[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3081-H3092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 163 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 163

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1157) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce 
     to provide financial assistance to the States of Alaska, 
     Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho for salmon habitat 
     restoration projects in coastal waters and upland drainages, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of 
     the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record 
     and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. Each 
     section of that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. House Resolution 156 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 163 is an 
open rule waiving clause 4(a) of rule XIII that requires the 3-day 
availability of the committee report against consideration of the bill. 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Resources. The rule makes in order as base text for the purpose of 
amendment the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and 
numbered 1 which shall be open for amendment by section. The rule also 
authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who 
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, 
the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, 
and lays House Resolution 156 on the table.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, would 
authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to 
five States in the Pacific Northwest for salmon habitat restoration 
projects in both coastal waters and upland areas which support a number 
of important species of salmon. The bill was introduced by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) in response to a request from 
the Governors of Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and California for a 
coastwide approach to protecting salmon habitat from a variety of 
natural and man-made threats. The bill authorizes $200 million for that 
purpose through fiscal year 2003 to be made available to the States of 
Washington, Oregon, Alaska, California, and Idaho as well as certain 
Native American tribes in the region. In order to receive funds, the 
States must submit a recovery plan to the Secretary of Interior with 
specific goals and time lines.
  The bill also authorizes U.S. representation on the Transboundary 
Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission under the Pacific Salmon Treaty 
Act of 1985.

                              {time}  1100

  Finally, the bill authorizes payments to the Northern Fund and the 
Southern Fund for fiscal years 2001 to 2003, as well as lump sum 
payments to retirees of certain international commissions.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 1157 
would cost the Federal Government $510 million over the next 5 years. 
Pay-as-you-go procedures would apply because the bill would increase 
direct spending, although less than $500,000.
  Finally, the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector 
unfunded mandates.
  The Committee on Resources reported H.R. 1157 by a voice vote on May 
16 of this year and has requested an open rule so that Members seeking 
to amend the bill may have an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who represent districts in the Pacific 
Northwest are deeply committed to the cause of salmon restoration, and 
while we are determined to fully protect the rights of States and 
localities to chart their own destiny, we also believe that the Federal 
Government has an important role to play in this process.

[[Page H3082]]

  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and Members of the 
Committee on Resources have worked hard to approach the job of salmon 
restoration in a balanced and responsible fashion.
  While H.R. 1157 may not be perfect in every respect, the bill is an 
important step in the right direction and I do intend to support it.
  Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule. I would note 
that the underlying bill is noncontroversial and has passed the Chamber 
twice. The measure authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide 
financial assistance to Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon and 
Washington for salmon habitat restoration projects.
  Pacific salmon and steelhead trout are fish whose life cycle begins 
in freshwater, moves into the ocean and then returns to the freshwater 
when it is time to spawn. Along the way, dams, predators and commercial 
harvests all contribute to salmon mortality. Many salmon species are 
currently listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act.
  The underlying bill would authorize appropriations of $200 million to 
restore and conserve these endangered fish. The measure moved through 
the committee by unanimous consent and was favorably reported to the 
House by voice vote.
  A bill such as this would be a perfect candidate for the suspension 
calendar and why it is being considered today under regular order is 
anybody's guess, but nevertheless I do support this rule and the 
underlying bill and urge its favorable consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and strongly in 
support of the underlying legislation. It recognizes the fact that the 
Federal Government should be a full partner in the issue of salmon 
recovery. Part of the challenge is that this is a requirement of 
Federal legislation under the Endangered Species Act, which to be 
charitable, and this comes from somebody who is a strong supporter of 
the act and its purposes, it is not always the easiest to administer.
  There are also a myriad of built-in challenges coordinating the 
various responses of the Federal agencies, NMFS, Bonneville Power, Fish 
and Wildlife, the Corps of Engineers, EPA, the long list of Federal 
players, and here again it is not always easy to coordinate this 
effort.
  It is hard and expensive to work with the Federal Government, and 
this legislation acknowledges the fact and would provide help.
  Additionally, much of the difficulty we face now is not just an 
operation of the Endangered Species Act and the complex set of Federal 
partners. It is a direct result of the application of a wide range of 
Federal policies and practices we have, many of which that at the time 
of their enactment made sense to Congress, made sense to the public, 
but sadly today many of these practices are outmoded. They would have 
serious side effects, even if we have not moved forward to modify them.
  The construction of Federal dams on the Columbia River, for instance, 
the application of policies for water reclamation, forestry practices 
on Federal land, mining, transportation. There is an international 
implication which will be acknowledged later, as my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), will offer an amendment that 
seeks to have the Federal Government monitor the impact of harvests in 
Canada on the impact on salmon, and I think a very good idea.
  Unless and until we come forward to deal comprehensively with these 
range of Federal policies, we need to have the Federal Government help 
us. There are many encouraging signs of activities taking place today 
at the local level, with private landowners, with private policies on 
forest lands. We have State and local activities, as well as the 
Federal Government itself, but it is going to take us time, money and 
energy to put these pieces together.
  I think this bill is a step in the right direction, and I look 
forward to the passage of the rule and the act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 163 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1157.

                              {time}  1107


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1157) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial 
assistance to the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and 
Idaho for salmon habitat restoration projects in coastal waters and 
upland drainages, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning we are considering H.R. 1157, the Pacific 
Salmon Recovery Act. This bill was introduced by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) with 65 cosponsors. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) introduced a similar bill last Congress, H.R. 
2798. That bill passed the House twice, once as a stand-alone bill and 
once as part of H.R. 5086, a bill including a number of fishery 
provisions.
  Unfortunately, the other body never took up the measure.
  Except for some technical changes, H.R. 1157 has the same text as 
H.R. 2798. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to 
provide financial assistance to the States of Alaska, California, 
Idaho, Oregon and Washington for salmon restoration and habitat 
restoration projects in coastal waters and upland drainages.
  Habitat restoration is one of the most important factors in 
rebuilding endangered species populations, and especially endangered 
salmon populations. While the Federal Government has been working with 
local and regional groups to develop a recovery plan for the listed 
salmon, steelhead and trout species, there is still a great deal to do. 
The support of State projects is critical to the survival of listed 
species of salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout. In some cases, the 
State and local governments often do a better job than the Federal 
Government. Local input is very important in order to direct funding to 
local restoration projects.
  This bill will allow the States to focus the money they receive on 
areas and projects that need the most attention.
  Small projects like replacing culverts and restoring stream flows may 
actually open up large areas of spawning habitat for little cost. Those 
are the projects that can be identified and undertaken by local 
governments and may provide the most benefit to the listed salmon, 
steelhead and trout. The States will be making their own decisions and 
can complement Federal restoration programs already in place.
  I would encourage the local people and the Federal people to take off 
their

[[Page H3083]]

Federal hats, take off their local hats, and put their hearts and mind 
together and get the job done.
  I will note that there is currently an authorization in place through 
Public Law 106-553, the District of Columbia fiscal year 2001 
appropriations bill. However, there are differences in the two 
authorizations. First, the States are only required to match 25 percent 
in Public Law 106-553 versus a 100 percent match in H.R. 1157 for funds 
received by the State.
  Finally, the current authorization does not include the State of 
Idaho, while H.R. 1157 does.
  This is a good piece of legislation that addresses the conservation 
needs of salmon, steelhead and trout species residing along the Pacific 
Coast and Alaska. It is a noncontroversial bill which has a tremendous 
amount of bipartisan support, with cosponsors, including many Members 
interested in salmon restoration and those Members range from the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller).
  I urge Members to vote aye on H.R. 1157.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of H.R. 1157, a great 
bill that has been introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson). Basically, it authorizes the Secretary of 
Commerce to provide financial assistance to the States of Alaska, 
California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington for salmon habitat restoration 
projects in coastal waters and upland drainages. As many of our 
colleagues are aware, there is more than 25 species of salmon on the 
West Coast right now that have been listed as endangered or threatened 
under the Endangered Species Act. Several more are currently under 
consideration for listing.
  In 1999, the States of Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington 
proposed to tackle this crisis with a coast-wide salmon restoration 
effort, conservation effort, that would allocate $50 million of Federal 
funds to each State for 6 years to support salmon conservation. An 
habitat restoration project was very important at a regional and local 
level. In response to this request, Congress established the Pacific 
Salmon Recovery Fund and appropriated $58 million for these purposes in 
the fiscal year 2000 and $90 million in fiscal year 2001.
  In Washington State, our funds are allocated by the Salmon Recovery 
Funding Board, also known as the SURF Board, one of the great acronyms 
of all times, which is operated by William Ruckelshaus, a name I think 
is familiar to many.
  The local regional project supported by the Pacific Salmon Recovery 
Fund will restore habitats and help stem the continued decline of the 
salmon populations on the West Coast. H.R. 1157 authorizes the 
activities that will be carried out using the appropriations in this 
fund; requires States and tribes to develop a conservation and 
restoration plan. To receive grants, it specifies the activities that 
are eligible to receive funding. It requires a one-to-one match of any 
Federal dollars that are provided and it thereby doubles their 
conservation efforts, a really good feature of the bill.
  Finally, it adds Idaho, a great State, to the list of States that 
would participate in the program.
  Mr. Chairman, in my own State of Washington, this program will enable 
us to work in conjunction with funding from the Puget Sound Initiative, 
a bipartisan bill I helped pass last year which authorizes the Army 
Corps of Engineers to use their expertise in designing community-based 
habitat restoration projects.
  In King County, money appropriated to the funds has already been used 
to acquire 93 acres of land along Bear Creek, which includes a large 
wetland, a beautiful little area in my district, salmonid spawning 
areas and large beds of freshwater mussels, the noninvasive type, I may 
add.
  King County also acquired 172 acres at several high priority habitats 
along the Snoqualmie River watershed.

                              {time}  1115

  The acquisitions focused primarily on the spawning areas in the 
Snoqualmie Basin, which are very important.
  With future funds, we will be looking to provide more protection for 
salmon habitat along the Cedar River, which is the watershed feeding 
Seattle. This area has long been known for its critical habitat values, 
and has everything that salmon need to thrive. In addition to Chinook, 
sockeye and coho salmon, steelhead will also benefit from this newly 
protected area in the years to come.
  H.R. 57 is a great bill. It will ensure these projects will continue. 
It is supported by the Governors of all five States, the tribes, 
fishermen and the environmental community. While the administration has 
not provided an official position on this bill, it has requested $100 
million for Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund in fiscal year 2002 budget 
submission. That is good news, and I urge Members to support it today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue to all of us in the Pacific 
Northwest that care about salmon recovery. Today I rise in support of 
H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. I compliment my good friend 
from the State of California for his efforts in directing funds to the 
areas where they may actually make an impact to the States and local 
governments of the Pacific Northwest.
  The Federal Government is spending huge amounts of money on salmon 
restoration in the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, the Federal 
efforts do not always involve the small projects, and the Federal 
efforts do not always put much emphasis on the projects put forward by 
local units of government.
  Mr. Chairman, I think these smaller local projects, when put together 
with larger Federal efforts, may actually begin to make a difference in 
restoring salmon populations and restoring salmon habitat.
  At the end of the 106th Congress, the appropriators both authorized 
and appropriated funds for this type of State effort. Unfortunately, 
the original authorization left the State of Idaho out, and therefore 
Idaho received no funds for habitat recovery for these magnificent 
fish.
  While Idaho is not one of the coastal States, it does in fact include 
much of the habitat for these spawning fish. It is a sad fact that some 
of these salmon are endangered. It is also a sad fact that Idaho could 
probably use some financial assistance to augment our salmon habitat 
restoration efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill not only authorizes the funding for the State 
and local restoration projects, but it also takes a few steps that the 
current appropriation language does not take. This bill requires the 
State to match dollar for dollar the funding they get through this 
authorization. The current authorization only requires a 25 percent 
match by the States.
  This bill also requires that States develop a salmon conservation and 
restoration plan. This is an important provision that will ensure that 
funds are spent according to a publicly developed plan, rather than 
haphazardly funding projects with little or no coordination. This bill 
also requires the State plans to have measurable criteria by which the 
activities funded by this bill can be measured.
  Finally, this bill requires that the States maintain their current 
level of funding for salmon recovery activities and not just substitute 
this Federal money for currently funded State salmon programs and use 
their funds for other priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation, one that I believe 
will help the State and local governments partner in the recovery of 
salmon and salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest, including the State 
of Idaho.
  As has been mentioned, this legislation in a somewhat different form 
passed the House twice during the 106th Congress, both times by voice 
vote. I urge Members to support this legislation.
  Once again, I compliment my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), for his effort in making sure that we do 
whatever we can to

[[Page H3084]]

recover the salmon and other fish of the Pacific Northwest.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), who has done a tremendous job fashioning 
this bipartisan success story.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time. I would like to also thank the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Simpson) for his help on this bill; the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the ranking member, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) from the 
subcommittee that helped make this bill possible to be heard on the 
floor today. I would also like to thank all the staff that worked 
diligently to make sure this good bill was here.
  Mr. Chairman, in California virtually every salmon spawning habitat 
has been altered by human activities, such as water diversions, dam 
building, overfishing and urban development. In many streams and 
rivers, the alterations have been so severe that fish can no longer 
return to their historical spawning areas. As a result, almost 80 
percent of the salmon caught commercially in the Pacific Northwest and 
in northern California today come from hatcheries.
  My bill will authorize $40 million per year for 5 years for 
California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Idaho. The money will be 
distributed to the State agencies after an MOU has been approved by the 
Secretary of Commerce. It is designed to prioritize salmon recovery, 
provide a criteria for measuring success, and promote projects that are 
scientifically based and cost effective.
  The States and the local governments will receive funds on a 50-50 
cost-share basis for these restoration projects. This will double the 
amount of money spent and the amount of work that can be done to 
enhance this important purpose.
  Salmon species are very much a part of the culture of the Pacific 
Northwest. Many of the port towns in my district on the north coast, 
such as Point Arena, Fort Bragg, Eureka, and Crescent City, were 
founded around the commercial fishing industry. Many of these towns 
have been devastated by the collapse of salmon populations.
  Over the last 30 years, the salmon fishery closures in these areas 
have contributed to the loss of nearly 75,000 jobs. Private landowners, 
conservation groups, and industry have already committed a significant 
amount of resources to aid in the reversal of this decline. But the 
efforts are not sufficient. In fact, species are still declining. 
Recovery efforts must be stepped up, and they must be stepped up now.
  By restoring our salmon populations, we can lessen the burden on 
industry and private landowners. By bringing back the salmon, the 
fishing industry economy will rise; and eventually the ESA regulations 
can be lifted. More importantly, if we restore salmon populations, 
future generations, like their ancestors, can enjoy and prosper from a 
great national treasure.
  The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Act of 2001 not only enjoys 
bipartisan support in Congress, but also the support of a diverse 
organizational structure, such as the American Homebuilders, the 
California Farm Bureau, American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and the 
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and pass the 
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Act today.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, let me first applaud the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee), and the gentleman from Maryland (Chairman Gilchrest) for 
their efforts on this important bill and for protecting this valuable 
resource.
  I am a strong supporter of H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery 
Act. This measure would provide significant assistance to the 
Northwestern States and tribal and local governments involved in salmon 
management recovery and conservation activities.
  The salmon populations are economic and wildlife resources whose 
preservation is our national responsibility. As such, the recovery of 
salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest is of great importance to 
the ecological, recreational, and economic future of the region.
  The recovery of our salmon populations are important to the once-
thriving commercial salmon fishery business, which is dwindling as a 
result of a decline in salmon population. This has left the industry 
crippled. Thus, by protecting healthy salmon runs and those of other 
species, we can possibly revive what was once a sustainable fishing 
industry in the region. Once there were 12,000 jobs in this industry. 
Would it not be great if we could move towards restoring many of those 
jobs?
  These activities, coupled with a revival of the recreation industry, 
provide for a potential increase in commercial and recreational 
fishing, which can provide the region with new opportunities for 
economic growth.
  Our efforts are also an important part of our commitment to honoring 
our treaty obligations with Native American tribes and with Canada. It 
is important to emphasize that, in passing this bill, we will take a 
significant step in honoring our treaty obligations. The history of the 
United States is replete with unfulfilled promises. As a Nation, we 
must remedy this by setting new precedents and taking steps to honor 
our commitments.
  The potential cost of litigation, should Canada or the tribes contest 
the treaties in court, could be enormous. Some observers estimate that 
attorney fees, potential damage awards and/or a settlement based upon a 
failure to maintain a viable salmon population could exceed $10 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we must act now to preserve this magnificent national 
resource. By passing this measure, we take a necessary step in moving 
the salmon further from extinction. It is an action that makes sense 
for the ecosystem, the economy, the nations and tribes with whom we 
have treaty obligations; and most importantly, it allows us to pursue a 
balanced approach to preserving this national resource.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), a great Congresswoman from California; but 
she grew up on the shores of Puget Sound.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1157, not 
only because I was born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, but 
because I have lived all of my adult life in California along the coast 
and know how important the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act will be and how 
much support we must give it.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for 
his hard work to bring this bill to the floor and to my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest), for their work and support.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, 
because, like the three gentleman that I just mentioned, I and our 
Pacific Coast colleagues in a very bipartisan manner know that salmon 
are in trouble.
  Over the past decade, we have witnessed a huge decline in salmon 
population, and the listing of salmon on the endangered species list is 
a clear warning that we must take this seriously. That is why 
communities and local officials in my district of Marin and Sonoma 
Counties, just north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge in 
California, are actively supporting Federal efforts to help with salmon 
restoration.
  We are fortunate that Marin and Sonoma Counties combined have 
received almost $850,000 from the current salmon recovery initiative, 
which was formed under President Clinton; and even better, these 
Federal dollars are available and are being leveraged at State, local, 
and nonprofit levels for resources that will bolster the recovery 
efforts even further than that $850,000.
  Next month, these Federal funds will begin to bear fruit. I do not 
think I should say that. They will begin to bear fish, not fruit. 
Projects that are under way will eventually return our salmon runs to 
their former abundance.
  For example, the Kelly Road Stabilization Project in my district will 
help stop erosion from going into the nearby waterways that harm salmon 
habitat. Also in Sonoma County,

[[Page H3085]]

through the county ecology center, a program will focus on bringing 
private landowners, government agencies, and environmental groups 
together to work on restoration efforts.
  Other exciting habitat restoration efforts in my district that are 
getting under way include the Lagunitas Sediment Management Project, 
the Willow Creek Restoration Project, and work on Pine Gulch Creek.
  Mr. Chairman, expanding habitat restoration efforts is a key 
component of any recovery effort, but we all know that money is another 
key ingredient to making these programs happen. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the 
Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this 
important legislation.
  I want to thank the people who worked so hard to bring this to the 
floor, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson), and also the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), for their 
hard work on this issue.
  This is a very important issue for the fishermen in my district, 
particularly those in Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo. They depend on 
salmon for their livelihood, and when these species are endangered, it 
is a serious threat to provide for their families.
  Steelhead salmon has been listed in my district as a threatened 
species north of the Santa Maria River, and as an endangered species to 
the south. It is vitally important that we restore their numbers.
  As Members know, this legislation would authorize $200 million in 
Federal assistance to State programs so that they can restore salmon 
and steelhead populations. This funding would not only add to the 
resources that the California Fish and Game already has, but also 
leverage more funds from the State and from other local sources. This 
kind of assistance would support ongoing projects in California.
  In my district, projects designed by groups like the South-Central 
Steelhead Coalition, the Arroyo Grande Watershed Forum, led by Central 
Coast Salmon Enhancement, these groups would benefit from this funding. 
These collaborative projects would be able to put such funds to good 
use in a way which will restore our natural resources.
  This is a good bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
1157.
  I want to first off thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), on this side of the aisle, for the work they have done on the 
issue, and my colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) 
and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), for the hard work they have 
done as well on this issue. I am pleased to join them in cosponsoring 
this important piece of legislation.
  Having served in local government before being in Congress and having 
worked with those who are in the trenches on this issue of salmon 
recovery, I can tell the Members that solutions need to come from the 
bottom up and not the top down. The funds provided by this bill will 
empower local communities to deal with salmon recovery efforts at the 
local level. That is the proper approach, and that is why I support 
this bill.
  As an example, the Haskell Slough project along the Skykomish River 
in my district is considered many a model of what successful salmon 
recovery can look like throughout the Pacific Northwest. A coalition of 
private landowners, local governments, businesses, and tribes use 
Federal dollars to restore a critical piece of freshwater habitat, and 
the fish have come back by the thousands.
  Passing this legislation will help fund hundreds of individual 
projects like the Haskell Slough project, and continue to move us in 
the right direction on salmon recovery.
  So again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for this work, for their work on this issue, and urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on H.R. 1157.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to tell a personal story that relates a bit to this bill.
  Last week I was sitting in my living room. I live on Puget Sound in 
the State of Washington. I was talking to one of my staffers about an 
environmental issue. We were sort of bemoaning some of the problems we 
have, both environmentally and legislatively, as it pertains to the 
environment here.
  We were particularly concerned about the salmon, who really are on 
the ropes up and down the West Coast. These salmon are very much on the 
edge of extinction in a lot of these runs.
  We were sort of down-mouthed at the moment, and just at that moment a 
bald eagle came soaring by, literally with the wings straight out, not 
flapping, just soaring on the wind as it came up over the shoreline, 
sort of eye level right past our house.
  It was sort of a message, I think, maybe from some other power that 
we ought to keep our heads up when it comes to these endangered 
species; that if the bald eagle can have a spectacular recovery, 
perhaps the salmon can, too.
  I think this is a good step forward towards that end. I want to 
compliment our friends on the other side for their work in getting this 
bipartisan product out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the comment about the bald eagle was well received, I 
say to the gentleman from Washington. If we can restore that 
magnificent creature to a healthy population, I am sure that we can do 
that to many other forms of nature's bounty.
  The great Northwest is a magnificent and splendid place. If this one 
small effort can do what we want it to do, the fish will prosper, the 
land will prosper, and then people will prosper.
  I urge my colleagues to give an aye vote on this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank my colleague from California for his leadership in 
introducing H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. This bill will 
be an important tool for the Pacific Northwest's efforts to preserve 
and protect our unique salmon runs. Our region understands the 
importance of providing salmon with the habitat they need to flourish, 
and our state and local governments have developed valuable programs to 
recover salmon runs. This legislation will allow those established 
programs to qualify for federal matching grants, and provide the 
incentives needed to enable new organizations to participate in salmon 
recovery.
  For Washington state, that means that our Salmon Recovery Funding 
Board will have an additional revenue source. This board does a good 
job of getting the funds to programs that are instrumental in recovery 
efforts, but they need more funding and that is exactly what this bill 
will do. This bill could mean additional funds for restoration projects 
like those on the Hylebos Watershed, and the Green and Duwamish Rivers. 
The states and Indian tribes know what needs to be done to help salmon 
recover, but they need help from the federal government. This bill will 
allow existing programs to expand on their successes with the 
opportunity to qualify for further funding. This bill authorizes $200 
million a year for three years for states and Indian tribes for salmon 
conservation and restoration projects in the coastal and upriver of 
Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
  Last year the House considered a similar bill, but it was never taken 
up in the Senate. I am hopeful that the House's early action on this 
bill will give the Senate ample time to consider this legislation so 
that the President can sign it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1157, which 
authorizes financial assistance to West Coast states to support 
restoration and conservation of Pacific salmon. This bill would also 
support the restoration of a historic industry, comprised of proud 
fishing men and women and their communities, that provides both food 
and recreation to the citizens of this nation. I commend my colleague 
Mike Thompson for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, salmon have been an important source of sustenance for 
the native peoples of the Pacific coast for thousands of

[[Page H3086]]

years. The modern fishing industry on the West Coast began in my 
district with the salmon fishery on San Francisco Bay. Salmon from the 
Bay were harvested to feed the forty-niners headed for the gold fields 
of the Sierra Nevada mountains. San Francisco Bay is still the 
migratory route for one of the largest runs of salmon on the Pacific 
Coast.
  Our salmon have suffered mightily over the past century, as spawning 
and rearing habitat within their natal streams and rivers has been 
lost. We have lost about 80 percent of the productive capacity of 
salmon streams in the West Coast as a direct result of various causes 
of watershed destruction.
  According to a 1991 comprehensive scientific study by the American 
Fisheries Society (AFS), at least 106 major populations of West Coast 
salmon and steelhead are already extinct. Other studies place the 
number at over 200 separate stock extinctions in the Columbia River 
Basin alone. The AFS report also identified 214 additional native 
naturally-spawning salmonid runs at risk of extinction in the Northwest 
and Northern California: 101 at high risk of extinction, 58 at moderate 
risk of extinction, and another 54 of special concern.
  The productive capacity of the salmon resource has been enormous. 
Even as recently as 1988, and in spite of already serious existing 
depletions in the Columbia River and elsewhere, the Northwest salmon 
fishing industry (including both commercial and recreational 
components) still supported an estimated 62,750 family wage jobs in the 
Northwest and Northern California, including my district, and generated 
$1.25 billion in economic personal income impacts to the region.
  H.R. 1157 continues the program of Federal matching assistance to the 
West Coast states to rebuild this important fishery. The bill would 
authorize funding for states and tribal governments to restore damaged 
and degraded salmon habitat in a scientifically based and cost-
effective manner. Emphasis would be placed on the recovery of salmon 
runs listed under the Endangered Species Act to prevent their 
extinction and eventually permit the lifting of the restrictions that 
are set in place when a species is listed. Funds will be spent only for 
projects approved as part of state and tribal restoration plans.
  H.R. 1157 is an investment in a healthful food source, an industry of 
hard working men and women, and a precious element of our ecosystem and 
natural heritage. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1157, and I urge 
my colleagues to support the preservation and restoration of West Coast 
salmon.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1157, the 
Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. Passage of this important bill that is 
vital to preserving our rapidly disappearing natural resources on the 
West Coast. This important bill would authorize funding to protect and 
restore salmon and steelhead populations in the Pacific Coast states of 
California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.
  Mr. Chairman, on our nation's Pacific Coast, many species of salmon 
and trout are listed as threatened or endangered, and that number will 
continue to grow if we do not take steps to reverse this trend now. I 
urge passage of H.R. 1157, which provides financial assistance to 
states and trial governments for salmon and trout restoration.
  The salmon population has been declining on the West Coast for many 
years. This is due to habitat destruction, urban development, water 
diversions, land use and industry practices. Approximately 25 species 
are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, with additional species being considered for addition to the 
list. This bill will ensure that activities funded under the Endangered 
Species Act are conducted in a manner that will have long-term positive 
benefits for salmon conservation and habitat restoration.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue to my Congressional 
district, which includes California coastal lands in San Mateo and San 
Francisco Counties. The decline in Salmon populations has been widely 
felt throughout the region, from the coastal streams of San Mateo and 
throughout the State. Local governments and private citizens would like 
to continue efforts to restore salmon habitat but need assistance from 
the Federal government to do this.
  H.R. 1157 will allow states and tribal governments to carry-out 
watershed evaluations and assessments and to develop plans to implement 
improvements. It will also fund research to ensure that the restoration 
is based on good sound data. Most importantly, it will offer assistance 
to educate private landowners on methods to restore the salmon and 
trout habitat on their land. The funding will also teach them land use 
and water management practices so they can continue to use their 
property without negatively affect these species.
  This bill authorizes $200 million a year for three years, with 
oversight to ensure that the funds will be used where they are most 
needed. The funding will be in the form of matching grants to states 
and tribal governments. It also requires that states provide matching 
grants and report annually to Congress on the use of these funds and 
their efforts to restore salmon and trout populations.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1157 has widespread support, conservationists, 
fish producing states and local governments and local landowners alike, 
all share a common goal--the restoration of the salmon and trout 
populations along the Pacific Coast. I urge passage of the Pacific 
Salmon Recovery Act. The legislation will ensure that communities in 
San Mateo and all across California, Washington, Oregon and Alaska 
receive financial assistance to begin the important work of restoring 
salmon and trout populations in rivers and tributaries along the 
Pacific Coast.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). All time for 
general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 shall be considered 
by sections as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each 
section is considered as read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pacific Salmon Recovery 
     Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. SALMON CONSERVATION AND SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Requirement To Provide Assistance.--Subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall provide financial assistance in accordance with this 
     Act to qualified States and qualified tribal governments for 
     salmon conservation and salmon habitat restoration 
     activities.
       (b) Allocation.--Of the amounts available to provide 
     assistance under this section each fiscal year (after the 
     application of section 3(g)), the Secretary--
       (1) shall allocate 85 percent among qualified States, in 
     equal amounts; and
       (2) shall allocate 15 percent among qualified tribal 
     governments, in amounts determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Transfer.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall promptly transfer--
       (A) to a qualified State that has submitted a Conservation 
     and Restoration Plan under section 3(a) amounts allocated to 
     the qualified State under subsection (b)(1) of this section, 
     unless the Secretary determines, within 30 days after the 
     submittal of the plan to the Secretary, that the plan is 
     inconsistent with the requirements of this Act; and
       (B) to a qualified tribal government that has entered into 
     a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary under 
     section 3(b) amounts allocated to the qualified tribal 
     government under subsection (b)(2) of this section.
       (2) Transfers to qualified states.--The Secretary shall 
     make the transfer under paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) to the Washington State Salmon Recovery Board, in the 
     case of amounts allocated to Washington;
       (B) to the Oregon State Watershed Enhancement Board, in the 
     case of amounts allocated to Oregon;
       (C) to the California Department of Fish and Game for the 
     California Coastal Salmon Recovery Program, in the case of 
     amounts allocated to California;
       (D) to the Governor of Alaska, in the case of amounts 
     allocated to Alaska; and
       (E) to the Office of Species Conservation, in the case of 
     amounts allocated to Idaho.
       (d) Reallocation.--
       (1) Amounts allocated to qualified states.--Amounts that 
     are allocated to a qualified State for a fiscal year shall be 
     reallocated under subsection (b)(1) among the other qualified 
     States, if--
       (A) the qualified State has not submitted a plan in 
     accordance with section 3(a) as of the end of the fiscal 
     year; or
       (B) the amounts remain unobligated at the end of the 
     subsequent fiscal year.
       (2) Amounts allocated to qualified tribal governments.--
     Amounts that are allocated to a qualified tribal government 
     for a fiscal year shall be reallocated under subsection 
     (b)(2) among the other qualified tribal governments, if the 
     qualified tribal government has not entered into a memorandum 
     of understanding with the Secretary in accordance with 
     section 3(b) as of the end of the fiscal year.


[[Page H3087]]


  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  Hearing none, the Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. RECEIPT AND USE OF ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Qualified State Salmon Conservation and Restoration 
     Plan.--
       (1) In general.--To receive assistance under this Act, a 
     qualified State shall develop and submit to the Secretary a 
     Salmon Conservation and Salmon Habitat Restoration Plan.
       (2) Contents.--Each Salmon Conservation and Salmon 
     Restoration Plan shall, at a minimum--
       (A) be consistent with other applicable Federal laws;
       (B) be consistent with the goal of salmon recovery;
       (C) except as provided in subparagraph (D), give priority 
     to use of assistance under this section for projects that--
       (i) provide a direct and demonstrable benefit to salmon or 
     their habitat;
       (ii) provide the greatest benefit to salmon conservation 
     and salmon habitat restoration relative to the cost of the 
     projects; and
       (iii) conserve, and restore habitat, for--

       (I) salmon that are listed as endangered species or 
     threatened species, proposed for such listing, or candidates 
     for such listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or

       (II) salmon that are given special protection under the 
     laws or regulations of the qualified State;

       (D) in the case of a plan submitted by a qualified State in 
     which, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, there is 
     no area at which a salmon species referred to in subparagraph 
     (C)(iii)(I) spawns--
       (i) give priority to use of assistance for projects 
     referred to in subparagraph (C)(i) and (ii) that contribute 
     to proactive programs to conserve and enhance species of 
     salmon that intermingle with, or are otherwise related to, 
     species referred to in subparagraph (C)(iii)(I), which may 
     include (among other matters)--

       (I) salmon-related research, data collection, and 
     monitoring;
       (II) salmon supplementation and enhancement;
       (III) salmon habitat restoration;
       (IV) increasing economic opportunities for salmon 
     fishermen; and
       (V) national and international cooperative habitat 
     programs; and

       (ii) provide for revision of the plan within one year after 
     any date on which any salmon species that spawns in the 
     qualified State is listed as an endangered species or 
     threatened species, proposed for such listing, or a candidate 
     for such listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
       (E) establish specific goals and timelines for activities 
     funded with such assistance;
       (F) include measurable criteria by which such activities 
     may be evaluated;
       (G) require that activities carried out with such 
     assistance shall--
       (i) be scientifically based;
       (ii) be cost effective;
       (iii) not be conducted on private land except with the 
     consent of the owner of the land; and
       (iv) contribute to the conservation and recovery of salmon;
       (H) require that the qualified State maintain its aggregate 
     expenditures of funds from non-Federal sources for salmon 
     habitat restoration programs at or above the average level of 
     such expenditures in the 2 fiscal years preceding the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (I) ensure that activities funded under this Act are 
     conducted in a manner in which, and in areas where, the State 
     has determined that they will have long-term benefits.
       (3) Solicitation of comments.--In preparing a plan under 
     this subsection a qualified State shall seek comments on the 
     plan from local governments in the qualified State.
       (b) Tribal MOU With Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--To receive assistance under this Act, a 
     qualified tribal government shall enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding with the Secretary regarding use of the 
     assistance.
       (2) Contents.--Each memorandum of understanding shall, at a 
     minimum--
       (A) be consistent with other applicable Federal laws;
       (B) be consistent with the goal of salmon recovery;
       (C) give priority to use of assistance under this Act for 
     activities that--
       (i) provide a direct and demonstrable benefit to salmon or 
     their habitat;
       (ii) provide the greatest benefit to salmon conservation 
     and salmon habitat restoration relative to the cost of the 
     projects; and
       (iii) conserve, and restore habitat, for--

       (I) salmon that are listed as endangered species or 
     threatened species, proposed for such listing, or candidates 
     for such listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
       (II) salmon that are given special protection under the 
     ordinances or regulations of the qualified tribal government;

       (D) in the case of a memorandum of understanding entered 
     into by a qualified tribal government for an area in which, 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act, there is no area 
     at which a salmon species that is referred to in subparagraph 
     (C)(iii)(I) spawns--
       (i) give priority to use of assistance for projects 
     referred to in subparagraph (C)(i) and (ii) that contribute 
     to proactive programs described in subsection (a)(2)(D)(i);
       (ii) include a requirement that the memorandum shall be 
     revised within 1 year after any date on which any salmon 
     species that spawns in the area is listed as an endangered 
     species or threatened species, proposed for such listing, or 
     a candidate for such listing, under the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
       (E) establish specific goals and timelines for activities 
     funded with such assistance;
       (F) include measurable criteria by which such activities 
     may be evaluated;
       (G) establish specific requirements for reporting to the 
     Secretary by the qualified tribal government;
       (H) require that activities carried out with such 
     assistance shall--
       (i) be scientifically based;
       (ii) be cost effective;
       (iii) not be conducted on private land except with the 
     consent of the owner of the land; and
       (iv) contribute to the conservation or recovery of salmon; 
     and
       (I) require that the qualified tribal government maintain 
     its aggregate expenditures of funds from non-Federal sources 
     for salmon habitat restoration programs at or above the 
     average level of such expenditures in the 2 fiscal years 
     preceding the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Eligible Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Assistance under this Act may be used by a 
     qualified State in accordance with a plan submitted by the 
     State under subsection (a), or by a qualified tribal 
     government in accordance with a memorandum of understanding 
     entered into by the government under subsection (b), to carry 
     out or make grants to carry out, among other activities, the 
     following:
       (A) Watershed evaluation, assessment, and planning 
     necessary to develop a site-specific and clearly prioritized 
     plan to implement watershed improvements, including for 
     making multi-year grants.
       (B) Salmon-related research, data collection, and 
     monitoring, salmon supplementation and enhancement, and 
     salmon habitat restoration.
       (C) Maintenance and monitoring of projects completed with 
     such assistance.
       (D) Technical training and education projects, including 
     teaching private landowners about practical means of 
     improving land and water management practices to contribute 
     to the conservation and restoration of salmon habitat.
       (E) Other activities related to salmon conservation and 
     salmon habitat restoration.
       (2) Use for local and regional projects.--Funds allocated 
     to qualified States under this Act shall be used for local 
     and regional projects.
       (d) Use of Assistance for Activities Outside of 
     Jurisdiction of Recipient.--Assistance under this section 
     provided to a qualified State or qualified tribal government 
     may be used for activities conducted outside the areas under 
     its jurisdiction if the activity will provide conservation 
     benefits to naturally produced salmon in streams of concern 
     to the qualified State or qualified tribal government, 
     respectively.
       (e) Cost Sharing by Qualified States.--
       (1) In general.--A qualified State shall match, in the 
     aggregate, the amount of any financial assistance provided to 
     the qualified State for a fiscal year under this Act, in the 
     form of monetary contributions or in-kind contributions of 
     services for projects carried out with such assistance. For 
     purposes of this paragraph, monetary contributions by the 
     State shall not be considered to include funds received from 
     other Federal sources.
       (2) Limitation on requiring matching for each project.--The 
     Secretary may not require a qualified State to provide 
     matching funds for each project carried out with assistance 
     under this Act.
       (3) Treatment of monetary contributions.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2)(H), the amount of monetary contributions by 
     a qualified State under this subsection shall be treated as 
     expenditures from non-Federal sources for salmon conservation 
     and salmon habitat restoration programs.
       (f) Coordination of Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Each qualified State and each qualified 
     tribal government receiving assistance under this Act is 
     encouraged to carefully coordinate salmon conservation 
     activities of its agencies to eliminate duplicative and 
     overlapping activities.
       (2) Consultation.--Each qualified State and qualified 
     tribal government receiving assistance under this Act shall 
     consult with the Secretary to ensure there is no duplication 
     in projects funded under this Act.
       (g) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--
       (1) Federal administrative expenses.--Of the amount made 
     available under this Act each fiscal year, not more than 1 
     percent may be used by the Secretary for administrative 
     expenses incurred in carrying out this Act.
       (2) State and tribal administrative expenses.--Of the 
     amount allocated under this Act to a qualified State or 
     qualified tribal government each fiscal year, not more than 3 
     percent may be used by the qualified State or qualified 
     tribal government, respectively, for administrative expenses 
     incurred in carrying out this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 3?
  Hearing none, the Clerk will designate section 4.

[[Page H3088]]

  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Qualified State Governments.--Each qualified State 
     seeking assistance under this Act shall establish a citizens 
     advisory committee or provide another similar forum for local 
     governments and the public to participate in obtaining and 
     using the assistance.
       (b) Qualified Tribal Governments.--Each qualified tribal 
     government receiving assistance under this Act shall hold 
     public meetings to receive recommendations on the use of the 
     assistance.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 5. CONSULTATION NOT REQUIRED.

       Consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall not be required based 
     solely on the provision of financial assistance under this 
     Act.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS.

       (a) Qualified States.--Each qualified State shall, by not 
     later than December 31 of each year, submit to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives an 
     annual report on the use of financial assistance received by 
     the qualified State under this Act. The report shall contain 
     an evaluation of the success of this Act in meeting the 
     criteria listed in section 3(a)(2).
       (b) Secretary.--
       (1) Annual report regarding qualified tribal governments.--
     The Secretary shall, by not later than December 31 of each 
     year, submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives an annual report on the use 
     of financial assistance received by qualified tribal 
     governments under this Act. The report shall contain an 
     evaluation of the success of this Act in meeting the criteria 
     listed in section 3(b)(2).
       (2) Biannual report.--The Secretary shall, by not later 
     than December 31 of the second year in which amounts are 
     available to carry out this Act, and of every second year 
     thereafter, submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives a biannual report on the use 
     of funds allocated to qualified States under this Act. The 
     report shall review programs funded by the States and 
     evaluate the success of this Act in meeting the criteria 
     listed in section 3(a)(2).

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (2) Qualified state.--The term ``qualified State'' means 
     each of the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, 
     and Idaho.
       (3) Qualified tribal government.--The term ``qualified 
     tribal government'' means--
       (A) a tribal government of an Indian tribe in Washington, 
     Oregon, California, or Idaho that the Secretary of Commerce, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, 
     determines--
       (i) is involved in salmon management and recovery 
     activities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
       (ii) has the management and organizational capability to 
     maximize the benefits of assistance provided under this Act; 
     and
       (B) a village corporation as defined in or established 
     pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that the Secretary of Commerce, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines--
       (i) is involved in salmon conservation and management; and
       (ii) has the management and organizational capability to 
     maximize the benefits of assistance provided under this Act.
       (4) Salmon.--The term ``salmon'' means any naturally 
     produced salmon or naturally produced trout of the following 
     species:
       (A) Coho salmon (oncorhynchus kisutch).
       (B) Chinook salmon (oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
       (C) Chum salmon (oncorhynchus keta).
       (D) Pink salmon (oncorhynchus gorbuscha).
       (E) Sockeye salmon (oncorhynchus nerka).
       (F) Steelhead trout (oncorhynchus mykiss).
       (G) Sea-run cutthroat trout (oncorhynchus clarki clarki).
       (H) For purposes of application of this Act in Oregon--
       (i) Lahontan cutthroat trout (oncorhnychus clarki 
     henshawi); and
       (ii) Bull trout (salvelinus confluentus).
       (I) For purposes of application of this Act in Washington 
     and Idaho, Bull trout (salvelinus confluentus).
       (5) Secretary.--The term Secretary means the Secretary of 
     Commerce.

     SEC. 8. REPORT REGARDING TREATMENT OF INTERNATIONAL FISHERY 
                   COMMISSION PENSIONERS.

       The President shall--
       (1) determine the number of United States citizens who--
       (A) served as employees of the International Pacific Salmon 
     Fisheries Commission or the International North Pacific 
     Fisheries Commission; and
       (B) worked in Canada in the course of employment with that 
     commission;
       (2) calculate for each such employee the difference 
     between--
       (A) the value, in United States currency, of the annuity 
     payments made and to be made (determined by an actuarial 
     valuation) by or on behalf of each such commission to the 
     employee; and
       (B) the value, in Canadian currency, of such annuity 
     payments; and
       (3) by not later than September 1, 2001, submit to the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the determinations and calculations made 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2).

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 to carry out 
     this Act. Funds appropriated under this section may remain 
     until expended.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC.    . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only equipment and products made in the United States.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary shall 
     provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) Report.--Any entity that receives funds under this Act 
     shall report any expenditures of such funds on items made 
     outside of the United States to the Congress within 180 days 
     of the expenditure.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, contrary to popular belief, this 
amendment does not mandate that all salmon eggs must be made in 
America, but this amendment has been added to other authorization 
spending bills that urges that those recipients of Federal monies, 
whenever possible, utilize those funds when spending those funds on 
American-made goods, products, and services that are made by American 
hands.
  In addition, it requires there be a notice of same to recipients of 
assistance under this bill.
  Finally, after having dispensed with and expended such funds so 
authorized, it says there shall be a report made to Congress to see if 
people receiving American money are in fact, wherever possible, 
utilizing those funds to buy American-made goods and products made by 
American hands.
  I urge that the committee accept it and keep it in conference.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding.
  We have no opposition to his amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I have no comment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, hearing no comment, I take that as no 
objection, as well.
  With that, I ask for an aye vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
       Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Otter
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H3089]]


       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Otter:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC.    . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BIPARTISAN JULY 
                   2000 GOALS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Congess supports 
     the bipartisan July 2000 goals, objectives, and 
     recommendations of the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon 
     and Washington to protect and restore salmon and other 
     aquatic species to sustainable and harvestable levels while 
     meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973, the Clean Water Act, the Pacific Northwest Electric 
     Power Planning and Conservation Act, tribal treaty rights, 
     and executive orders and while taking into account the need 
     to preserve a sound economy in Alaska, California, Idaho, 
     Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my colleague and good 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). I also want to 
congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the sponsor 
of House Resolution 157, for working to craft this important bipartisan 
piece of legislation authorizing $200 million in assistance to the 
States, tribes, and local entities for on-the-ground salmon recovery 
projects.
  House Resolution 1157 will ensure that important salmon research, 
data collection, monitoring supplementation, and other activities will 
be given priority. It also finally calls for the States to establish 
specific goals and timelines for salmon recovery projects, and to 
measure whether or not these activities are actually achieving success.
  I am cosponsoring House Resolution 1157 because it focuses money 
where it is proven to be the most effective, and that is at the local 
and the State level.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been reported that close to $1 billion in public 
funds are now being spent directly to recover salmon runs in the 
Pacific Northwest each year. A small portion of that comes from the 
States, but the largest chunks are being funded through the electrical 
power bills of Pacific Northwest residents, and from Federal agencies.
  Through the budgets of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of 
Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of 
Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and through the Pacific 
Salmon Treaty with Canada, many, including me, are skeptical that a 
sufficient return on this huge Federal investment is being realized. 
Too much money now goes to Federal bureaucracies for permitting, 
regulating, and enforcing activities against people who are actually 
improving the life of the salmon.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we need better coordination. We need to 
seek more realistic, unified goals and better peer-reviewed science 
before salmon do go extinct.
  Better coordination and more effective work is already happening on 
the State and local level, and it deserves the support of this 
Congress. That is why today I am introducing an amendment that simply 
recognizes a document produced last July by the Governors of the great 
State of Idaho, the States of Montana, Oregon, and Washington, two 
Democrats and two Republicans, setting out a list of goals, objectives, 
and recommendations on how the region can come together to recover the 
Pacific salmon.
  These bipartisan recommendations are philosophically in sync with the 
goals of this legislation, House Resolution 1157. It also encourages 
the development of local salmon recovery plans that avoid duplication 
and top-down planning, with peer-reviewed science and measurable 
standards.
  The Governors' plan acknowledges that while human activities may 
influence fish and wildlife survival, humans are not the only cause for 
salmon decline. It encourages more study to address the role of the 
Pacific Ocean on salmon, and calls for the management of flesh-eating 
predators; that is, the predators that eat the fish as they migrate to 
the ocean. It responsibly encourages hatchery supplementation, and many 
important habitat improvements, and it does so without advocating the 
removal of the four lower Snake dams.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, restates the first goal of the Governors' 
plan, which is to recover salmon according to the applicable laws, 
while also adhering to the laws which ensure the continued reliable and 
affordable power sources that millions of families and businesses in 
the Pacific Northwest rely on.
  It also understands the need to balance salmon recovery with the 
economic vitality of Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, and 
Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment and the passage 
of House Resolution 1157.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to express any objection to the 
gentleman's amendment, but I do think it appropriate to comment that 
the recommendations, the goals, the suggestions of the Governors 
encapsulated in the report to which the gentleman's amendment is 
addressed are not the sole things that we need to consider to be done 
in regard to salmon recovery. I just think it is important for us to 
note that.
  The way I read the amendment, it does not purport to say that these 
are the only things that need to be done for all time in our efforts. 
There are certainly other things that I think need to be done, and I 
know there are others who also think there is more to be done. So it is 
important for others to be aware that passage of this amendment will 
not be the end of our efforts in this Chamber to restore these runs.

                              {time}  1145

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       In section 7, after paragraph (1) (page 16, after line 12) 
     insert the following (and redesignate the subsequent 
     paragraphs of section 7 accordingly):
       (2) Naturally produced salmon and trout.--(A) Each of the 
     terms ``naturally produced salmon'' and ``naturally produced 
     trout'' does not include any genetically engineered fish.
       (B) In subparagraph (A)--
       (i) except as provided in clause (ii), the term 
     ``genetically engineered fish'' means--
       (I) a fish that has been altered at the molecular or 
     cellular level by means that are not possible under natural 
     conditions or processes (including recombinant DNA and RNA 
     techniques, cell fusion, microencapsulation, 
     macroencapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introducing a 
     foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes), other 
     than a means consisting exclusively of breeding, conjugation, 
     fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or 
     tissue culture; and
       (II) a fish made through sexual or asexual reproduction (or 
     both) involving a fish described in clause (i), if it has any 
     of the altered molecular or cellular characteristics of the 
     fish so described; and
       (ii) such term does not include a fish produced by 
     traditional breeding technologies in fish hatchery 
     operations.

  Mr. KUCINICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I fully support this legislation, but I 
am concerned that there is some problems with it on a technical nature 
that ought to be called to the attention of this House.
  In the eligible activities section of the bill, salmon-related 
research and salmon supplementation and enhancement are two areas that 
I want to alert the Members of this House.
  These are two areas that could be applied to genetic engineering and 
to genetic engineering research. My amendment perfects this bill to 
ensure that salmon for purposes of this legislation does not include 
genetically engineered varieties. However, the amendment explicitly 
addresses that this does not impact traditional breeding at fish 
hatcheries. We make sure that is excluded.
  Allowing the diversion of Federal money for research into this 
technology may only exacerbate the environmental challenge of 
protecting Pacific salmon. There are already over 35 species of 
genetically engineered fish currently being developed around the world.
  Genetically engineered fish contain genes from fish, from humans, and 
from insects. According to several fish ecologists from the University 
of Minnesota and Purdue University, there may be negative environmental 
impact

[[Page H3090]]

on wild populations of fish. Studies show that genetically engineered 
fish are more aggressive, consume more food, and attract more mates 
than wild fish.
  These studies also show that GE fish will attract more mates, their 
offspring will be less fit, and less likely to survive. As a result, 
some scientists predict that genetically engineered fish will cause 
some species to become extinct within only a few generations.
  No Federal environmental laws specifically govern the regulation of 
genetically engineered fish. Concerned about the lack of existing law 
specifically covered genetically engineered fish, the State of Maryland 
recently passed a law imposing a moratorium on the growing of 
genetically engineered fish in State waterways that flow into other 
bodies of water.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment, not because it is not well thought out and 
it is the direction that we need to move in, but we were unaware of 
this amendment until late last night.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his 
efforts and for this amendment. This bill fundamentally is a 
restoration project to bring back three species of fish in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  The funding is critical. If some of this funding is drawn away to try 
to detect or determine whether or not fish are genetically altered or 
they are hybrid fish grown in aquiculture ponds or they are wild 
species moving into the new restoration areas, I think that will take 
away from the legislation.
  What I would like to offer the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is 
that I and our staff on the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, 
Wildlife and Oceans will work with the gentleman. We will schedule a 
series of hearings.
  We recognize that introducing genetically altered species of any kind 
is a very dangerous road to go down, and so I compliment the gentleman 
on his efforts. We will work to develop legislation separate from this 
bill today to deal with the problem, not only with genetically altered 
species of fish, but with the full range of flora and fauna.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) and I will consider your kind offer to hold hearings. I need 
your help in working on a bill on this. I would certainly withdraw the 
amendment, and I would also ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to work with 
me on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the work that the gentlemen have 
put into this, and I know that if we all work together in a bipartisan 
way, we can protect our fish, our wildlife flora and fauna.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to work with the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.    . REPORT ON EFFECTS ON PACIFIC SALMON STOCKS OF 
                   CERTAIN TIMBER HARVESTING IN CANADA.

       The Secretary, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, 
     shall by not later than December 31 of each year report to 
     the Congress to the best of the ability of the Secretary 
     regarding the effects on Pacific Salmon stocks of timber 
     harvesting on publicly owned lands in British Columbia.

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of the 
underlying bill, I am extremely pleased that the House is moving so 
expeditiously to give Oregon and other Western States greater resources 
to protect our Pacific salmon stocks.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for all of their 
hard work on this great piece of legislation. I thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson.)
  The bipartisan manner in which they have brought this legislation 
before us is an example of how Members from both sides of the aisle can 
come up with a commonsense approach to a common issue.
  It shows that we can actually move forward and achieve a consensus 
that benefits our communities, our industries, and our surrounding 
environment.
  With that said, the amendment I have is a measure which I believe 
strengthens the underlying intent of this legislation.
  What it does is simply requires the Secretary of Commerce to report 
to Congress on an annual basis the effect that timber harvesting on 
public lands in British Columbia has on Pacific salmon stocks.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that ecosystems are not constrained by 
geographical borders. It is not just the rivers and tributaries of the 
Western United States that are an essential habitat for salmon; the 
Canadian province of British Columbia is home to hundreds of stocks of 
salmon as well.
  It is a vital component of the broader ecosytem that we are seeking 
to protect. I think it is completely reasonable for this body to, at 
the very least, consider the impact that logging practices on public 
lands in British Columbia have on Pacific salmon stocks.
  After all, we are authorizing up to $600 million over the next 3 
years to protect these fish and their habitats, many of which are 
closely linked with our neighbor to the North.
  The truth is that watersheds in British Columbia vital to the 
survival of all stocks of Pacific salmon are regularly affected by 
logging practices that are expressly prohibited under Canadian law and 
International Treaty.
  Even though the Canadian Fisheries Act requires provincial 
governments in Canada to maintain buffers against fish-bearing streams 
on public lands, in British Columbia logging companies are not only 
allowed to cut right to their banks but to drag logs across them.
  This practice may destroy salmon redds, make habitat inhospitable for 
fish by destroying the food web. It also increases the sedimentation 
which clogs the gills of fish and smothers salmon eggs and raises water 
temperature which kills immature salmon.
  As a result, 142 stocks of salmon are now extinct in British 
Columbia, while another 624 are at high risk.
  Because these practices are harmful to all salmon, not just those in 
American waters, I believe it is well within the realm of authority for 
Congress to ask the Secretary of Commerce, in conjunction with other 
Federal agencies, to annually report to Congress the effects of this 
logging practice on specific salmon stocks.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment asking Canada to enforce its 
own laws. I am confident that if confronted with the damages its 
policies are incurring to salmon stocks, the Canadian government will 
begin to enforce their own act with the Pacific Treaty.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I urge the adoption of my amendment
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and will 
ask the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) to enter into a colloquy.
  Is it the gentlewoman's intent, I want to make this clear, that this 
report done by the Secretary of Commerce, that the funding for that 
come out of the Department of Commerce and not come out of funds 
appropriated in this bill for salmon habitat restoration?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Absolutely.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment. We do not 
intend to oppose the amendment. There are many things that do affect 
salmon, one of those being logging practices, not only in the United 
States and in Canada, but also the predators, the ocean conditions, 
dams, many other things, and all of those things should be looked at 
along with those issues relative to logging practices in Oregon.

[[Page H3091]]

  Let me tell the gentlewoman, there is one issue that we have not 
dealt with, and that is the differences between the agencies of the 
Federal Government and how they deal with this. In the Stanley Basin of 
Idaho, let me give you this example. In the Stanley Basin of Idaho, 
several years ago an illegal stream was dug around the Salmon River. It 
was dug illegally admittedly.
  Today, there is conflict going on between the EPA, which is telling 
the new landowner to fill in that illegally dug channel, and Fish and 
Wildlife who is saying do not fill in that channel, because there are 
spawning salmon in that channel.
  The landowner is stuck in the middle, the new landowner is stuck in 
the middle, and he refuses to fill it in. So we have not only all these 
other things, but we have some conflicts in the Federal agency that 
needs to be addressed also.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and we do 
not intend to oppose it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1157, I rise in support 
of the gentlelady from Oregon's amendment.
  We have a problem. As everybody knows, ecosystems do not adhere to 
political lines. The border that lies between the United States and 
Canada, a political line, may also be contributing to the demise of 
dozens of species of salmon.
  Canada does not share the same type of environmental laws that 
protect salmon as we have. The Northwest, and every other region in the 
United States, must comply with the Endangered Species Act and the 
Clean Water Act. While the United States still has its fair share of 
endangered species, we have the mechanisms in place to give many of 
these species a fighting chance.
  Canada on the other hand, does not have these sort of guidelines. 
Harmful logging practices may be killing endangered salmon by the 
thousands. Ms. Hooley's amendment simply asks the Department of 
Commerce to conduct a study that would be reported to Congress what 
effect Canada's logging practices have on these endangered salmon.
  Until we know how great an impact these practices have on 
international fish stocks, will we be able to address the problem
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this responsible 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments? If not, the 
question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Boehner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1157) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial 
assistance to the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and 
Idaho for salmon habitat restoration projects in coastal waters and 
upland drainages, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
163, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, 
nays 6, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 159]

                               YEAS--418

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner

[[Page H3092]]


     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--6

     Brady (TX)
     Flake
     Hostettler
     Paul
     Royce
     Schaffer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Ferguson
     Fossella
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Tanner
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1222

  Mr. BRADY of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. NADLER and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________