Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 82 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)

[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--

(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.

____________________