[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4710-H4718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5093, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 483 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 483
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. 5093) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill 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 Appropriations.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendments printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows:
beginning with ``Provided'' on page 29, line 22, through page
30, line 11; page 68, lines 1 through 7. Where points of
order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order
against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be
made only against such provision and not against the entire
paragraph. During consideration of the bill for further
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. During consideration of the
bill, points of order against amendments for failure to
comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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
purposes 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 483 is an
open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5093, the Department
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003. The rule
waives all points of order against the consideration of the bill, and
provides 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
The rule provides that amendments printed in the Committee on Rules
report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted in
the House and in the Committee of the Whole. It waives points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with
clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or
legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified
in the resolution.
The rule further provides that the bill shall be considered for
amendment by paragraph, and waives all points of order during
consideration of the bill against amendments for failure to comply with
clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency-designated amendments
to be offered to an appropriation bill containing an emergency
designation.
Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record, and provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 5093 is to provide regular annual
appropriations for the Department of the Interior, except for the
Bureau of Reclamation, and for other related agencies, including the
Forest Service, the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service,
the Smithsonian Institute, and the National Foundation of the Arts and
Humanities.
H.R. 5093 also appropriates $19.7 million in new fiscal year 2003
budget authority, which is $546 million above last year's enacted level
and $800 million more than the President's request. The bill also
provides $700 million in emergency FY 2002 budget authority for
firefighting.
Specifically, the bill provides $458 million for the National
Wildlife Refuges, a $60 million increase over last
[[Page H4711]]
year. National Park Service operations are funded at $1.6 billion,
which is $117 million more than last year. In addition, the bill
provides $368 million, an increase of $33 million, to reduce the Park
Service's enormous maintenance backlog. Also, $96 million is
appropriated for the ongoing restoration of the Florida Everglades.
H.R. 5093 provides $377 million for the Federal land acquisition, as
well as $154 million for Stateside land acquisition grants; $150
million for urban parks, forests, and historic preservation; and $100
million for State wildlife grants.
Notably, the bill provides $50 million for landowner incentive and
stewardship grants to help private property owners carry out habitat
conservation measures required by the Federal Government.
Those of us who represent districts in the West have expressed our
concern year after year about proposals to increase Federal
landholdings in our areas. Several years ago, I coauthored an amendment
with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) designed to put
equal emphasis and dollars on maintaining the land and facilities the
Federal Government already owns before acquiring even more.
Much of the local opposition to Federal land purchases in the West
arises from concern about revenues lost when land moves off local tax
rolls and into Federal ownership. I am pleased, therefore, that the
committee has increased the Payments in Lieu of Taxes by $30 million,
to $230 million in this year's bill.
In recognition of the important role energy conservation must play in
strengthening our national security, the committee has also
appropriated $985 million for energy conservation, and $300 million for
weatherization and State energy grants.
Furthermore, the committee has fully funded the President's request
for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
the Humanities.
Finally, as a member from a State ravaged by wildfires in recent
years, I would like to highlight the committee's efforts in the area of
wildfire suppression in firefighting. The massive wildfires burning
today throughout the western United States illustrate the grave need to
actively and responsibly manage our forests.
Fire suppression will require a solid commitment by Congress and
concerted efforts to overcome the forces currently encumbering Federal
forest managers. This bill takes an important step to restore healthy,
productive forests by appropriating more than $2 billion to implement
the National Wildfire Plan, including $919 million for fire
preparedness, $581 million for fire suppression activities, and $669
million for other fire-related operations, such as hazardous fuels
reduction, restoring burned-out forests, and preventing and treating
the problems of invasive insects.
On behalf of the brave men and women we depend on to fight wildfires
and the citizens whose homes and livelihoods are threatened by
wildfires, I thank the committee for the special attention it has
devoted to this important matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations ordered H.R. 5093
reported by a voice vote on July 9. The subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), have requested an open rule, and
the Committee on Rules is pleased that the resolution now before the
House grants that request.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the
rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5093.
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 half hour.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that I will not
oppose, and the underlying bill has the support of many from both sides
of the aisle. Moreover, the minority was consulted throughout the
process in developing the legislation, a trend we all hope will
continue throughout the process of appropriations.
The bill provides $19.8 billion in new discretionary spending
authority for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. This
is $546 million more than last year, and almost $900 million more than
the President's budget request. Moreover, the committee provided an
additional $700 million to fight the western wildfires as emergency FY
2002 spending.
For the communities fighting these fires and for all who are still
recovering from the devastation these fires have wrought, this is
welcome news. Communities in Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and
other parts of the West need to know that Washington has not turned a
blind eye to their very real pain.
I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks),
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee
on Appropriations, for ensuring that this funding was included. I also
strongly commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their success in the funding
of a new conservation trust fund created in FY 2001. By including the
$1.44 billion, $120 million above last year, authorized for
conservation, Congress has kept a promise to expand funding for land
acquisition, wildlife protection, and other preservation and
conservation programs.
Specifically, the fund provides $100 million for State wildlife
grants, $30 million for urban parks and recreation recovery grants, $60
million for Forest Legacy, $44 million for North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund, $30 million for Save America's Treasures, $46
million for historic preservation, $50 million for Fish and Wildlife
Service landowner incentive programs, $36 million for urban forestry,
and $121 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund.
This is an extraordinary victory for those who care about preserving
our Nation's natural resources for future generations, and we thank the
gentleman. But in other ways, the measure before us represents a lost
opportunity, in its present form. In what is becoming an annual act of
neglect, the committee failed to allow for the restoration of some of
the unwise cuts made 7 years ago in the funding of those agencies
responsible for the country's small but critically important arts and
humanities education and preservation efforts.
The bill funds the NEA at $116 million, a level almost 40 percent
below the 1995 funding level.
{time} 1530
The National Endowment for the Humanities is funded at $126 million,
almost 30 percent below the level in 1995. These funding levels
fundamentally ignore the successful efforts by both NEA and NEH to
broaden the reach of their programs and to eliminate controversial
programs, the two reforms that were requested by the majority when they
reduced the funding in 1995. It is time to recognize the success of
these reforms and give these agencies the resources they need to meet
this critical need.
This is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The NEA is essential to the
part of the important link between education and the arts. The economic
benefits we receive are enormous compared to our small investment in
the NEA.
The Arts and Economic Prosperity Study conducted by Americans for the
Arts reveals that the nonprofit art industry generates $134 billion in
economic activity annually. Over $80 billion of the figure stems from
related spending by arts audiences, at the parking lots where patrons
leave their cars, at the restaurants where they eat before
performances, at the gift shops where they buy souvenirs, and at the
motels where they spend the night.
The $232 million that the Federal Government has invested in the NEA
and NEH has returned $134 billion to Federal, State, and local
economies. I cannot think of any Federal investments that yield that
kind of return. Moreover, the public supports continued funding for the
NEA because the NEA grants affect every congressional district. This
funding is not concentrated in the handful of urban areas, but instead
impacts hundreds of communities around the country.
[[Page H4712]]
The arts are not only good financial investment for our communities,
they greatly benefit the growth and development of our children. A
recent study entitled ``Critical Links'' conducted by the Arts
Education Partnership shows that learning and the arts improves
critical skills in math, reading, language development and writing,
skills badly needed. For example, the study shows that learning dance
and drama helped to develop skills and improve creative writing. Skills
learned in music increase a student's understanding of concepts in
math.
This body can ill afford the short changes that these vital programs
provide when we have committed ourselves time and time again to
improving the lives of our Nation's children. This is an inexpensive
and most effective way to do that.
Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the underlying measure, I will
work to ensure the programs are given a fighting chance. I will offer
an amendment to give the NEA an additional $10 million and an
additional $5 million to the NEA and urge my colleagues to support
these efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this will probably be the first day
that I ever vote against a rule because I believe very strongly in the
principle of this House that you do not legislate on appropriations,
and this is what this rule allows, especially concerning the Commission
on Native American Policy.
This is a bill that was introduced into the Committee on Resources
and was never heard, never had a markup; and it appears in this
legislation. I think that is inappropriate for this body. I believe, in
fact, it is meddling with the American Native. There is not one
American Native group that supports the provision of H.R. 2244. And to
have us now, in appropriations, legislate is wrong.
I hope everybody has my understanding of the American Native and the
injustice and wrong that has been done to them all these years by
supposedly the Government of the United States, and this is yet another
example.
This is an example where this Congress is going to say, we are going
to review your activities. We are going to make recommendations and we
are going to do to you what was not done by the Justice Department, by
the BIA, the FBI, and the Office of Tribal Justice. We are now going to
tell you what you have been doing wrong all these years. Now, that is
not correct legislative process.
So the first time since I have been in this body with the minority,
when we were, and now with the majority for the last 8 years, I am
going to vote against the rule because it is the wrong rule. And for
those of you in the office, think about it for a moment. It can be you
the next time. It can be you the next time where you look up one
morning and find out something that you feel very strongly about and
that is the American Native population or some other group that you
feel equally as strong about, and a bill that has never had a hearing,
never any input, no ramifications is now in an appropriations bill. I
thought we were above that.
And to the Committee on Rules members, I suggest to you, where did
this come from and why? Ask yourselves that.
So I am asking Members listening to this today, vote ``no'' on the
rule, make them come back with a rule that protects the prerogative of
the authorizing committee. This rule does not do so.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Rule. Section 141 of H.R. 5093
constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill.
H.R. 2244 was introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in
this Congress with the exact same language to create this Commission.
The authorizing Committee has chosen not to take up this bill for
consideration.
This proposed Commission on Native American Policy would ask whether
Indian gaming benefits Indian communities, whether Tribal government
gaming is regulated, and whether Tribal government is influenced by
organized crime. I would like to point out, that at the gentleman from
Virginia's request, the federal government--through the National Indian
Gaming Impact Study Commission (NGISC), the Justice Department, and the
National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGA) has already addressed these
questions a number of times.
In contrast to what was stated by the author of this provision, I
want to point out that Indian gaming benefits Tribal communities. The
NGISC found that gaming is the only proven method of stimulating
economic development in Indian country.
I also want to emphasis adamantly that Indian gaming is well
regulated. In a July 3, 2002 Memo from the U.S. Justice Department's
Office of Inspector General (with the Criminal Division, the FBI, and
the Office of Tribal Justice) found that Indian gaming is not
influenced by organized crime. Additionally, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) Office of Organized Crime wrote to the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee on July 25, 2001, confirming the Inspector General's report
in its own independent report. Also, the $5 Million NGISC study found
that Indian Gaming is not unduly influenced by organized crime--
confirming DOJ reports. Tribes reimburse States over $40 million on
State regulated Tribal gaming and have spent over $160 million on
Tribal regulation of Indian gaming.
The gentleman from Virginia's provision is wasteful and unnecessary.
Millions have already been spent on the creation and study of the NGISC
for the same issues. The $200,000 appropriations request to create yet
another Commission to study Indian Gaming would not permit the
Department of the Interior to accomplish a meaningful study. Lastly,
the money for the Commission would come out of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) ``available funds'', which could be used for much needed
trust administration rather than a study intended to reach pre-
established conclusions. BIA is already underfunded in many of its
program areas, and we do not need to request another duplicative study
on Indian Gaming.
I urge my colleagues to vote to delete Section 141 from H.R. 5093,
the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, in support of the
underlying bill; and I wanted to commend the chairman and ranking
member of the Subcommittee on the Interior and the Committee on
Appropriations for drafting this bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that more funds shall be made available in the
future to meet the many critical needs addressed by this bill and to
expand programs that benefit our environment and conserve our
resources; however, for fiscal year 2003, I believe that this bill has
done great service to the country and restored most of the short-
sighted cuts recommended in President Bush's original budget proposal.
There are just a few areas where slightly more remains to be done,
and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment that will be
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to provide an additional $10
million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 funding for the NEA and NEH was cut by more than
40 percent. Even though $116 million is provided in H.R. 5093 for the
NEA, that amount is still $46 million below the 1995 level. NEH funding
is similarly inadequate.
The Slaughter-Dicks amendment partially restores funding to these two
vital programs. The reasons to support and expand these programs are
well documented. The NEA provides critical support for arts education,
which has been proven to increase skills in math, reading, language
development, and writing.
Grants provided by the NEA and NEH leverage millions of dollars each
year in private support for arts projects all across this country.
The NEH has embarked on numerous projects to preserve our Nation's
cultural heritage. It is the Nation's largest source of support for
research and scholarship in the humanities.
According to a recent study by the Georgia Institute for Technology,
the arts industry generates millions of jobs and $134 billion in
economic activity every year. Let me repeat that figure: $134 billion
annually.
[[Page H4713]]
In Worcester, Massachusetts, the nonprofit arts community generates
over $48 million annually. It supports 1,445 full-time jobs and
generates over $1 million in local government revenue and over $3
million in State revenue.
Over the past 4 years, the Worcester community has benefited from
$215,000 in NEA grants. These grants help mount exhibits in the
Worcester Art Museum and in the Higgins Armory Museum. They brought
arts exhibits to the public schools and school children to the
community art centers and museums. Similar grants also supported the
Attleboro Art Museum and community arts programs in central
Massachusetts.
The NEH at the same time helped to protect some of our Nation's most
precious documents and historical archives, which are preserved and
displayed at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester. Other NEH
grants supported seminars on history and culture for K through 12
school teachers at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth and at
Holy Cross College in Worcester.
These programs enrich our cultural heritage, strengthen our
educational programs, stimulate our teachers and our children, and
contribute to the economic well-being of our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Slaughter-
Dicks amendment when it is debated later on in the Interior bill, and I
urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a former chairman of this
subcommittee.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but the rule has a
serious flaw and let me point that out. I want to go back to WRDA,
which was passed by an overwhelming majority in the year 2000 to do a
restoration of the Everglades, and I quote from it: ``The frame work
for modifications and operational changes to the Central and South
Florida project that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the
South Florida eco-system,'' that is the Everglades, ``while providing
them for other water-related needs of the region, including water
supply and food protection.''
Now, today's bill, and this is in the wisdom of the chairman, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and I quote, ``Activities of the
restoration, coordination and verification team as described in the
final feasibility report and programmatic environmental impact
statement for the comprehensive review of the Central and Southern
Florida project shall be directed jointly by the Secretary of the
Army,'' that is the Corps of Engineers, ``the Secretary of the
Interior,'' because this is a national park and it is a national
resource. It belongs to all the people of this Nation. ``And the South
Florida water management district, `` because the way that water is
managed is important to the people in South Florida.
However, the rule makes it possible and as I understand it there will
be a point of order against that section I just read. Now, the net
effect of that is to take the Secretary of the Interior out of the
management. But I thought we were doing this to preserve the
Everglades. And who has a greater stake as an agency than Interior?
This bill provides $100 million of Interior money that is collected by
taxes from people in 50 State, not just Florida, but 50 States. In the
Interior bills in previous years, we have appropriated approximately $1
billion from all the people in the United States. Who better can speak
on their behalf on matters of the eco-system, which is provided in
WRDA, and matters that are important to the south Florida system, the
Everglades? And yet this point of order will take the Secretary of the
Interior out of play.
That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong, and I think that is a real
flaw in this rule. And I believe that the only way we can correct that
and pass this good bill is to defeat the rule and let this section be
protected. The Secretary of the Interior who speaks for all of us who
are paying the bill, a former head of the Corps of Engineers, estimated
it might cost as much as $80 billion to restore the Everglades. Let us
divide that by four, $20 billion to do the restoration and vision in
WRDA, and yet we will not let the Secretary of the Interior have a
voice? We will take that individual out of play?
It is not just this Secretary of the Interior. This is going to be a
long-term project, and unless the Secretary of the Interior is in on
the ground floor, this will not work. I think we ought to go back, pass
a rule and protect the section that gives the Secretary of Interior a
voice as the present bill includes, thanks to the wisdom of the
chairman and the members of the subcommittee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the substance
of what the gentleman said. This year I went down to Florida, visited
the Everglades, met with the top officials because this is a major
program for our subcommittee and for the country, as the gentleman
points out quite properly. And I completely concur with the gentleman
that we should have the Secretary of the Interior as an equal player,
and we need to have this Florida water modification program moved
forward in order to get water back into the Everglades and into the
Florida Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to tell the gentleman I am very
sympathetic to what he has to say and I appreciate him yielding.
{time} 1545
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, such time as is left,
and I thank the gentleman for his comments.
If the Secretary of Interior is not part of the management system,
the emphasis will be on water, water for everything but the Everglades,
and yet I think the people in the United States assume that we are
going to restore the Everglades. The one individual who is a key player
in all of that will be the Secretary of Interior, and that individual
deserves a place at the table.
I would urge Members to support a rule that leaves this section that
is in the bill as put there by the wisdom of the chairman.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the bill today but understand
that the Committee on Rules has chosen not to protect the language that
has just been mentioned on the Florida Everglades restoration project.
It is my hope that the language remains in the bill and that the
language is ultimately adopted.
I would say that this certainly could have an impact on the
committee's judgments in the future about the funding levels for this
project if, in fact, this language is stricken. I just say that to give
everyone fair warning.
The project is one of the most important environmental projects this
subcommittee has ever undertaken, but we are at a critical juncture.
The chairman and I feel very strongly that the Secretary of Interior
has an equal voice, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Water
Management District. We have appropriated over a billion dollars in
this bill over the course of the project and believe that this language
ensures that.
I strongly support this year's bill and sincerely hope that the
committee's guidance is maintained.
I also wanted to mention that in the question of the National
Endowment for the Arts, we will have an amendment today. The
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I and others are
cosponsoring this amendment at a time when our economy is under great
stress.
I think it is very interesting to point out to the membership that
there was a very comprehensive economic study done about arts and
economic prosperity, and the figure here is that the total economic
impact of the arts in our country is $134 billion, and it provides, I
think, 4.27 million jobs, and at a time when our economy is hurt, I
think we ought to remember that this sector is growing and is very
vibrant. One of the reasons for it is the fact that this Congress has
stayed with this program and added critical funding.
Also, I would like to point out to my colleagues that a couple of
years ago we had had a big fight over CARA, and myself and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment creating a
conservation trust fund, and at that time, the total spending in the
country on conservation was $752 million if we added together the
[[Page H4714]]
money in the Interior bill and the money in the Commerce-Justice-State
bill.
I want to report to my colleagues that in this bill, there is $1.44
billion for these conservation categories, and also, there will be
significant additional funding over in the Commerce-Justice-State
portion which takes us up to $1.92 billion. So I think we have kept our
commitment to the House that we would fund these programs in a more
substantial way and including one program, the West Coast Salmon
Recovery Initiative, and I want all Members of the House to know that I
was out testing the waters this weekend, and the recovery initiative is
doing quite well.
I disagree with my colleague. I think we should move ahead, pass the
rule, and I hope that nobody will object to these important Everglades
provisions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me the time, and I rise this afternoon reluctantly to oppose
the rule that we have before us today, and I want to cite a couple of
problems that I see with the rule.
The first is actually, in my judgment, not the biggest of the
problems that we have. The first, however, does require, I think, some
observation, and that is, that we have added $700 million to this as an
emergency measure to fight fires, apparently. This has been done
despite the fact that there is no such request from the administration.
This has been done despite the fact that evidently most, if not all,
the fires are out, and although there probably is some need for some
firefighting funds, this is probably considerably more than what is
needed.
Frankly, where this belongs, and there probably is a need for some
funds for firefighting, but it should be on the supplemental, and that
is where we should be doing this kind of thing. In fact, the President,
it is my understanding, has offered to put it on the supplemental, and
to find offsets so that we can do that supplemental, get it done, get
it done at the level that the President has asked and that the House
has passed.
The point that I want to make is that there is another place for the
appropriate number. I do not think that is the appropriate number. I do
not think this is the appropriate place. I think it ought to be on the
supplemental which, by the way, I do not know what is holding up the
supplemental. It has been something like 120 days, and we still have
not been able to get that done.
That is the small problem that I see with this rule and this bill.
This larger problem is that this bill puts us on a path to bust the
budget, and I think that that is a big, big mistake. We passed a budget
on this floor, basically passed it twice, once as a budget resolution.
A second time, we deemed that resolution to be the operative budget
since we never got a budget out of the Senate and, in addition, the
President has indicated that he wants to stick with the House-passed
budget.
I think we owe it to the American people that we do stick to that
budget. Let us think about this. We have a war under way. There are
huge costs to that war. We have vulnerabilities that require huge
expenditures for homeland defense and for security, completely
legitimate and important. We are no longer able to set aside the
surplus from Social Security as we did, as the Republican-controlled
Congress did for a number of years. We are now running a deficit and we
are told just yesterday that that deficit for this year alone will be
approximately $165 billion. Yet this bill, if we proceed as it is
currently contemplated, virtually assures us that we are not even going
to stick to the budget that we passed, and let me explain why.
The reason is that the allocation of the total amount of spending
that we agreed in the budget resolution, the allocation amongst the 13
appropriation bills, contemplates significant increases in spending
much above and beyond the President's request, way above and beyond
last year's level, on a handful of bills that are generally relatively
easy to pass and that the plan is to pass them early. Well, they will
pass easily, bills like Interior and Agriculture and Treasury Postal,
where there are big plus-ups above and beyond the President's request.
The problem is to make the numbers add up. The assumption is that we
are going to be able to pass Labor, Health and Human Services and VA,
HUD, and Commerce-Justice-State, the assumption is that we are going to
pass those bills at lower levels, and we know realistically that is not
going to happen.
So if we are serious about delivering on the budget resolution that
we voted to, that we adopted in this House and that the President wants
us to stick with, if we are serious about that, and by all means we
should be, then we need to stop this process right now and rethink
these 302(b) allocations.
Maybe I am all mistaken and maybe this is just not the case at all
and that every one of these bills can and will be brought out and we
will pass it and that is the intention here. If so, then I would
suggest let us start with the hard ones, not the easy ones. Why do we
not start off with CJS right now, why do we not do VA-HUD, why do we
not do Labor-HHS now, rather than at the end of this process, when in
all past years when we get to the end, we shrug our shoulders and say,
imagine that, there is not enough money to pass these bills, and then
we bust the budget.
At this time when we are running the deficits that we are, when we
have the vital challenges facing our Nation to equip our men and women
in uniform, to protect our homeland from the threats that it faces, we
cannot afford big increases in bills that are not as vital, and so I
urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention to the Members that
there is $700 million added to this bill for firefighting. That may not
be enough to make up for the difference in what is needed because of
the tremendous fires we have had in the West. In fact, we have heard
that number may now be over a billion that is needed, and this is a
2002 supplemental. This is not part of the 2003 bill, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can, of course, speak on this better than I,
but my judgment is this should be added to the 2002 supplemental, the
regular supplemental, and if it were, we would obviously take it out in
conference, but we need to get this money passed.
The problem we have is that the administration, Forest Service, the
BLM need this money. If they do not get it, they will have to borrow
from other accounts within the departments, and it will completely
disrupt the way they do their business. So we have to be very careful
here that we do not completely disrupt the way the Forest Service and
the BLM operate because they have many other significant
responsibilities.
This is the least we should be doing. We should be doing more, and I
cannot imagine why the Office of Management and Budget does not
understand that there is a problem out there that needs to be solved,
and it is mystifying that they have not made a formal budget request
when there is this kind of need out in the West.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I wanted to just touch base, Mr. Speaker, on a couple of
points about this bill.
This bill is our national environmental policy in many ways because
it takes the management of land, the management of resources, policies
affecting energy and a number of other issues, and it cobbles together
a bill which is truly bipartisan and one that represents many different
kinds of philosophies.
Many folks from the East have very strong opinions on this bill. Many
from the West have other opinions and so this bill is actually
delicately balanced and crafted. Many Members do not appreciate what
goes into it, but I can assure my colleagues when we get so many Type A
personalities in a body of 435 people, we are not always going to have
agreement, but what we do end up with is a good bill, a bill that funds
our national parks.
Our national park maintenance program is far behind, a billion
dollars.
[[Page H4715]]
This helps catch them up. We lose lots of assets on our Park Services
every year. It helps round out a lot of the boundaries in the Fish and
Wildlife and the wildlife refuges that are overdue, Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management, some of the policies that have to do with
Western utilization of land.
One of the things that people do not get reminded enough in terms of
our national forests is that the concept of national forests started
under Theodore Roosevelt, and the idea was that the Federal Government
cannot lock up everything, but the private sector also cannot always
develop everything. The national forests are not supposed to be
national parks. They are working forests, and so it is proper there for
public utilization both for recreational and for commercial purposes to
take place.
This bill has lots of great research for energy policy. At a time
when, unfortunately, our energy bill has stalled in the other body,
this bill steps forward without doing a lot of good research like fuel
cell technology, things like this. This balances our issues in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, health care on reservations and land disputes
and title research.
All of this is in there, Mr. Speaker, and I urge Members to support
the rule and support the bill and let us keep our environmental policy
in America moving forward.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a perfectly reasonable bill and I
intend to support it, but I must bring to the attention of the House
certain facts that relate to the overall budget situation of which this
bill is only a part. Because while the bill itself has been put
together by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in a perfectly responsible way, the
allocation process under the Budget Act, under which it comes to the
floor, is in my view a charade, and I want to explain that.
We are now for the third time going through the same drill that we
have gone through the previous 2 years. The Committee on the Budget has
imposed on this House a budget ceiling for domestic discretionary
programs which is about $748 billion. Everyone understands, except
perhaps 30 or 40 people in this House, everyone understands that, in
the end, appropriation bills will wind up costing considerably more
than that $748 billion. So this is a question of truth in packaging.
The problem that we face, what is happening this year, as was the
case in the last 2 years, is that the larger bills which are going to
be coming later, the VA-HUD bill, the Labor-Health-Education-Social
Security Services bill and the Commerce-Justice-State bill are all
being cut by very large amounts below the levels that both sides of the
aisle recognize will be needed to eventually pass those bills, in order
to, on a temporary basis, free up money which can be put into bills
like this one to make it look as though we can pass bills like this and
still remain consistent with the overall Budget Act.
{time} 1600
Now, the fact that that is being done is not the fault of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is the only choice left open to the
chairman because of the unrealistic spending levels that are provided
for in the budget resolution. But what this means, in the end, is that
(while we will be able temporarily to hide from the truth,
unfortunately, and we will be able to pass the smaller bills, such as
the Ag bill, the Treasury Post Office bill, the military construction
bill, this bill, and a few others), come September, guess what!
Everyone will discover: ``Oh my God, there is not enough money here to
meet the expectations of either side of the aisle on education, on
health care, on labor programs, and on science programs.''
The VA-HUD bill, for instance, has been cut $2.7 billion below the
budget request of the President in order to temporarily free up room
for bills like this. The Labor-HHS bill is going to be cutting teacher
improvement programs. It is going to be cutting Pell Grants and other
programs if it is going to comply with the overall spending limits.
So, in essence, we have a charade. And I think the House ought to be
facing up to it now versus later. But we are not going to do it
because, I realize, that the House leadership has only one play that
they know how to run. And as I said in committee, it kind of reminds me
of my high school football team, when Dick Gumness was the quarterback
and Jack Bush was the half back. We were unscored on the first seven
games of the season. Then, in the last game, the opposition, Eau
Claire, scored 14 points the first half, we scored 7 points the second
half and were driving for a second tying touchdown. We got to about the
20 yard line, and Jack Bush, the half back, had his bell rung on a
play. He came back into the huddle, and Dick Gumness, the quarterback,
recognized that Jack could not remember any other play, except the one
we had just run. So we ran that same play five straight times in order
to cross the goal line, because that is the only play Jack could
remember.
That is what it reminds me of when I look at what the leadership is
doing here. This is the only play they can figure out, so they are
going to run it again, again, and again, even if in the end it results
in a futile effort and no score. That is the only difference between
our game and this one. There is not going to be any score until people
face reality.
So sometime between now and October 1 people are going to have to
recognize that the budget resolution is a fiction. That does not mean
there should not be a budget resolution. There should. But it should be
an honest one which honestly, up-front, ahead of time estimates what
the cost will be rather than hiding the true cost until the end game.
That is why this Congress is being delayed in so many other aspects
of its work. It is a shame, but it is the only play, evidently, that
the leadership knows how to run.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much
time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington
for yielding me this time, and I want to congratulate the chairman of
our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and the
ranking member, my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), for their hard work.
I listened intently to the ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), talking about football plays; and this bill
particularly, I guess, can be likened to the idea that there is going
to be a Monday morning quarterback coming in always on this bill and
trying to rewrite it, and I think that is probably what we will see
some of today. It is different when you are in the room trying to solve
the problem of allocating money among disparate resources and a limited
amount of money for certain functions of the government that deal with
our natural resources economy.
I think this bill, while not ever perfect, for goodness sakes, is a
very balanced bill; and I think it is a rule that is fair as well. By
and large this is a good package, and I think it has taken a tremendous
amount of work to get Members on one side of the political spectrum
dealing with those on the other and trying to come to a package that
makes some sense.
I supported in the subcommittee, and I am very proud of my
conservative credentials, fiscally and otherwise, but I supported the
additional money for firefighting. I did it because we saw a memo that
I hold here from the chief of the forest service basically saying this
is such an extraordinary year facing fire costs that we must have
additional money or else in the forest service they are simply going to
say, drop all other obligations for the forest service and put that
effort into firefighting and put the resources into firefighting.
If you are from the West, and I am, and your State is burned up, from
time
[[Page H4716]]
to time, you will be the last to criticize additional money that comes
in for firefighting purposes. I say that advisedly to some of my
colleagues who are concerned about this extra money. If you are from
Arizona, you are not going to feel this way, necessarily. If you are
from California or Washington or Oregon or elsewhere that is facing
unrestricted firefighting problems, you are going to say, please help
us out. And if it is your home that is being destroyed or your
neighborhood or your region, you are going to be the first to stand up
and say this government can help and we can do so through the Federal
system.
So I think we are, within our budget allocations in the interior
bill, in a difficult bill to try to balance, we are balancing it with
adequate consideration for resources, for conservation, for
development, for the arts, the humanities and so forth. It is a tough
balancing act to try to get into law, and we are doing it and we have
done it.
So I would say to any critics of this measure, be thoughtful about
how you criticize, because this is a well-balanced package that I think
is very well crafted to do all that we want to do in this bill.
It is important, I think, to know also that the administration
supports the fiscal year 2003 Department of Interior and related
agencies bill reported by the House Committee on Appropriations. And I
hope my colleagues will support the rule and the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and
to express my strong opposition to certain provisions included in the
interior bill that impact American Indians.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I have concerns regarding the language on
the Commission on Native American Policy, American Indian trust fund
reform, and the Cobell v. Norton litigation. These provisions were not
developed in consultation with Indian country. Rather, they were
directly included in the House interior appropriations bill. This
language will erode the legal rights of tribal governments and block
the goals they seek to attain, and these provisions violate House rule
XXI, which prohibits legislating on appropriation measures.
Mr. Speaker, in this day and age, the tactic of ignoring tribal
government input and advice on initiatives that impact their lives and
systems of government is really unacceptable. Congress should set the
example for how adequate and meaningful consultation should occur
between the Federal Government and tribal governments. The Commission
on Native American Policy would mandate that tribal governments engaged
in gaming be subjected to additional federally imposed examination and
possibly more regulation.
I believe these provisions were put in by Members of Congress who
oppose Indian gaming. But tribal governments, similar to State and
Federal governments, are democratic systems of governance. If some
tribal governments decide to pursue gaming activities as a means of
securing economic self-sufficiency, Congress should not stand in their
way.
The proposed commission will also divert Federal funds from other
badly needed Federal Indian programs. And, in fact, millions of dollars
have already been spent studying the need for more regulation of Indian
gaming. We do not need to waste money on another study.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that I also oppose two other
provisions in the bill, one that will reform the American Indian trust
fund strategy and the other dealing with the Cobell v. Norton
litigation. These provisions will limit a historical accounting of
trust funds to the period from 1985 to 2000, which will assume all
records before 1985 are correct, and in addition would not provide an
accounting for funds held in an account closed as of December 31, 2000.
The tribal governments and representatives involved in the trust fund
and litigation procedures are demanding an accounting of their trust
funds dating back to the 1800s. Why in the world are some Members of
Congress attempting to deny these account holders a full accounting of
their trust funds? I have no idea.
These provisions not only serve to undermine existing Federal law,
requiring a full accounting of all trust funds, but they also deny a
Federal court decision requiring an accounting of all funds regardless
of the date deposited. Why are we trying to go counter to a Federal
court action and contrary to the existing Federal law that is simply
asking for an accounting for funds that are owed to tribes? It makes no
sense whatsoever.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, these provisions in the bill are clearly
moving in the wrong direction. They do not serve to meet the needs or
strengthen the rights of Indian country. They are taking away the
rights of Indian country. They are being done without consultation. It
sets a terrible precedent on an appropriations bill that we do this
without any opportunity for a hearing or any opportunity for
consultation with American Indians.
For these reasons, I oppose these provisions, and I oppose the rule.
I would ask my colleagues to support two amendments that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth),
and other Members of the Native American Caucus are going to offer
later that would strike these very bad provisions, in my opinion, that
impact Indian country in a very negative way.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
rule. This is an open rule. Unlike some of the bills that come to this
floor under closed rules, this is an open rule. The Committee on
Appropriations brings open rules to the floor. Members will have an
opportunity to deal with this bill responsibly, and this rule makes
that in order.
Now, I understand, listening to some in the debate, that there are
going to be some who do not like this bill. Well, that is usually
always the case that some will not like this bill. But we cannot
predict what will happen to bill number 13 based on bill number three.
And this is only number three of the FY 2003 appropriation bills.
Now, why is that? Why is this only bill number three, and we here in
the middle of July? It is number three because this chairman made a
commitment to the President of the United States that this year the
first appropriations bill to move through the House would be the
defense appropriations bill, and the second one would be the military
construction bill. And, Mr. Speaker, this chairman kept that
commitment.
While we were doing that, we were also working on a supplemental,
which was basically all defense and homeland security. So we have been
very busy. Now, these other bills backed up because we have kept that
commitment to the President to move the defense bills first. In a time
of war, I think that is perfectly acceptable. I think it is a good
idea.
But now I understand that because some people might not like what is
coming down the road, they are going to use all the dilatory tactics we
can on this interior bill, which is the last bill that the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is going to present to this House before he
retires.
We are providing the membership with a good bill. There may be some
differences, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is why we have
an open rule. But this is a good bill. It meets the needs and the
requirements of this country. There is nothing wrong with this bill. If
there are some who think they want to change it, they can offer an
amendment. Under an open rule, that is what you do.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I read some comments by some of our
colleagues who want to destroy the appropriations process. Do it, if
you can. But understand that of all the bills that are considered in
this House during a fiscal year, the ones that really have to pass are
the appropriations bills, because without the appropriations bills,
nothing happens.
So destroy the process, if you want. The budget process WAS
destroyed. There is no budget process here, which makes it very
difficult to appropriate and confer with our counterparts in the other
body.
If what you are about here is just numbers and the destruction of the
appropriations process, so be it. But I believe that a vast majority of
this House
[[Page H4717]]
will not agree to that because they understand the importance of the
appropriations process to this House.
Mr. Speaker, again, this is a good rule, it is an open rule, and it
allows the House to work its will.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I, for one, Mr. Speaker, do appreciate the open rule, and today I
will be offering an amendment to the interior bill to encourage our
administration to work on terminating the 36 undeveloped oil leases off
California's coast. My amendment would restrict this year's Department
of the Interior funds from being spent to develop these 36 leases.
It is similar to an amendment the House passed last year by a wide
bipartisan margin to stop the sale of leases off Florida's coast.
{time} 1615
Offshore oil drilling has long been a controversial issue throughout
California. The 1969 blowout in the Santa Barbara Channel dumped 4
million gallons of oil into the sea, killing thousands of marine
animals and damaging a huge swath of our beautiful coast. The
devastation was so great that it galvanized virtually the entire State
against more offshore oil drilling. Many credit this event to inspiring
the modern environmental movement.
Since then, dozens of local governments have passed anti-oil drilling
measures, and our State has enacted a permanent ban on new offshore oil
leasing. Many of us have asked this administration to work on
terminating these existing leases. So now I hope that a strong House
vote on protecting California's coast and economy can encourage such
action similar to the action on behalf of Florida and Michigan's
coastlines.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this amendment and demonstrate
the House's commitment to protecting our environment and the economy
associated with our coastal resources, particularly in this case, the
California coastline.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good Interior appropriations
bill; but the problem is that the rule failed to protect two very
important provisions of the bill that were put in there by the
Subcommittee on the Interior and endorsed by the full Committee on
Appropriations on a bipartisan basis. These two provisions are critical
to protecting a program to restore the natural system of the Florida
Everglades. This restoration project is costing the people of the
United States literally billions of dollars. It is the most
comprehensive and ambitious environmental restoration project perhaps
in the history of our world, certainly our country.
What happens is that one of the provisions that is not protected by
the rule would ensure that the Department of the Interior is made a
full partner with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida
in determining how this restoration project goes forward, and that
science is used to make sure that the project is carried out in a way
that achieves its objectives.
Without the Department of Interior as a coequal partner, we are not
going to get the kind of results that we want here. If the Department
of Interior is required to play a subsidiary rule, as this rule would
require, then the outcome is going to be less than what we want and
money will be sorely wasted.
The other provision that the rule fails to protect is a provision
with the way the water would flow, north to south and south to north.
Right now the Tamiami Trail which runs east and west across southern
Florida blocks the flow of that water. A provision in the
appropriations bill, again put in there by the members of the
Subcommittee on Interior and endorsed by the full committee on a
bipartisan basis, would ensure that a provision which the Congress
previously authorized, the purchase of land to make sure that the
Tamiami Trail can be raised and the water can flow naturally back and
forth, north and south through the Everglades and into Florida Bay,
that provision is not protected.
These two essential ingredients of the Florida Everglades Restoration
Plan, costing the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars, are
not protected in this bill. That is why the rule should be defeated.
Some Members might say we are legislating on an authorization bill.
That is nonsense. These provisions ensure that what the Committee on
Appropriations does, which authorizes money to be spent, that that
money is going to be spent properly, cleanly, honestly, scientifically,
so that we get the results that we want and need in this restoration
project. Politics and not science is going to rule the day if this rule
goes forward. That is the problem with this rule, and that is why it
should be defeated.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and
associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), the former chairman of the Committee on Resources.
The Committee on Appropriations has breached rule XXI which forbids
legislating on an appropriations bill. They have breached it in two
places in a very delicate, complex area of Indian law which is under
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. We have been working on
that area of law very carefully and over a number of years, and have
within sight, I believe, a solution to the problems which they seek to
address in this appropriations bill.
I went to the Committee on Rules last night asking them not to
protect these two breaches of rule XXI, but they would not give me that
protection, would not give the House that protection. Therefore, I
oppose this rule. I think this breach is an insult to the authorizing
committee, and it is really an affront to the Native Americans of this
country with whom we have worked closely on the Committee on Resources
to resolve their problems.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, my comments are very similar to several
speakers who have risen on the rule. I am very much in support of many
provisions in the bill, but the rule, unfortunately, specifically in
terms of not protecting two very significant issues on Everglades
restoration, I urge my colleagues to look, understand the rule, and
urge defeat of the rule for those very specific and unfortunate
nonprotection issues.
Those are the only two issues where points of order are not waived.
It was a very conscious, very specific decision that was made in the
Committee on Rules. Members need to understand the specifics about
what, and we are getting on some local, local issues. One of the
provisions which has been mentioned deals with the Department of
Interior representation in the process to determine literally how $8
billion is going to be spent. There is a real concern that that
component, without the Department of Interior's involvement, is going
to lead to results that this Congress does not want. If we pass the
rule, that provision will be taken out. There has been incredible
bipartisan support, people on both sides of the aisle have spoken
against the rule for this very reason.
In the State of Florida, all of the 23 Members of the House have
supported Everglades restoration efforts continuously at a legislative
level. When we have had Democratic governors, Republican governors,
candidates for President from both sides of the aisle have vigorously
supported this restoration process. But in the bowels of the
legislation to take out the Department of Interior really in a sense in
the dark of the night in a specific way would be very unfortunate and
would have the exact results that publicly no one has the guts to stand
up and articulate a reason for doing it because it is such an untenable
political position.
Mr. Speaker, there is a specific area called the 8\1/2\ square miles.
There are 60 homes in that area right now. It is in my district. Those
homes are probably going to have to be condemned. They are in the
middle of a floodplain. However it happened, this provision prevents
those homes from being condemned. They need to be condemned
[[Page H4718]]
for Everglades restoration. This provision prevents it, and can
actually prevent the entire project.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) who is, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
said, is going to be bringing forward his last appropriations bill
before he retires, and so I would like a great round of applause for
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. Speaker, this is, as was said so well by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), an open rule. There has been a lot of confusion
about this process, but I want to take a moment to go through a couple
of provisions raised by Members.
I oppose authorizing in appropriations bills. I do not believe it is
the right thing to do, but sometimes it is necessary. We in the
Committee on Rules have worked very diligently to ensure that we
address the prerogative of the authorizing committees when we proceed.
What that basically means is on rule XXI, which the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) just raised as an issue, if we have opposition
that comes from the chairman of the authorizing committee, we in fact
do not provide that waiver of rule XXI. So what we have done is we have
received a grand total of one letter, and I have it here someplace, and
it came from two committee chairmen raising concerns about legislating
in an appropriations bill, and it did not have to do with the Indian
provisions because under the open amendment process, any Member can
rise and strike those provisions that were included in the bill.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is here. He is chairman of the
Committee on Resources, and he did not choose to object on that issue.
So for that reason, we in fact did provide the protection; but a
striking amendment will still be in order.
The letter we did receive from the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen)
and from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) deals with the two
Everglades provisions. We found strong opposition from the authorizing
chairmen who have jurisdiction there. So what we did do, what we chose
to do was to make sure that those two issues could in fact be open to a
point of order and be stricken.
Now, I will tell Members that every Member of this House who serves
on an authorizing committee will, I believe, have some issue that they
hope that the Committee on Appropriations does not address, and they,
in working with their chairman, can get a letter that is sent to us to
ensure that that issue is addressed appropriately in the Committee on
Rules.
We have followed this pattern, which has worked very effectively on
both the Indian gaming issue and on the Everglades issue and other
concerns that were raised. So I will say to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) who raised some concerns, he has the right to
strike any provision that is in this bill, and he can offer an
amendment to do that. But as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
said, we have to proceed with the appropriations process. It is a
priority. It is a constitutional responsibility that we have to
appropriate the dollars to deal with our priorities.
I urge Members to support this open rule which is very fair,
addresses the concerns of both the authorizing committees and the
Committee on Appropriations. Let us pass the rule and pass the bill
itself. I urge Members to join with us in doing that.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. 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.
____________________