their ability to destroy 
against our nation. We have endeavored to find ways to honor those who 
lost their lives in the destruction. I think one way to do so today is 
to support our nation's ability to create.
  I proudly support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella amendment 
to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities, and I ask my colleagues to do 
same.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter, 
Dicks, Horn, Johnson amendment. Funding for the arts is one of the best 
investments our government makes. In purely economic terms, it 
generates a return that would make any Wall Street investor jealous. 
For just a fraction of one percent of the entire federal budget, the 
National Endowment for the Arts supports a thriving non-profit arts 
industry which generates more than $134 billion annually, nearly 5 
million full-time jobs and returns $10.5 billion in federal taxes each 
year.
  With grants that touch nearly every Congressional district in the 
country, the NEA supports educational programs that teach children 
valuable life-long skills; allows new and innovative art to find an 
audience; helps bring the arts to under-served communities; enables 
organizations to share their exhibitions and performances with the rest 
of the nation through national tours; and most important, provides 
crucial seed money for organizations to leverage private donations.
  Yet the NEA continues to suffer from the shortsighted decision by 
Congress to slash its funding back in 1996, after attempting outright 
elimination. It has been forced to do more with less and despite 
consistent under-funding, it has been an efficient and productive 
agency. However, we should at least restore the NEA to its pre-1996 
levels and we should be considering an increase over that level, not 
the paltry funding it has had since then. Only through increased public 
support can the arts continue to be so vibrant throughout the nation.
  The NEH, too, is a crucial agency but without additional funding, the 
important work of interpreting and preserving our nation's heritage 
will go unrealized. The NEH is at the forefront of preserving 
endangered recordings of folk music, jazz and blues; bringing 
Shakespeare to inner-city youth; promoting research into immigrant life 
and culture; and helping disseminate this information into communities 
through technology with the Internet and CD-Rom.
  The arts and humanities also provide the emotional and spiritual lift 
that we have all needed since September, helping us heal in profound 
ways. In the wake of the attacks on our nation, people flocked to 
theaters, music halls, and museums for a sense of community and 
emotional release. The arts and humanities are also a critical tool in 
promoting cultural understanding, something that is sorely needed in 
the world today.
  In the wake of September 11th, I convened a discussion of the many 
arts organizations in lower Manhattan that had been devastated after 
the attacks. At that meeting, an artist named Brookie Maxwell gave a 
powerful testament to why additional arts funding is needed. She said, 
``We need funding for the arts so we can process what happened. Art 
addresses the meaning between the words, and it addresses the mystery 
of life.''
  Mr. Chairman, I can think of no better words to sum up why this 
amendment is so sorely needed and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
provides for a modest increase of funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). 
Mr. Speaker, this year we have spent much time and energy improving our 
education system with the No Child Left Behind Act. I am proud of the 
work we have done. Yet we cannot leave the arts behind--exposure and 
understanding of the arts is vital to our children's development and we 
must properly fund the NEA and NEH to accomplish this.
  The NEA supports local communities in our states and creates many 
educational outreach programs which enrich the cultural world of our 
children. The NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural 
life by providing humanities education to America's school children and 
college students, offers lifelong learning opportunities through a 
range of public programs and supports projects that encourage Americans 
to discover their American heritage.
  The most important function of the NEA and NEH is their role in 
education our children. Studies continue to illustrate the positive 
impact that exposure to arts has on a child's development. A recent 
study released by the Arts Education Partnership entitled Critical 
Links, provides hard evidence that the arts improve critical skills in 
math, reading, language development, and writing. The arts nourish a 
child's imagination and creativity and help develop collaborative and 
teamwork skills.
  But arts in education is not only important for student achievement. 
Arts have also been shown to deter delinquent behavior of at-risk 
youth. The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention found that arts programs that were geared toward 
at-risk youth dramatically improved academic performance, reduced 
school truancy, and increased skills of communication, conflict 
resolution, completion of challenging tasks, and teamwork.
  In a time when we are searching for innovative ways to combat 
violence in our schools, studies such as the one I just cited 
demonstrate the positive effects that arts education can have on 
behavior.
  Congress affirmed the critical role of arts education when it passed 
the No Child Left Behind Act. This landmark education reform 
legislation recognizes the arts as one of the core subjects that all 
schools should teach. We must ensure that arts remain a part of our 
children's educational development. Investing in our children's future 
is necessary. I commend the NEA and other fine programs for their work 
to improve the quality of education in America.
  A good deal is being said (and circulated) about what some consider 
the sponsorship of questionable art by the National Endowment

[[Page H4813]]

of the Arts. I do agree that the federal government has no business 
subsidizing works of ``art'' that are lewd or that depict our religious 
figures or symbols in an objectionable manner.
  But let me remind you that Congress has taken the necessary steps to 
ensure that the NEA is precluded from funding such offensive projects. 
For example, in 1996 Congress eliminated most individual grants and 
prohibited the use of NEA funds for projects that depict sexual 
activities or denigrate religious objects. In 1990, I served as 
Republican leader of the subcommittee that re-wrote NEA regulations to 
establish a new, decency standard and outlawed NEA support for projects 
with controversial sexual and religious themes.
  We have this debate every year. The NEA we debate about today is the 
reformed NEA--not the NEA of the past. The NEA of today supports good 
programs that use the strength of the Arts and our nation's cultural 
life to enhance communities in every state in the nation. However, the 
NEA is still being punished for its past and is still funded at levels 
that are significantly lower than the funding levels of a decade ago.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and ensure that arts 
remain a part of our children's educational development.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks amendment to provide increased funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  These agencies are charged with bringing the history, the beauty, the 
wisdom of our culture into the lives of all Americans--young and old, 
rich and poor, urban and rural. We in Congress have said that 
preserving our national heritage, and bringing the arts into the lives 
of more Americans, is a goal worthy of our support.
  For the past two years, we have made an important investment in the 
NEA's Challenge America program. This program focuses on arts education 
and enrichment, after-school arts programs for youth, access education 
and enrichment, after-school arts programs for youth, access to the 
arts for underserved communities, and community arts development 
initiatives. This initiative has helped strengthen America's 
communities and foster new relationships between communities, state and 
federal agencies, and national organizations. We make sure that these 
vital agencies have the resources they need to continue and expand the 
impact of the arts.

  Many years ago, I spent seven years as the chair of the Greater New 
Haven Arts Council back in Connecticut. I know first hand that the arts 
not only enrich lives, but contribute to the economic growth of the 
community.
  Federal investment in the arts is not the only means of support for 
this endeavor. Rather, our dollars--which represent only a small 
fraction of our annual budget--are used to leverage private funding and 
fuel what is really an arts industry. This industry creates jobs, 
increases travel and tourism, and generates thousands of dollars for a 
state's economy.
  In addition, the NEA is an important partner in bringing arts 
education to more American students. Arts education is critical in 
planting seeds of art appreciation and in cultivating the talent that 
may have yet to be discovered in these young minds. The Endowment, in 
partnership with state arts agencies, provides $37 million of annual 
support for Kindergarten through 12th grade arts education projects in 
more than 2,600 communities across the country. It also funds 
professional development programs for art specialists, classroom 
teachers, and artists.
  Recent studies have shown that the arts have real value in restoring 
civility to our society and providing our children and communities real 
alternatives. Participation in arts programs helps children learn to 
express anger appropriately and enhance communication skills with 
adults and peers. Students who have benefitted from arts programs have 
also shown better self-esteem, an improved ability to finish tasks, 
less delinquent behavior, and a more positive attitude toward school. 
We must continue to support this effort to bring the arts and 
humanities into the lives of our young people.
  We know that the arts build our economy, enrich our culture, and feed 
the minds of adults and children alike. The NEA and NEH need this 
increase to fulfill their missions, and it's time we gave them this 
support. Vote for this amendment. Preserve our heritage and make it 
accessible to all.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella Amendment to increase funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
Humanities. The arts and humanities are important both socially and 
economically to our Nation as a whole.
  Studies have shown students benefit from exposure to both the arts 
and humanities. They gain not only a better cultural appreciation but 
are able to translate their positive experiences into skills that are 
essential for their academic future and their future in the American 
workforce.
  Arts and humanities funding are increasingly allocated to state 
agencies for grant programs that reach out to underprivileged and 
smaller suburban and rural areas that do not have the benefits of big 
city art programs. In correlation, seventy-nine percent of businesses 
believe it is important to have an active cultural community in the 
locale in which they operate. Businesses in Delaware work hand-in-hand 
with the arts and humanities communities. This partnership makes my 
State a stronger community than it otherwise would be.
  I have witnessed in Delaware firsthand how rewarding arts and 
humanities programs can be to our Nation's youth. For example, the 
Possum Point Players in Georgetown, Delaware, is funded through the 
NEA's Challenge American Program. This organization provides positive 
alternatives for youth in Sussex County high schools through the 
creation of theater programs for rural and low-income students. Many of 
these students would not have the opportunity to participate in such 
programs without the Challenged American Program. These students have 
better chance to increase their SAT scores, develop increased self-
confidence, and are more likely to create multiple solutions to 
problems and work collaboratively with one another.
  Furthermore, the Delaware Humanities Forum, through NEH funding, has 
played an essential role in bringing humanities to all corners of the 
state with programs available or schools, businesses, and other 
community groups. Each year the Humanities Forum presents an annual 
living history event bringing education and entertainment together. 
Past events have centered around the Old West and the Gilded Age in 
American History.
  It is important for us to remember, the collective benefits gained by 
not only our districts but also by the Nation as a whole and that is 
why I rise today in strong support of increased funding for the NEA and 
the NEH.
  Mr. GILMAN. I rise in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-
Morella amendment which calls for increases of $10 million for the 
National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  Throughout the last 30 years our Nation has been enriched by the 
Arts. Sophocles wrote: ``Whoever neglects the arts when he is young has 
lost the past and is dead to the future.'' When Congress supports and 
appropriates Federal funding for the NEA and the NEH, our Nation's 
commitment to the future and the freedom of expression if reinforced 
and reinvigorated.
  The NEA and NEH create programming that cultivates and fosters 
achievement in the arts throughout our Nation. If this funding is not 
allocated to these important endowments, the freedom of expression 
enjoyed by every citizen will be jeopardized and inhibited. Progress in 
the Arts will be imperiled.
  We all take pride in America's contributions in the Arts; however, it 
is important and essential that we secure the promise of future 
achievements. In addition to applauding our American spirits, and 
observing that an energetic life contributes to a strong democracy, we 
must take action to make the arts a priority. This is what is necessary 
to maintain and improve upon past standards. As integral as the Arts 
have been to our American heritage, the younger generations must make a 
sustained effort to support and aid in maintaining this essential facet 
of our culture and society.
  If we reduce funding for the Arts, our Nation would be the first 
among cultured nations to remove the Arts as a priority. In my role as 
Chairman Emeritus of the International Relations Committee, I recognize 
the importance of the Arts on an international level, as they help 
foster a common appreciation of history and culture that are so 
essential to our humanity. If we do not meet the needs of the NEA, we 
would be erasing part of our civilization and breaking possible bonds 
to others.
  Moreover, I understand the importance of the Arts on our Nation's 
children. Whether it is music or drama or dance, children are drawn to 
the Arts. Many after school programs provide children with an 
opportunity to express themselves in a positive environment, removed 
from the temptations of drugs and violence. Empowering children with 
pride and passion, they are better able to make good choices and avoid 
following the crowd down dark paths. However, many children are not 
able to enjoy the feeling of pride that comes with performing or 
creating because their school are cutting arts programming or not 
offering it altogether. We need to ensure that this does not continue 
to happen. Increasing children's access to the Arts only benefits our 
Nation and its future.
  It is our responsibility to ensure that our children have access to 
the Arts. Accordingly, I strongly support increased funding for the NEA 
and NEH. I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendments which seek to 
decrease NEA funding, and to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-
Morella amendment.

[[Page H4814]]

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of increased 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National 
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Public investment in arts and 
humanities benefits society in countless ways, including enhancing 
individual creativity, increasing skills in math, reading, language 
development and writing, and expanding global relationships and 
understanding.
  President Bush has recommended FY 2003 funding for NEA and NEH at 
$116 million and $126 million, respectively. It is important to note 
that NEA's amount is $46 million below its 1995 level. However, the 
payoff from even this meager public investment is still enormous. In 
addition to the aforementioned benefits of public funding for arts and 
humanities, a recent study found that arts groups generate at least 
$134 billion in economic activity each year, 4.85 million full-time 
equivalent jobs, $89.4 billion in household income, and $24.4 billion 
in government taxes. Although NEA and NEH are the sole source off arts 
funding in some communities, in others, grants from NEA and NEH 
leverage millions of dollars each year in private support for arts 
projects.
  Last year in Michigan's 16th District alone, NEA awarded two grants 
totaling $40,000. One of the grants was awarded to the Sphinx 
Competition in Dearborn, Michigan, an outstanding program that gives 
young, primarily African American and Latino students, the opportunity 
to improve their craft, and perform with their peers and professional 
musicians. I can think of few programs that are more deserving of NEA 
funding, or that have been as effective in expanding access to 
classical music opportunities for minority students. Last year, NEH 
funding was awarded to 13 organizations in my district, mostly to 
elementary schools which brought live cultural presentations to the 
students. These programs consisted of a wide diversity of cultural 
programs from school assembly musical performances to library 
storytellers. Without these funds, many of these students would not 
have had the opportunity to be exposed to these culturally enriching 
activities.
  Currently, Americans pay about the cost of a postage stamp to fund 
these two important programs. Given the important and measurable 
benefits of exposure to arts and cultural activities, Congress must 
step up and increase public funding for NEA and NEH.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to increase funding for 
the Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment of the Humanities.
  Increased funding for NEA and NEH is essential to the Government's 
role in ensuring the beauty and diversity of the arts are accessible to 
all our citizens. The arts help children to develop fundamental skills 
and provide the opportunity for students to excel in academic and 
social areas. More specifically, the effects of early arts exposure can 
help to increase a child's motivation to learn about all subjects.
  In Venice, CA, which I represent, the Los Angeles Theatre Works 
stands as an example of what NEA funding can accomplish. The LA Theatre 
Works not only produces plays but also takes an active role in the 
Venice community to bring the arts to children in need. Their ``Arts 
and Children'' program provides hands-on workshops to at-risk youth, 
encouraging them to develop their talents and channel their energies 
into the arts.
  It is through the funding from NEA and NEH that organizations such as 
the Los Angeles Theatre Works are able to reach out into communities 
and touch the lives of children and, in turn, the lives of the rest of 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment to 
ensure that the NEA and NEH continue to provide enrichment to citizens 
across the country.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
strong support for this amendment to the FY03 Interior Appropriations 
bill (H.R. 5093), which would reaffirm our commitment to enriching the 
education of our children. The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment 
would increase funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities by 
$5 million and the National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million. 
These small increases in funding will have a tremendous impact on the 
quality of education for all children.
  As a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus and a former teacher, I 
understand the importance of the arts and humanities in our education 
system. More than two-thirds of our Nation's K-12 curriculum is 
dedicated to the humanities. As the largest supporter of the humanities 
in the country, the Federal Government, through the NEH, provides 
access to high-quality educational programs and resources through 
grants to non-profit cultural institutions such as museums, 
universities, and State humanities councils. These grants strengthen 
teaching, facilitate research, and provide opportunities for lifelong 
learning. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to maintain its 
commitment to the humanities if we are to maintain a high level of 
excellence in our public schools.
  The arts create an environment of creativity, expression, and success 
for children. The NEA nurtures the growth and artistic excellence of 
thousands of arts organizations all over the country by making the 
performing, visual, literary, media and folk arts available to millions 
of Americans. Programs, such as the Arts Learning grants, support 
projects for children and youth, in school and outside the regular 
school day and year, in pre-K through grade 12 and in youth arts areas. 
This project, which partners public education and nonprofit arts 
organizations, helps to contribute to the incredible economic success 
of the arts industry. The nonprofit arts industry generates $36.8 
billion annually in economic activity and supports 1.3 million jobs.
  In my district, the Connecticut's Commission on the Arts uses NEA 
funding to support its Higher Order Thinking (HOT) Schools Program. The 
HOT Schools Program is designed to transform entire school communities. 
The arts, especially writing, play a central role in this change 
process. School culture focuses on student needs and celebrates each 
child's accomplishments by sharing them with the larger school 
community. The program began in 1994 with only six schools and has 
grown to include over twenty-four schools from across Connecticut 
involving over 5,000 students and 500 educators.
  In recent years, funding for the NEA and the NEH has been slashed--
leaving many arts and cultural programs scrambling for funding. For 
example, in my state of Connecticut, Federal grants dropped from $10 
million in 1994 to an average of only $3 million. Such reductions serve 
as an impediment to accessing and unearthing the country's rich 
cultural and educational infrastructure. The modest increases proposed 
in this amendment would help to close the gap created by revenue 
shortfalls in many states.
  The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment will serve to only improve 
the NEA and the NEH. With additional funding, we will be able to 
preserve programs already in place like the HOT Schools Program, and 
build upon their successes to create new programs, which will enhance 
the education of more children.
  The NEA and the NEH are integral to our children's educational 
development. The NEA and the NEH have already suffered from cuts and 
reductions over the years. It is time to reinvest in these extremely 
successful agencies and provide America's children with a complete 
cultural and artistic education. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson Amendment to the Department of Interior 
Appropriations bill to increase funding for the National Endowment for 
the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities by fifteen million 
dollars.
  The value of supporting the arts is widely accepted. Art provides a 
venue for expression and understanding of human thought and emotion. 
Educators have argued that there are many educational benefits to 
students enrolled in the arts. Some institutions looking to bridge the 
gap of understanding between different cultures use art as a universal 
means of communicating concerns and developing understanding.
  The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the 
Humanities consistently work to give artists across the country the 
opportunity to participate in the arts. In fact, forty percent of the 
money allocated to the national endowment is transferred directly to 
states so that they are able to fund local programs. In Colorado, money 
from the National Endowment of the Arts is used to fund the Arts and 
Education Learning Network which teaches arts organizations how to work 
with schools, and the Online Poetry Project to help schools address 
poetry related questions on standardized CSAP exams. The bulk of 
funding requested in the amendment will go to the Challenge America 
Program that works to start arts and humanities programs in communities 
that have yet to receive funding from the Endowment.
  Along with the immeasurable value of the contribution of the arts and 
the humanities as an expression of our culture and of the individual, 
the arts have proven to have a quantifiable value as well. A study 
recently conducted by an economist at the University of Georgia of 
ninety-one communities nationwide showed that communities that spend 
money on the arts, make money from the arts.
  One of the communities in the study was Boulder, CO. It was 
calculated that just over nineteen million dollars in spending by the 
nonprofit arts industry in Boulder generated over thirteen million 
dollars in revenue and income for Boulder businesses, residents and 
local government, and supported five hundred and ninety-four full time 
jobs. The arts and humanities bring money and jobs to communities in 
today's difficult economic environment.
  This amendment would allocate necessary funding to a grossly 
underfunded national arts

[[Page H4815]]

program. Support of the amendment is necessary so that arts can 
continue to bring all of the benefits that come from encouraging and 
supporting development of the arts.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, today's vote by the House to increase 
funding for the NEA and NEH is a victory of imagination over ideology.
  In recent years, we have worried a great deal about the digital 
divide--a lack of access to technology that could limit opportunity for 
lower-income Americans. We should be equally concerned about a 
creativity crisis.
  Studies have proven that arts education is not just a frill tacked on 
to the vital work of learning reading, writing and arithmetic. Art 
education increases skills in all of these subjects, as well as in 
language development and writing and spatial reasoning.
  Grants from the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities 
leverage millions of dollars each year in private support for arts 
projects. In many communities, they are the sole source of arts 
funding.
  This amendment would provide an additional $10 million for the NEA's 
``Challenge America'' initiative, which is specifically designed to 
provide access to the arts for underserved communities. According to 
the Georgia Institute of Technology, the arts industry generations 
millions of jobs and $134 billion in economic activity every year.
  The amendment also provides $5 million for the NEH--the nation's 
largest source of support for research and scholarship in the 
humanities.
  I want to make it very clear that this amendment is not an increase 
in funding, but an attempt to recoup some of the cuts that NEA faced in 
1995 when its budget was slashed by 40 percent. There is strong, 
bipartisan consensus now that those cuts were felt too deeply by some 
of our most vulnerable young people.
  Exposure to the arts through the NEA helps children build confidence 
in their class work, honors their creativity, and unleashes the power 
of their imagination. The poet, Shelley, once wrote that the greatest 
force for moral good is imagination. With the challenges that we face 
today, we need all the imagination we can muster.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment 
offered by Congresswoman Slaughter to increase funding for the National 
Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million and for the National 
Endowment for the Arts' Challenge America Initiative by $10 million.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) provides grants to 
every state and territory in the United States to support programs in 
our museums, libraries, colleges, research centers, and state 
humanities councils, and to support the work of individual scholars. I 
have been extremely impressed by the products of the grants awarded in 
my State, particularly support for Hawaii History Day and National 
History Day.
  NEH grants help to bring the humanities to Americans throughout our 
nation. NEH grants are also used to improve teaching, support research 
and scholarship, preserve our nation's historical and cultural heritage 
through conservation of precious documents and artifacts, and provide 
access to the humanities through public programs.
  The Challenge America Initiative of the National Endowment for the 
Arts is specifically designed to provide underserved communities with 
access to the arts. The Initiative supports arts education, youth-at-
risk programs, cultural heritage preservation, and community arts 
partnerships.
  Student involvement in the arts has been proven to increase skills in 
mathematics, reading, language development, and writing. And students 
who play certain musical instruments demonstrate enhanced development 
of spatial reasoning skills. The arts have also shown success in 
improving outcomes for at-risk youth.
  Grants from NEH and NEA leverage millions of dollars in private 
support for the arts and humanities. America's nonprofit arts industry 
generates some $134 billion in economic activity each year, including 
4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs, $89.4 billion in household 
income, $6.6 billion in local government tax revenues, $7.3 billion in 
state government tax revenues, and $10.5 billion in federal income tax 
revenues.
  These valuable programs help to promote the arts, humanities, and 
education in our communities. The relatively small investments made by 
the federal government in these programs greatly enrich the lives of 
all Americans.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks Amendment, to make important increases to the NEA and NEH.
  Before I continue, I must relay my hesitation to use the term 
``increase'' when referring to the modest funding this amendment would 
provide. After all, the NEA and NEH have yet to fully recover from the 
more than 40 percent cut they suffered in 1995.
  We know that the arts are crucial to the development of our culture 
and our economy, and beneficial to all our citizens. In fact, a recent 
study showed that the nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in 
economic activity and $24 billion in tax revenue in the U.S. annually. 
The arts are especially important to New York.
  As a former member of the National Council on the Arts, I have seen 
first-hand the grant selection process, and I applaud the NEA for 
successfully increasing all Americans' access to the arts, through 
programs such as ``Challenge America.'' It is vital that we continue to 
fully support these extraordinary programs.
  We must recognize, however, that last year's funding increase was not 
the conclusion of a struggle, but rather, a first step toward funding 
the arts and humanities at levels appropriate to them. A $10 million 
increase to the NEA budget would not only support magnificent artistic 
work, but would also generate federal revenue and foster local economic 
activity. Let's use this opportunity to get back to providing a level 
of resources to the NEA and the NEH of which we can all be proud.
  My colleagues, I urge you to support the Slaughter-Dicks amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill offered by my colleagues, 
Representatives Slaughter and Dicks, to increase funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million. There is no question that 
education about the arts and humanities not only creates well-rounded 
human beings, but more responsible citizens who contribute to the 
richness of our cultural heritage.
  For many years, under the wise guidance and leadership of my 
predecessor, Congressman Sydney Yates, Congress understood the cultural 
and economic importance of federal funding for arts. Yates almost 
single-handedly protected the arts, and was awarded for his tireless 
efforts by President Clinton in 1993 with the Presidential Citizens 
Medal.
  Unfortuantely, NEA funding was cut by more than 40 percent in 1995 
and, for the most part, has yet to recover, despite overwhelming 
evidence that the arts contribute greatly to our society and culture. A 
recent study released by the Arts Education Partnership provides hard 
evidence that exposure to the arts improves students' critical skills 
in math, reading, language development, and writing. Furthermore, other 
studies suggest that for certain populations, including students from 
economically disadvantaged circumstances, students needing remedial 
instruction, and younger children, arts education is especially helpful 
in boosting learning and achievement.
  The humanities play an equally valuable role in the education of 
children and adults. In particular, state humanities councils, which 
receive NEH funding, have been working for nearly 30 years to educate 
citizens about our history and culture and stimulate dialogue about 
contemporary issues of concern. Collaborating with libraries, museums, 
religious institutions, schools, senior centers, historical societies, 
and community centers, state humanities councils have served as the 
single most reliable source of local support for programs that educate 
citizens for civic life, thereby strengthening the fabric of our 
democracy.
  My district in Illinois greatly benefits from NEA and NEH funding. In 
2001, the 9th Congressional District received over $180,000 from NEA 
through a wide variety of grants. That same year, Illinois received 
$4.6 million in NEH funding, making Illinois the fourth largest 
recipient of NEH funds in the country. My constituents reap the 
benefits of this.
  If we are to preserve these programs, and other similar programs all 
over the country, it is critical that we provide adequate funding for 
the NEA and NEH. I strongly support increasing the NEA and NEH funding 
levels by a total of $15 million, and urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment to do so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-minute vote 
on the Slaughter amendment will be followed by 5-minute votes, if 
ordered, on the Rahall and Hayworth amendments, in turn.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 192, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger

[[Page H4816]]


     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Ehrlich
     Kaptur
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Nadler
     Traficant

                              {time}  1456

  Messrs. SULLIVAN, CALVERT, COX, and PICKERING changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROTHMAN and Mr. PAYNE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                         Parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is this the Rahall amendment coming up?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would tell the gentleman that it is, yes.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281, 
noes 144, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner

[[Page H4817]]


     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--144

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Obey
     Ose
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Ehrlich
     Holt
     Kaptur
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Nadler
     Traficant

                              {time}  1505

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 311, I inadvertently 
voted ``aye.'' I meant to vote ``no''.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273, 
noes 151, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--273

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--151

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bryant
     Burton
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Pence
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachus
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Ehrlich
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Nadler
     Traficant

                              {time}  1514

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

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point, we will proceed under regular order with 
title I. Following that, we will turn to title II under regular order. 
I ask that Members who have amendments to the remainder of the bill 
bring them to the floor and file them at the desk if they have not done 
so already.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the Chair of 
the subcommittee and with the ranking member about an inequity that I 
believe must be addressed.
  In 1985, Congress passed PL 99-239, the Compact of Free Association 
with the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of 
Micronesia.

[[Page H4818]]

  Under the terms of the compact, the United States gained critical 
strategic access and exclusive military privileges in these Freely 
Associated States, referred to as Micronesia. In return, the Compact 
Nations received financial assistance and their citizens received the 
right to freely migrate to the United States for purposes of education, 
employment, and residence.
  In recognition of the likely impact of this national policy, Congress 
authorized appropriations to cover the costs that may be incurred by 
the State of Hawaii, the territories of Guam, Samoa and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.
  In the 16 years between 1986 and 2001, Hawaii has incurred about $100 
million in expenses in education and social services for the compact 
migrants. Despite the intent of Congress, Hawaii has not received any 
appropriations until last year, when we finally received $4 million. We 
spend approximately $17 million on compact migrants each year.
  My colleague from Hawaii is here and is certainly in support of this 
request, and both of us sent a letter to the committee requesting an 
appropriation of $10 million to be included in this bill. We know that 
the situation is very tight and the needs are many, and therefore, the 
amount of money that we requested was not included.
  Our economy is suffering. It had been even before September 11, but 
certainly after September 11 the situation has been very tight. So the 
fact that we were able to reserve the request until last year should 
not penalize the fact that the law entitles us to come under 
consideration for reimbursement for the funds.
  I would like to ask the chairman to consider Hawaii's case to support 
the appropriations that we have requested and to reimburse Hawaii at 
least part of the $100 million that we have spent thus far in this 
national defense program.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We 
thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii and recognize the many years she has 
worked to obtain this funding. We promise, the subcommittee, to give 
the gentlewoman's request full consideration during our conference with 
the Senate.
  We also point out that the tiny territories of Guam and Northern 
Marianas have a very similar financial impact from the compacts, and 
they have far less ability to cover these expenses. In 2001, Guam had 
about $20 million in expenses, Hawaii about $17 million, and the 
Commonwealth of Northern Marianas about $9 million.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I know that this is a major concern in 
Hawaii, and I want to work with the gentlewoman on this issue and will 
work with our friends in the other body to seek a solution. I 
appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this to our attention.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for 
their replies in this colloquy and thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) for pointing this out.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members would note we are approaching 
the membership for consideration under something that should actually 
be taken up, in my judgment, in the Department of Defense and should be 
included in that budget. Nonetheless, we are here today under the 
present rules asking merely for the compensation that is due us under 
the treaty obligation of the United States.
  It is not fair to ask a State of the Union to undertake expenditures 
that are engendered as a result of the actions of the United States of 
America, nor is it fair to ask any of the territories or the 
Commonwealth of Marianas to assume the same costs. This is particularly 
true when the three entities are suffering from the decline in tourism 
dollars and revenue that has come in. The fact that we have borne this 
burden for this time should not give rise to any consideration or 
thought that this has been something that is equitable.
  So I would hope that the membership would understand, as we conclude 
our deliberations on the bill, that this is an amount of money that is 
but a minuscule portion of that which is due Guam, American Samoa, the 
Marianas and the State of Hawaii.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $252,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended.


                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management 
     including treatments of pests, pathogens and invasive or 
     noxious plants, cooperative forestry, and education and land 
     conservation activities and conducting an international 
     program as authorized, $279,828,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by law, of which $60,000,000 is 
     for the Forest Legacy Program, to be derived from the land 
     and water conservation fund; $36,235,000 is for the Urban and 
     Community Forestry Program, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided, 
     That none of the funds provided under this heading for the 
     acquisition of lands or interests in lands shall be available 
     until the Forest Service notifies the House Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in 
     writing, of specific acquisition of lands or interests in 
     lands to be undertaken with such funds: Provided further, 
     That each forest legacy grant shall be for a specific 
     project: Provided further, That a grant shall not be released 
     to a State unless the Secretary determines that the State has 
     demonstrated that 25 percent of the total value of the 
     project is comprised of a non-Federal cost share.


                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, $1,370,567,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 
     percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances 
     available at the start of fiscal year 2003 shall be displayed 
     by budget line item in the fiscal year 2004 budget 
     justification: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     authorize the expenditure or transfer of such sums as 
     necessary to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
     Management for removal, preparation, and adoption of excess 
     wild horses and burros from National Forest System lands.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Hoeffel

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Hoeffel:

       Under the heading ``national forest service'', insert after 
     the dollar amount on page 76, line 13, the following: 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $5 million to the 
grazing management account of the forest service from the general 
account of the forest service.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us would allow the forest service to 
automatically renew expiring livestock grazing permits without 
completing the required environmental assessments. I think that this 
blanket waiver proposed under the terms of the bill is, from a policy 
point of view, a bad idea; but I understand the practical reasons for 
doing this waiver, for proposing this waiver.
  The problem is the forest service does not have the resources to do 
all of the environmental assessments that it should do when it renews 
livestock grazing permits. Everybody agrees that abuse of grazing can 
be bad for the land. It can jeopardize endangered species. It can 
pollute streams and lakes, and it can lead to soil erosion; and 
everybody understands the environmental assessments are a positive step 
to working cooperatively with the ranching community and with the 
environmental community through the

[[Page H4819]]

good offices of the forest service to protect the land, to allow it to 
be used appropriately for grazing, which is a necessary activity in the 
West, necessary for the economic stability of the West.
  In our efforts to be good stewards of the land, the forest service 
needs the resources to conduct these environmental reviews, and they 
have at the forest service a huge backlog.
  In 1995 in the rescissions act, Congress allowed them to waive these 
environmental assessments, but they were supposed to follow a self-
determined schedule for trying to do those assessments as best they 
could. By their own acknowledgment, they are 55 percent behind even 
their own schedule of assessments.
  The system is not working. I think a blanket waiver alone is not the 
right answer, nor is it the right answer to oppose the waiver because 
such a block of the waiver might also have unintended consequences, bad 
for the ranching community and not helpful to environmental protection.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the 
chairman, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking 
member, for already recognizing this problem. The underlying bill would 
add $6 million to the grazing management account in the forest service.
  My amendment would add an additional $5 million to the grazing 
management account. It would help the forest service complete these 
assessments; and I have received a commitment only verbally, I am 
afraid, not in writing, from the forest service that it will use these 
additional funds, the funds that the committee has already earmarked 
and the additional funds represented by this amendment, to catch up on 
the backlog of environmental assessments that go back to 1999 all the 
way through 2002 and to work to do as many environmental assessments in 
2003 as they possibly can.
  The more money we give them, the better job they can do. I thank the 
Chair and his staff and the ranking member and his staff for coming 
together for this good idea in this cooperative way, and I hope we can 
agree to do the proper oversight of the forest service to make sure 
that they live up to their commitments to do the very best job with 
these environmental assessments as possible.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment on this. 
I have spoken with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel); and 
first of all, I want to congratulate him on his leadership and his 
looking out for forest service lands. I know that he cares a lot about 
these lands and has worked on them and worked on these issues; and I 
think that the $5 million additional in these accounts is really going 
to make a difference in terms of moving us along.
  It is a win-win situation for both of us, and so I look forward to 
supporting the amendment and urge all of my colleagues to do so; and I 
thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel) on this and for their leadership.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to just commend the gentleman on his 
creative work here. This is an important issue. I think the way he has 
handled it will produce a real result, and we can help the gentleman if 
the forest service does not keep its word. The gentleman needs to make 
sure he lets us know. We will be following it, too.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
kind words and for his support and his staff's support on this 
important amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's 
amendment. We commend his work. As he knows, the chairman of our 
subcommittee is very committed to the ranchers and wants the grazing 
plans to get updated more quickly himself. This is why our committee 
mark did have the $5 million increase for grazing plans. We are willing 
to increase this further in order to see that proper environmental 
clearances get done and that ranchers are not harmed.
  We commend all of the partners in a bipartisan way for doing what is 
right.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I thank 
the gentleman who spoke for their comments. I ask for support for the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Earlier under section 1, I had planned to offer an amendment to the 
appropriations bill to increase by $5 million compact impact aid for 
Guam. I commend the progress of the committee on this particular issue, 
which is a very important issue to the people of Guam, in order to make 
sure that there is adequate compensation for migration from the Freely 
Associated States, mostly from the Federated States of Micronesia to 
Guam.

                              {time}  1530

  I am pleased to note that today's bill is a big step in the right 
direction, as it includes a $1 million increase above the President's 
budget, a proposal of $4.58 million in Compact Impact Aid, bringing 
Guam's total amount to $5.58 million. This amount still does not reach 
last year's final amount, and my amendment would have increased Compact 
Impact Aid by $5 million.
  Even the GAO recognizes that the actual impact to Guam is over $12 
million. The Government of Guam thinks it is a little bit closer to $19 
million. But in any event, it is clear that the Compact Impact 
assistance that Guam is receiving under this Interior appropriations 
bill is clearly inadequate.
  It is particularly critical at this time because Guam has just 
undergone the impact of two storms, Chata'an and Ha Long. As we speak 
today, power and water have been out on Guam for nearly 3 weeks. So we 
were hoping that if we could get some recognition of this fact, that we 
would use the proposed increase in Compact Impact assistance to ready 
the schools, which will be opening next month, and also to ensure that 
the hospitals be open.
  I know that there has been an effort here on the part of both the 
majority and the minority to recognize that there is a need for some 
increased funds for Guam.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, clearly this is another issue we plan to take 
up in conference and we will give the gentleman and his constituents 
the highest consideration in the conference. We appreciate his raising 
this issue yet again today on the floor, and I am sure we will do all 
we can within our power to address this satisfactorily.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for his assurance on that, and I thank also the chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his understanding of this 
issue during the course of his work.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate the gentleman's 
leadership, and we are very sympathetic to the problems that the 
gentleman is facing in Guam. We know the gentleman has done a terrific 
job in representing his area, and we will do everything we can to help 
him as the process moves forward.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman from Washington very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________