[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4720-H4762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2003

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

                              {time}  1717


                     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. 5093) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and a generous bill given our 
Nation's priorities since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. 
It provides $19.7 billion for fiscal year 2003. It increases funds for 
operating and maintaining our public lands. It increases funding for 
Everglades restoration, weatherization grants, and Native American 
programs.

[[Page H4721]]

  Funding for the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Fire Plan has 
been restored and funding for Payments in Lieu of Taxes and critical 
energy research has been increased.
  I want to thank the subcommittee members and the full committee 
members for their help in crafting this bill that balances many 
competing needs.
  With the help of my good friend and committee ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the bill maintained past 
commitments Congress has made on important environmental programs.
  The professional staff of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations once again has done a superb job on this 
bill. I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank Deborah 
Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, Chris Topik, Andria Oliver, 
and Bob Glasgow.
  Mike Stephens on the minority staff and Lesley Turner on the 
gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Dicks) personal staff have been a 
great help and great to work with.
  The personal staff of subcommittee members also have helped us get 
this bill to the floor.
  I want to extend a special thanks to Paul Ostrowski from my office 
and Jim Hughes, who left my office a short while ago to work at the 
Department of the Interior, where he will never be heard from again.
  This is the last bill that I will manage as a member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. I would like to thank all of the current members of 
the committee as well as the many former members with whom I have 
served over the past 18 years. I cannot begin to tell you how much your 
friendship has meant to me.
  I want to invite each and every one of you to come visit my district 
in New Mexico, with its great food and wonderful culture that go 
together and natural resources, as well as our famous Roswell aliens 
from outer space.
  From the Gila Cliff Dwellings to the White Sands Monument, from the 
Nation's first wilderness area to the Carlsbad Caverns, from the 
Roswell Alien Museum to the Bosque Del Apache Wildlife Refuge, from Old 
Mesilla, the capital of New Mexico-Arizona territory, to the Isleta 
Indian pueblo, and much more, we offer you an experience that you can 
find nowhere else.
  Vaya con Dios.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and everybody should 
be very thankful of that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge Members to vote for the 
Slaughter-Dicks, amendment which will be offered later today.
  The arts are an integral part of our Nation's heritage and the arts 
represent the treasures of our Nation. They help children learn. 
Through arts education, millions of our children enter a world where 
they discover music, drama, dance, as well as the visual arts.
  And the arts are not only important for cultural enrichment in the 
education of our children. From coast to coast, the arts are economic 
engines in our Nation's communities. The arts contribute $134 billion a 
year to our economy, according to a recent study. And in my hometown of 
St. Louis, the arts contribute almost $500 million to the local economy 
and are a source of employment for thousands of people.
  If this amendment passes, funding for the arts and humanities would 
be increased by just $15 million. That is a modest increase, but the 
benefits are huge. I think it is time, once and for all, to end the 
assault on funding the arts that we have seen over the past years.
  I hope today we can cast a bipartisan decisive vote. I hope we will 
send a strong signal. I hope we will demonstrate that the Congress is 
committed to enriching our culture and strengthening our education in 
our economy.
  Jack Kennedy said in 1962 that one of the ``fascinating challenges of 
these days'' is ``to further the appreciation of culture among all the 
people, to increase respect for the creative individual, to widen 
participation by all the processes and fulfillment of art.''
  Vote ``yes'' on this important amendment. Stand for the arts and 
stand for the future of our children and our families.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding to me this time.
  As I think most of us know, this will be the last bill that Chairman 
Skeen will present to this Congress before he enjoys his well-deserved 
retirement. I think that I can truly say that, of all the Members in 
this House, I do not know of anyone who is more respected and more 
loved by his colleagues. Those who support and endorse his work, and 
even those who disagree with his work, understand that Joe Skeen is a 
real statesman, a real gentleman, and someone we have come to learn and 
trust and respect and love over the years.
  Joe came to Congress under an unusual situation. He was elected as a 
write-in candidate. I do not know a lot of people who have come to 
Congress as a write-in candidate. It does not happen very often. But 
Joe Skeen was such an overwhelming personality and such a hard worker 
in his district that people understood and respected him.
  When our party became the majority party in Congress, Joe became the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on 
Appropriations. He did a really good job. He helped to create farm and 
agriculture packages that were workable and that were good for our 
farming communities.
  Since then, because of term limitations placed on chairmen, Joe 
became chairman of this Subcommittee on the Interior. Last year he 
produced an excellent outstanding interior bill; and this year once 
again Chairman Joe Skeen, along with his partner, the minority ranking 
member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), has produced a very 
good bill. It might not satisfy everybody. It might not be enough 
spending for some. It might be too much for others, but all in all it 
is a good bill. And it is a bill that should get a substantial vote in 
this House when we finally get to voting on the bill itself. And as we 
go through the amendment process, we will listen to what Chairman Skeen 
has to say because he is a strong leader on this issue.
  But my primary comments were not to be about the bill itself. They 
were to be about the chairman who produced the bill and the members of 
his subcommittee. He is just a very much-revered member of Congress. He 
is loved and respected in his own home district. I know it is not 
proper to speak directly to a Member on the floor; but, Joe, I will 
tell you that as chairman of the committee I will miss you. You have 
been a long-time friend. I could not respect you more than I do. And in 
the most sincere way, let me tell you that as a human being, I love 
you, Joe Skeen. You have been a tremendous, tremendous positive effect 
on this House of Representatives.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey), a very valued member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to add my thoughts to 
those that were just expressed on behalf of the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  It has been a great pleasure for me as a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations to serve under the chairmanship of Joe Skeen, first as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, and then second as the 
Subcommittee on the Interior. As I have said before on this floor, I 
have never met a more affable man than Joe Skeen. He is a delightful 
person and an absolute pleasure to work with. I am going to miss him 
very, very much.
  I also want to say that I strongly support the interior 
appropriations bill before us today and congratulate the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and their staffs for crafting 
this bipartisan bill that will help protect our natural and culture 
treasures.

[[Page H4722]]

  This is dramatic improvement over the administration's proposal. The 
administration's budget played a shell game with conservation, cutting 
funds from many important Federal accounts to make up an illusionary 
increase in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The President's request would have gutted programs protecting urban 
parks, wetlands, heritage and cultural preservation, water quality and 
forest research. I am grateful that our subcommittee rejected the 
administration's approach which would have prioritized resource 
exploitation over preservation, would have gutted the Federal 
Government's ability to protect and acquire nationally-significant 
lands, and would have abrogated the Federal responsibility to manage 
Federal lands by turning this responsibility over to private interests.

                              {time}  1730

  I am pleased that the Chairman's mark honors our commitment to 
conservation spending by providing the full $1.44 billion for the 
historic conservation programs established by this subcommittee 2 years 
ago, an increase of $117 billion or 9 percent over the current level.
  This program includes important funds for Federal land acquisition, 
urban and historic preservation, wetlands protection and State wildlife 
grants. I applaud the Chairman's efforts on behalf of our national 
parks.
  The bill before us today takes a step in the right direction to 
address the significant funding shortfalls facing our national parks, 
increasing the operating budget of the parks by $21 million above the 
administration's request. The bill restores cuts that were proposed to 
the Park Service's national heritage service area, and it fully 
restores the $30 million urban parks conservation fund which helps 
local communities meet urban recreation needs.
  The bill provides some much-needed direction to the Smithsonian 
related to executive pay and corporate contributions. In fiscal year 
2001, 70 percent of the Smithsonian's budget came from appropriated 
funds from this Congress. Only 5 percent of the Smithsonian's funding 
came from corporations. Unfortunately, while corporations are the 
smallest source of funding, for a price the Smithsonian is letting the 
corporations associate their names with this revered institution, and 
increasingly to have an influence on what displays are promoted. I urge 
the regents of the Smithsonian to reconsider this decision, as directed 
by the report, and correct their error.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, again to congratulate Joe Skeen on his service 
as chairman of this subcommittee, on his service on the Committee on 
Appropriations, on his service to the State of New Mexico and to the 
United States of America. It has been a great pleasure to serve with 
this gentleman.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula).
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this bill and point 
out that the chairman and the ranking member have done a superb job of 
dealing with something that is our Nation's jewels and that is our 
parklands.
  About a third of America that is public lands is fortunate to have 
the kind of leadership that Joe has brought to this assignment. Being a 
major landowner in New Mexico himself, he understands how vital land is 
to the health of a Nation and how vital these areas that we preserve 
are for all of the people.
  I particularly was pleased at the increase to the backlog maintenance 
account because that is a severe problem in our parks, forests and 
public lands, and we need to continue to work on reducing. We have the 
same problem with the Smithsonian.
  Also, I was pleased to note that he increased the conservation amount 
because, again, conservation is one of the ways that we can preserve 
these wonderful lands for future generations. I note, also, that there 
is a $96 million increase in the Everglades funding. Some of my 
colleagues might have heard me speak on the rule, and I opposed it for 
the reason that it gives a right to exercise a point of order that 
would take the Secretary of Interior out of the loop on the management 
of the Everglades. After all, the Everglades is a national park and 
deserves the leadership of the Secretary of Interior. The $96 million 
in this bill, added to $1 billion that has been appropriated so far by 
this subcommittee, makes it very clear that the Interior Department is 
a player. I hope that those who have the right to do this under the 
rule will not exercise the point of order on the bill that takes out 
the Secretary of Interior from a leadership role, along with the Corps 
of Engineers and the South Florida Water Conservation District.
  We will see how it plays out, but again, Joe, you have been a 
wonderful member of the subcommittee. We have served together for many, 
many years, and I will miss you. I hope you get rain out there as a 
reward when you get home because even Ohio is dry these days, and we 
have some sympathy for your problem of the absence of moisture. We will 
miss your insights and your leadership on this subcommittee. You bring 
it the firsthand knowledge of how vital all of this is to our Nation's 
future and to the preservation of this wonderful heritage we call our 
public lands, and we thank you for that great service that you have 
given us.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Let me simply say that, with respect to the bill, that I fully 
support it. I am especially pleased by the funding level for the new 
conservation trust fund, which is consistent with the agreement that 
was first worked out on that item 3 years ago when we converged with 
the Senate in conference. The result will be that it again will be 
fully funded, and that commitment will be honored.
  I would like to spend the remainder of the time simply discussing our 
good friend Joe Skeen. I said in committee and I want to say again 
publicly on the floor that many of us are familiar with Will Rogers' 
comment that he never met a man that he did not like. But as I said in 
committee, I do not believe there is ever a person who met Joe Skeen 
who did not like Joe Skeen.
  Joe Skeen has brought to this Chamber honesty, integrity, straight 
dealings with everyone in this institution. He has brought to this 
institution a love for the processes of democracy, and he has brought 
to this institution a fundamental decency which shows through in 
virtually everything that he does.
  After you serve in this place for a while, you get to understand what 
is behind the partisan label, what is behind the ideological label, and 
you can tell whether someone in this House puts their ideology first, 
puts their party label first, or puts their duty to this institution 
first. We can all be partisan, we can all be strongly ideological from 
time to time, but in the end, what this institution needs from each and 
every one of us is respect for the processes of this institution, 
respect for people who we work with every day, and a recognition that 
from time to time there is nothing wrong with trying to make the work a 
little bit easier for each other, and Joe Skeen has brought that 
attitude to this Chamber every day that I have known him.
  I am proud to have served with him as a colleague, and I am pleased 
to have had him as a friend. We wish you Godspeed, and I think it is 
fair to say that there is a great deal of love in this Chamber on the 
part of all of the Members directed to you, Joe, and I hope you 
recognize that.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank my good friend from New Mexico for the recognition 
and for all the work he has done in this House and the work that he has 
done on this bill.
  I appreciated the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and 
though from time to time we have disagreements, we are in unanimity for 
our affection toward the affection of the subcommittee and my neighbor 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise and come to the well for this time of general 
debate to make note of the fact that we have some differences in this, 
and indeed, there will be an amendment process,

[[Page H4723]]

but I felt it incumbent upon this Member, Mr. Chairman, to come to the 
well to offer my thinking overall in terms of this appropriations bill 
and to clear up any misconceptions that may have been reported by 
assumption and/or innuendo.
  The West has been ravaged by wildfire and the people of the 6th 
District of Arizona and the White Mountains have suffered the worst 
fire disaster in our history, hundreds of homes demolished, thousands 
of jobs lost. I thank my friend from Washington State for offering some 
changes that have been added here. In a bipartisan basis, this 
legislation deals with those challenges and problems.
  Mr. Chairman, in a perfect world, I would love to see it in an 
emergency supplemental, but there are several hurdles that may preclude 
that fact. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the efforts of the 
administration to offer reprogramming of funds, but I do not want to 
see fire suppression or further fire prevention jeopardized.
  As I look around this Chamber, I see my good friend from Michigan and 
others who share my concern for the rights of the first Americans, and 
there will be amendments we will offer to try and perfect some things 
that we have a disagreement on, but Mr. Chairman, for my people who 
have suffered, this legislation at the end of the day offers me help 
with that problem.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
State for the time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know, first of all, 
a couple of important facts.
  One, the statement of administration policy is here, and it states 
that they support the bill. It gets into the question of $700 million, 
and one of the things it says is, ``Nevertheless, should Congress seek 
to add additional contingent emergency funds for fiscal year 2002, the 
proper place for consideration of this funding is in the context of the 
pending emergency supplemental.''
  I am perfectly willing if the conference committee on the 
supplemental appropriations bill would take the $700 million. We could 
get it to the agencies faster than having it in the 2003 bill because I 
know the gentleman's concern is that the Forest Service and the BLM are 
running out of money. Yes, they can do transfers, but it means that all 
of their other programs suffer because of that.
  So we are trying to get this money out there, and I have never been 
so frustrated. Maybe somebody could tell Mr. Daniels that there is fire 
in the West and we need this help.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for the time.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing on the floor is the process 
at work to help solve the problems. I have sat down with the 
administration. We do need to have the funds, whether in this bill or 
via supplemental. I pledge to work with the gentleman. I appreciate the 
collaborative efforts here to solve a problem, and it is in that spirit 
I come to the well looking forward to the amendment process and 
ultimately getting the money to the people who need it most.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  First of all, I want to join those who have complimented our 
chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). He has done a 
great job as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, coming after 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) who was another outstanding 
chairman, and I would like to look back to the days of Sid Yates, who 
was also an outstanding chairman.
  We have had great leadership and great bipartisan cooperation on the 
Subcommittee on the Interior, and the chairman properly mentioned all 
the staff people. I just do not think we could have a better staff on 
both sides of the aisle than we do on the Subcommittee on the Interior. 
They work with all the Members. They listen to everybody's concerns. 
This truly is a bipartisan bill that deserves the support of this 
institution.
  I see the gentleman from Alaska, my good friend. I also want to 
mention that we are very pleased, for the third year in a row now we 
have fulfilled the commitment when we created the conservation trust 
fund a few years ago. When the other body would not enact the 
gentleman's legislation on CARA, we stepped in, and this year I want my 
good friend to know that we have taken the money from the original 2000 
account, about $680 million, we are up to $1.44 billion, and the whole, 
we put Commerce-Justice-State together with Interior, $1.92 billion. So 
we are keeping our commitment and living up to what we said that we 
would do in the days of CARA. So I am proud of that.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) worked on that. This has been a 
bipartisan effort. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was 
involved. This has been a bipartisan effort on creating this 
conservation trust fund that allows us to deal more appropriately with 
all of these problems.
  The other thing I am pleased about in this bill is an initiative that 
I took on dealing with the problem in the Northwest of culvert 
replacement.

                              {time}  1745

  The forest service and the BLM, have not been doing a good job in 
replacing culverts that block salmon, from being able to go up and down 
the Columbia River, up and down all the rivers in the Pacific 
Northwest. There are about 5,000 of these culverts that need to be 
replaced, and we have to start on that this year. This is a modest 
start, but one that I am proud of and that the committee responded to 
due to a GAO report in a hearing that we had on this issue this year.
  So I am pleased to be here to support this bill, and I want to also 
compliment the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), who has had an 
outstanding career, 22 years here. He has no enemies in this 
institution. He only has friends. And he will go back to New Mexico and 
enjoy the good life, as he deserves; but I want everyone to know that 
he has been a joy to work with. He has been a friend. We have traveled 
together, particularly on the Subcommittee on Defense, and I have 
really enjoyed working with him. We are going to miss you, but we are 
going to fight and get this bill passed.
  And I want to remind everybody on that side of the aisle, this bill 
is supported by the Bush administration, and I think that is important. 
They accept the level. They say they would like to have this trimmed or 
that trimmed to have money to add back into things they want, but they 
accept this bill. So I hope that the Members on the other side of the 
aisle will join us in a bipartisan spirit and get this bill passed 
tonight. I hope we can do it in a timely way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman; and as a member 
of the freshman class that we were part of, I want to pay tribute to 
you. God bless you, Joe, and your family. We are going to miss you, but 
we are going to stay in touch. You have been a good man. God bless, 
Joe.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment in here that is going to be 
offered to strike an amendment, which would, I believe, help Indians. 
Keep in mind that 80 percent of the Indians in the United States have 
received no money from gambling. None. None. Not one dime. Fifty 
percent of the gambling money has gone to 2 percent of the Indians. 
What are they afraid of?
  Among Indians, the poverty level is 26 percent, and yet they do not 
want a commission to look at it. Health care among Indians, stroke, 
lung cancer, breast cancer, suicide is the highest in the Nation; and 
yet they do not want to look at it. The death rates among Indians is 
higher in seven categories; alcoholism, 620 percent higher, and yet 
they do not want to look at it; TB, 533 percent higher, and they do not 
want to look at it; diabetes, 249 percent higher, and they do not want 
to look at it. And on and on and on.
  I would urge the defeat of the amendment that is going to be offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Arizona. My 
amendment to strike is a good amendment. There are people on the 
commission on both sides, those who are for gambling and

[[Page H4724]]

those who are against gambling. We have an opportunity to bring 
economic development, good housing, good health care, and good 
education for the Indians. I urge the defeat of the amendment if it is 
offered.
  If my colleagues really care about Indians, what are you afraid of? 
What are you afraid of, an 18 month commission to look back and make 
recommendations? What are you afraid of? Let us do something to help 
the Indians. Let us defeat their amendment and keep the language we 
have in the bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 
16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle).
  (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from New Mexico on a fine job of putting this appropriation 
bill together.
  As the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to 
report that this bill is consistent with the House concurrent 
resolution for the budget for fiscal year 2003, including the levels 
expressed in the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The levels of 
conservation-related spending in the bill are also consistent with the 
statutory caps.
  So I will support this appropriations bill, but I would like to share 
with my colleagues one concern and a warning about the process. The 
bill designates $700 million for emergency wildland fire suppression 
for 2002. We are all concerned about the wildfires that have destroyed 
lives and property in Arizona, Colorado and elsewhere. However, if the 
money is urgently needed to meet a current unanticipated emergency, the 
fiscal year 2002 supplemental is the more appropriate vehicle to pursue 
this objective; and I would urge that approach by my colleagues in the 
House, the other body, and the administration.
  Overall, I would also like to mention some concerns I have with the 
direction of the process for appropriations. While this bill is within 
its 302(b) allocation, it is approximately $700 million more than 
comparable levels in the President's budget. In addition, the 
Agriculture, Treasury Postal appropriation bills that we are expected 
to see on the floor later this week are also $700 million more than the 
President's request and our resolution.
  At this rate, we are going to have to reduce spending for VA-HUD, 
Commerce, State, and Justice and other appropriation bills by several 
billion dollars to comply with the budget resolution. I hope that 
Members of the Committee on Budget and the Committee on Appropriations, 
as well as colleagues on both sides of the aisle, will work together to 
pass the remaining bills at the levels that are sustainable through the 
entire appropriations process.
  We just heard a report today by the Office of Management and Budget 
on the midsession review for the budget and for the deficit that we are 
currently operating under. Spending restraint is the only way to get 
out of the dire circumstance that we find ourselves in. I urge our 
colleagues to continue to be responsible as we work through this 
process, and I urge support for this appropriations bill.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I first want to join all my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle in saying what a great chairman and a great Representative 
Joe Skeen has been. I have enjoyed working with him and serving on his 
Subcommittee on the Interior, as well as the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. I do not think a 
finer gentleman has ever been in the United States Congress.
  I was very glad that this committee, on a bipartisan basis, joined 
together to honor him with an appropriate tribute to him in the form of 
a visitor's center.
  I want to say also, Mr. Chairman, that this bill can be a very 
difficult bill because we are 435 independent type-A personalities in 
this body, with geographical differences, philosophical differences 
and, then provincial differences which can sometimes split us up. But 
this bill, in a final product, is cobbled together and is a 
kaleidoscope of philosophies and attempts to do a lot of difficult 
things with about a $19 billion budget, a budget which I will say, 
although is slightly higher, is only about 2 percent higher than the 
funding for last year. I wish we could hold the line on all Federal 
funding to that modest 2 percent increase. But we have Members on both 
sides of the aisle who have demanded more studies, more land 
acquisition, and more increases; and so that is one of the reasons why 
the bill is higher than last year.
  But this bill has good stuff for the National Park Service, catching 
us up on maintenance. It has money for firefighting, both for clearing 
out forests and putting more money in for emergency firefighting. There 
is money for energy research. At a time when we have a stalled bill in 
the other body that we cannot move forward, here is an opportunity to 
put a lot of the great research forward that we need in terms of our 
national energy policy. There is money for the first Americans, Native 
Americans, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have a lot more money 
for tribal health services and a lot of needed issues that they have. 
There is money for the PILT grants, payment in lieu of taxes, and 
something for our local governments.
  This bill has a lot of great stuff for our national environmental 
policy, and so I strongly support it and join my colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis to move it forward today.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is not very often in a body like 
this that we get to honor someone like Joe Skeen.
  I remember Mr. Natcher. I was a young freshman Member of Congress in 
the minority; and I was upset, like I am about the Wolf portion of this 
bill today that is a strike against Native Americans, and I was so 
upset I remember Bill Natcher said, ``Well, Duke, in Kentucky, we have 
horse races. And sometimes those horses come out of the block so fast 
that they break their legs and we have to shoot them.'' And he says, 
``If the gentleman will settle down, I will help him with his 
amendment.'' Bill Natcher was like that, and Joe Skeen is the same way. 
He is a gentleman, and he works in a bipartisan fashion. You will be 
missed here, Joe; but we will not forget you.
  I rise in support of the Hayworth amendment. There was a gentleman on 
the Republican side that offered an amendment in committee that was 
legislating on an appropriations bill. That is supposed to be against 
the rules, and yet the Committee on Rules protected his amendment. That 
is wrong. We stopped Members' amendments on the other side. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows and objects to legislating on 
an appropriations bill. We do it from time to time, but it does not 
make it right. And that is the fact with regard to this process.
  What we are doing as Republicans is adding a brand-new bureaucracy 
that oversees Indian gaming, when there has been report after report 
after report. This would be just another bureaucracy where a report is 
written that sits on a dusty shelf. Instead, let us take that money and 
put it toward Native American health care or education centers. We have 
been told there is only a 2 percent increase.
  Let us support the Hayworth amendment when it comes up and fight, for 
once, for Native Americans.

[[Page H4725]]

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time; but I also rise in tribute to Joe Skeen, who is a wonderful 
statesman, a very good friend, a man of integrity who worked across the 
aisle in the best interest of civility and in the best interest of the 
people of the United States of America. I salute you, Joe Skeen; and I 
hope that you, as a role model, will carry on through the rest of us in 
this House of Representatives.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of an 
amendment that is going to be offered to this bill. It is the 
Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella amendment, and it would increase 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million.
  As a long-time member of the Congressional Member Organization for 
the Arts, I really was not at all surprised by a recently released 
study which provides hard evidence that the arts improve critical 
skills in math, reading, language development, and writing.

                              {time}  1800

  The study, entitled Critical Links, shows that children who learn to 
use certain musical instruments develop spatial reasoning skills, which 
are necessary to understand and use mathematics.
  Additionally, another study reports that the nonprofit arts industry 
is a $134 billion economic engine, creating over 4 million jobs, $89 
billion in household income, $6.6 billion in local government tax 
revenues, $7 billion in State government tax revenues and $10 billion 
in Federal income tax revenues. That is quite a listing of revenue that 
is saved.
  The nonprofit arts, unlike most industries, leverage significant 
amounts of event-related spending by their audiences. Attendance at 
arts events generates related commerce for hotels, restaurants, parking 
garages and more. Statistics illustrate that the average person spends 
$22.87 at arts events which generates into an estimated $80 billion of 
valuable revenue for local merchants and their communities. The 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities support the creation and preservation of our Nation's 
artistic and cultural heritage, including learning opportunities for 
adults and children in communities across the country. I specifically 
want to mention local arts organizations in Montgomery County, Maryland 
which support over 800 full-time jobs, and last year alone generated 
over $15 million in household income and contributed over $1 million to 
State and local tax base.
  Mr. Chairman, public investment in the arts benefits our Nation and 
its citizenry. The Federal contribution of each U.S. taxpayer barely 
exceeds the cost of a single first class postage stamp. Funding for the 
arts recognizes and encourages artistic achievement and sustains our 
national tradition of excellence. Let us support this amendment. It is 
a sound investment in our Nation's cultural heritage, as well as our 
economic prosperity.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a strong supporter of this 
committee's activities.
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I stand to object to the proposed 
provision in the appropriations for 2003, the Interior appropriations 
bill, and I express my strong support to the amendment offered by our 
authorizing committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), and this is in reference to the establishment 
of a commission with reference to needs of Native Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not question Members' motives and wanting to 
give assistance to Native American Indians, but this provision goes too 
far. The provision will limit billions of dollars of claims against the 
Federal Government for mismanaging Indian trust funds by limiting the 
accounting from 1985 forward.
  Further, the provisions will presume the balances as of 1985 were 
correct, even though the government admits that money has been 
mismanaged for decades. The provision would overturn a central 
provision of the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act, 
legislation enacted in 1994 requiring the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide a full accounting. We have already expended over $20 million 
plus even trying to get an auditing report from the Department of 
Interior which they have failed to do.
  We owe the Native Americans. It is their money. We were the trustees, 
and we failed in that responsibility. I urge Members to support this 
proposed amendment that will be given at a later point by the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his work on this bill.
  In my home State of New Jersey, the most densely populated State of 
the Nation, the preservation of open space is a top public priority. 
That is why I am especially grateful to the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) and the members on the committee for supporting a number of 
our New Jersey priorities.
  At my request, this bill contains continued funding for the 
preservation of New Jersey's highlands, one of New Jersey's most 
threatened and important watersheds. This bill provides, through the 
gentleman's efforts, $6.3 million in critical funding for land 
purchases within this area. It also builds on our past successes at the 
Morristown National Historic Park and the Great Swamp National Wildlife 
Refuge. I thank the gentleman for his support and the committee's 
support for the New Jersey priorities.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, today we will complete work on the 
Interior Appropriations Act. I am pleased that this bill includes $6.3 
million for preservation of lands in the New Jersey Highlands region. 
This is great news for the residents of New Jersey. Preservation of the 
Highlands region is critical to our fight to maintain the quality of 
our ground and surface drinking water sources, to preserve open spaces 
and protect the wildlife.
  The Highlands region encompasses more than 2,000,000 acres extending 
from eastern Pennsylvania through New Jersey and New York to 
northwestern Connecticut. A wide diversity of significant rare and 
endangered plants, animals and ecosystems, as well as historical 
structures and developments, exist in this beautiful region. The 
Highlands also provides clean drinking water to over 11,000,000 people 
in metropolitan areas in all four states. Over half of New Jersey 
residents rely on drinking water from Highland sources.
  Continued federal funding for the Highlands is a big win for northern 
New Jersey. In northern New Jersey, an area of such dense population, 
we treasure our open spaces. The Highlands region is truly a natural--
and national--treasure, threatened by continuing development. This 
commitment from the federal government is an important step in the 
continued fight of our communities to protect these open spaces.
  The proposed funding of the New Jersey Highlands would allow for the 
purchase of additional land in the region, including designating $2.3 
million for the expansion of the Wallkill River National Wildlife 
Refuge. The people of the northern New Jersey will truly see the 
effects of these well-allocated federal funds.
  This is not only an accomplishment in the preservation of this 
beautiful land, but also in the protection of water sources for 3.5 
million New Jersey residents. Additionally, we are committing $5 
million for the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area for the 
preservation and restoration of historic buildings--many of which are 
in desperate need of repair.
  At times of extreme budget constraints, the House's action today 
underscores the national significance of these important regions. I 
would like to commend Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, a member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee, who worked hard to see that these federal 
dollars became a reality for the people of New Jersey.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment today to 
withhold funds from the Government of American Samoa to protest the 
treatment of one of my constituents.

[[Page H4726]]

  In January of 1997 a constituent of mine signed a special services 
employment contract with the government of American Samoa as Executive 
Director of the Centennial 2000 program.
  In August of 2000 he was informed by the Governor's office that his 
employment and contract had been terminated. As a result 
reimbursements, per diem, travel expenses, and salary were never fully 
paid under the terms of the contract. To date, he is still owed $87,942 
by the government of American Samoa for services rendered.
  I have pleaded with Governor Sunia to provide me with information 
necessary to make an independent judgment on my constituent's case. I 
have also requested that the Office of Insular Affairs withhold 
appropriate funds from the government of American Samoa until my 
constituent's claims are resolved. All my efforts to resolve this issue 
with the government of American Samoa have been unsuccessful.
  Mr. Chairman, I was hesitant to bring these amendments to the floor 
but I felt that the appropriations process may be my only avenue to 
resolve this issue. Earlier today I was pleased to learn that my 
constituent was given an appointment with Governor Sunia to discuss 
this issue. I hope that a reasonable and just solution will result from 
their meeting and for this reason I will not be offering my amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the Chairman of 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the 
Floor.
  This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints 
made the job of the Subcommittee much more difficult this year. 
Therefore, the Subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in 
creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these 
budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation 
to all the members of the Subcommittee and formally recognize that the 
Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 includes funding for 
several projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
  This Member is very pleased that the bill includes $400,000 from the 
U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Division for the establishment of a 
new fish and wildlife cooperative research unit at the University of 
Nebraska-Lincoln. This Member has requested funding for this 
cooperative research unit each year since 1990! The University of 
Nebraska and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission has already 
committed funds and facilities for the unit, but a Federal earmark of 
$400,000 is needed to make it a reality.
  Nebraska's strategic location presents several very special research 
opportunities, particularly relating to migratory birds. However, 
Nebraska is one of the few states without a fish and wildlife 
cooperative research unit within the state. Locating a cooperative 
research unit in Nebraska to develop useful information relating to 
these issues upon which to base critical management decisions is an 
urgent need.
  This Member is also pleased that Homestead National Monument of 
America receives $300,000 under this legislation to begin implementing 
the recommendations of the recently completed General Management Plan. 
This level of funding is needed for planning of a visitors center and 
for design of exhibits.
  Homestead National Monument of America commemorates the lives and 
accomplishments of all pioneers and the changes to the land and the 
people as a result of the Homestead Act of 1862, which is recognized as 
one of the most important laws in U.S. history. This Monument was 
authorized by legislation enacted in 1936. The fiscal year 1996 
Interior Appropriations legislation directed the National Park Service 
to complete a General Management Plan to begin planning for 
improvements at Homestead. The General Management Plan, which was 
completed last year, made recommendations for improvements that are 
needed to help ensure that Homestead is able to reach its full 
potential as a place where Americans can more effectively appreciate 
the Homestead Act and its effects upon the nation.

  Homestead National Monument of America is truly a unique treasure 
among the National Park Service jewels. The authorizing legislation 
makes it clear that Homestead was intended to have a special place 
among Park Service units. According to the original legislation:

       I shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to lay 
     out said land in a suitable and enduring manner so that the 
     same may be maintained as an appropriate monument to retain 
     for posterity a proper memorial emblematic of the hardships 
     and the pioneer life through which the early settlers passed 
     in the settlement, cultivation, and civilization of the great 
     West. It shall be his duty to erect suitable buildings to be 
     used as a museum in which shall be preserved literature 
     applying to such settlement and agricultural implements used 
     in bringing the western plains to its present state of high 
     civilization, and to use the said tract of land for such 
     other objects and purposes as in his judgment may perpetuate 
     the history of this country mainly developed by the homestead 
     law.

  Clearly, this authorizing legislation sets some lofty goals. I 
believe that the funding included in this bill will begin the process 
of realizing these goals.
  Also, this Member is most pleased that this bill contains an 
appropriation of $8,241,000 to complete construction of the replacement 
facility for the Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital located in 
Winnebago, Nebraska. It has certainly been a long process and this 
Member would like to thank the Subcommittee for its invaluable 
assistance over the years in obtaining funding for this new hospital, 
which is much needed and will greatly benefit Native Americans in 
Nebraska and the adjacent states of Iowa and South Dakota.
  Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the Chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for 
their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the 1st 
Congressional District.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and the amendment printed in House Report 107-
577 is adopted.
  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 read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5093

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), 
     $826,932,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,000,000 is for high priority projects which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act; of which $2,228,000 shall be available for 
     assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in Alaska 
     pursuant to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 
     3150); and of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be derived 
     from the special receipt account established by the Land and 
     Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     6a(i)); and of which $3,000,000 shall be available in fiscal 
     year 2003 subject to a match by at least an equal amount by 
     the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, to such Foundation 
     for cost-shared projects supporting conservation of Bureau 
     lands and such funds shall be advanced to the Foundation as a 
     lump sum grant without regard to when expenses are incurred; 
     in addition, $32,696,000 for Mining Law Administration 
     program operations, including the cost of administering the 
     mining claim fee program; to remain available until expended, 
     to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited 
     to this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to 
     result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $826,932,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, from communication site rental fees established by 
     the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site 
     activities: Provided, That appropriations herein made shall 
     not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, 
     wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its 
     contractors: Provided further, That of the amount provided, 
     $43,028,000 is for conservation spending category activities 
     pursuant to 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     discretionary spending limits.

[[Page H4727]]

                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Toomey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Toomey:
       On page 2, line 13, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(reduced by $162,254,000)''.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin this discussion with 
just a brief commendation of my own for the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) who has provided such a great service to his constituents, 
to his State, and to America for many, many years. I think it is 
appropriate and fitting that he was recognized for the outstanding work 
that he has done over many years.
  I am sure that very much of what is in this bill I would be happy to 
agree with. And let me start with recognition that the funds that are 
in here to fight the forest fires are an important topic for us to 
consider. First of all, there is no question this has been a 
devastating season for forest fires. It has been incredibly costly, and 
devastating to many Americans.
  The point I want to make is we should not be putting this into this 
bill, an appropriation bill for fiscal year 2003. We should be putting 
this into the supplemental bill, which is long overdue, which would 
make the funds available much sooner, whatever the appropriate amount 
is. That is what we ought to be doing with the firefighting, and I 
think some Members on the other side of the aisle and our side probably 
agree with that.
  But the bigger issue is the path that we are on, the path that this 
bill takes us down, in terms of overall spending. That is a path that 
will bust the budget that we adopted in this House, a budget which we 
later confirmed with a deeming resolution on this floor, and a budget 
that the President has indicated that he fully supports.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) I think very accurately 
agreed with my assessment. In his comments during the discussion of 
rule, he talked about the fact that the big bills, the bills that are 
in many ways more difficult to pass, they have been rather low-balled, 
certainly with respect to the President's request. Funds have been 
taken from them and added to these earlier bills, the bills like 
Interior and Agriculture and Treasury-Postal. By loading up these 
bills, he can probably pass them because bills are easier to pass with 
the more spending there is.
  But the problem is we will get to the end of this cycle, and we will 
find, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) observed, that we do 
not have the votes to pass those bills. Now the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I would probably disagree what we ought to do 
about this dilemma, but we agree that we have a fundamental dilemma 
here.
  I would suggest that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
confirm that he has a concern about this process, a concern that some 
of these smaller bills have been added to make them easier to pass, but 
making it harder to pass the final ones. I think this is a very serious 
concern.
  The fact is in recent years, spending has been out of control. The 
Federal Government has grown much faster than the rate of inflation, 
much faster than the rate of economic growth of our country. In fact, 
in recent years it has approached an average rate of 9 percent per 
year. When that happens, the Federal Government is squeezing out the 
private sector, it is undermining the performance of our economy, and 
it is very harmful for our future because now, sadly, it is also 
contributing to a deficit.
  We worked so hard for so many years to get this budget in balance, 
and we did it. We started paying down the debt. We did that, Mr. 
Chairman, by restraining spending. When spending is out of control, we 
will stay in deficits and go deeper in deficits. We learned just 
yesterday that we are now facing for fiscal year 2002 a budget deficit 
of about $165 billion. There is a reason for that. We are fighting a 
war. We have got a war that is extremely costly. We have to rebuild the 
defense capabilities of our Nation from years of neglect. We need to 
put a lot of money into defense. That is appropriate.
  We also have vulnerabilities here. We have vulnerabilities to future 
terrorist attacks, and we need to spend money to enhance ourselves to 
defend ourselves against those attacks, or to respond, God forbid, if 
they should occur.
  These are big expenses, and we have to accept them. It is all the 
more reason that we have to tighten our belts in the other areas so we 
can get back to the budget surpluses that we want to return to. If we 
keep spending too much money, we will never get there. The reason we 
are in the dilemma we are in today, we have built the spending base up 
too high, and now we are adding to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment that simply says let us 
take a management fund, funds that are used to pay salaries and other 
administrative costs for the Bureau of Land Management, and let us 
reduce that back down to the level it would be at today if only we had 
grown spending on this account since 1996 at the rate of inflation. In 
other words, if we said the rate of inflation is an appropriate 
spending increase each and every year, we would be at the level that I 
am proposing in my amendment. Instead, we are much higher than that in 
the underlying bill. My amendment would have the effect of reducing 
spending by $162,254,000, bringing us that much closer to getting this 
budget in balance and getting back to the surpluses that we ought to 
return to.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Land Management is the last well-funded 
land managing agency in this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. 
First of all, this amendment would cut $162 million. It is a 20 percent 
reduction, $149 million below the President's budget request. Remember, 
the President of the United States in his statement of administration 
policy says he supports this bill.
  It would cut $6.8 million from wildlife and fisheries, $21.4 million 
from energy development, $19 million from transportation on Federal 
lands, $15 million from resource protection.
  As our former colleague, Silvio Conte, would say, this is nothing but 
a meat-ax approach by Members who have not read the bill, and their 
only possible course is to do across-the-board cuts rather than make 
specific cuts.
  I rise in opposition, and I urge that we vote down the amendment and 
move along.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I have a holding 
here. It is called the Arizona Media Advisory, sent out by the 
Committee on Appropriations to my home State. As Members know, Arizona 
has lost about 450,000 acres to fire over the past month.

                              {time}  1815

  What this media advisory says, and I will not mention the other names 
included in there, ``Representative Flake Works to Slash Firefighting 
Funds.''
  We all know why the firefighting funds were put in there. It was to 
silence people from the West who have opposition to the runaway 
spending in this bill. This was sent out to the media in Arizona hoping 
that that would silence me and others who had opposition to the higher 
spending in this bill. Well, it will not. I think it is a horrible 
thing, and it is dirty politics at its worst to do this kind of thing; 
but let me say for the record that we have suffered a huge loss in 
Arizona. There is need for funding to fight fires. That ought to be 
handled in a supplemental appropriation bill, not here. Those funds 
will be needed now, not later.
  This bill, if we look at the last 4 years, the soonest it has been 
passed, I believe, is October 4, or October 21. The latest is November. 
So if this money is not going to be available, anyway, why are we doing 
it now? The answer is simple. It is to silence those who want to stand 
up and say that we are engaging in runaway spending.
  I appreciated the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
earlier. He hit the nail right on the head. What we are doing here is 
we are plussing up, porking up the early bills after defense and 
military construction. We see here from the chart we are well above the 
President's request on these three; but lo and behold, when we

[[Page H4728]]

get to the end of the appropriation trail, then we are well below. Does 
anybody think for a minute that these bills at the end of the process 
can even get out of committee? The gentleman from Wisconsin does not 
believe so on the minority side and neither do I. I do not think that 
anybody in this body reasonably believes that those bills can actually 
get out of committee, let alone pass on the floor.
  And so what we are participating in here is a charade. We passed a 
budget, and as Republicans we ought to stick to it. We know that if we 
engage and we go forward with this bill, we will not be able to stick 
to that budget. That is the objection I have, and that is why I am 
supporting this amendment, and we ought to support every amendment that 
would bring the level of spending down so that we can actually get back 
to the budget that we passed, get back out of deficit spending, get 
back to surpluses and get back to doing what we ought to do here.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Does the chart have 
to be taken down when the person who speaks is no longer speaking?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Indiana is not using that chart, 
then it should be taken down. The gentleman from Indiana can use that 
chart if he so chooses.
  Mr. DICKS. Is the gentleman from Indiana using the chart?
  Mr. PENCE. Yes.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to clarify my 
chart usage. We likely, Mr. Chairman, will see this chart frequently 
tonight as we have conversation one with another about fiscal 
responsibility.
  Let me begin tonight by joining so many others in commending Chairman 
Skeen, whose integrity, whose career, whose commitment to public 
service represents a gold standard in the House of Representatives. I 
am honored to be able to say that I have served here for a time with 
him.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not about challenging either the chairman or any 
member of this committee on either side of the aisle's sincerity in 
attempting to address the needs of this Nation in this important 
legislation. It is more, Mr. Chairman, in this amendment and in other 
amendments that will very likely be offered before the evening is out, 
before we may well be into the morning hours tomorrow, it is more about 
trying to live within our means.
  The administration just recently this week indicated that if we will 
control spending, read that line within the budget that was adopted by 
resolution in this House, that we can return to surpluses within the 
next 2 years. That is a remarkable observation and assertion, Mr. 
Chairman. To think that we have passed through recession, through an 
attack on our Nation and through war and yet if we will but tighten our 
belts in this institution and live up to that which we have committed 
ourselves to in the budget, that we can return to surpluses within the 
next 2 years. The analysis indicates, however, that if we continue to 
increase spending at 5 percent-plus a year, enact a prescription drug 
bill that I supported and many of us supported as necessary in this 
time and concurrent receipts for veterans, both of which have passed 
the House, that we will be in deficit for 9 out of the next 10 years. 
This is the contemporary analysis of the administration and experts in 
this community.
  This amendment simply makes an attempt to reduce the budget for the 
Bureau of Land Management to the 1996 level, plus inflation. The 
current projection is a 24 percent increase. I would simply argue that 
this is not the time for us to respond to the impulse of generosity in 
the appropriations process. Rather, now is the time for us to recognize 
the time of national duress that is truly upon us.
  And so I rise tonight in support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania. I will continue so long as my energy holds out to 
rise into the evening and to rise into the morning and maybe into the 
daylight tomorrow to stand for the simple principle that if you owe 
debts, pay debts, that government ought to live within its means just 
like every American, like those in Anderson, Indiana, families today 
who maybe face, some 700 in number, losing their jobs at the Delphi 
plant in these uncertain economic times. Now is not the time for us to 
live beyond our means.
  And so I will apply myself to this process and trust that my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will see the sincerity of our 
purpose and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I first would like to open my comments with my thoughts of Chairman 
Skeen. He is an absolute gentleman. He is the epitome of what a 
legislator ought to be. I have had two staff people that worked for him 
for a number of years, and they have shared with me so many times what 
a wonderful man he was to work with and how well he trained them. I 
thank the gentleman for allowing me to have two of his ex-staff people 
who served me very well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to oppose this amendment. The interior 
bill is the one bill in Congress that invests in rural America. Rural 
America. I represent the most rural district east of the Mississippi. 
Everybody thinks that when you invest in rural America, you are talking 
about agriculture. That is true. But agriculture only impacts 10 
percent of rural Americans. Ninety percent of rural Americans are not 
involved in agriculture. So this bill and the 100 amendments or so that 
have been drafted is cutting rural America. Rural America is 
economically struggling. The national parks, very much a part of rural 
America's economy, manage 90 million acres. The forest service manages 
192 million acres. The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 85 million 
acres. The Bureau of Land Management, which this amendment goes to, 
manages 262 million acres and makes those properties available to the 
American public so the American public can enjoy nature, can enjoy 
recreation and can enjoy the natural resources that come from there.
  This bill deals with the special responsibility we have to Native 
Americans, our Indians. This bill deals with energy R&D and our future. 
The economy of this country depends on the future of energy and how we 
use it wisely and what alternative energies we come to. This is what 
this bill will fund. This bill finally, not completely, but funds PILT 
more fairly. That is Payment in Lieu of Taxes. All this land I 
mentioned, we have never paid our taxes to the local governments, to 
the local people. This bill funds the geological service that does 
natural resource science for America. The Smithsonian Institution. This 
is the bill that deals with rural America.
  We are going tonight to be hit with dozens and dozens of amendments 
taking a cut out of rural America. I will rise to oppose them, because 
rural America needs a break. Rural America needs to be treated more 
fairly. This is the one bill, one of two, agriculture and interior, 
that deal with rural America that is being targeted for these cuts that 
I think is unfair. It is not well thought out; $162 million out of 
management of one agency is not well thought out.
  For that reason, I oppose this amendment. I urge those offering it to 
think more clearly about the impact they will have on the part of 
America that is struggling the most economically, rural America.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Twice now the House has voted to set an overall discretionary 
spending level of $748 billion for fiscal year 2003. As we begin the 
appropriations process, we begin to put in place the pieces that will 
enable us to either hit that target or to miss that target.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Does the gentleman want this 
chart?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, is this coming out of my time?
  The CHAIRMAN. No.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. This is not coming out of my time? Yes.
  Mr. DICKS. Could we see it? We cannot even see it over here.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We were pointing it over here so our colleagues could 
see it more, but we would be more than willing to have you see it as 
well.

[[Page H4729]]

  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman. We wanted to make sure we could see 
it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I would also like to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his tremendous service to 
the House, to the people of his district and to his State. He is a 
great colleague and has done tremendous work here and I think has done 
tremendous work on the Committee on Appropriations.
  As we take a look at putting the pieces together for these 13 
appropriations bills, we see that the House has put a marker out there 
of $748 billion. The other body has yet to pass a budget. President 
Bush has endorsed the House-spending level and indicated in numerous 
speeches that he will use his veto if necessary to enforce the House 
discretionary spending level. Why is this important? It is important 
because this year we are back in deficit. What we really want to do is 
we want to move back into surplus as quickly as possible. The House 
spending level that we have approved is almost identical to President 
Bush's fiscal year 2003 request. Any increase above the President's 
request in one bill will need to be offset by a decrease in another 
bill.
  As we take a look at the schedule for this week, we see that three 
out of the first four bills that have been reported from appropriations 
are going to be above the President's request. The interior bill today 
is $775 million above the request. That does not include the $700 
million in emergency firefighting. Treasury-Postal is $538 million 
above the request. The agriculture bill is $550 million above the 
request. The legislative branch looks like it will be reported out at 
the President's requested level. Collectively, these bills then are 
about $1.8 billion above the President's request.
  If we are going to plus-up these early bills, it means that at the 
later end of the process, we are going to have to have reductions in 
some very difficult bills. Is this House ready for a $400 million-plus 
reduction from the President's request for Commerce-Justice-State? Are 
we ready for a $1.8 billion reduction from the request for Veterans, 
HUD and FEMA? These bills are currently scheduled to move at the end of 
the appropriations process. If we are going to be cutting from the 
President's request, which is going to be a very difficult process, 
those should be the bills that we move first to show that we are 
disciplined and we are willing to make those choices. If the House 
passes the first appropriations bills at levels significantly above the 
request, I think then we will be forced at the end of the process to 
break the bank to pass the veterans, HUD and FEMA bill at levels 
significantly higher than what the Committee on Appropriations might 
otherwise report them here.

                              {time}  1830

  We need to get back to surplus. We need to get back to surplus, and 
one of the ways, the most direct way that we can do this through this 
body is by controlling spending. That is 100 percent within our 
control. We should lower these bills to the President's request, or we 
should move the other bills first to show that we have the discipline 
to pass spending bills that are below the President's request.
  This bill is about $1 billion above last year, a more than 5 percent 
increase. That is more than twice the rate of inflation. The Committee 
bill is $775 million above the President's request. If we had held over 
the last 8 years' spending on this bill at roughly the rate of 
inflation, this bill would be 30 percent smaller than what we see 
today.
  The administration has also clearly indicated that the best way to 
get back to surplus is to control spending. We cannot continue to 
increase spending at 5 plus percent per year. If we increase spending 
at that kind of level, it is unlikely that we will be back in surplus 
any time soon.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I certainly believe 
that the intent of the amendment is a good one, and I certainly 
appreciate the debate and the opportunity to debate what funding levels 
are appropriate and what funding levels are not appropriate.
  The Bureau of Land Management account, however, is 1.5 percent above 
last year's limit. I would love to serve in the House of 
Representatives and look at each and every government agency and say 
that the level of funding is only 1.5 percent higher than it was last 
year. Frankly, I would like to see a lot of these agencies a lot less 
than that, and not just a reduction in the increase, but a cut in last 
year's level. But this is about a $14 million level above the 
administration's request.
  Now, why is that the case, Mr. Chairman? Why is not a flat level 
funded? I will say this, that if we look inside of this, much of this 
is driven by House Member requests and by the Secretary of the 
Interior.
  For example, included in this was the oil and gas development money 
in the Powder River Basin in Idaho and in Montana. Also, the National 
Petroleum Reserve, the Challenge Cost Share programs, all at the 
request of the Secretary and a number of our western Members that have 
a particular concern in these particular accounts.
  Just to give an example of why some of this money is needed, the land 
management plans now are obsolete. They have to be redone by the 
Secretary of the Interior. Why do we have to have a good land 
management plan? Because if we do not have an up-to-date, current plan, 
we cannot issue new permits. Remember, the purpose of a lot of these 
public lands is not just recreational, but actually commercial, and 
leasing is very important. Leasing for timber harvests, leasing for 
grazing permits, leasing for oil and gas. All of that cannot be 
permitted until we have good land management plans.
  So right now, what is happening is that the Secretary of the Interior 
is getting sued because environmental groups and groups who are not 
really concerned about the land, but more concerned about the 
encroachment of that evil free enterprise system which seems to be a 
problem with many members of our society today, this allows a balance 
between protecting the land on the Federal ledger and yet allowing the 
private enterprise to utilize this land, which was the original intent.
  We have lots of land in America that is locked up and cannot be used 
for any purpose except for wilderness, and some of that not even for 
recreational purposes. This land, though, is not in that category. But 
to be able to permit the full public utilization of it, we have to have 
a good land management plan. So this particular amendment would make it 
very difficult to have a good land management plan. For that reason, 
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against it.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem we are faced with is that the House has 
twice voted to set an overall discretionary spending level at $748 
billion for fiscal year 2003. The Senate has yet to pass a budget, and 
that should give us all great concern. President Bush has endorsed the 
House spending level and indicated in numerous speeches that he will 
use his veto, if necessary, to enforce the House discretionary spending 
levels. Because the House spending level is nearly identical to 
President Bush's fiscal year 2003 request, any increase above the 
request will need to be offset by a decrease in another spending bill.
  Three of the four nondefense bills reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations are significantly above the President's request. The 
Interior bill is $775 million over the request. The Treasury bill is 
$538 million, the agriculture bill is $550 million, and the fourth bill 
is the only one that really meets the requested level.
  Collectively, these bills add up to $1.8 billion above the request. 
We have to have the money from some place. In order to pay for the 
increased spending in these and other bills, the committee is proposing 
a $400 million reduction in the President's request for Commerce, 
Justice, and State, and a $1.8 billion reduction for the request of the 
Veterans, HUD, and FEMA bill, and I do not think that is right.
  If the House passes the first appropriations bills at levels 
significantly above the request, then we will be forced at the end to 
either break the budget or pass a Veterans, HUD and FEMA bill at levels 
significantly below the request.

[[Page H4730]]

  Should the House pass the bills that are below that request before 
passing any bill above the request, we will have a problem later with 
the budget, and I think it is important that we show fiscal discipline 
and do so at the very outset instead of waiting until later.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen), a wonderful man, a gentleman, a great Westerner. I grew up in 
rural America and he has the values of rural America, and so do I. So 
it will be a loss to the House, but all he has done to help parks and 
help the Forest Service is something that he can be very proud of, and 
we can be proud because of all of the leadership he provided.
  Mr. Chairman, a few hours from now, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) will describe the benefits of the arts to our national 
economy and to our local communities. The arts contribute in many ways 
to our Nation's economic prosperity. This is well documented in an 
economic impact study from the Georgia Institute of Technology. The 
study provides a compelling argument for increased Federal funding for 
our cultural agencies, the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment of the Humanities.
  The proposed fiscal year 2003 budget provides a nominal increase for 
agency administrative costs, but no new funds for local projects. We 
can do better than that. An increase in funding for the arts would come 
with economic rewards for the entire country. Nonprivate arts groups 
generate $134 billion in economic activity every year. That is in both 
rural and urban America. They generate $10.5 billion in Federal income 
tax revenues. That is a phenomenal return on the taxpayers' investment. 
Investment in the arts also is an investment in our children's future. 
I was one who was brought up on a farm, and I still will feel there.
  The Arts Education Partnership recently published a study called 
Critical Links. This important study provides solid evidence that arts 
education helps students master other critical subjects, including 
math, reading, language development, and writing. The study also shows 
that arts education helps academic achievement in young children, 
students from low-income communities, and those who are falling behind.
  Last year, President Bush set the example when he signed a bill, the 
No Child Left Behind Act. This landmark legislation recognizes the arts 
as one of the core subjects that all schools should teach.
  Learning is not limited to the classroom. The NEA and the NEH help 
bring the arts and cultural programs to millions of Americans, both 
rural and urban, including children, every year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join us later this evening in 
supporting this amendment to increase funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as one of the most conservative members of the 
Committee on Appropriations, I rise in support of the bill and in 
opposition to the amendment. I do rise to commend the author of the 
amendment and the team of budget hawks that have assembled to begin the 
process that will last through the year at trying to hold the line on 
spending, because I do share that goal and think it is important, 
particularly in times of deficit spending; again, that we attempt to 
rein in the growth of government and strive for a more efficient and 
effective government.
  However, I say today as a member of this subcommittee for the past 6 
years, this is unfortunate that the process begins on this bill to try 
to rein in spending when this bill was very carefully put together, 
with extreme caution and, really, the motives on this bill to cut 
spending would run counter to fiscal responsibility in many regards.
  For instance, would it be wise as a homeowner to allow the shingles 
to fall off of the roof of his home? It is not frugal, or it is not 
responsible to do that. I can tell my colleagues, if they want to go to 
the authorization committee and debate whether or not the Federal 
Government should own one-third of the land in America, go do that, but 
the truth is we do own, the Federal Government, one-third of the lands 
in America.
  If my colleagues want to travel, as we have traveled, and go to the 
parks and go to the forests and go to the BLM and see the buildings, 
see the infrastructure, see the $14 billion backlog that we have on 
taking care of what we own, my colleagues will know that frugal, 
responsible leadership warrants investing in maintaining what we have. 
If my colleagues want to go fight the fight on not having so much, do 
that, but that is not done here.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman on a 
very thoughtful statement, to remind those people who have spoken 
earlier, if there is no money, if the BLM is cut by $162 million, then 
there is not going to be money for them to borrow to fight the fires; 
these accounts in the BLM, the money that is borrowed that is used to 
fight the fires. So if that money is taken away in a meat ax approach 
like this, then they are not going to have that.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is absolutely right about the 
maintenance. We have to maintain these parks, these facilities, et 
cetera. It has been a high priority of this committee to do a good job 
on that and we have increased the money for the maintenance. We still 
have, as the gentleman points out, this long backlog.
  So a meat ax approach is not going to solve this problem. The 
gentleman should remind his colleagues that the President supports this 
bill and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget supports this 
bill. So what is the problem?
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we also have had previous 
speakers talk about how twice the House has passed a budget resolution, 
and we have already heard the Committee on the Budget chairman speak in 
support of this bill. But I can also tell my colleagues that a few 
months ago, the House was overwhelmingly in support of the CARA bill 
which would have effectively tripled the spending in this bill, and if 
it were not for the good work, stewardship, and careful crafting of a 
compromise by this subcommittee, there would be an influx of spending 
on automatic entitlement payments on conservation and resource-type 
issues, and we struck a compromise and a balance.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that requires our stewardship. This is 
what Speaker Gingrich called the best subcommittee in the House, 
because we fund our public lands and these investments.
  Let me also tell my colleagues that in a bipartisan way, I am the Co-
Chairman of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Caucus in this 
House.

                              {time}  1845

  We have half the House that belongs. We have many Members from the 
conservative Republican faction that have written us saying, invest in 
energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. I fought for an 
increase in those programs. If we are going to wean ourselves off of 
reliance on Middle Eastern oil, Mr. Chairman, we have to invest in 
alternatives. We have to invest in conservation and energy efficiency 
technologies.
  We are going to fight too many more wars at a huge cost if we do not 
make ourselves energy-independent. That is what this bill funds. We 
cannot have it both ways. We need to invest in America. This bill 
invests in America. It is carefully crafted.
  I would encourage those who want to cut $162 million out of this bill 
to be specific where they want to cut it. If it is fires, that has to 
be an emergency. We would love to put it in the supplemental, but the 
administration, our President from our party, has said no, it belongs 
in the 2003 bill and we cannot get it in the supplemental. Either way 
is fine with the committee, but we cannot do it that way, so it is very 
essential that we move this bill forward.
  We are going to slug it out here on the floor for a few hours. At the 
end of the day, though, this is one of those bills that comes from the 
Committee on Appropriations that needs to pass in very close to its 
current form. It is a puzzle putting it together to make sure

[[Page H4731]]

that we balance the stewardship needs of the Federal Government. We 
have done just that.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for some very important 
remarks. I appreciate the work of the Committee very much. I am sure 
everything in this bill is important and could be useful.
  But as all of us know, this country is going through very difficult 
times; difficult with our economy, difficult with enemies all around 
the world. There are many priorities.
  As we go through this appropriations process, it is very important 
that we look at our priorities and look at the means that we have to 
accomplish them, and make sure that we make the tough decisions now, 
rather than later.
  We know that we need additional money to fight the war, to build our 
military, to equip our soldiers, and to pay them. That is going to cost 
more money.
  We know that our Social Security system, which is a very important 
promise to our seniors, that must be kept, and we must begin the debate 
on how we can improve and guarantee that Social Security is always 
there.
  But we know with this budget this year that we are already spending 
money that is coming in for Social Security, and we need to scrutinize 
every dollar that we spend to make sure that we do not spend the Social 
Security surplus unnecessarily.
  Across the country, we see devastation with the problems with health 
care and the cuts at the Federal level with Medicaid, and we look at 
our own Medicare system and see that it is going to become increasingly 
difficult to fund it. Seniors all across the country are being turned 
away from physicians who no longer take Medicare because we do not pay 
enough.
  We have to scrutinize this budget. We cannot continue to spend and to 
grow the government and make new promises when there are promises that 
we have made to seniors, as well as the promises we have made to other 
citizens, such as the children of this country in our education plan, 
because we have promised more money to education from the Federal 
level, new promises.
  In this bill this year we are making new promises that we are going 
to have to keep out of money that we do not have. I rise in support of 
this amendment because it looks closely at this Interior bill, looks at 
the management area, not cutting any programs, but just makes a small 
cut. If we continue this process throughout appropriations, then maybe 
we can save the money that we need to keep the promises that we have 
already made, and not make new promises to folks when we cannot keep 
the promises and do not have the money to do it.
  I do support the amendment, and I urge all of my fellow Members to do 
the same.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I would say to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), I want to 
commend him on the excellent legislation that he has brought before the 
House floor. I wanted to bring to the gentleman's attention an energy 
research program which I believe holds great promise.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the chairman. I note, Mr. Chairman, that the 
chairman of the subcommittee has included increases in the bill for 
fuel cell research.
  There is a program in this area which I believe has tremendous 
potential. I am specifically referring to technologies to investigate 
and encourage power management systems, which facilitate the 
application of fuel cells to reduce peak electricity demand.
  This so-called peak shaving, through the use of fuel cell technology, 
has the potential to reduce costly utility excess capacity 
requirements, minimize local conflicts related to transmission capacity 
upgrades, and provide emergency standby power for law enforcement, 
fire, and rescue, as well as other emergency response operations.
  Over the past few years, fuel cell technology has experienced steady 
progress toward commercial reality. However, work remains to be done. 
Mr. Chairman, research into fuel cell technology for peak shaving is 
needed to demonstrate the extent to which fuel cells can provide 
essential power for emergency operations facilities, for homeland 
defense, and provide cost savings to reduce peak electricity demand in 
other operations.
  Mr. Chairman, would this type of program qualify for funding under 
the budget recommendations in the Interior bill?
  Mr. SKEEN. If the gentlewoman will yield further, as the gentlewoman 
knows, Mr. Chairman, the energy research program in the Interior bill 
is awarded through a competitive procurement process, and this program 
certainly sounds like it is worthy of consideration. It is a process by 
the Department of Energy.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. How can we have colloquies 
going on when there is an amendment being considered? Is there not an 
amendment still being considered by the House?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is an amendment pending before the House.
  Mr. DICKS. Should we not be debating that amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair waits for someone to raise a point of order 
on the question of relevancy.
  Mr. DICKS. I make a point of order that we not have any colloquies; 
that we address this amendment, and we vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman engaging in a colloquy has already 
yielded back her time.
  Mr. DICKS. That is fine. I object to any future ones.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will keep that in mind.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. I am speaking on the amendment at hand.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a bigger issue that is at play 
tonight with the bringing of this appropriations bill to the floor; 
that is, our budget resolution is unraveling before us.
  The reason we set budget resolutions in Congress is so that we make 
the entire Federal budget fit into a comprehensive plan. When we wrote 
the budget resolution earlier this spring, we had a budget surplus. Now 
we see, as of a few days ago, we have a budget deficit, but we are 
still moving with that budget resolution, hopefully. But as we see this 
appropriations process unravel, it looks as though this budget 
resolution will even be broken.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am very much enlightened by the comments by the 
senior delegation member from my own State who I know to be a man that 
not always is in agreement with me, and I do not always agree with him, 
but I know he is a straight-shooter and I know he usually calls it like 
he sees it.
  Earlier, under consideration of the rule, this senior member of the 
Committee on Appropriations basically laid out the following scenario. 
He said what the leadership plans to do is to take the easier-to-pass 
bills, raise the levels of spending on that, and then do so at the 
expense of lowering spending on other more difficult-to-pass pieces of 
legislation.
  What this will end up doing is breaking the budget resolution, 
breaking any fiscal discipline we have in place for this fiscal year 
for this Congress.
  This is a problem, Mr. Chairman. This is a problem because, quite 
simply, we have a budget deficit now on our hands. We are at war. We 
are trying to fix the problems in our homeland, so our priorities ought 
to be a line such as this: Win the war on terrorism, give the troops 
what they need, win the war on our homeland security, fix those 
vulnerabilities that we have here in the country, make sure that our 
domestic infrastructure is prepared for terrorist attacks.
  But when it comes to fixing the budget deficit, we realize those are 
the areas we cannot go to. We need to hold the line on domestic 
spending. That

[[Page H4732]]

means we need to have some budget discipline here in this body. But by 
moving forward with the appropriations process that we are engaging in 
this evening, and for the rest of the next few months this year, we are 
unraveling the very process that has a little bit of discipline left in 
it to try and get our hands around this budget deficit.
  If we do not fix this budget deficit, Social Security will be dipped 
into for years. If we do not fix this budget deficit, we are going to 
see problems in the stock market. The markets are watching this body. 
The markets are watching to see if we have corporate accountability 
legislation passing, as we just did today; the markets are watching to 
see if there is accountability in accounting standards; but the markets 
are also watching to see if we have budget discipline. If Congress 
shows no discipline in balancing its budget, the markets are going to 
react in a way we are not going to like.
  Mr. Chairman, our constituents are seeing their 401(k)s cut in half, 
they are seeing the market volatility take place in affecting their 
very livelihoods. This Congress can do a lot to reinstill confidence in 
our government, in our fiscal balance sheet, and in the stock market 
and the markets by making a stride for fiscal discipline.
  That means taking this bill and the entire process and retooling it 
so that we actually do meet our budget resolution, a bill we have 
passed twice just this year through the House of Representatives. We 
did it once, we deemed it again, and we need to make sure that this 
budget resolution holds, that we do not break the ceiling on spending.
  I am afraid the process we have right now is doing just that. That is 
why I urge passage of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I thank the 
chairman of the committee for indulging me.
  I do want to say one last point: They do a good job. The gentlemen 
are all here working hard, and I know that this is tough work. But I 
also know that the American people are watching, and that they want to 
see this budget deficit dealt with. They want to see fiscal discipline 
here in Congress.
  We know how to make it happen, and we know how to make sure that it 
does not happen. I suggest we do more actions to make sure it does 
happen.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I feel inclined 
to do this at this time. I listened to my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who is my friend, and I have said many times on 
the floor I believe in years to come he will become one of our very 
strong leaders. He is right to want fiscal discipline in the Congress. 
Congress should not be spending any more money than is needed.
  But I have to disagree with some of the comments that he made. For 
example, he said the appropriations process has unraveled. On the 
contrary, the appropriations process is one of the few processes in 
this Congress that has not unraveled. The appropriations process works.
  Look at some of the others. Why is it that appropriators are asked to 
include nonappropriations issues on appropriations bills? Because the 
other processes are not working, we are asked to do a lot of things 
that are not even appropriations matters. The appropriations process 
has not unraveled, not at all.
  Let me tell the Members what has unraveled: The budget process that 
the gentleman seems to like so much has totally unraveled. We do not 
have a budget process, I will say to my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. There is no budget process in this Congress.
  Here is the way it is supposed to work. Under the law, the House 
should pass a budget resolution. We did that. The Senate should pass a 
budget resolution. They did not do that; but nevertheless, they are 
supposed to. Then the two houses come together and we decide on what 
the top number is for the budget, referred to as a 302(a) number. That 
did not happen this year.
  The House deemed, then, a budget resolution. But let me tell the 
Members what this budget resolution does when the Senate does not have 
the same top number.
  How do I reconcile appropriations bills with my colleagues in the 
other body if their top number is $9 billion higher than the House 
number? How do I force them down? Well, we try. On the supplemental we 
are working on, we have brought the Senate down almost to the House 
number that we passed. There are still some differences there, but we 
did bring them down. But it is very difficult if we do not have the 
same top number. So the budget process broke down.
  And now about Social Security and fiscal discipline.

                              {time}  1900

  Spending, Mr. Chairman, spending is spending. Whether it is spending 
by a discretionary appropriations bill or whether it is spending by 
back-door spending, through mandated entitlement programs or mandatory 
programs. A dollar being spent as a mandated program, or back-door 
spending, if you will, is the same, as a dollar appropriated by the 
Congress.
  Congress earlier this year approved an agriculture bill. That bill 
increased the baseline for agriculture by $90 billion. Ninety billion, 
I would say to my friend from Wisconsin, spread over a 10-year period. 
Actually, it was supposed to be spread over a 6-year period, but it 
looked like it was less by doing it over a 10-year period. My friend 
from Wisconsin feels worried about Social Security, and I applaud him 
for that. I am too because I represent a lot of people on Social 
Security. But I voted against that farm bill because it provided a $90 
billion increase over the baseline.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin, who just spoke talking about fiscal and 
budget discipline, voted for the $90 billion increase over the 
baseline.
  Now, we have got to be consistent in this House. If you are for 
spending, then vote to spend. If you are against spending, then vote 
not to spend; but do not stand up here after having voted for a very 
large increase in back-door spending and then criticize a small amount 
of money in a discretionary bill.
  I am opposed to this amendment, and I hope the House will come down 
in large numbers to oppose this amendment. The gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has worked hard to get this bill in balance, to make 
it a good bill. We can show you reasons why the BLM could use 
additional money, but we do not have additional money; and so we are 
not going to recommend it to the House. I hope the House will give us 
an overwhelming vote against this amendment.
  We will not let this appropriations process unravel, and I know there 
are some that would like to see that happen. I read some comments in 
some of the in-house news media bout how some people are going to 
disrupt totally the appropriations process. One of the few 
constitutional requirements and obligations that Congress has is the 
appropriations process, the power of the purse. Nobody else has the 
right to spend money for this Federal Government except the Congress of 
the United States, and we are going to protect that constitutional 
responsibility. We are going to keep the oath of office that we took to 
protect the Constitution. Stick with us on this bill. Vote down this 
amendment. It is not a good amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my grandfather used to be in town politics and county 
politics for about 30 years. And one of the things that he always told 
me is that the most dangerous thing you could do in politics is to 
believe your own baloney. And I think the problem that we have in this 
House is that there are a number of people who are so enamored of their 
own baloney that they do not even recognize it is baloney, and let me 
explain what I mean.
  I appreciate the kind personal comments that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin made about this gentleman from Wisconsin. But I think we need 
to fairly analyze why it is that we have people with their noses out of 
joint tonight. We have a group of people in this House (and I do not 
attack them for it, I am simply stating fact), we have a group of 
people in this House who honestly believe that they can maintain the 
fiction that somehow the budget resolution which passed this House is a 
real instrument in divided government. It is not.
  And the problem we face is that when you start the budget process 
with an erroneous initial set of assumptions,

[[Page H4733]]

then everything that happens after that point is a colossal waste of 
time. And so because we started with a budget resolution, which for the 
third year in a row makes an unrealistic assumption about what in the 
end the collective judgment of people on both sides of the aisle is 
going to be with respect to the budget, we wind up starting from a 
false base to begin with. And now you have a number of people in this 
House who are upset because we will not stick to that false base.
  Now, the previous gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who spoke has 
me confused because he talks about the Committee on Appropriations 
unraveling the budget process. I would say that if he wants to look to 
a committee that has unraveled the process, he ought to start with his 
own committee. Our committee operates in an unusually bipartisan 
fashion. We do not agree on everything, but we often resolve our 
differences. We had some major differences on this bill which we 
resolved.
  In contrast, my observation is that the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the other side of the financial ledger, is so polarized that they often 
are barely speaking to each other. And the products that they bring to 
the floor demonstrate that as well. Because those products have 
essentially said that over the next 10 years we are going to spend $1.7 
trillion on tax reductions, and that is going to come largely out of 
borrowed money.
  Now, I happen to think that tax cuts in the short term make sense 
because if the economy is sagging, you need to give the economy a 
kicker. And I do not think there is anything wrong with in the short 
run having some stimulus in the tax side as well as the spending side. 
But the problem with the markets is that they are looking at the long-
term result of that decision, and that $1.7 trillion in lost revenue 
over the next 10 years makes the differences on appropriations bills 
appear to be minuscule by comparison.
  Does anybody really think the budget is going to be balanced if this 
amendment is passed tonight? Come on, give me a break.
  The other thing I would point out is that I am, frankly, a little 
baffled because I have one gentleman from Wisconsin on that side of the 
aisle say we are going to spend too much money; and yet we are noticed 
by another gentleman from Wisconsin on that side of the aisle that he 
is going to ask us to spend more money on a program that is important 
to him and to me, Chronic Wasting Disease. Now he has an offset for 
that amendment, and I congratulate him for it; but the problem is that 
offset is going to be met with bipartisan opposition because the 
program that is being cut means as much to the folks who want that 
program as the program that the other gentleman from Wisconsin wants to 
see money added to, the Chronic Wasting Disease for the deer herd and 
the elk herd means to us.
  So the Committee on Appropriations has committed the unpardonable sin 
of bringing to the House floor a realistic document which represents 
our best professional judgment on a bipartisan basis.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, our best professional judgment about what the 
realistic level is that Members want to see provided in this bill.
  Now, we may have been on point. We may have missed it a little bit. 
Who knows? Nobody is perfect. But the fact is that I think the problem 
we have here is that on that side of the aisle there are a number of 
people who resent the fact that the Committee on Appropriations in the 
end has to deliver a reality message to both sides of the Capitol and 
both parties, and that is what this bill is attempting to do.
  If people think it is wrong, then they ought to vote for this 
amendment. If they think we have made a reasonable effort to get 
through the week and move the process forward, then they ought to vote 
it down. I hope they vote it down.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Before I speak on the amendment, with the permission of the 
subcommittee ranking member and the chairman of that committee, I want 
to make a couple comments on Joe Skeen.
  Joe is a hero of American agriculture; and that is when I got to know 
him, doing the excellent job on the Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Agriculture. Joe first ran for Congress as a write-in 
candidate. Amazing. And most of us are politically aware enough that we 
know that that is an almost impossible task at local government, let 
alone for the United States Congress.
  Joe served in the Navy. He was a graduate from Texas A&M, a farmer, a 
sheep rancher on a 15,000-acre-plus operation. Joe, maybe it has gotten 
bigger since I read the 15,000. At age 33, he was one of the youngest 
State senators in New Mexico. Later he ran for Governor, and lost by 1 
percent point.
  Joe, I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve with you. So my 
best compliment to you and your family.
  Now, on the amendment, my nose probably is out of joint on 
overspending. Some of us in desperation do not know exactly what to do 
to try to reduce the tendency to spend a lot of money to try to please 
the Senate. Sometimes we say it is to please the other side of the 
aisle. So when an amendment comes forth to save $162 million, it 
influences what I came here to Congress to do, and that is to keep 
Social Security solvent. I introduced my first Social Security bill the 
first year that I entered Congress and every session since. Each has 
been scored to keep Social Security solvent.
  So if this amendment saves some money and if this appropriations bill 
is the start of overspending, it has been my experience throughout my 
9\1/2\ years in Congress that we pass a budget which may be irrelevant 
in terms of controlling spending. Obviously, if you look at the number 
of times that the budget numbers have prevailed, it is irrelevant 
because we never stick to it. But what happens is in the Committee on 
Appropriations when we come up with the 302(b)'s, the first bills that 
we pass and put before this Chamber are easy to pass because there is 
something in it for everybody. And so we pass the early bills that are 
somewhat popular, somewhat overspending and then we end up with the 
tough bills later on for veterans, for education; with an appropriation 
level that is so low, so below anybody's request that you have to 
increase the amount--overspend the budget, and you come up busting the 
budget.
  Look, Republicans have done a bad job in terms of holding down 
spending. Sometimes we blame it on Democrats. Sometimes we blame it on 
the Senate. But somehow, someplace, somewhere we have to do the cutting 
that is tough.
  Let me give you the statistic from the Heritage Foundation. Most of 
the benefits of government go to a population that pays less than 1 
percent of the income tax. So we are evolving into a society where most 
of our constituents say, well, a little more spending and a little more 
help from government is good, because a lot of those constituents do 
not pay their equivalent share of the income taxes. That is because we 
have made the income tax so progressive.
  This chart represents the biggest financial problem that government 
is facing, and that is where we are going on the future of Social 
Security. It is an entitlement program. We have made the promise. We 
have made the commitment. People have gauged their savings and their 
lives for their retirement to include what they are going to be getting 
from Social Security. We are moving into an era of spending frenzy that 
will lead us to a time when we will not be able to pay those benefits.
  So I say, every chance we have, let us grit our teeth and let us come 
up with the courage we need to do what is right and that is to reduce 
spending and not dig ourselves into a kind of hole where we are forced 
to overspend in the last two or three appropriations bills.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when I go back to my district in Maine and I try to 
explain what goes on in the people's House, I try to explain that only 
in this House, as contrasted with my constituents' houses, do we talk 
about revenues and

[[Page H4734]]

expenditures at different times, and it is as if they were completely 
disconnected from each other. And I think in some places I should tape 
this discussion on the proposed amendment and send it back to the 
people in Maine and say, this is what I am talking about, because I 
rise in opposition to the amendment. But what I have heard tonight 
calls for fiscal discipline, calls for being tough on spending, not one 
mention of the revenue side.
  If I went to a businessman, businesswoman in Maine and they said to 
me, Here is my plan for next year: I am going to reduce my revenues, 
reduce my sales significantly by discontinuing a product line, but I am 
going to increase my expenses dramatically by spending more on staff, 
and I know that we will be in deficit for the next year and the year 
after that, but I have a plan.

                              {time}  1915

  The plan is I am going to borrow money from my children in order to 
get me through the next few years. There is not a businessman, a 
businesswoman in the State of Maine that would think that is the right 
approach. They would say go back and take another look.
  Sure, take a look at the spending, but in this House, at this moment 
in our history, we have some serious security and defense expenditures 
that we all agree on.
  The alternative is to go back and take a look at our revenues, and 
last year, when the rallying cry in this House from those who supported 
the President's tax cut was it is not the government's money, it is 
your money, there were those of us who said, wait a minute, we can 
support a tax cut of an appropriate size but not one that uses all of 
the non-Social Security surplus for the next 6 or 7 years.
  Today, and what we see when taxes are discussed in the House here at 
other times, it is always that we have to make permanent the damage 
that was done last year. The urge to make permanent the tax cuts is a 
determination to make sure that people earning $1 million a year, $1 
million a year, will be able to enjoy an average tax cut of $53,000 
every single year. That $53,000 is more than 60 percent of what the 
American people make in a year.
  All I am asking, Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side is if we 
are going to talk about fiscal discipline, if we are going to talk 
about balanced budgets, if we are going to worry about the spending of 
the Social Security surplus, the least we should do is what every 
American family who is fiscally responsible does when they sit down to 
do their family budget and every responsible American businessman or 
businesswoman does when they sit down and do their budget for their 
company. They look at revenues and expenditures together and they say 
what is the right balance, how can we do this in a responsible way.
  I submit that this House will never do its budgeting in a responsible 
way if it does not look at revenues and expenditures together. We are 
not doing that tonight. It is irresponsible not to do it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point is that, what is it, 67 percent of 
the budget is entitlements. We are talking about one-third of the 
budget, when we look at discretionary spending, a significant part of 
that is defense. A significant part of it is HHS with very crucial and 
sensitive programs.
  I just hope that the same zeal and vigor will be applied by the 
people who are bringing us the Agriculture bill with that big 
expenditure that just went through this House of Representatives and 
when they look at tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. 
But to come after these bills that have been worked out on a bipartisan 
basis, that restrains spending, we can go through this exercise, but we 
all know what this is about.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would say, you have a few 
people here posing for holy pictures, that is what this is all about. I 
would hope that we would quit wasting the committee's time and move 
forward and vote on this amendment and defeat it like it should be 
defeated.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I align myself with the comments of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say as a person who has been here for 7 years, 
been through the 1995 period where we did not pass appropriations 
bills, 1996 we went through the process of not passing appropriations 
bills at the end of the process, we ended up spending more money than 
anybody wanted. So these 13 bills are bills we have to pass, and I 
think the point that is being tried to being made by many of us on the 
committee who worked through all this and do not like it exactly the 
way it is, but realize that there are votes on this side of the aisle 
and there are votes on that side of the aisle, and there are 
perspectives that differ broadly among the constituencies that are 
represented in this Congress, in this House.
  We cannot pass a bill out of the committee if we do not have the 
votes. We cannot pass a bill out of the subcommittee or the full 
committee if we do not have the votes, and if they do not have the 
votes and they do not pass the bill, then what happens is that at the 
end of the process we get a bigger bill, we get an omnibus bill because 
we have to fund the Federal Government, whether we want to or not. We 
have to fund the Federal Government.
  This attempt in this bill is an attempt to be balanced, to be fair. 
Is it too much in some accounts, too little in others? Probably so. 
Does it frustrate us from time to time? I am from the West. I wish we 
had less money for certain things and more money for others to make 
sure we can manage ourselves in the West, but I tell my colleagues, we 
have worked diligently.
  This chairman has worked his heart out. Our full committee chairman, 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), everybody is working hard to make this balance so we can 
get a bill out of committee, get a bill out of the full committee and 
then pass it and hopefully have the President sign it.
  I caution my colleagues who are using this tactic to slow down this 
process. We get the message. We understand it. We are going to have to 
deal with it, but I think if we pass no appropriations bills other than 
the ones we have, we are in for a mighty difficult time at the end of 
the process as we pass nothing and we end up getting a bigger bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we want to go back to the 
days of massive continuing resolutions where this House has not even 
had a chance to exercise its goodwill and judgment on these individual 
bills. That is where the real mischief can occur.
  These bills are responsible. We ought to deal with them, each one of 
them. That is the most effective thing we can do, fight amongst 
ourselves, get the best numbers that we can. But to go straight to 
continuing resolutions puts the power in just a handful of people, and 
this House, and its views on spending issues will be completely 
ignored.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's point.
  My colleagues had to have been here because if we look at what 
happened in the wee hours of the day and night, with my own leadership 
and the leadership on the other side sort of sticking things in and 
taking things out and putting things in nobody really knew about, we 
ended up with a massive omnibus package that is not in the best 
interests of our constituents, of the House or anybody else, and 
frankly, let me say, I do not think it is in the best interests of our 
constituents to sort of delay this process, to frustrate the process, 
to obstruct the process. In the final analysis, it is something that 
probably is going to be worse than we all are looking at today.
  So, again, I come at this as conservative as anybody else, but I am 
sitting in the room working on these bills and trying to figure out how 
to balance them, and that is what the chairman has done, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
and others, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.

[[Page H4735]]

Obey) and Mr. Dicks. We are not all on the same page, but we have got a 
package that we think makes some sense, trying to get it through the 
process and work through and get 13 appropriations bills signed and 
into law and fund the Federal Government to the extent that a majority 
of the Members of the House and Senate and the President feel should be 
funded.
  So I just say let us vote on the bill, on this amendment. Let us 
either defeat it or pass it, but I urge my colleagues, move the process 
along. Let us get through this system, get this bill passed and move on 
to the next one, and we will have more attempts, more opportunities to 
craft a bill, but we have to get through this first step first, and I 
think that is what we ought to be doing and moving along and respecting 
the chairman of the subcommittee and all of the people who have worked 
so hard to make this right.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I thank the Chair for allowing me these 5 minutes to speak on this, 
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) certainly raises 
some very good points here, and ones that we as the fiscal conservative 
group, that some, a renegade group as we have been branded here, 
suggested have discussed that, and we certainly do not want that type 
of an omnibus bill where the shenanigans take place where there are so 
many riders and additional spending that gets thrown in and it is 
thrown up at 9 o'clock in the morning and voted on at 10 o'clock in the 
morning, like what happened in my first year here with the smaller 
omnibus bill. I voted no on that one, just as I would vote no on any 
new one.
  Still, it just frustrates me that those of us that are sincerely 
frustrated with the increased spending, especially at a time of 
decreasing revenues, are somehow branded as intellectually dishonest by 
the other gentleman from Washington, or somehow I forget the name that 
he called us, but the fact of the matter is that I am sincerely worried 
about the type of spending that we are engaging in; that I came here 
because I wanted to restrain spending; that I felt that that was 
important to our children's future; that we were taking out a credit 
card and passing the bill to our children.
  The other gentleman from Maine had a very sincere discussion about 
family budgets and that at times the family budgets need restraint, and 
the businesses, a person certainly would not take away revenues and 
criticizing those of us, including me, and I am proud of the tax votes 
that we have taken because I think empowering families and allowing 
them to keep more of their own money, especially at a time of an 
economic downturn, is just simple, common sense, good economic family 
policy.
  We have to adopt in coordination with a tax-cutting policy fiscal 
restraint. Certainly, most every family has to live on a budget, even 
we in Congress, even though I get a lot of e-mails suggesting 
otherwise. We have to live on a budget, and if my revenues are running 
short, that means we take less trips to Target, and I am not apologetic 
that I stand up here and support amendments to decrease our trips to 
Target because that is what we are doing.
  This Interior bill is $950 million over last year's spending, $775 
million over what the President had suggested. All we are standing up 
here and doing is asking for a little bit of fiscal restraint on 
particularly these types of items. This amendment that I rise in favor 
of reduces the Bureau of Land Management's land and resources to 
$664,678,000. It just simply takes $162 billion out of it. It just 
reduces it by a small percent. What we are trying to do here is find 
little bits of money here and there so at the totality of this bill, we 
bring it down or maybe even below last year's spending level.
  That is just the purpose here. It is not as malicious as the 
gentleman from Washington suggests.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for 
a question.
  Does the gentleman realize that that BLM increase is 1\1/2\ percent 
over last year? I am from the West. I know what the challenges are in 
environmental advocacy out in the West and some of the Federal lands 
that are subject to being under BLM authority. I know it is just 
numbers, but there is an impact on the ground that comes from the 
gentleman's amendment and the comments that he has made.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as I understand it, was not a 
dramatic spending increase, but, as the gentleman from Maine suggested, 
that we have other priorities such as defense spending, national 
security, and he is absolutely right, and I think all of us in the 
House share those priorities. So it becomes a time where if we want to 
have the secondary goal of saving money, where do we cut?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Young of Florida, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Terry was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question. If 
he would explain to me and to our colleagues in the House the 
difference in discretionary spending and mandatory spending, back-door 
spending in effect, and compare that to this amendment versus the farm 
bill that the gentleman voted for and that spends $90 billion over the 
baseline. If he could just explain the difference, explain the 
consistencies or inconsistencies.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I assume that is more of a rhetorical 
question to put me on the spot for voting for a farm bill, and I am 
anxious to see the Agriculture appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1930

  But I will admit to the gentleman, coming from the State of Nebraska, 
that I will have leanings towards securing, especially in a time when 
we are in a severe drought and I have already been told that for the 
State of Nebraska, from the gentleman's committee and the White House, 
not to expect any disaster relief; that we will have to find it within 
the budget. I am glad to do that. I am glad to take those type, instead 
of going off-budget like we had done when Texas certainly needed 
disaster relief. I am willing to take our money out of that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, I commend 
the gentleman for that, for being realistic about the needs. But what 
is the difference in the mandatory dollar versus the discretionary 
dollar? It seems to me they are both the same. They are both spending.
  Mr. TERRY. Well, granted.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I also very much appreciate the hard work that has gone on in trying 
to put all these numbers together and the long hours and the sincere 
efforts that have been made by everybody. I suppose I am a little 
concerned that maybe people worked about $775 million too long on it, 
and that is what I wanted to try to talk about just briefly.
  My concern is to try to put this thing into perspective. I understand 
the long hours that are spent, but perhaps the result of that is to 
take us a little too close to the trees to see the forest. The concern 
I have is that when I was just a little 2-year-old and we had an 
average family in this country, mom and dad and just two little kids, 
and dad would go off and earn a dollar at work, at the end of the time 
he had earned that dollar, three pennies of the dollar was spent on 
direct taxation, Federal, State, and local. All added together, three 
cents on the dollar.
  Five years ago, that three cents had jumped to 38 cents. Mom and dad, 
two kids, with dad earning a dollar, 38 cents on the dollar goes to 
direct taxation. That is more than the average family pays for food, 
clothing, and shelter combined. My question is: Are we perhaps buying 
too much government?
  The nation of Rome collapsed, apparently, with a 25 percent tax rate. 
We are talking about direct taxation on our families of 38 cents, and 
that was 5 years ago. So the question we have before us tonight is 
really how much government can we afford?
  I think the first thing is to try to put that into perspective and to 
say, well,

[[Page H4736]]

what then is the state of our economy? If our economy is robust and 
thriving, then perhaps we can afford a little more government. But it 
does not seem to me that that is the case. In fact, there seems to be a 
great deal of jitters and concern about the condition of our economy.
  So if we go ahead and ask people who have made a life study of 
economics, as we did, we had a conference call with all kinds of 
different people who are experts on the economy and asked them what it 
is Congress can do. We have these things we call economic stimulus 
packages. We pull a magic lever and somehow the economy is supposed to 
take off like a jet. What exactly is it we can do? These economists 
told us we only have two things we can do. The first thing is we can 
cut taxes. And if we cut taxes, it is not going to do a hoot of good if 
we do not follow it with the second thing we have to do, which is to 
cut spending.
  I think that is what the concern is here. We are talking about too 
much spending. And I understand that there are priorities. I understand 
there are things we have to fund. But the bottom line is we have to 
take a look at the big picture. We have gone from three cents to 38 
cents just in my own lifetime. I am not quite dead yet. And so the 
question is, can we continue to buy more and more and more government? 
That is the concern here.
  It is not only this amendment, which makes an honest effort to try to 
reduce some of this $775 million, but the overall question is just how 
much can our constituents afford? How many of the people, those little 
families, that instead of spending three pennies when dad goes to work, 
are now carrying more government than food and clothing and shelter 
combined? I think that this amendment is at least a step in the right 
direction to try to move us toward cutting that, cutting that $775 
million.
  I do not pretend to be an expert on the details of it, but certainly 
we have to say something eventually to the point of where are we going 
to draw the line.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentleman say he is 
not an expert on the details of the request, that he just wants to cut 
money. And I appreciate that and understand that, and I respect the 
point of view of the gentleman. But the budget request that the 
President sent up, and by the way the President supports this bill, the 
administration has already said they support this bill, the interior 
appropriations bill. So it is not the President that is against this; 
it is Members of the House.
  The budget request cut PILT funding, Payment in Lieu of Taxes. We 
have the Western Caucus, of which I am a member, who went nuts. That 
hits our small counties out in the Northwest and the western States. So 
that is $65 million. The science and water programs of the U.S. 
Geological Survey, two-thirds of those requests were from Republicans 
to restore U.S. Geological Survey money, $61 million. The national fire 
plan. We have the Western Governors Association and the National 
Governors' Association and the Western Caucus that want that in.
  So it is important what is in the details. It is not just money; it 
is not just the big number. It is what is in the details. I challenge 
the gentleman to look at these and to say where he does not like them.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  To the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) I want to say thank you for the 
leadership that you provide.
  The reason I came down tonight, and to my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), is simply because I am extremely concerned 
about the next generation's future, quite frankly. I have been coming 
to the floor for the last 3 weeks. I have written to Secretary O'Neill 
and to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), because in the report 
from the Secretary of Treasury, Secretary O'Neill, the ``2001 Financial 
Report of the United States Government,'' they acknowledge in this 
report that we have lost $17.3 billion of the American people's money. 
I would hope somebody in this House, both Democrat and Republican, 
would join me in asking Mr. O'Neill where is $17.3 billion of the 
American people's money.
  Certainly I must say to my good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen), who is a good friend, that certainly many of my colleagues did 
not realize this, and I want to be very honest about it, I did not 
either until the July 4 break listening to a talk show host in Raleigh, 
North Carolina, reading a New York Post article and chastising the 
American Government and the Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury 
for reporting that we had lost $17.3 billion. So I came down here 
tonight to speak on behalf of this amendment simply because I am 
concerned about the next generation's future.
  We all hope that we do the right things when we are here on the floor 
of the House voting. But I really think about the way we are going with 
increased spending. And I was a former Democrat, by the way, who joined 
the Republican Party in 1993 because I believed that my party, quite 
frankly, would do the best job of holding down the growth of 
government. That has not happened yet, and I am somewhat surprised and 
disappointed. But as we continue to expand the Federal Government and 
the spending of the Federal Government, what we are doing to the next 
generation is that by the year 2012 or 2015 we are going to be asking 
the next generation and those who are working that we need to increase 
their Federal taxes by 20 to 25 percent, 20 to 25 percent.
  To everybody on this floor tonight, staff as well as Members, you 
know what you are paying in taxes. Think about the working people of 
this country who are making $30,000, $40,000 a year, maybe $50,000 
trying to raise their children and take care of their family. Think 
about their taxes. That is what we do when we increase the spending of 
the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that, again, there is a whole lot in this 
bill that I do like and I do support. But, again, when we expand the 
spending over what was requested, then that is when we have sincerely, 
I think, an obligation to the American people. Yes, we pay our taxes. 
We all work hard. I am always back home in my district, when I go into 
a school, I praise every Member of the United States House of 
Representatives, liberal or conservative; and I praise the staff, and I 
talk about how hard they work and how they do what they think is right 
for the American people. I believe that sincerely. But I will say that 
if we, in a bipartisan way, do not work to hold down the growth of 
government, then when our grandchildren, when many of us, not George 
and Tom, but when many of us are in our 70s and 80s, we will have our 
children who are trying to raise our grandchildren say to us, how in 
the world could you serve in the Congress and we are having to pay 35 
and 40 percent in taxes?
  This is just the beginning of the appropriation process; and, Mr. 
Chairman, I will yield to you because I did support you on the military 
issues, but let me say to you that all of us are guilty, including 
myself, of not doing a better job of holding down the growth of this 
Federal Government. And I hope that we will work together, and whether 
we agree on every issue, we can work together to do a better job.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that, 
and I do not want to be combative about this, but I am looking for an 
explanation. I want to ask the same question that I asked of the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). What is the difference in back-
door spending dollars versus the discretionary spending dollars?
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and 
since the chairman asked the question of the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Terry), if I might, the one thing about the farm bill is it was 
consistent with the budget resolution. This is not.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H4737]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise tonight to support this amendment, 
but, more importantly, to begin to raise the issue and the 
consciousness of this Congress about what has been happening in this 
Congress for the last 3 or 4 years.
  Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and a number of 
us came here in 1994, and we were very serious about balancing the 
Federal budget. We were serious about controlling the growth in 
discretionary spending. And every time we passed an emergency 
supplemental bill, for the benefit of some of the Members who have come 
here in subsequent years, when we passed an emergency supplemental 
bill, there was an offset. And as a result, we balanced the budget in 4 
consecutive years. We paid down over $450 billion worth of publicly 
held debt. And that was the right thing to do.
  Now, last year, after September 11, and because of the slowdown of 
the economy, we have begun to slip back into deficits. But we have a 
chance, as we go through this appropriation process, to begin to get 
the ship of state headed back in the right direction.
  Now, I regret, I want to say to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) and all the members of the Subcommittee on Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations that it just so happens that his bill is 
the first out of the chute, because I know that he does good work, and 
there are a lot of important things for all kinds of constituencies in 
this bill. But the question we ought to all ask ourselves is this: Why 
should the Federal budget grow at a rate of twice that of the average 
family budget?
  The average family budget in America today is growing a little more 
than 3 percent. Discretionary spending, and I will be happy to talk to 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but discretionary 
spending is going to grow this year, unless we get serious about 
controlling that growth rate, by more than 7 percent. Now, at a time 
when the average family budget is growing 3 percent, discretionary 
spending is 7 percent.
  The question is: How much is enough? When are we going to say enough 
is enough? Because, my colleagues, if we stay on the path we are on 
right now, and last week the House passed what is very important 
legislation as regards prescription drug coverage, but if we look at 
the charts that have been prepared by the Republican study committee, 
with that bill and with the continuing growth in discretionary spending 
in this budget and the next, we are going to be looking at $250 billion 
deficits as far as the eye can see. Now, that is not what the American 
people sent us here to do.
  So, unfortunately, we have to begin to stand and draw a line in the 
sand and say, enough is enough. And unfortunately, it happens to be 
that this is the first bill. What this amendment does, as I understand 
it, we simply go back to what we agreed to back in 1996, where we said 
we are going to adjust this account to what the spending would be if 
that account had gone up every year at the rate of inflation.

                              {time}  1945

  Now, do not talk to us about draconian cuts. We are saying let us go 
back to what we thought we agreed to in 1995, 1996 and 1997 when this 
Congress was serious about balancing the budget.
  There was a Pepsi commercial a few years ago that said life is a 
series of choices. What we do on the floor of this House every day is a 
series of choices. We have to decide whether we are going to allow the 
Federal spending machine to continue to grow at double the rate of the 
average family budget, or are we going to start to say enough is 
enough.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this bill is 
about 2.8 percent of an increase over last year. That is below what the 
family budget of most families would be if you look at inflation in 
this country. So this bill is staying within the guidelines, and we did 
so diligently, and with a lot of effort.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will give all 
Members a medal and a kiss on the cheek.
  But the point is that this account has grown by more than double the 
inflation rate. All we are saying is let us take this account back to 
the 1996 levels adjusted for inflation. I am not here to be critical of 
the Committee on Appropriations because they have done a good job.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, if we exclude emergencies and look at the 
bill from last year and the bill that is proposed, my number suggests 
that this is an increase of 5.54 percent, to be exact, which is, of 
course, way above the rate of inflation and way above the growth of 
most families' budgets.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, we obviously have been wasting our time for 
quite some time because the gentleman is wrong. Without the emergencies 
that the gentleman is referring to, this bill is a 2.8 percent 
increase. That is a fact. I hope we are not held up all night long on 
an unfactual basis.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out to Members that yes, it is true that we are 
facing budget deficits once again. But the reason we are facing these 
budget deficits is not because of the incremental increases in some of 
these budgets, and as was just pointed out by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), the increase in this particular budget is 
not a budget-breaker at all, it is quite modest.
  The problem that we have is last year this Congress passed a tax cut 
which was way out of line. That tax cut is what is causing us to have 
these enormous budget deficits. Members do not want to admit that is 
the problem, but that is at the very root of any financial difficulty 
we have, and the reason why we are facing substantial budget deficits 
today and into the future.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one of the things about this bill, it 
generates $6 billion in revenue. This is a revenue-producing bill, and 
a large amount of that revenue comes from the Bureau of Land 
Management. I want to point out to Members, this amendment will cut 
into the BLM and will hurt our ability to gain this revenue. This comes 
from oil leasing, cattle leases, mine leases, grazing leases, all of 
the various ways that we raise money through this bill.
  Also, some Member said this is not a big cut. This is a 20 percent 
reduction in the activities of the Bureau of Land Management. It is 
$149 million below the President. It cuts $6.8 million from wildlife 
and fisheries. It cuts $21.4 million from energy development. It cuts 
$19 million from transportation on Federal lands. It cuts $15 million 
from resource protection, and many other important accounts.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget said he can support this 
bill. The President has set up his statement of administration policy. 
He can support this bill. What we have here is a small group of Members 
who are intent on making a point. I think they have made it, and I 
think the House now has to vote down this amendment and show them that 
they support the work of the Committee on Appropriations, and that we 
are in a position now to get some action on these 13 bills. We have a 
responsibility to the country. Let us get moving on these bills.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting close to 
the end of this debate, at least I have consulted with some of the 
potential speakers, and I think we are near the end.
  I have to say I am a little uncomfortable here today because these 
Members who are proposing this amendment, I find myself more 
philosophically tuned in to their position than to my friends

[[Page H4738]]

who are supporting my position on this amendment. However, I still 
think these Members are wrong in this case.
  I want to correct a couple of things. First of all, the President's 
budget, when he sent it down here, was $768 billion for discretionary 
spending. The budget that we are working under in the House is not the 
$768 billion that the President requested, it is $759 billion. We are 
under the President's budget request by $9 billion, but we are working 
with it.
  One of the earlier speakers, the gentleman from Wisconsin, talked 
about how this is unraveling the appropriations process. He talked 
about how we are going to spend all the money on the easy bills, and 
then we are going to rip off the bills at the end. The gentleman 
specifically mentioned the Labor-HHS bill, the Veterans Affairs-HUD 
bill, and the Commerce-State-Justice bill.
  The Labor-HHS bill under the Committee on Appropriations' 302(b) is 
exactly at the President's request.
  The 302(b) for the Commerce-Justice-State bill is only one percent 
below the President's request.
  The 302(b) for the VA-HUD bill is less than one percent below the 
President's request. So we are not messing up the appropriations 
process. It is not unraveling.
  As I said, philosophically I tend to be more in tune with these 
Members, but in this case it is important that we defeat this 
amendment. The Bureau of Land Management is involved in processes that 
bring in $6 billion a year because of leasing arrangements that have 
been ongoing. We do not want to unravel that process.
  I want to close with this comment, and I did not ask all of my 
colleagues this question because there were too many of them. But what 
is the difference in a dollar spent by back-door spending in a mandated 
spending bill, and a dollar spent in a discretionary spending bill? The 
way I look at it, there is no difference. A dollar spent is a dollar 
spent. What is magic about mandatory programs versus discretionary 
programs?
  I was happy to remind some of my friendly colleagues who support this 
amendment that they in fact voted for the farm bill, and I am not 
saying that it is a good vote or a bad vote, but it spent $90 billion 
over the baseline. That is a $90 billion increase over a period of 
years. What is the difference in $90 billion spent there. And now they 
want to unravel this bill for $162 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84, 
noes 332, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                                AYES--84

     Akin
     Armey
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kirk
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     Mica
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--332

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Clay
     Dooley
     Ehrlich
     Gilman
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Istook
     Lynch
     Mascara
     Nadler
     Quinn
     Riley
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Sununu
     Traficant

                              {time}  2016

  Messrs. COMBEST, OTTER, RANGEL, WYNN and SAXTON changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TERRY, FORBES, LUCAS of Kentucky and FOSSELLA, and Mrs. JO 
ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, I attempted to vote on 
the Toomey Amendment to H.R. 5093 but my vote was not recorded. 
Accordingly, if I had been able to vote on rollcall No. 305, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I certainly will yield.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the chairman of the 
subcommittee, I would be pleased to have a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.

[[Page H4739]]

Skeen), the need for land acquisition funding at the Rachel Carson 
Natural Wildlife Refuge at my district in Maine. I appreciate the 
chairman's past support for the refuge and its land acquisition 
program, which purchases critical coastal, estuarine and upland 
properties from willing sellers in order to conserve critical wildlife 
habitat that is being lost to development up and down the coast of 
Maine.
  While I understand the difficulties the chairman faced in crafting 
this bill, I also must point out that in fiscal year 2003, there was a 
continuing need for funding to acquire a number of properties within 
the Rachel Carson refuge boundary.
  The refuge, working in partnership with other organizations, has 
agreements with willing landowners to purchase several properties. If 
funds are not available this year, these critical natural resource 
lands could be lost forever to development.
  As the chairman is aware, the Senate Interior appropriations includes 
$3 million for Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. I respectfully 
urge the chairman to consider including this amount in the final 
conference report.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank 
the gentleman for his comments; and we appreciate the gentleman's 
arguments on behalf of the Rachel Carson refuge. On behalf of the 
chairman of the subcommittee, we can assure the gentleman that we will 
consider his request as we work towards completion of this bill.
  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask to have a colloquy with the chairman of 
the subcommittee, or if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) 
would engage in a colloquy with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my compliments to the great job 
that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done over the past 
years. I have had the pleasure of serving for the past 8 years on the 
Committee on Appropriations with him. It has always been a pleasure and 
he has been a real leader. I will be retiring with the gentleman, and 
we can look forward to the next years.
  I would like to talk about Egmont Key. As the chairman may know, I 
will be authorizing legislation, bipartisan legislation very soon to 
convey a small island in my district named Egmont Key in the mouth of 
Tampa Bay to the Florida State Park Service. This island in Tampa Bay 
is currently under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, but it is operated by the Florida State Park Service, and it 
has three full-time State park rangers already stationed on the island.
  Egmont Key is unique and is natural in its cultural history, and that 
has made that island a very valuable resource to our area. Area 
residents, including my family and I, have enjoyed Egmont Key's 
cultural and recreational benefits for years, and the local support for 
conveying the ownership of this island to the Florida State Park 
Service is strong, and I do have bipartisan support. I anticipate the 
legislation will be enacted before the commencement of the conference 
committee on interior appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and upon 
enactment of authorization legislation, I will be requesting 
appropriations from the distinguished gentleman's subcommittee.
  This island in the middle of Tampa Bay is really kind of in three 
Members' districts, including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis) of the Tampa area, and he will be working with 
me on this issue.
  Let me make one other comment. Upon conveyance of land by the Federal 
Government, the Federal Government will actually save money in the long 
term, and I want to make sure my colleagues are aware that there will 
be a savings in the long term.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee is aware of the 
gentleman's good work and also has the same understanding as the 
gentleman that there will be a savings of money.
  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to join in the 
gentleman's comments and to thank the chairman for his recognition of 
this very important issue. This is one of the most historic parts of 
the Tampa Bay area. It is a convergence of the gentleman of Florida's 
(Mr. Dan Miller), the gentleman of Florida's (Chairman Young), and the 
district I represent; and we will be introducing legislation shortly to 
transfer title, and there certainly will be appropriation issues 
accompanying that. This is also a piece of land that the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the subcommittee, is very 
familiar with as well.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we certainly will help and cooperate and do 
everything we can to be supportive.
  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I might add in concluding 
that the Florida State Park Service, under the authorizing legislation, 
will have to continue to preserve the wildlife, habitat, and the 
environment that exists on the island. I look forward to working with 
the Committee on Appropriations once we get the authorization 
legislation moving forward. I thank the chairman for hopefully working 
with us on this.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
the committee will look forward to working with the gentleman after the 
Egmont Key transformation legislation has been enacted.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage 
in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) or his representative.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico. 
He is truly a man of the West. He has distinguished himself as such, 
and I just wish to offer my congratulations to him on his service here 
and well wishes for the future after his service is concluded.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for agreeing to engage in this 
colloquy. As the chairman is aware, my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich), and I both sent letters expressing our 
support for funding in the amount of $2,943,150 from the fiscal year 
2003 interior appropriations measure to compensate the High Sierra 
Packers Associations for losses incurred as a result of a recent 
injunction issued against the United States Forest Service.
  The injunction resulted in tremendous decreases in pack use within 
the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness Areas located in both the Inyo 
and Sierra National Forests within California. Losses accumulated from 
this court mandate were based on the forest service's own violation of 
the law. This is simply unacceptable. Therefore, my colleague and I 
respectfully requested that the Federal Government reimburse the High 
Sierra Packers Associations in the sum of $2,943,150 for the unjust 
decision dealt to them.
  We look forward to working with the distinguished gentleman from New 
Mexico to see what avenues may be available to help the packers who, 
through no fault of their own, have been injured.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the subcommittee and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, we thank the gentleman from California 
for bringing this important issue to our attention. The staff and the 
chairman are prepared to assist the gentleman and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich) in finding alternative means to rectify the 
situation.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to also engage in a colloquy with the 
subcommittee chairman or his representative.
  First of all, I would like to extend my congratulations too for the 
hard work that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman 
of the subcommittee, has given to us, not only this year, but in many 
past years.

[[Page H4740]]

We are going to miss him in the next Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to the attention of the Congress 
and this subcommittee an issue that is of serious concern to my 
constituents in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests area in the 
State of Georgia.
  Additional funding is needed to correct a shortfall in law 
enforcement funding for these forests that are at the doorstep of the 
metropolitan area in Atlanta, Georgia. Additional law enforcement 
personnel are needed to provide adequate protection for visitors, 
adequate protection of the forests' natural resources, and to increase 
efforts to combat illegal drug production and trafficking. Viable 
options include hiring additional personnel or increasing cooperative 
law enforcement agreements with State and county law enforcement 
agencies.
  I realize that tough decisions will be made in this year's budget, 
but I believe that safety of the users of public lands rises to a high 
priority level. I am encouraged by the chairman's efforts to work with 
me, and I expect that he will be able to address this request as he 
moves this bill through conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take a minute to thank the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) too and thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal) for their hard work on this issue. Since I hope I 
will be representing many of the forests in question that we are 
discussing here in the 108th Congress, this issue will continue to be 
very important to me.
  Securing sufficient dollars for law enforcement to ensure the safety, 
environmental quality, and the security of the Chattahoochee-Oconee 
National Forests is critically important, as future generations deserve 
to enjoy this treasure as those have in the past. I look forward to 
working with both gentlemen in the coming weeks to preserve this 
objective within our Georgia forests.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to say that I support the efforts of my colleagues from Georgia 
and know of their efforts to try to get this corrected.
  I have been disappointed that we as a committee have not been able to 
come up with a satisfactory solution, but I know the gentlemen from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal) and (Mr. Norwood) have a serious local problem here 
that we have got to address on a national basis, because I think there 
are some issues that have been inherited from past administrations that 
we are now suffering from.
  So I wanted to say to my colleagues from Georgia that I stand in 
support of what they are trying to do; and I want to say in terms of 
the conference, I want to do everything I can, Mr. Chairman, to try to 
get this thing corrected.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the chairman of the 
subcommittee, I thank all three gentlemen from Georgia for their kind 
words about the chairman on this issue, and I can assure the gentlemen 
that the chairman and the committee will work in conference to address 
their concerns regarding adequate protection of visitors and resources 
in Georgia's national forests.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank both gentlemen for their cooperation. I 
do look forward to working with them in conference.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a statement, and then to engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman or his representative.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about a crisis in my home State of 
Wisconsin, something that folks around here may not have heard much 
about, but I fear that they will. The subject is chronic wasting 
disease, which is a disease that afflicts elk and deer. There is no 
cure. There is no treatment. In fact, we are not even sure, quite 
frankly, how it is spread.
  It was first recognized in the State of Colorado back in 1967. Now, 
sadly, some nine States, including my home State of Wisconsin, have 
been afflicted by it. It is a health challenge because we do not 
understand how this disease is spread, and we want to make certain that 
it cannot spread into other species.
  It is obviously an environmental challenge, and it is also a cultural 
challenge, because deer hunting and wildlife management is a critical 
part of the culture in my home State and some other States. It is 
certainly an economic challenge, because there are 1.6 million deer in 
Wisconsin, 600,000 hunters, and the deer harvest each year is 
approximately 300,000 animals.
  The sad news, Mr. Chairman, is that we are short on research, and we 
are just as short on testing capacity. I came here today with an 
amendment which would have provided money to relevant agencies to try 
to implement part of a comprehensive plan, but in discussing this 
matter with the chairman in his office, I am confident that we can 
reach that goal without an amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), or his representative.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I know that we have 
agreed we need to take quick action to deal with this chronic wasting 
disease. From the information the gentleman has shared with us, it 
appears that more funding is needed in order to address this problem.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. As part of the 
new Federal task force on chronic wasting disease, the U.S. Geologic 
Survey needs additional funding. The current estimated total dollar 
funding need for the USGS for chronic wasting disease activity is about 
$6.6 million for fiscal year 2003 alone.
  Keeping in mind that my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), has already secured $2.7 million for the needs in the bill 
before us today, we are left with a need of an additional $3.9 million 
which is required to meet the funding goal. That is why I was going to 
offer this amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, the gentleman and other Members of the Wisconsin delegation 
are to be congratulated for their hard work on this matter.
  The chairman believes we can meet that goal as the appropriations 
process goes forward. We have his pledge to the gentlemen from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Green and Mr. Ryan, and to the other Members that the 
chairman will use his position in the conference committee on this bill 
with the Senate to do everything that we can to see that the needed 
funding is provided.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the chairman very much, and my 
colleagues from Wisconsin, for their cooperation and hard work, and I 
look forward to working together with them and with the chairman in the 
future on this issue that affects our home State.
  I will not offer my amendment, but I thank the gentleman for engaging 
me in a colloquy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to, in a continuing comment on the 
previous subject, note that this committee has been quite generous, I 
think, in helping us to meet our responsibilities in dealing with this 
problem, chronic wasting disease.
  Last year, the committee provided $2.25 million for the Department of 
Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control. In the supplemental 
appropriation bill, which passed the House and the Senate, the 
committee provided $12 million in the House version, and thanks to the 
efforts of the other body, Senators Kohl and Feingold, they have 
provided $21 million in the Senate bill.
  In the Interior bill so far we have $2.7 million, and in the 
Agriculture bill, which will follow on, we have $16.4 million. So I 
think we have received fine

[[Page H4741]]

cooperation on the legislative end from the committee, and I appreciate 
it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
just want to commend the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations for his attention to this very serious issue that has 
afflicted the State of Wisconsin, chronic wasting disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I am an avid hunter myself, with two little boys, and 
this has sent shock waves across the entire State of Wisconsin. This is 
the first time the disease has been detected east of the Mississippi. 
It has now been detected west of the Continental Divide. It has also 
been detected down in New Mexico.
  This is a disease that is spreading across the continent, and the 
paucity of scientific research has led to a lot of bad options on how 
to contain it. That is why earlier this year I introduced legislation 
to establish a comprehensive scientific research program so we can 
start getting some answers in regard to CWD, and what we can best do to 
contain it and hopefully eradicate it, so future generations may enjoy 
the sport of hunting whitetail in the State of Wisconsin.
  But this has received a lot of attention. We have been working in a 
bipartisan fashion within the Wisconsin delegation. Our leader here, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on the Committee on 
Appropriations has been very attentive to these issues, and the 
mounting expenses and the great concern we have in Wisconsin over the 
impact of this disease.
  I am heartened to hear the assurance from the other Members of the 
committee, the ranking member and the chairman himself, whom we have 
been in touch with, in regard to their attention to this issue. I am 
confident that if we can continue proceeding in a bipartisan fashion, 
hopefully we will be able to get things in place in order to prevent 
the further spread of this disease, and hopefully, eventually the 
eradication of it.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Last February, when the first case of chronic wasting disease was 
documented in my district, a quiet panic began to race against south 
central Wisconsin. People wondered how seriously this disease would 
affect the health of the deer population, as well as the health of 
their own families.
  On behalf of my constituents, I would like to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the dean of our delegation, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for understanding the 
importance of this needed funding. This funding will be vital in 
slowing the spread of the disease, as well as learning a lot more about 
it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I simply want to 
say, a lot more money will be required in the future, not just in 
Wisconsin but in a number of States around the country. We will have to 
deal with this as a national problem, because it is a national problem.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to have a colloquy 
with the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share with my colleagues an 
issue of importance regarding the Energy Star program.
  Over the last 18 months, the Department of Energy has solicited 
public comment for proposals to change the criteria applicable to its 
Energy Star windows, doors, and skylights program. A recent decision by 
the Department of Energy confirms that no new criteria will be 
implemented, and the current Energy Star criteria for windows, doors, 
and skylights will remain in effect.
  I would like to take this opportunity to commend the DOE for removing 
from consideration the proposal to change the criteria so that the 
Department of Energy may more carefully analyze the significance of 
solar heat again in certain regions of the country. By withdrawing this 
proposal from consideration, DOE has averted the creation of a 
government-sanctioned monopoly, and determined that competition is 
preferred and marketplace forces should prevail.
  I would also like to commend DOE on their intention to complete 
additional research concerning technical issues before proposing any 
future change to the current criteria.
  Is it my colleague's position that any proposed changes to the 
criteria for this program by DOE should be based on sound science, 
should rely on the collective input of stakeholders in the program and, 
above all, should continue to rely on the marketplace to determine the 
structure of the industries affected by this program?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman from North Carolina makes a very good point. We commend him 
for his excellent work in this area. I note on behalf of the chairman 
of the subcommittee that we look forward to working with the gentleman 
from North Carolina to ensure the continued integrity of the Energy 
Star program. We thank the gentleman very much for bringing this to the 
committee's attention.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for all his wonderful work.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman or his designee.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his hard work on this bill before us 
today. I recognize the difficult choices that must be made, and 
appreciate the fair and balanced bill he has developed.
  The Fourth District in Virginia is home to a large part of the Great 
Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. The remaining portion is in 
North Carolina. This refuge was established nearly 30 years ago with 
the express purpose of protecting a unique ecosystem. Its 109,000 acres 
are home to a large diversity of fish, bird, animal, and plant species.
  As of late, it has become an increasingly popular attraction for 
ecotourists from across the region, the State, and the Nation.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently in the process of 
developing its comprehensive conservation plan for the Great Dismal 
Swamp. As part of this process, the service is planning the 
construction of a visitors center. It is my hope that ultimately the 
service will determine that the most appropriate location for the 
visitors center is on the Virginia side of the refuge.
  In fact, according to a letter my office received from Lloyd Culp, 
the refuge manager, on January 18, this outcome is the most logical and 
efficient conclusion. As Mr. Culp indicated, ``One cannot plan for 
visitor access to the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 
without working on improved access to Lake Drummond, which is 
undoubtedly the most popular attraction for the refuge. All current 
land access to Lake Drummond is within the city of Suffolk, Virginia, 
and I don't see that changing.''
  I would appreciate the opportunity to continue working with my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico, towards ensuring that the 
conference report on this bill and future appropriation bills leads to 
the establishment of a topnotch visitors center for the Great Dismal 
Swamp refuge, which makes the most of the natural advantages of spots 
like Lake Drummond to ensure its success.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate my colleague's interest 
in this matter, and certainly offer to work with him toward that end. I 
speak on behalf of the chairman and the entire subcommittee.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H4742]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       On page 2, line 13, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(reduced by $51,300,000).''

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hears an objection.


            Motion to Limit Debate Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the amendment 
and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Washington.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 324, 
noes 79, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--324

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--79

     Akin
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Blunt
     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Clay
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Filner
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank
     Gilchrest
     Graham
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Matheson
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Otter
     Pastor
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Toomey
     Waters
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Blagojevich
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Burr
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Dooley
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Isakson
     Kirk
     LaTourette
     Lynch
     Mascara
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Paul
     Quinn
     Riley
     Roukema
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Tauzin
     Traficant
     Watts (OK)
     Wicker

                              {time}  2105

  Messrs. TERRY, ROHRABACHER, BURTON of Indiana, McGOVERN, Ms. JACKSON-
LEE of Texas and Mr. FOSSELLA changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. DeGETTE and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will be 
recognized for 5 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say I feel particularly honored that they have chosen to 
limit the debate on my amendment. I am not sure what the opposition is 
afraid of, but in any event, we will move ahead.
  The last amendment that we voted on, it was said by the Democratic 
opposition that that was a meat ax approach to this bill. I am pleased 
to say that this is more of a machete kind of approach. The last one 
cut about $162 million from the Interior bill. This will cut about $51 
million. It is about a third of the original amendment. If they do not 
like that, then we will take, I guess, the scalpel approach. The next 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) will cut, I 
believe, $13 million from the bill. So we are here to please and to 
offer a variety of amendments.
  A lot has been said about the farm bill. In fact, many Members were 
asked if they had voted for the farm bill, yet were supporting the 
amendments that were offered here.
  I would gladly yield to the gentleman from Florida if he wants to ask 
if I voted for the farm bill. I did not. I will be glad to yield if 
anybody asked if I voted for the airline bailout. I did not. I will be 
glad to yield if anybody asked if I voted for the President's education 
bill. I did not.
  I have not voted for any of the big spending bills. I think they are 
spending far too much. The average American has to work 181 days of the 
year simply to pay the cost of government. That is, I believe, six days 
longer than we had to work last year. We are spending simply too much.
  Early this year Citizens Against Government Waste identified $20.1 
billion in Federal pork projects. This is an increase of 9 percent over 
last year's total. The money was spread out over 8,341 projects 
injected into the appropriations bills in fiscal year 2002. This is an 
increase of 32 percent.
  The report also identified $1.2 trillion in savings over 5 years in 
its prime cuts report. For those who say that we simply cannot cut 
anymore, that is wrong. We can cut. We are simply spending too much. 
The problem is not tax cuts. The problem is spending. We are spending 
far more this year than we spent the year before. We spent far

[[Page H4743]]

more last year than we did the year before that. We have got a long way 
to go before we reach fiscal discipline.
  In fact, we have heard a lot over the last couple of weeks about 
corporate crooks. Let me tell my colleagues, over the past 5 years, 
lawmakers have spent a total of $142 billion above the levels in 
corresponding budgets. These are our own budgets that we passed, and 
yet we go above, $142 billion over 5 years. That is more than 12 times 
the misstated earnings from Enron, Xerox and WorldCom combined. For us 
to lecture the private sector on what they have to do to have 
transparency and to get their books in order when we are ourselves $142 
billion over 5 years in excess of our own corresponding budgets.
  It has been said that the farm bill, $9 billion, and we are talking 
here just a couple of hundred million dollars. I am not here to defend 
the farm bill, believe me. I think that was the worst piece of 
legislation passed in a long time here, but we are talking here, if we 
go ahead with the appropriations request, $9 billion this year above 
the President's request. We have to remember that the President's 
request was modified to match the House budget. So we are $9 billion 
above this year's request. That, over 10 years, is more than the farm 
bill.
  As I said, I am not here to defend the farm bill, but there are some 
who point out the farm bill, $9 billion over 10 years, that is a lot of 
money. I am not here to defend the farm bill at all, but we need to put 
it in perspective. We are over the President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, on January 30, 2002, President George W. Bush said, To 
achieve these great national objectives, to win the war, protect the 
homeland, to revitalize our economy, our budget will run a deficit that 
will be small and short term so long as Congress restrains spending and 
acts in a fiscally responsible manner. That is the case. The problem is 
spending. We simply need to get it under control.
  That is why we are offering amendments. That is why we are stepping 
in tonight and making sure that we restore a bit of fiscal discipline. 
That is all we are trying to do here, and when I took to the floor last 
week, we were being lectured on lifting the debt ceiling. We were told 
that we were acting irresponsibly because we wanted to lift the debt 
ceiling because we had to lift the debt ceiling. We were being lectured 
over here by those who had approved and had voted for big spending 
projects that we had never approved and we had never voted for. Yet we 
were being lectured on that.
  My time is ending, but I just want to say that I urge everyone to 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Land Management, just in case 
some people would like to know, for the multiple use management 
protection and development of a full range of natural resources, 
including minerals, timber, rangeland, fish, wildlife habitat and 
wilderness of about 262 million acres of the Nation's public lands, and 
for management of 700 million additional acres of federally owned 
subsurface mineral rights, the bureau is the second largest supplier of 
public outdoor recreation in the Western United States.
  Under the multiple use and ecosystem management concept, the bureau 
administers the grazing of approximately 4.3 million head of livestock 
on some 161 million acres of public land ranges and manages over 48,000 
wild horses and burros, some 262 million acres of wildlife habitat, and 
over 117,000 miles of fisheries habitat. Grazing receipts are 
significant as are other receipts.
  I would just like to ask the gentleman who sponsored the amendment, 
tell me one account in this bill that he would like to cut. Can the 
gentleman tell me one specific line item that he would cut with his 
meat cleaver instead of his meat ax? Can the gentleman tell me one line 
item in this bill that he would like to cut, and name it specifically?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the one I just proposed. I just proposed 
going back to the fiscal 2002 levels.
  Mr. DICKS. What is it the gentleman wants to cut?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, we are in a situation now, since the 
gentleman yielded, where American families all over the country are 
having to cut their own budget.
  Mr. DICKS. I take it the gentleman is not going to answer the 
question. Let me give my colleagues a few choices.

                              {time}  2115

  Range management, wild horses and burrow management, oil and gas, 
coal management, mineral management, Alaskan minerals for the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), hazardous materials management. I mean, I 
think if the gentleman is going to cut something, he ought to be able 
to at least identify an account or two and how he would like to cut it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment. Like the previous amendment, 
it cuts entirely the good programs under the guise of fiscal 
responsibility. This is not a responsible approach. We have before us a 
good balanced bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85, 
noes 337, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                                AYES--85

     Akin
     Armey
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berry
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Flake
     Fossella
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kirk
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--337

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page H4744]]


     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     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, Dan
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Buyer
     Cooksey
     Dooley
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Mascara
     Nadler
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  2135

  Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FOSSELLA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss briefly a little bit about what 
we are trying to do here procedurally. This is not a happy occasion for 
anyone. This is not something that we enjoy doing. In fact, this is a 
painful process. We have no interest in making this any more of a 
painful process than it needs to be, but we think that there is an 
important issue that we need to discuss.
  The issue is very simply some of us think that our budget process has 
gone awry, and if we continue down this road, we will not adhere to the 
budget resolution that we have passed. Some of us do not want to adhere 
to that budget, and I understand that. Some of us think in light of the 
economic downturn and other things that have happened since budget 
resolution, we should be spending less than that budget resolution.
  But we want to have an opportunity for all Members to have this 
discussion, have this debate, have a chance to air their amendments. We 
have 75-odd Republicans and 8 or 10 Democrats vote in favor of some 
dramatic cuts right out of the block on the first line of this bill.
  As we move through the process, I strongly suspect there will be more 
interest in some of these cuts because I believe there is a recognition 
that there is a problem here. As we work to try to reach a consensus, 
and we would like to, we are open to rolling votes and finding whatever 
way can cause the minimum inconvenience for our Members. We are open to 
reaching a unanimous consent agreement, and we are prepared to speak 
with Members about that. But it is very important that we have this 
discussion. We think that it is vitally important that we have this 
debate and give every Member to have their day and represent their 
constituents on each and every amendment that we offer.
  I do not think that it was appropriate to limit the discussion on the 
amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to 10 minutes, but 
let me assure Members we are trying to find a way, find a procedure 
under which we can do this expeditiously, but we are going to have this 
discussion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious to Members what exercise we are 
going through here and why. There has been a lot of debate. I remind 
Members of a very famous Member of this House, Morris Udall, and I 
think many know him, if not personally, by reputation. If I can 
paraphrase what he said, everything that needs to be said has already 
been said; the problem is that not everybody has said it yet.
  We have had a fairly good debate here. I would like to ask someone 
representing the organized effort to amend this bill, if someone could 
tell me how many amendments we might be looking at in title I of this 
bill, for example. We have some colloquies and some points of order we 
need to get to. We could open up title I and deal with the amendments 
that are at the desk, but I am wondering how many amendments are at the 
desk or would be if that request is made. I wonder if some Member could 
respond to me with an answer.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know exactly how many amendments 
we have. I would be happy to step off the floor and have this 
discussion, and see if we can reach an agreement on this vote. I am not 
prepared to do that at the moment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think that is fair; but before 
we make any motion to open the title or close the title, I think we 
need to have an idea. If Members intend to keep us here all night, we 
ought to know that.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I would like Members to know we have 17 other 
amendments besides the untold number of amendments from this group, 
from the rest of the House, that we would like to consider as well, 
plus the colloquy, so we can get on with the business of other 
amendments from both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what process are we going to go through in 
terms of recognition? There have been several amendments recognized on 
that side. There has not been an amendment recognized on this side. Is 
it the Chair's intention to recognize our side for amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair attempts to alternate between majority and 
minority Members.
  Mr. DICKS. But we have to go right at the point we are in the bill, 
until the bill is opened up.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is now 
almost 10 p.m., and Members have a right to know what the plan is for 
the balance of the evening or the morning, whatever the case might be. 
Maybe as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) suggested, we can 
have an off-site conversation about this. That being the case, we will 
report back.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Science, the committee with 
jurisdiction over a number of the energy conservation programs funded 
under the bill, I rise to engage the floor manager of the bill in a 
colloquy.
  First, I want to compliment the committee for providing the needed 
funding for these important research, development and demonstration 
programs that do so much to advance new energy technologies. One 
program I am particularly interested in is residential micro 
cogeneration of energy. In my district, I am familiar with companies 
that are developing new combined heating, cooling, electricity and hot 
water that is far more efficient than residential systems which are 
commercially available today.

[[Page H4745]]

  It is my understanding that funding provided in the bill will allow 
DOE to undertake the needed testing, evaluation and demonstration of 
residential cogeneration technologies.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The committee has 
provided $79.7 million in funding for distributed generation 
technologies in the power technologies account under the energy 
conservation appropriation, an increase of $15.5 million over the 
amount requested by the President, and $15.9 million over the amount 
provided last year.

                              {time}  2145

  These funds are available to assist with a variety of projects, 
including residential cogeneration systems. I would like for the 
chairman to know that this is just one of many very justified requests 
by Republicans to increase accounts in this bill above the President's 
request.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to thank the gentleman and pledge to work 
with the chairman and members of the committee as this bill moves 
forward to ensure that the funding needed to carry out these important 
projects is made available.
  Mr. WAMP. We look forward to working with the gentleman on this 
important issue.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise because I have seen something tonight that I 
have not ever seen in the 8 years that I have been in Congress. And I 
think it is a sad night tonight. I do not believe that our party would 
limit the debate by a Member on an open rule on an appropriations bill. 
They would not do that to the other side, and I do not believe the 
other side would do that to us. Yet we have done this to one of our own 
tonight. While I oppose the goal of the gentleman from Arizona, I am in 
favor of this bill, I think it is a good bill, and I intend to support 
it and vote against the amendments; but I think what happened here 
procedurally tonight was very wrong. If we have an open rule, then we 
need to have an open rule and to limit one gentleman, Mr. Chairman, is 
not right. I hope that we do not fall into that later because we do not 
like the issue that someone is bringing forward.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight finding myself feeling like it is early 
in the day and not late in the day. I am invigorated by this debate. I 
am invigorated by the quality and integrity of the debate on both sides 
of the aisle and that 85-some-odd colleagues of mine still believe in 
what the gentleman from Wisconsin referred to earlier as baloney.
  Mr. Chairman, I have often associated many things with Wisconsin, 
usually cheese; but henceforth I will always associate Wisconsin with 
baloney as well because it was the distinguished member of the 
minority, the ranking member, who said on this floor tonight that the 
problem with this group of conservatives was that we did what his late 
father, a man active in public life, said one should never do: we 
believe our own baloney. I would amend the record to say his late and 
distinguished grandfather, who said that politicians should never 
believe their own baloney.
  Let me give a few examples as we try and talk about the issues that 
we confront tonight. We are not here in some vain exercise to exact a 
torturous schedule on our colleagues this early in the legislative 
week. Neither are we ignorant of the long days that are ahead of us 
before we break and return to be with our families. But the enforcement 
of the budget resolution that we adopted in this Chamber once and 
deemed another time is at stake. This bill that we consider today is 
$775 million over our budget. Treasury-Postal is $538 million. The 
agriculture approps bill is $550 million. We will have to extract 
severe cuts in VA-HUD and Commerce-Justice-State. Those two pieces of 
legislation will have to give off over $2 billion from previous-year 
levels just to stay within our budget resolution.
  The truth is when we speak about the vision of a balanced Federal 
budget, that is not baloney. That I argue, Mr. Chairman, is what most 
of our constituents sent us here to do. I would even argue that, with 
very few exceptions, the constituents who voted for my Democrat 
colleagues to come to this august institution sent them here to 
advocate some basic American values, believing in the American dream 
that if our generation works hard and makes sacrifices, we can actually 
leave our children a better life and a better future than we inherited.
  Another simple piece of the American dream was the dream of a 
balanced Federal budget, the dream that governments, like families, 
just like my wife, Karen, and my children who may well be sitting at 
home in our living room tonight in Bartholomew County watching, they 
live within their budget at our home on the Flat Rock River, and 
Americans looking in tonight, Mr. Chairman, expect us to do no 
different. We have written a budget. Chairman Jim Nussle led this 
institution with vigor and with vision and with commitment; and we gave 
the American people, in the midst of recession and war, the vision for 
a budget that returns to balance within 24 months. Yet tonight, however 
inconvenient it might be to some, we are actually laboring over whether 
or not we will endorse and embrace that budget.
  Some, and I say this with respect and no small attempt at humor, some 
may consider that baloney. Some may consider it baloney that people in 
Congress ought to make the income meet the outgo to the best of their 
abilities, that we ought to balance the Federal budget. I say rather, 
Mr. Chairman, that it is what we are all, Republicans and Democrats, 
sent here to do: to be careful stewards of the public resources that 
are entrusted to us.
  The Good Book has this admonishment, and with this I close. It 
admonishes the shepherd. It says, ``Pay careful attention to your 
herds, keep careful watch over your sheep, for riches do not endure 
forever.'' It is precisely because we do not know the future, Mr. 
Chairman, and the challenges that our Nation may face in even darker 
days ahead that this skirmish that happens on this floor tonight 
matters, that we must enforce the budget resolution that we labored to 
adopt, that we endorsed twice in this institution. It is my hope that 
even if we are here when the sun is peeking its way through the 
windows, that we will do just that, living within our means.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to discuss the process that brings us here, but first I 
want to begin by expressing my strong admiration for the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), for the work he does and for the dedication he brings to his 
job. But also on this particular night, I want to express my deep 
respect for and admiration for the chairman of this subcommittee. You 
come here as a young freshman and you get various assignments. Some of 
them you do not anticipate, and some of them you are unaware of. I am 
elected from Arizona. I did not know Joe Skeen when I was first 
elected, but I got assigned here and I became a deputy whip. As a whip, 
I was assigned to whip various Members. One of the Members I was 
assigned to whip was Joe Skeen. I think that happened just as a matter 
of serendipity. It was not preplanned. As it turned out, someone was 
already whipping the Arizona delegation, and so I suppose it made sense 
to somebody that I should whip the New Mexico delegation. And so I did.
  For the duration of my tenure here in Congress, I have had the 
privilege of whipping Joe Skeen. What that has meant is that I have had 
the honor to have conversations with him week in and week out and have 
him impart to me his wisdom and his knowledge of this institution, of 
the pressures that move in each direction, of the people that are at 
play, of the great traditions of this institution. It would be 
difficult for me to express how many times Joe Skeen in those days when 
I have chatted with him has been able to educate me, to give me as a 
younger Member of this House advice and counsel.
  Joe is leaving this institution after this session of Congress, and I 
simply want it to be known to my colleagues here in Congress and the 
people across America that this institution will be diminished by his 
departure. He is indeed a dedicated public servant. He is a man of the 
people, revered by the people of New Mexico and of his district.

[[Page H4746]]

He is a man who has come here from his ranch and who has brought the 
common knowledge and the common understanding of the people across 
America to his job here. I would be remiss if I did not say thank you, 
Joe, for all you do.
  We tend to look at our inconvenience tonight being here on the floor 
at approximately 10 p.m. at night as a great imposition. Yet there is 
not a one of us who wears this pin, not a one of us that is elected to 
this institution that does not understand the immense privilege and the 
immense honor it is to serve in this institution. For those who are 
perhaps frustrated that on this particular Tuesday evening we might 
debate late into the night these issues and for those who are 
frustrated and do not like the amendments that are being offered, I 
would simply remind you, I would urge you to perhaps step outside and 
look at the dome that is above our heads, contemplate the task we are 
about, because each and every amendment offered here tonight, and I 
have three or four that I would like to offer, is a serious amendment 
offered by a Member with deep beliefs.
  I happen to be embroiled in a scandal in my own State on the issue of 
firefighting. I feel very strongly about fighting wildfires. It is 
vitally important that we fight wildfires. But this institution is the 
people's House. This is the place where debate should occur. This is 
the institution where we should talk about whether it is appropriate to 
put $700 million into this bill, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) offered in committee and as was adopted by committee or whether 
it would be more appropriate to put that money into the supplemental 
bill which can become law much sooner.
  We are engaged in a huge debate and it is a serious debate, as my 
colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out. These are grave issues. 
Spending is running out of control in this Congress, and the American 
people are worried about it. Go home and ask them. Go home this 
weekend. Think about the conversations you had last weekend. I would 
remind my colleagues that when we adopted this budget, we thought there 
was going to be a surplus or perhaps a small deficit. The reality is 
last weekend's paper, at least my home paper on Saturday morning blared 
with a gigantic headline, ``$165 Billion Deficit.'' It occurs to me 
that when we adopted the budget resolution and we believed we were 
going to have a surplus and we are now here tonight recognizing we are 
going to have not a small deficit but a massive deficit, not only is it 
wrong to limit debate as we just did on the dimensions of this budget 
and our spending but it is what the American people would want us to 
do. They would want us here debating these issues.
  One of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over and 
over again. We are in changed circumstances, and those changed 
circumstances demand that we debate this budget tonight in a serious 
fashion.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 
Let me just remind the other side that we have had a big debate tonight 
about appropriating money which is spending money. But the other side 
is collecting money. And the other side led the biggest tax cut, 
created the biggest hole in our ability to carry out the functions of 
this country. So let us be a little bit more reasonable about being 
balanced. It is an income and an outflow. This is the discussion about 
the outflow, but you have already taken the biggest bite in history out 
of the income, and that has also affected this picture; and that is 
what has caused the great big deficit that we have.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I can remember the debate on this on the floor. Many of us 
on this side of the aisle said the tax cut was going to be too big and 
that it could result in deficits, that we could see our surplus go 
away. I see that OMB said today that it is lack of revenue coming in, 
some of it to deal with the stock transactions. These were all 
foreseeable things. If you want to be fiscally responsible, if somebody 
wants to get serious over there, why do we not have a budget summit 
where we go back and revisit the tax cut and then we will talk to you 
about spending. But to pick out one-third of the budget is hypocrisy, 
and everybody in this place understands that. So you can continue to 
pose for the holy pictures and say we are going to cut spending, but 
you are not going to deal with the problem except in a very marginal 
way. The only way this is ever going to get fixed, the budget gets 
fixed, is if we go back and review everything; and that is what you are 
not willing to do.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It is interesting as my colleagues talk about the spending side and 
the revenue side, we have had the discussion on the revenue side; now 
we are talking about spending. It is amazing that the Federal 
Government at a time where the economy is not growing, where there is 
not a high rate of inflation, there are some that believe that growing 
the Federal Government at twice the rate of inflation may not be 
enough; that as household incomes grow at a smaller rate that somehow 
the Federal Government is entitled to grow twice as fast as the rate of 
inflation, that the Federal Government has priority over other sources 
of income and revenue in this country.

                              {time}  2200

  I do not know where that has been established. This House has set out 
a mandate. We have said that we will grow spending to a level of $748 
billion in 2003. We have not done it once, we have done it twice. The 
other body has yet to pass a budget. President Bush has embraced the 
spending level of the House. President Bush has indicated that, if 
necessary, he will use the veto to make sure that we control spending 
and achieve the number of $748 billion at the end of the process.
  Because the House's number is almost identical to the President's, it 
is important that we take a look at each individual bill as it goes 
through the process. Each bill where we spend more than what the 
President has proposed means that later on in the process, we will have 
to reduce those bills significantly from what the President's 
recommendation is. Three of the first four bills or the nondefense 
bills that have been reported by the Committee on Appropriations are 
significantly above the President's request.
  The Interior bill is at $775 million above the request, without 
including the $700 million in emergency firefighting money. Treasury-
Postal is $538 million above the President's request, and the 
Agriculture bill is going to be $550 million above the request. 
Collectively, these bills are about $1.8 billion above the request of 
the President.
  In order to pay for these increased spending levels, the Committee is 
proposing a $400 million reduction from the President's request for the 
Commerce, Justice, State bill, and a $1.8 billion reduction for the 
request from the Veterans, HUD, and FEMA bill. These bills are 
scheduled to move later in the appropriations process.
  If the House passes the first appropriations bills at levels 
significantly above the request, I think there are many of us that 
question whether we will be able to pass the other bills because they 
will be so far below the President's request. If that is the strategy 
that we are going to have where we are going to have significant 
differences between the levels passed by the House and the levels 
requested by the President, we should bring to the floor first those 
bills that are significantly lower than the President's request, move 
those first so that we can show and demonstrate that we are disciplined 
and that we will make those tough decisions, and that we can then 
accumulate that money and move it into some of these other bills. But 
we should not begin the process by fattening up the earlier bills with 
the belief that later on in the process we will be able to deviate 
significantly from the President's request.
  This bill is a good place to start. We should try to move that back 
down to the President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, today in the Committee on the Budget, Mitch Daniels 
talked about the projections. We are no longer in an era of surpluses. 
We are projected to have a deficit of $165 billion. What we need to do 
to get back into surplus is we need to control that area that we have 
significant control over.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H4747]]

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seems to be 
suggesting that we should stick to the budget, to the President's 
request. If a family loses income, a family loses their job and they go 
on unemployment, the budget they started when they had a full job is 
not going to continue spending as usual. Maybe we should even reduce it 
below the budget.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think what my 
colleague points out is the fallacy in this process if we increase over 
the President's spending.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to address and comment on two things 
that I have heard, if I could. I am somewhat bemused as I sit here 
tonight listening to some of the comments about the sanctity of open 
debate and legislative alternatives. Some of the same people who have 
been uttering those platitudes are the same people who voted to deny 
the minority an alternative on prescription drugs. They voted to deny 
us the opportunity to debate and produce an alternative to the very 
budget resolution which has this place wrapped around the axle. They 
voted to deny us the opportunity to debate and offer an alternative to 
the economic stimulus package, to the airline bailout, to the 
antiterrorism bill, to the fast track trade bill, and they have engaged 
in incredible legislative legerdemain in order to avoid the regular 
processes of this House, but now suddenly express tonight their concern 
for open debate. I find that quaint, to be polite.
  Second, I would simply note a comment of my old friend, Archie the 
Cockroach. Archie said this once: ``Man always fails because he is not 
honest enough to succeed. There are not enough men continuously on the 
square with themselves and with other men. The system of government 
does not matter so much; the thing that matters is what men do with any 
kind of system they happen to have.''
  The fact is that the reason we are having such problems here tonight 
is because the budget resolution that passed this House early in the 
year was not on the square; it contained tricky accounting. It rejected 
CBO accounting after, several years earlier, our Republican friends 
were willing to shut down the Congress in order to require it. I would 
simply say that if Members feel that they are on the hook tonight, they 
have not been put there by the Committee on Appropriations; they have 
been put there by their own votes on their own budget resolution. That 
budget resolution essentially picked a number of numbers out of the air 
in order to pretend that there was room to do everything for everybody 
and, now, the chickens are coming home to roost.
  That is why tonight what we are seeing really is not a mini 
filibuster; we are seeing a philosophical war within the majority party 
between the realists, those who are still trying to function and 
produce bipartisan product that this House can pass, even though none 
of us may be thrilled by what it produces; and those who would like to 
reject realism. It will be interesting to see how that fight comes out. 
I hope it is decided in time to get some productive work done in this 
institution, but we do not have very many days to go before that August 
recess. But only time will tell.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to agree, in part, with what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin just said. He said that there is not enough money to do all 
of the things that we want to do. That is exactly right, and that is 
why we have a budget, and that is why the family has a budget. What we 
are saying tonight is you cannot allow the Federal budget to continue 
to grow at twice the rate of the average family budget. You have to 
make some choices.
  Now, we had a Committee on the Budget meeting today and we talked 
about what has happened to the Federal budget in the last 12 months. A 
lot of what has happened to the budget is the result of what happened 
on September 11. Revenues are about $234 billion less than we expected.
  Now, let us be honest. About 14 percent of that is because of the tax 
cuts that we passed. Frankly, I think if we had that vote again, every 
one of us who voted for those tax cuts would vote for them again. It 
was exactly the right thing to do and, as it turns out, with the 
economy slowing down, I think it was a brilliant thing to do. So we are 
not going to back off on the tax relief.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. I was visiting with a farmer 
friend of mine a few years ago, and we were sitting on bales of hay. He 
said something pretty profound. He said, the problem with you guys in 
Washington is not that we do not send enough money into Washington; he 
said, the problem is you spend it faster than we can send it in. And 
that is the problem.
  Now, we have said earlier that we do not fault the Subcommittee on 
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations; we think they have done a 
pretty good job. But they are part of the problem. Let us be honest. 
Let us look at this chart. Do my colleagues see the green line right 
here? That is the inflation rate. For a few years, we were doing a 
pretty good job. We were keeping spending at just slightly above the 
inflation rate. But then somehow in about 2000, and it might have 
something to do with the fact that we began to have these big 
surpluses, that rate began to increase. That is the red line.
  The question we have to answer tonight and during the next several 
weeks is, will we be able to slow the rate of that growth back to the 
inflation rate, or are we going to continue to allow it to grow? If we 
do, here is what we are going to face. We are going to face big, big 
deficits. We are going to lead to perpetual deficits.
  It is not the Interior appropriations, it is not Treasury-Postal, it 
is not any one of those individual bills, it is not even prescription 
drugs; it is a combination of that. We wind up with a chart that looks 
like this.
  Now, how many of us really want to go home this November and explain 
to the folks back home why we started with a chart just a few years ago 
where we were paying down anywhere from $100 billion to $200 billion 
worth of publicly held debt every year and go home and explain, but now 
we have decided that we are going to go on a spending spree? We can 
blame Agriculture, we can blame all of the various committees, but it 
is like Pogo. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
  As I say, it is unfortunate that the Skeen bill is the first one out 
of the chute, but I say to my colleagues, we have to start getting 
serious about this budget. I think every person that we represent 
understands that there is absolutely no reason that the Federal budget 
ought to grow at a rate twice that of the average family budget. So 
tonight the only option that some of us have is to come to the floor of 
the House and ask our colleagues to slow the machine down, just slow 
down the spending. We are not asking to cut the Interior 
appropriations; all we are asking to do is bring it down to the rate of 
inflation. If we do that, good things will happen. The good thing is 
that within 2 years, I believe we will be back on the path towards a 
balanced budget and paying off that debt.
  One other thing. Back in the Midwest, it used to be that part of the 
American dream was to pay off the mortgage and leave your kids the 
farm. Well, I think that is still a dream. But unfortunately, we are 
going to go back to that old saw here in Washington where we are 
literally going to sell off the farm and leave our kids the mortgage, 
and every one of us knows that it is wrong. It starts tonight, and the 
question is, do we have the discipline, do we have the courage to do 
what we really know is right, and that is to get off this spending 
track, get back on a reasonable spending track of slowing the rate of 
growth in the Federal Government to roughly the inflation rate and, if 
we do that, we can balance the budget and, yes, we will have plenty of 
room to provide tax relief to the American families as we go forward.
  So the money is there. It is not that they are not sending it in fast 
enough; it is that we want to spend it faster than they send it in.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with my colleagues that just like all 
of our

[[Page H4748]]

families, we try not to spend more than we take in. I do not think, 
though, that for most Americans, given the fact that we are now going 
through a very important, dangerous, and necessary war on terrorism 
that we ought to give up the war on terrorism because it is going to 
cost us some money in the short term, and we have to spend what it 
takes to protect our homeland and to bring to justice or bring justice 
to those who have attacked us. Nor do I think we can do much, although 
we are trying, in terms of corporate accountability, to deal with our 
coming out of this recession or our lack of confidence in the markets.
  But we do have another tool at our disposal to eliminate perhaps as 
much as 45 percent of the financial hole this Congress, or the 
majority, has created over the next 10 years; a financial hole created 
by the majority in this Congress of about $1.7 trillion over the next 
10 years.

                              {time}  2215

  I am speaking of the tax cut that the Republican Party and a handful 
of Democrats, but most of the Members of the Republican Party, passed; 
a tax cut costing $1.7 trillion over 10 years that benefits 
disproportionately the top 2 percent of Americans.
  I think most Americans today, given the war on terrorism and the 
difficulties in the stock market, would say, maybe we ought to hold off 
for 1 year on that tax cut. Let us see how the war on terrorism goes. 
Let us see how the stock market rebounds, hopefully, within that 1-year 
period, before we execute on this tax cut, just for this 1 year; 
postpone it 1 year. Would that not be the prudent thing to do?
  But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, no, we are 
going ahead with this tax cut, which will cost $1.7 trillion over 10 
years, benefiting disproportionately the top 2 percent of Americans, 
and then cry or complain that we are spending too much money, and too 
much money is going out and not enough is coming in.
  I think average Americans would say let us postpone this tax cut for 
at least a year and see what the economy, what the world situation is 
like; take all that savings that was going to the top 2 percent of 
Americans, who, by the way, are doing very well, and God bless them, 
and not have this battle today over which essential program we are 
going to cut or not cut, rather than mess with this tax cut.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to note, since we have heard of 
this so-called spending spree that the Committee on Appropriations is 
engaging in, I want to simply note that since 1980 through today, the 
percentage of our total national income which we spend on domestic 
discretionary programs financed by this committee and approved by this 
House has dropped by 35 percent.
  It seems to me that a 35 percent contraction as a percentage of the 
total national family income that we spend on domestic needs is some 
pretty hefty fiscal discipline, no matter how myopically some other 
Members might view it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the ranking 
Democrat on the Subcommittee of the Interior of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), but before 
that I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his outstanding leadership.
  I remember one of the first things he said to me when I came to this 
body was that the best legislation was bipartisan, and I have 
appreciated how he and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have 
worked together on this subcommittee in a bipartisan way to help our 
country in so many ways.
  I want to especially thank him for his leadership on the Parkinson's 
Task Force, in which he, along with many of my colleagues, called upon 
the National Institutes of Health to come forward with a 5-year plan to 
cure Parkinson's, and he has worked diligently to implement that plan. 
We will miss the gentleman.
  As the gentleman knows, I say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), he may be aware that Governor's Island at the entrance to New 
York harbor has played an extremely important role in the history of 
our country.
  Two forts on the island, Fort Jay and Castle Williams, helped protect 
New York harbor from invasion in both the War of 1812 and the Civil 
War. New York gave the island to the Federal Government to serve as a 
military base. For more than 200 years it served our country, first for 
our Armed Forces, and since the 1960s, as a Coast Guard base.
  One of President Clinton's last acts was to declare the fort a 
national monument, and one of President Bush's first acts was to 
publish this executive order in the Federal Register.
  I am very pleased that President Bush has continued to show his 
support for the island with the promise to give it back to New York 
State so that it can be developed for the enjoyment of all Americans.
  We hope that the forts will remain national monuments under the 
jurisdiction of the Park Service. The forts should soon be included in 
one of the most revered park systems of the Nation, along with Ellis 
Island and the Statue of Liberty, at the gateway to New York harbor.
  Unfortunately, the forts are in very bad shape. In fact, they are on 
the National Trust for Historic Preservation's list of the 11 most 
endangered historic sites and buildings, a measure both of their bad 
condition and their historic importance.
  The Park Service needs appropriate funds to protect the forts from 
further destruction, and to help restore them so that the public may 
soon have an opportunity to visit them and to learn more about the 
important role that they played in the history of our country.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the work she has 
done on this important issue, and for bringing it to the subcommittee's 
attention. I share her concern for protecting national monuments.
  I want to assure the gentlewoman that I will work with her and the 
majority to find the best source of funding for this important project.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and his assistance on this matter, and I look forward to 
working with him and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in a 
bipartisan way to preserve these forts for our country.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate some of the comments of the previous 
speaker, because he kind of laid out the character for the debate 
tonight, or really, the essence of what the debate is all about.
  I believe one of my colleagues suggested that maybe, instead of 
giving Americans tax relief, that we withhold that tax relief so that 
we can spend more here in the Congress, instead of taking the time to 
have the debate on the floor, look through these 13 spending bills 
carefully and determine if there are ways that we can save, so that we 
can keep more money in the pockets of Americans and continue to improve 
consumer confidence in spending, which has really held up our economy 
over the last year.
  We have some tough decisions to make. On our side, while we might be 
fussing and arguing tonight, our whole point is to try to keep spending 
at its lowest level. If we look back at this chart that was reviewed a 
minute ago, we know that we are on a course for some pretty heavy 
deficits.
  But I want to give just one example of why these deficits are so 
detrimental to the future of this country, and why it is so important 
that we take the time tonight to go through this appropriation bill, 
and all of the ones that we have this year, to see if there are some 
things that we can do to reduce the growth of the spending.
  That is really all we are talking about, because this deficit we see 
does not take into account doing anything to secure the future for 
American seniors by improving and strengthening Social Security. We are 
doing nothing

[[Page H4749]]

over the next 10 years to guarantee that future Americans have the 
Social Security that they have been promised.
  We have to remember, as Members of Congress, that this is not some 
handout to Americans, this is something they have paid for. It is 
something they have paid for, with a promise that we have to be 
prepared to keep. And instead of spending every dime that comes in, we 
need to establish a mechanism where we can really save at least part of 
what people put into Social Security.
  There are several goals that we have to have for Social Security in 
addition to reducing spending so that we can really save for the 
future. One is, we need to reassure every American, regardless of age, 
that they will never receive less from Social Security than they are 
receiving today. This talk of cutting benefits needs to be thrown out 
the front door of this House. We need to guarantee the benefits for 
every American and establish where we are as the floor.
  In addition, instead of spending every dime that people put into 
Social Security, as we are doing today, we need to establish a 
mechanism within Social Security so that individuals can save part of 
what they are putting into Social Security for their future, so that 
when they retire they own something and have some control of their 
lives; and particularly for the poor, that they have something to pass 
on to the next generation.
  If we leave Social Security the way it is today, within 15 years, 
just a few years after this chart ends, we will begin to take money 
from the general fund just to pay the benefits of seniors, without 
changing anything on Social Security.
  Over the next 75 years, Members have heard some figures thrown out 
tonight, like $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years, but we are talking 
about, with no changes to Social Security, $25 trillion from the 
general fund that has to be transferred in addition to what is being 
paid into Social Security now so that we can continue to pay benefits 
in the future.
  We cannot continue to overlook this promise that we have made to 
Americans and continue to spend on everything, even though these are 
important things that we are talking about. All of us probably have 
something in these appropriation bills, but all of us have to be 
willing to give a little, and to at least slow the spending so that we 
can keep the promises to the seniors that we have made, and to help 
them really save and really own and really have independence when they 
retire.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, to begin, I want to join the gentleman from Wisconsin 
in welcoming those to the ``don't-shut-off-debate'' club. I voted 
against the motion to limit debate to 10 minutes. I am sorry it lost. 
But I am also sorry that we had rule after rule this year that brutally 
shut down this House. We had rule after rule where we had hours of free 
time on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and Thursdays, but the minority was not 
allowed to offer amendments.
  I voted not to shut down debate, and I hope that the commitment to 
open debate was not simply a fleeting one.
  Beyond that, I want to talk about what is really a very important 
philosophical issue. I am pleased that this has come forward, because 
we are talking here not about petty issues, we are talking about one of 
the most fundamental questions we can, as elected representatives, 
discuss: What is the appropriate level of public activity in our 
society?
  I think what is happening here is that it is being made clear that 
the reduction in revenue that went through in 2001 was unsustainable, 
according to the majority. After all, and it is very important to note 
in this debate, I have not heard those offering amendments and pushing 
for cuts denouncing the spending as bad. That is very important. This 
is not a case where people are saying, that is a bad thing; do not do 
it. What people are saying, and I respect the philosophical fount that 
it comes from, people are saying, yes, that is a good activity, but we 
cannot afford to do this much of it.
  No one is saying that the appropriations bill is funding things that 
should not be funded. The argument is that we are fiscally constrained. 
Well, that is a serious problem. I would have some sympathy for the 
majority Members of the Committee on Appropriations who found 
themselves in this dilemma if they had not put themselves in the 
dilemma.
  What we have here is a very clear example of a fact: The Republican 
Party is more committed to spending reduction in general than it is to 
spending reduction in particular. Unfortunately, they cannot cut 
spending in general, they have to cut spending in particular.
  So when it comes to cutting revenues, everybody wants to cut, but 
then when it comes to cutting programs to meet those revenue cuts, 
nobody wants to cut; not nobody, I take it back, about a third of the 
Republican Party, or maybe 40 percent wants to, and I honor them for 
having the courage of their convictions.
  But I must say, the majority of the Republican Party, I have heard of 
wanting to eat one's cake and have it, too. When they vote for tax 
cuts, and then they vote for appropriation bills above the level that 
the tax revenues will now support, they have a variation on eating the 
cake and have it too. They want to eat their cake, but also get credit 
for giving it away. First they reduce the revenues, then they commit 
themselves to spending more than they get in revenues.
  I am reminded of a piece of philosophical wisdom I got from a Boston 
city councillor in 1968 when I complained about what seemed to me to be 
inconsistency on the part of the voters. He patted me on the knee and 
said, hey, kid, ain't you heard the news: Everybody wants to go to 
heaven, but nobody wants to die.
  They want to cut taxes and get credit for reducing the revenues of 
this government, but then when their own majority brings forward 
appropriations, which they acknowledge are for good purposes, they say 
we cannot afford them. Why can we not afford them? Because they cut the 
revenues too much.
  Mr. Chairman, people ought to understand this, go back to David 
Stockman. In his book he said, here is why we cut taxes under President 
Reagan: We knew that if the money was there, the American public would 
want it spent. We knew that there were programs that were popular, and 
the only way to control the spending was to cut the revenue.
  If it was done to stimulate the economy, boy, that did not work, did 
it? In fact, the President in 2000 said, as a candidate, let us cut the 
taxes because the economy is doing so well. In 2001, he said, let us 
cut taxes because the economy is not doing well.
  Why cut taxes? To prevent spending from going forward. It turns out 
that much of this spending is essential, it is desirable, and only the 
Federal Government can do it. Only the Federal Government can fight the 
fires and do the other things in this bill.
  And again, I want to stress, I have not heard people denouncing the 
spending as bad spending.

                              {time}  2230

  There is an implicit acknowledgment that these are good things that 
we cannot afford. So what we are seeing today is an example of what I 
think, frankly, is a philosophical incoherence on the part of the 
Republican majority. There is a Republican minority that is 
philosophically consistent and is prepared to live up to the tax cut, 
but the rest of the Republican Party wants to have it both ways.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the gentleman, I just went through 
this. We were looking at this. I want these Members who have been so 
critical of the Committee on Appropriations in a sense, although they 
have been very kind towards the chairman and all of the rest of us to 
be aware of this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know we made some cuts in the 
subcommittee. Some of these are very painful. For example, the 
Cooperative Conservation Initiative, minus 100 million; Stateside Land 
and Water conservation, minus 46 million; Park Service Construction, 
minus 62 million;

[[Page H4750]]

Land Acquisition National Parks, minus 31 million; Technology Road 
Maps, Department of Energy, minus 4.5 million; the Kennedy Center, 
minus 4 million. So we made some cuts.
  Mr. FRANK. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, but do not expect 
too much credit for the cuts. I will be ready to come down here and 
apologize the day I read that Member after Member who voted for the tax 
cut went back to his or her district and said, I have good news for 
you. Thanks to the tax cut I voted for, we will not get the following 
project. Are we not glad for what we did for America?
  The day I hear Members who voted for the tax cut take credit for its 
consequences, I will acknowledge error.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is easy to say we should spend more money, but think 
for a moment of what is happening to American families. A lot of 
individuals around the United States are losing their jobs. Do you 
think they will be spending as usual? No, they are not. And all we are 
suggesting is simply to limit our increase in discretionary spending to 
inflation. We are not talking about cutting the interior budget or any 
other budget. If we could simply limit our spending to what the rest of 
the American people are doing. They are tightening their belts.
  We have had an emergency in this country. That emergency was being 
hit on September 11 by terrorists. That means we have got to come up 
with more money for that war on terror. If you have a war, if you have 
an emergency, it is reasonable, it is logical, it is practical to 
reduce some of the other spending that has lesser importance, not to go 
on spending as usual. That is not what an American family can do. That 
is not what an American business can do.
  I know we are in a situation where the people that lobby us say let 
us have more spending for this, for that. I know that we tend to go to 
the committees that we support and that we push for more spending as we 
gain seniority on those particular committees, but that is a problem we 
have got to deal with. Somehow we have got to realize that what made 
this country great was not being overtaxed. What made this country 
great was a Constitution that says that those that work hard, that try, 
that invest, that educate themselves are going to end up better off 
than those who do not. Yet we have continually pushed for increased 
taxes on corporations, increased taxes on bills.
  If a young couple decides to get a second job so they can have more 
for their families, we not only tax them at the same rate, we increase 
the rate of taxation so they have to pay more taxes to the Federal 
Government.
  Let us get back to our roots. Let us get back to what makes this 
country great. Let us not overtax ourselves and discourage business 
expansion. Let us do what we need to do in this House. We have let, and 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has said that a lot of this 
is now entitlement spending; and we have got to deal with that too. But 
the discretionary spending is what we are talking about tonight. That 
is what we should deal with. That is what we should say is reasonable, 
to limit that spending increase to inflation.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I listen with great interest to this debate this 
afternoon, and it is always amazing to me that these debates always 
take place at night, and they always take place by a majority of those 
participating in it who come from the west coast, which just happens to 
be prime time there. I am not making that innuendo that that is the 
reason that they are doing that now, but I rise to ask you a question.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislative appropriations that we will pass that 
we, most everyone, will vote for this year will be $3.4 billion. And, 
Mr. Chairman, if you break that down into 8 months of annual sessions, 
which is generally where we are in, at 5 days a week, which generally 
we are only in 3 days a week, that amounts to 160 legislative days. If 
you break the 160 legislative days down into weeks or to 1 day, it 
amounts to $21 million a week, or 2.65 thousand dollars an hour in 
which we debate.
  So every 5 minutes we spend debating an issue, it is costing the 
American taxpayer $44,000. By my calculations, if I have 5 minutes 
under the House rules to engage in this discussion with you, Mr. 
Chairman, if I yield back 2 minutes of my time, will I not save the 
American taxpayers $88,000?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just engaging in a colloquy with 
you because we all respect your judgment and know your tremendous 
knowledge of the operations of this House.
  The fact is it costs $44,000 a minute to run this House. It would 
appear to me that every time they talk about reducing a bill by 
$10,000, if they are going to spend $44,000 of Social Security money, 
it looks to me like we are losing money, and I would encourage them to 
try to work out something and they ought to do it in advance. They 
ought to go to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. They 
ought to go to the people who write the various appropriations bills 
and suggest to them before prime time television and then try to iron 
out their differences.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure and yield back 2 minutes of my 5 
minutes so I can save the American taxpayers $88,000.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do commend anyone who tries to save the taxpayers a 
buck, and I have actually voted with you guys on these things tonight. 
But the net effect of what you have done tonight is sort of like a flea 
biting into the hide of an elephant and saying, I have really got him 
now.
  The last vote was for 50 million. To give you some idea of just how 
broke this Nation is, at the end of last month our Nation was 
$6,126,468,760,400.48 in debt.
  When the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) was sworn in as 
Speaker, the Nation's debts was only, comparatively, 
$5,615,428,551,461.33. That means in the approximately 1,290 days he 
has been Speaker, $511,040,208,938 have been added to the debt, and you 
are worried about 50.
  See, in those approximately 1,290 days the Speaker has not allowed 
this body to vote on what really matters, and that is in the cutting a 
little bit here or a little bit of a tax break there, it is a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. So whether the R's or 
the D's or the I's or the chickens are running this House, the rules 
are you cannot cut taxes more than it takes to balance a budget, and 
you cannot spend more than you have in the bank.
  See, the biggest problem with this country is that we are squandering 
a billion dollars a day on interest on the national debt. I really 
appreciate what the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) had to say. 
Where I come from, $44,000 is a heck of a lot of money. So if $44,000 
is a heck of a lot of money, what do you think a billion a day is? A 
billion a day is a thousand times a thousand times a thousand. This 
year we will spend a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times 
365 just on interest on the national debt. It will not educate one kid. 
It will not fight one fire. It will not help the farmers. It will not 
defend our Nation. It is just squandered interest on the national debt.
  If you guys want to do something about it, why do you not ask the 
Speaker for a straight up-or-down vote on a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution? It just says we will live within our means. We 
passed it 7 years ago through this body. It went to the other body. It 
only failed by one vote. Maybe some of you think it might interfere 
with the $50 billion a year that we lose to the estate tax vote. Maybe 
some think it means we will not have money for social spending.
  Maybe all of us ought to be willing to give a little something up 
because all we are doing is sticking our kids with the bill. And in the 
past 23 years we have added over $5 trillion to the national debt. Just 
the Speaker's bill alone is more than this Nation borrowed between 
George Washington becoming President and 1975. That is 199 years of 
this Republic has been surpassed in debt during the Speaker's watch. I 
am ready to say enough is

[[Page H4751]]

enough, but the only way we can do that is get a vote on a balanced 
budget amendment.
  I will help you with some of our amendments. I will vote against some 
of the amendments. If you are really sincere about doing something for 
the American people, if you want to leave a legacy, let us pass a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, so that regardless of 
who is running this House it lives within its means. And before 
somebody gets too ambitious with tax cuts, they do not do it at the 
next generation's expense. All we have really done is the equivalent of 
someone going off to the car lot and saying, I want the most expensive 
car out there. And by the way, bill my 6-year-old kid. Or I want the 
most expensive house in the State of Mississippi; and, by the way, I 
have a 3-year-old grandson; just stick him with the bill, plus 
interest.
  That is what we have been doing for the past 23 years in this Nation. 
I am ashamed of that. I think in your heart of hearts you are too.
  We have a few days left in this session. We can pass that. We can 
send it to the other body. If you are really serious about the 
spending, let us not go after the fleas. Let us go after the real 
problem. Let us balance the budget.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), and he is 
my friend, I concur with you 110 percent; and there are many on this 
side of the aisle that do concur with you.
  I also want to say something else. I came in 1995 to my first year in 
the United States Congress, and I am proud to be a foot soldier here in 
the United States House, and I consider myself a foot soldier. There 
are a number of us on both sides of the aisle who are foot soldiers, 
who believe and hope that the majority of the time we are doing what is 
right for American people.
  I mention that because recently my friend from Mississippi, who is in 
the back of the Chamber, kept us here until like 2 or 3 in the morning 
making motions; and because he believed so strongly in what he was 
doing, I never was offended. Some Members on both sides of the aisle, I 
heard grumbling; but quite frankly, I did not because I thought that 
the gentleman was doing what he was elected to do if he believed what 
he was doing. I know the gentleman well enough to know that he believed 
in what he was doing.
  I want to say that tonight because we have Members on our side of the 
aisle and certainly those on the Democratic aisle that feel very 
passionately about these issues tonight. I want to mention, again, I 
did the first time I spoke 30, 40 minutes ago, that I have been on the 
floor once a week with a chart that I would hope some of the Members 
here tonight and those that will be in their offices would join me in a 
letter that I wrote to Secretary O'Neill.
  Now, we have been talking about billions of dollars here and billions 
of dollars there and millions of dollars here. Let me just read to you 
who might not be familiar with this. In the ``2001 Financial Report of 
the United States Government,'' which came out in March of this year, 
in March of this year, the report provides minimal data and information 
regarding these unreconciled transactions. Not only is the Federal 
Government missing $17.3 billion, but there is no reason given for this 
loss.
  Now, that is in the report to the American people. I know that makes 
the taxpayers of this country feel real good about their tax money.
  Now, I know this is not part of this interior bill or this debate, 
but I wanted to have this opportunity to say to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, we should be demanding that the Secretary of the 
Treasury come forward and explain where $17.3 billion has been lost by 
this Federal Government.

                              {time}  2245

  I am just as upset as anybody about the fact that WorldCom and Enron 
and the corporate executives cheated and committed fraud to those 
investors, but what I want to say to my colleagues, the taxpayers do 
not have a choice. They have to pay their taxes. I am not defending 
those who created the fraud because those people made investments, 
which we all do, most of us do from time to time, but the fact that the 
taxpayers of this country cannot get an explanation as to why in the 
2001 report we have lost $17.3 billion.
  So as this debate continues tonight or tomorrow or both days, it is, 
and we do agree, I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) a while ago in what he was saying. We have got to make 
decisions. We cannot cut taxes and expand government at the same time.
  That is the problem in my State of North Carolina. They are $2 
billion in debt today, and I do not know how my State of North Carolina 
is going to work out of this problem in the next 3 years, but part of 
that problem is when they did cut the taxes, they expanded the 
governmental programs, and it caught up with them.
  I just want for my children and grandchildren and my colleagues' 
children and grandchildren that they are not going to have to be paying 
a tax on the Federal taxes that they owe this government of 35 and 40 
percent over what we are paying today. In my opinion, that would be the 
economic downfall of this country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my voice to the debate that is 
taking place tonight. What this debate is about is trying to get our 
arms around this budget process. When the budget resolution passed 
earlier in the spring, it was passed at a time when we still had a 
budget surplus, and now when we find out just a few days ago we 
actually have a $165 billion budget deficit, and yet even still we are 
having a hard time getting an agreement to stick to the budget 
resolution that we created when we had a budget surplus.
  What this debate is all about, Mr. Chairman, is trying to make sense 
in the process. The men and the women who serve on the Committee on 
Appropriations who are managing these bills this evening are 
hardworking, good people, but the concern is bigger than just the 
appropriations process. It is bigger than the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The concern is, are we going to put together a process, absent with 
the fact that the Senate did not pass a budget resolution, that gives 
us some spending discipline here in Congress? We have serious 
challenges facing our country this year, Mr. Chairman. We went to war. 
We are just trying to get ourselves out of a recession, and we have 
serious vulnerabilities on our homeland that we are trying to protect. 
At the same time, we have a very significant and large budget deficit 
that just popped onto us for the first time in 5 years.
  We need to deal with this and we need this Congress to deal with it 
in a very serious way, and that is why we see these amendments coming 
through on the floor tonight because tonight is the first time we are 
approaching domestic discretionary spending. We passed defense bills 
for military construction. We passed a defense bill to fund the 
Pentagon, and we passed the supplemental to fund homeland security and 
to fund the ongoing operations in Afghanistan.
  Tonight is the beginning of the funding of domestic discretionary 
spending. That is why this debate is taking place tonight, because now 
as we move forward on funding domestic priorities, we realize that 
these priorities have not been adequately addressed by this Congress 
yet.
  That is why we are saying this, hold the line on domestic spending, 
address the need to fight the war, address the need to protect the 
homeland, and let us get a handle on getting rid of this budget 
deficit. That is why this debate is taking place.
  When we take a look at the budget process and we take a look at the 
budget resolution we have, the process has always broken down along the 
following logic, put the easier-to-pass bills earlier in the process, 
put them in the queue, raise the spending level on those bills and then 
lower the spending levels under levels that are not acceptable by this 
conference for the difficult appropriation bills. My own senior 
delegation member, the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, probably put it better than anybody has on the floor 
tonight; that is, that this is a process that is doomed to fail and 
that is doomed to spend more money at the end of the day.
  That is what we are trying to get our arms around right now. We are 
trying

[[Page H4752]]

to make this a process that is not doomed to fail, that is not a 
process that is doomed to spend more money at the end of the day. We 
are trying to bring sense to this process so that it is a process that 
helps us get our handle on this budget deficit while fixing our 
problems in the homeland, while fighting our priorities in the war and 
making sure that we go to the American people and we show them that we 
are being good stewards of their money.
  Mr. Chairman, we have corporate accounting scandals that are popping 
up in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times every week, and 
these corporate accounting scandals are showing that corporations are 
misrepresenting the facts, that they are overreporting income. Mr. 
Chairman, look at the kind of accounting problems we have had here in 
effect. It has already been mentioned over and over again that just in 
the last 5 or 6 years the corresponding budget amendments that have 
passed this House have been exceeded by this Congress by about $142 
billion, five times the reported scandals that have occurred in the 
private sector.
  So we need to get our handle on our fiscal responsibilities. We need 
to put our fiscal house in order, and we need to bring some common 
sense to this budget process because this is not a common year.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
any amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression 
     operations, fire science and research, emergency 
     rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and rural fire 
     assistance by the Department of the Interior, $655,332,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $12,374,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of 
     fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available 
     for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts 
     from which funds were previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 
     U.S.C. 1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without 
     cost from funds available from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received 
     by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for 
     fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq., 
     protection of United States property, may be credited to the 
     appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that 
     protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation: 
     Provided further, That using the amounts designated under 
     this title of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior may 
     enter into procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative 
     agreements, for hazardous fuels reduction activities, and for 
     training and monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels 
     reduction activities, on Federal land, or on adjacent non-
     Federal land for activities that benefit resources on Federal 
     land: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any 
     cooperative agreement between the Federal government and any 
     non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by 
     the affected parties: Provided further, That in entering into 
     such grants or cooperative agreements, the Secretary may 
     consider the enhancement of local and small business 
     employment opportunities for rural communities, and that in 
     entering into procurement contracts under this section on a 
     best value basis, the Secretary may take into account the 
     ability of an entity to enhance local and small business 
     employment opportunities in rural communities, and that the 
     Secretary may award procurement contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements under this section to entities that 
     include local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps 
     or related partnerships, or small or disadvantaged 
     businesses: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this head may be used to reimburse the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 
     for the costs of carrying out their responsibilities under 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
     to consult and conference, as required by section 7 of such 
     Act in connection with wildland fire management activities: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior may use 
     wildland fire appropriations to enter into non-competitive 
     sole source leases of real property with local governments, 
     at or below fair market value, to construct capitalized 
     improvements for fire facilities on such leased properties, 
     including but not limited to fire guard stations, retardant 
     stations, and other initial attack and fire support 
     facilities, and to make advance payments for any such lease 
     or for construction activity associated with the lease.
       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'' 
     for fiscal year 2002 in addition to the amounts made 
     available by Public Law 107-63, $200,000,000, to remain 
     available until December 31, 2002, for the cost of fire 
     suppression activities carried out by the Bureau of Land 
     Management and other Federal agencies related to the 2002 
     fire season, including reimbursement of funds borrowed from 
     other Department of Interior programs to fight such fires: 
     Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.


                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 
     $9,978,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or 
     paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for 
     remedial action or response activities conducted by the 
     Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act, 
     shall be credited to this account to be available until 
     expended without further appropriation: Provided further, 
     That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not 
     limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or 
     other personal or real property, which may be retained, 
     liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and 
     which shall be credited to this account.


                              construction

       For construction of buildings, recreation facilities, 
     roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $10,976,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $230,000,000, of 
     which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses and of which $70,000,000 is for the 
     conservation activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided, 
     That no payment shall be made to otherwise eligible units of 
     local government if the computed amount of the payment is 
     less than $100.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $49,286,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act.


                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $105,633,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all 
     receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested 
     Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a 
     charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and 
     shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).


               forest ecosystems health and recovery fund

                   (revolving fund, special account)

       In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
     381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and 
     Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning, 
     preparing, implementing, and monitoring salvage timber sales 
     and forest ecosystem health and recovery activities such as 
     release from competing vegetation and density control 
     treatments. The Federal share of receipts (defined as the 
     portion of salvage timber receipts not paid to the counties 
     under 43 U.S.C. 1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et seq., and 
     Public Law 106-393) derived from treatments funded by this 
     account shall be deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health 
     and Recovery Fund.


                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50

[[Page H4753]]

     percent of all moneys received during the prior fiscal year 
     under sections 3 and 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 
     315 et seq.) and the amount designated for range improvements 
     from grazing fees and mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-
     Jones lands transferred to the Department of the Interior 
     pursuant to law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $600,000 shall be available for administrative expenses.


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law 
     93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys 
     that have been or will be received pursuant to that section, 
     whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement, 
     if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be 
     expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to 
     improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands 
     administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have 
     been damaged by the action of a resource developer, 
     purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without 
     regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action 
     are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action: 
     Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of 
     amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which 
     funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged 
     public lands.


                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as 
     may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October 
     21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be 
     advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and 
     costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section 
     211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on her certificate, not to exceed 
     $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share the cost of 
     printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau 
     determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted 
     quality standards.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general 
     administration, and for the performance of other authorized 
     functions related to such resources by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 
     agreements with public and private entities, $918,359,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2004, except as 
     otherwise provided herein, of which $69,006,000 is for 
     conservation spending category activities pursuant to section 
     251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of discretionary 
     spending limits: Provided,  That not less than $2,000,000 
     shall be provided to local governments in southern California 
     for planning associated with the Natural Communities 
     Conservation Planning (NCCP) program and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That $2,000,000 
     is for high priority projects which shall be carried out by 
     the Youth Conservation Corps, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $9,077,000 shall be used for 
     implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 
     of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, for species that 
     are indigenous to the United States (except for processing 
     petitions, developing and issuing proposed and final 
     regulations, and taking any other steps to implement actions 
     described in subsection (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or 
     (c)(2)(B)(ii)), of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be 
     used for any activity regarding the designation of critical 
     habitat, pursuant to subsection (a)(3), excluding litigation 
     support, for species already listed pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1) as of the date of enactment this Act: Provided 
     further, That of the amount available for law enforcement, up 
     to $400,000 to remain available until expended, may at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, be used for payment for 
     information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of 
     laws administered by the Service, and miscellaneous and 
     emergency expenses of enforcement activity, authorized or 
     approved by the Secretary and to be accounted for solely on 
     her certificate: Provided further, That of the amount 
     provided for environmental contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may 
     remain available until expended for contaminant sample 
     analyses.


                              construction

       For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of 
     buildings and other facilities required in the conservation, 
     management, investigation, protection, and utilization of 
     fishery and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein; $51,308,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a single procurement for the expansion of the Clark 
     R. Bavin Forensics Laboratory in Oregon may be issued, which 
     includes the full scope of the project: Provided further, 
     That the solicitation and the contract shall contain the 
     clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232.18.

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, $82,250,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be for the conservation 
     activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, 
     for the purposes of such Act: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated for specific land acquisition projects can 
     be used to pay for any administrative overhead, planning or 
     other management costs.


                      landowner incentive program

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     private conservation efforts to be carried out on private 
     lands, $40,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for conservation spending category activities pursuant to 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     discretionary spending limits: Provided, That the amount 
     provided herein is for a Landowner Incentive Program 
     established by the Secretary that provides matching, 
     competitively awarded grants to States, the District of 
     Columbia, Tribes, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, to 
     establish, or supplement existing, landowner incentive 
     programs that provide technical and financial assistance, 
     including habitat protection and restoration, to private 
     landowners for the protection and management of habitat to 
     benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or 
     other at-risk species on private lands.


                           stewardship grants

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     private conservation efforts to be carried out on private 
     lands, $10,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for conservation spending category activities pursuant to 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     discretionary spending limits: Provided, That the amount 
     provided herein is for the Secretary to establish a Private 
     Stewardship Grants Program to provide grants and other 
     assistance to individuals and groups engaged in private 
     conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed, 
     or candidate species, or other at-risk species.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended, $121,400,000, of which $42,929,000 is to be derived 
     from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund and 
     $86,471,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $19,414,000, of which $5,000,000 is 
     for conservation spending category activities pursuant to 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and

[[Page H4754]]

     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of discretionary spending limits.


               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     as amended, $43,560,000, to remain available until expended 
     and to be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, amounts in excess of funds provided in fiscal year 2001 
     shall be used only for projects in the United States.


                neotropical migratory bird conservation

       For financial assistance for projects to promote the 
     conservation of neotropical migratory birds in accordance 
     with the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Public 
     Law 106-247 (16 U.S.C. 6101-6109), $5,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be for conservation spending 
     activities pursuant to section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for 
     the purposes of discretionary spending limits.


                multinational species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225, 
     4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 
     1997 (Public Law 105-96; 16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), the Rhinoceros 
     and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), and 
     the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6301), 
     $4,800,000, to remain available until expended, and to be for 
     conservation spending activities pursuant to section 251(c) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, for the purposes of discretionary spending 
     limits.


                         state wildlife grants

       For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 
     and federally recognized Indian tribes under the provisions 
     of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and 
     Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and 
     implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and 
     their habitat, including species that are not hunted or 
     fished, $100,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act: Provided, That of the amount provided herein, $5,000,000 
     is for a competitive grant program for Indian tribes not 
     subject to the remaining provisions of this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall, after deducting 
     said $5,000,000 and administrative expenses, apportion the 
     amount provided herein in the following manner: (A) to the 
     District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     each a sum equal to not more than one-half of 1 percent 
     thereof: and (B) to Guam, American Samoa, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, each a sum equal to not more than one-fourth of 1 
     percent thereof: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     apportion the remaining amount in the following manner: (A) 
     one-third of which is based on the ratio to which the land 
     area of such State bears to the total land area of all such 
     States; and (B) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to 
     which the population of such State bears to the total 
     population of all such States: Provided further, That the 
     amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be adjusted 
     equitably so that no State shall be apportioned a sum which 
     is less than 1 percent of the amount available for 
     apportionment under this paragraph for any fiscal year or 
     more than 5 percent of such amount: Provided further, That 
     the Federal share of planning grants shall not exceed 75 
     percent of the total costs of such projects and the Federal 
     share of implementation grants shall not exceed 50 percent of 
     the total costs of such projects: Provided further, That the 
     non-Federal share of such projects may not be derived from 
     Federal grant programs: Provided further, That no State, 
     territory, or other jurisdiction shall receive a grant unless 
     it has developed, or committed to develop by October 1, 2005, 
     a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan, consistent with 
     criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior, that 
     considers the broad range of the State, territory, or other 
     jurisdiction's wildlife and associated habitats, with 
     appropriate priority placed on those species with the 
     greatest conservation need and taking into consideration the 
     relative level of funding available for the conservation of 
     those species: Provided further, That any amount apportioned 
     in 2003 to any State, territory, or other jurisdiction that 
     remains unobligated as of September 30, 2004, shall be 
     reapportioned, together with funds appropriated in 2005, in 
     the manner provided herein.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 102 passenger motor vehicles, of which 75 are 
     for replacement only (including 39 for police-type use); 
     repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to 
     reservation areas caused by operations of the Service; 
     options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each 
     option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses 
     on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary 
     purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria, 
     buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     Service and to which the United States has title, and which 
     are used pursuant to law in connection with management and 
     investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under 
     cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements 
     authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators 
     in connection with jointly produced publications for which 
     the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing 
     either in cash or services and the Service determines the 
     cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards: 
     Provided further, That the Service may accept donated 
     aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or 
     interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new 
     unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the 
     purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in Senate Report 105-56.

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     $1,605,593,000, of which $9,000,000 is for conservation 
     spending category activities pursuant to section 251(c) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, for the purposes of discretionary spending 
     limits and of which $10,892,000 for research, planning and 
     interagency coordination in support of Everglades restoration 
     shall remain available until expended; and of which 
     $90,280,000 to remain available until September 30, 2004, is 
     for maintenance repair or rehabilitation projects for 
     constructed assets, operation of the National Park Service 
     automated facility management software system, and 
     comprehensive facility condition assessments; and of which 
     $2,000,000 is for the Youth Conservation Corps, defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act, for high priority projects: Provided, That the only 
     funds in this account which may be made available to support 
     United States Park Police are those funds approved for 
     emergency law and order incidents pursuant to established 
     National Park Service procedures, those funds needed to 
     maintain and repair United States Park Police administrative 
     facilities, and those funds necessary to reimburse the United 
     States Park Police account for the unbudgeted overtime and 
     travel costs associated with special events for an amount not 
     to exceed $10,000 per event subject to the review and 
     concurrence of the Washington headquarters office: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this or any other Act may 
     be used to fund a new Associate Director position for Law 
     Enforcement, Protection, and Emergency Services.


                       United States Park Police

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs of the 
     United States Park Police, $78,431,000.


                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other 
     activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, $56,330,000.


                     Urban Park and Recreation Fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2501 et seq.), $30,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended and to be for the conservation activities defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act.


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-333), $76,500,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30, 
     2004, and to be for the conservation activities defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act: Provided, That, of the amount provided 
     herein, $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, is 
     for a grant for the perpetual care and maintenance of 
     National Trust Historic Sites, as authorized under 16 U.S.C. 
     470a(e)(2), to be made available in full upon signing of a 
     grant agreement: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, these funds shall be available for 
     investment with the proceeds to be used for the same purpose 
     as set out herein: Provided

[[Page H4755]]

     further, That of the total amount provided, $30,000,000 shall 
     be for Save America's Treasures for priority preservation 
     projects, of nationally significant sites, structures, and 
     artifacts: Provided further, That any individual Save 
     America's Treasures grant shall be matched by non-Federal 
     funds: Provided further, That individual projects shall only 
     be eligible for one grant, and all projects to be funded 
     shall be approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Secretary of the Interior in 
     consultation with the President's Committee on the Arts and 
     Humanities prior to the commitment of grant funds: Provided 
     further, That Save America's Treasures funds allocated for 
     Federal projects shall be available by transfer to 
     appropriate accounts of individual agencies, after approval 
     of such projects by the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the President's Committee on the Arts and 
     Humanities.


                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, including the modifications authorized 
     by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989, $325,186,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $53,736,000 is for conservation 
     activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, 
     for the purposes of such Act: Provided, That none of the 
     funds in this or any other Act, may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of more than 160 Full Time Equivalent 
     personnel working for the National Park Service's Denver 
     Service Center funded under the construction program 
     management and operations activity: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds provided in this or any other Act may be 
     used to pre-design, plan, or construct any new facility 
     (including visitor centers, curatorial facilities, 
     administrative buildings), for which appropriations have not 
     been specifically provided if the net construction cost of 
     such facility is in excess of $5,000,000, without prior 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That this restriction 
     applies to all funds available to the National Park Service, 
     including partnership and fee demonstration projects: 
     Provided further, That the National Park Service may transfer 
     to the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico, funds for the 
     construction of the National Cave and Karst Research 
     Institute to be built and operated in accordance with 
     provisions in Public Law 105-325 and all other applicable 
     laws and regulations. Title to the Institute will be held by 
     the City of Carlsbad.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2003 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with the statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $253,099,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, and to be for the conservation activities defined 
     in section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act, of which $150,000,000 is for the State assistance 
     program including $4,000,000 to administer the State 
     assistance program: Provided, That of the amounts provided 
     under this heading, $20,000,000 may be for Federal grants, 
     including Federal administrative expenses, to the State of 
     Florida for the acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, within the Everglades watershed (consisting of lands 
     and waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water 
     Management District, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, 
     including the areas known as the Frog Pond, the Rocky Glades 
     and the Eight and One-Half Square Mile Area) under terms and 
     conditions deemed necessary by the Secretary to improve and 
     restore the hydrological function of the Everglades 
     watershed: Provided further, That funds provided under this 
     heading for assistance to the State of Florida to acquire 
     lands within the Everglades watershed are contingent upon new 
     matching non-Federal funds by the State, or are matched by 
     the State pursuant to the cost-sharing provisions of section 
     316(b) of Public Law 104-303, and shall be subject to an 
     agreement that the lands to be acquired will be managed in 
     perpetuity for the restoration of the Everglades: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided for the State 
     assistance program may be used to establish a contingency 
     fund: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds provided in this Act and in prior 
     Acts for project modifications by the Army Corps of Engineers 
     pursuant in section 104 of the Everglades National Park 
     Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 shall be made available 
     to the Army Corps of Engineers, which shall implement without 
     further delay Alternative 6D, including acquisition of lands 
     and interests in lands, as generally described in the Central 
     and Southern Florida Project, Modified Water Deliveries to 
     Everglades National Park, Florida, 8.5 Square Mile Area, 
     General Reevaluation Report and Final Supplemental 
     Environmental Impact Statement, dated July 2000, for the 
     purpose of providing a flood protection system for the 8.5 
     Square Mile Area.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 301 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 273 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 226 for police-type use, 10 buses, 
     and 8 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been 
     submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior 
     to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day 
     in which either House of Congress is not in session because 
     of adjournment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certain) 
     from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may distribute to operating units 
     based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs 
     designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to 
     encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits 
     pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     return to appropriate positions for which they are medically 
     able.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in fiscal year 
     2003 and thereafter, sums provided to the National Park 
     Service by private entities for utility services shall be 
     credited to the appropriate account and remain available 
     until expended. Heretofore and hereafter, in carrying out the 
     work under reimbursable agreements with any State, local or 
     tribal government, the National Park Service may, without 
     regard to 31 U.S.C. 1341 or any other provision of law or 
     regulation, record obligations against accounts receivable 
     from such entities, and shall credit amounts received from 
     such entities to the appropriate account, such credit to 
     occur within 90 days of the date of the original request by 
     the National Park Service for payment.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 
     mineral and water resources of the United States, its 
     territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 
     43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their 
     mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to 
     power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the 
     foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the 
     economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and 
     related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and 
     disseminate data; $928,405,000, of which $64,855,000 shall be 
     available only for cooperation with States or municipalities 
     for water resources investigations; of which $15,650,000 
     shall remain available until expended for conducting 
     inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and 
     materials processing industries; of which $24,448,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2004 for the operation and 
     maintenance of facilities and deferred maintenance; and of 
     which $170,414,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2004 for the biological research activity and the operation 
     of the Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of 
     these funds provided for the biological research activity 
     shall be used to conduct new surveys on private property, 
     unless specifically authorized in writing by the property 
     owner: Provided further, That of the amount provided herein, 
     $25,000,000 is for the conservation activities defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act: Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the 
     cost of topographic mapping or water resources data 
     collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with 
     States and municipalities.


                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed 
     53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement 
     only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration 
     for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing 
     of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or 
     other specialized surveys when it is administratively 
     determined that such procedures are in the public interest; 
     construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and 
     appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging 
     stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States 
     National Committee on Geology; and

[[Page H4756]]

     payment of compensation and expenses of persons on the rolls 
     of the Survey duly appointed to represent the United States 
     in the negotiation and administration of interstate compacts: 
     Provided, That activities funded by appropriations herein 
     made may be accomplished through the use of contracts, 
     grants, or cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 
     6302 et seq.: Provided further, That the United States 
     Geological Survey may use cooperative agreements for joint 
     research and data collection programs with Federal, State, 
     and academic partners and may obtain space in cooperator 
     facilities incident to such cooperative agreements.

                       Mineral Management Service


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only, $164,721,000, of which $83,284,000, 
     shall be available for royalty management activities; and an 
     amount not to exceed $100,230,000, to be credited to this 
     appropriation and to remain available until expended, from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee 
     collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities performed by the Minerals Management Service over 
     and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and from 
     additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities established after September 30, 1993: Provided, 
     That to the extent $100,230,000 in additions to receipts are 
     not realized from the sources of receipts stated above, the 
     amount needed to reach $100,230,000 shall be credited to this 
     appropriation from receipts resulting from rental rates for 
     Outer Continental Shelf leases in effect before August 5, 
     1993: Provided further, That $3,000,000 for computer 
     acquisitions shall remain available until September 30, 2004: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be available for the payment of interest in accordance 
     with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and (d): Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses 
     related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup 
     activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be 
     available for refunds of overpayments in connection with 
     certain Indian leases in which the Director of the Minerals 
     Management Service (MMS) concurred with the claimed refund 
     due, to pay amounts owed to Indian allottees or tribes, or to 
     correct prior unrecoverable erroneous payments: Provided 
     further, That MMS may under the royalty-in-kind pilot 
     program, or under its authority to transfer oil to the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve, use a portion of the revenues 
     from royalty-in-kind sales, without regard to fiscal year 
     limitation, to pay for transportation to wholesale market 
     centers or upstream pooling points, to process or otherwise 
     dispose of royalty production taken in kind, and to recover 
     MMS transportation costs, salaries, and other administrative 
     costs directly related to filling the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve: Provided further, That MMS shall analyze and 
     document the expected return in advance of any royalty-in-
     kind sales to assure to the maximum extent practicable that 
     royalty income under the pilot program is equal to or greater 
     than royalty income recognized under a comparable royalty-in-
     value program.


                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,105,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $105,367,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, 
     pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants 
     to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2003 for civil 
     penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to 
     reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices 
     after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of 
     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for 
     the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal 
     personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement sponsored training.


                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $184,745,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to 
     $10,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of 
     the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the 
     Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants 
     to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in 
     fiscal year 2003: Provided further, That of the funds herein 
     provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency 
     program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as 
     amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for 
     emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for 
     federally administered emergency reclamation projects under 
     this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, 
     That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the 
     emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25 
     percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal 
     year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further, 
     That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the 
     Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the 
     recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States 
     Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of 
     Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal 
     share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal 
     Government for the purpose of environmental restoration 
     related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be 
     consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian 
     programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of 
     November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended, 
     $1,859,064,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004 
     except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed 
     $89,857,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not 
     limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, not to exceed $133,209,000 shall be available for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants, 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2003, as authorized by 
     such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding 
     agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and up to 
     $2,000,000 shall be for the Indian Self-Determination Fund 
     which shall be available for the transitional cost of initial 
     or expanded tribal contracts, grants, compacts or cooperative 
     agreements with the Bureau under such Act; and of which not 
     to exceed $454,985,000 for school operations costs of Bureau-
     funded schools and other education programs shall become 
     available on July 1, 2003, and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2004; and of which not to exceed $57,536,000 
     shall remain available until expended for housing 
     improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation 
     support, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, land records 
     improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination 
     Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed 
     $49,065,000 within and only from such amounts made available 
     for school operations shall be available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations for administrative cost grants associated with 
     the operation of Bureau-funded schools: Provided further, 
     That any forestry funds allocated to a tribe which remain 
     unobligated as of September 30, 2004, may be transferred 
     during fiscal year 2005 to an Indian forest land assistance 
     account established for the benefit of such tribe within the 
     tribe's trust fund account: Provided further, That any such 
     unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on 
     September 30, 2005.


                              construction

       For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $345,252,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available 
     to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway 
     Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management 
     costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds 
     provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
     13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2003, in implementing 
     new construction or facilities improvement and repair project

[[Page H4757]]

     grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally 
     controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as 
     amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization would be deficient in assuring that the 
     construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e).


 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $60,949,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $24,870,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618 and 
     102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights 
     settlements; of which $5,068,000 shall be available for 
     future water supplies facilities under Public Law 106-163; of 
     which $31,011,000 shall be available pursuant to Public Laws 
     99-264, 100-580, 106-263, 106-425, and 106-554: Provided, 
     That of the amount provided for implementation of Public Law 
     106-263, $3,000,000 for a water rights and habitat 
     acquisition program shall be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund.


                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed and insured loans, $5,000,000, 
     as authorized by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $72,424,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed and insured loan programs, $493,000.


                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of 
     Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in 
     cooperation with States and other organizations.
       Notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 15, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     may contract for services in support of the management, 
     operation, and maintenance of the Power Division of the San 
     Carlos Irrigation Project.
       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 
     account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and 
     purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     operations, pooled overhead general administration (except 
     facilities operations and maintenance), or provided to 
     implement the recommendations of the National Academy of 
     Public Administration's August 1999 report shall be available 
     for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative 
     agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the 
     provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal 
     Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
       In the event any tribe returns appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
     distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish 
     the Federal Government's trust responsibility to that tribe, 
     or the government-to-government relationship between the 
     United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to 
     access future appropriations.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided 
     herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 
     et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any 
     elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
       Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for 
     schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. 
     No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support 
     expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade 
     structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the 
     Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of 
     October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not 
     be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded 
     school (as that term is defined in section 1146 of the 
     Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a 
     charter school that is in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
     funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to 
     operate during that period, but only if the charter school 
     pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reimburse the 
     Bureau for the use of the real and personal property 
     (including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school 
     are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau 
     does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of 
     the State in which the school is located if the charter 
     school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools 
     sharing a campus with a charter school and performing 
     functions related to the charter school's operation and 
     employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal 
     employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the ``Federal Tort Claims 
     Act'').

                          Departmental Offices

                            Insular Affairs


                       assistance to territories

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $73,217,000, of which: (1) $67,922,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and 
     brown tree snake control and research; grants to the 
     judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as 
     authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the 
     Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local 
     revenues, for construction and support of governmental 
     functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as 
     authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as 
     authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
     241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $5,295,000 shall be available for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs: 
     Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial 
     and local governments herein provided for, including such 
     transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established 
     or used by such governments, may be audited by the General 
     Accounting Office, at its discretion, in accordance with 
     chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be 
     provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the 
     Special Representatives on Future United States Financial 
     Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by 
     Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     provided for Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding, 
     $1,000,000 shall be granted to the Prior Service Benefits 
     Administration: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     provided for technical assistance, sufficient funding shall 
     be made available for a grant to the Close Up Foundation: 
     Provided further, That the funds for the program of 
     operations and maintenance improvement are appropriated to 
     institutionalize routine operations and maintenance 
     improvement of capital infrastructure, with territorial 
     participation and cost sharing to be determined by the 
     Secretary based on the grantee's commitment to timely 
     maintenance of its capital assets: Provided further, That any 
     appropriation for disaster assistance under this heading in 
     this Act or previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-
     Federal matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation 
     grants provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170c).


                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $21,045,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 
     99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $72,533,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses, and of 
     which up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers 
     compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments 
     associated with the orderly closure of the United States 
     Bureau of Mines.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $47,473,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $36,239,000, of which $3,812,000 shall be for procurement by 
     contract of independent auditing services to audit the 
     consolidated Department of the Interior annual financial 
     statement and the annual financial statement of the 
     Department of the Interior bureaus and offices funded in this 
     Act.

[[Page H4758]]

                   National Indian Gaming Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Indian Gaming 
     Commission, pursuant to Public Law 100-497, $2,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians


                         federal trust programs

       For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $141,277,000, to remain available until expended, 
     including not to exceed $15,000,000 to perform a historical 
     accounting of each Individual Indian Money Account open on 
     December 31, 2000, covering the period from the date on which 
     the account was opened or January 1, 1985, whichever is 
     later, to December 31, 2000: Provided, That hereafter no 
     funds provided under this or any other Act shall be available 
     to conduct a historical accounting of Individual Indian Money 
     Accounts other than an accounting for the period specified in 
     this Act of accounts open on December 31, 2000, unless such 
     accounting is specifically provided for in a subsequent Act 
     of Congress: Provided further, That funds for trust 
     management improvements may be transferred, as needed, to the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs ``Operation of Indian Programs'' 
     account and to the Departmental Management ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'' account: Provided further, That funds made 
     available to Tribes and Tribal organizations through 
     contracts or grants obligated during fiscal year 2003, as 
     authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (25 
     U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall remain available until expended by 
     the contractor or grantee: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the statute of 
     limitations shall not commence to run on any claim, including 
     any claim in litigation pending on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, concerning losses to or mismanagement of trust 
     funds, until the affected tribe or individual Indian has been 
     furnished with an accounting of such funds from which the 
     beneficiary can determine whether there has been a loss: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall not be required to provide a 
     quarterly statement of performance for any Indian trust 
     account that has not had activity for at least 18 months and 
     has a balance of $1.00 or less: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall issue an annual account statement and 
     maintain a record of any such accounts and shall permit the 
     balance in each such account to be withdrawn upon the express 
     written request of the account holder: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $50,000 is available for the Secretary to make 
     payments to correct administrative errors of either 
     disbursements from or deposits to Individual Indian Money or 
     Tribal accounts after September 30, 2002: Provided further, 
     That erroneous payments that are recovered shall be credited 
     to this account.


                       indian land consolidation

       For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands 
     and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing 
     escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary 
     expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 
     1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative 
     agreement, $7,980,000, to remain available until expended and 
     which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
     Departmental Management.

           Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration


                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment and 
     restoration activities by the Department of the Interior 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et 
     seq.), and Public Law 101-337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et 
     seq.), $5,538,000, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by 
     donation, purchase or through available excess surplus 
     property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with 
     proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the 
     purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided 
     further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in 
     the ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the Solicitor'', 
     and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through 
     the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the 
     emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for wildland fire operations shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until the Secretary determines 
     that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations'' 
     shall be exhausted within 30 days: Provided further, That all 
     funds used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible: Provided further, That such 
     replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata 
     basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That 
     reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, 
     and for services rendered may be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are 
     received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Annual appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of 12 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     preleasing, leasing and related activities placed under 
     restriction in the President's moratorium statement of June 
     12, 1998, in the areas of northern, central, and southern 
     California; the North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and 
     the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude 
     and east of 86 degrees west longitude.
       Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities, on lands within the North Aleutian Basin planning 
     area.
       Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and 
     natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the 
     eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located 
     outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer 
     Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
     2002.

[[Page H4759]]

       Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural 
     gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
     Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
       Sec. 111. Advance payments made under this title to Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant 
     to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the 
     Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such 
     funds are expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or 
     annual funding agreement so long as such funds are--
       (1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or 
     consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in 
     obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by 
     the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest 
     in obligations of the United States or securities that are 
     guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
       (2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an 
     agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully 
     collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the 
     event of a bank failure.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service shall not develop or implement a 
     reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel 
     through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate 
     local non-recreational passage through units of the National 
     Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and 
     permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
       Sec. 113. Appropriations made in this Act under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same 
     headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for 
     Indian trust management and reform activities.
       Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior hereafter has ongoing authority to 
     negotiate and enter into agreements and leases, without 
     regard to section 321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 
     1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b), with any person, firm, association, 
     organization, corporation, or governmental entity, for all or 
     part of the property within Fort Baker administered by the 
     Secretary as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation 
     Area. The proceeds of the agreements or leases shall be 
     retained by the Secretary and such proceeds shall remain 
     available until expended, without further appropriation, for 
     the preservation, restoration, operation, maintenance, 
     interpretation, public programs, and related expenses of the 
     National Park Service and nonprofit park partners incurred 
     with respect to Fort Baker properties.
       Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of reducing the backlog of Indian probate cases 
     in the Department of the Interior, the hearing requirements 
     of chapter 10 of title 25, United States Code, are deemed 
     satisfied by a proceeding conducted by an Indian probate 
     judge, appointed by the Secretary without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing the 
     appointments in the competitive service, for such period of 
     time as the Secretary determines necessary: Provided, That 
     the basic pay of an Indian probate judge so appointed may be 
     fixed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing the classification and pay of 
     General Schedule employees, except that no such Indian 
     probate judge may be paid at a level which exceeds the 
     maximum rate payable for the highest grade of the General 
     Schedule, including locality pay.
       Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal 
     Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal 
     year 2003. Under circumstances of dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
       Sec. 117. Funds appropriated for the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs for postsecondary schools for fiscal year 2003 shall 
     be allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet 
     need of the schools as determined by the Postsecondary 
     Funding Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education 
     Programs.
       Sec. 118. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall take such 
     action as may be necessary to ensure that the lands 
     comprising the Huron Cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas (as 
     described in section 123 of Public Law 106-291) are used only 
     in accordance with this section.
       (b) The lands of the Huron Cemetery shall be used only: (1) 
     for religious and cultural uses that are compatible with the 
     use of the lands as a cemetery; and (2) as a burial ground.
       Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority 
     provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms 
     of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and 
     use any such reimbursement until expended and without further 
     appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all 
     activities authorized by Public Law 100-696; 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
       Sec. 120. Section 412(b) of the National Parks Omnibus 
     Management Act of 1998, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5961) is 
     further amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service may authorize, through cooperative 
     agreement, the Golden Gate National Parks Association to 
     provide fee-based education, interpretive and visitor service 
     functions within the Crissy Field and Fort Point areas of the 
     Presidio.
       Sec. 122. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), sums received 
     by the Bureau of Land Management for the sale of seeds or 
     seedlings including those collected in fiscal year 2002, may 
     be credited to the appropriation from which funds were 
     expended to acquire or grow the seeds or seedlings and are 
     available without fiscal year limitation.


                 White River Oil Shale Mine, Utah--Sale

       Sec. 123. Subject to the terms and conditions of section 
     126 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Act, 2002, the Administrator of General Services shall sell 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the improvements and equipment of the White River Oil Shale 
     Mine.
       Sec. 124. The Secretary of the Interior may use or contract 
     for the use of helicopters or motor vehicles on the Sheldon 
     and Hart National Wildlife Refuges for the purpose of 
     capturing and transporting horses and burros. The provisions 
     of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959 (73 Stat. 
     470; 18 U.S.C. 47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use. 
     Such use shall be in accordance with humane procedures 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       Sec. 125. Funds provided in this Act for Federal land 
     acquisition by the National Park Service for Shenandoah 
     Valley Battlefields National Historic District, and Ice Age 
     National Scenic Trail may be used for a grant to a State, a 
     local government, or any other governmental land management 
     entity for the acquisition of lands without regard to any 
     restriction on the use of Federal land acquisition funds 
     provided through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 as amended.
       Sec. 126. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
       Sec. 127. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when such pedestrian use is consistent with 
     generally accepted safety standards.
       Sec. 128. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to 
     post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National 
     Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional 
     area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if 
     such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
       Sec. 129. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service may use funds 
     appropriated in this Act for incidental expenses related to 
     promoting and celebrating the Centennial of the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System.
       Sec. 130. The National Park Service may in fiscal year 2003 
     and thereafter enter into a cooperative agreement with and 
     transfer funds to Capital Concerts, a nonprofit organization, 
     for the purpose of carrying out programs pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 6305.
       Sec. 131. No later than 30 days after enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall provide to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the House 
     Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian 
     Affairs a summary of the Ernst and Young report on the 
     historical accounting for the five named plaintiffs in Cobell 
     v. Norton. The summary shall not provide individually 
     identifiable financial information, but shall fully describe 
     the aggregate results of the historical accounting.
       Sec. 132. None of the funds in this or any other Act for 
     the Department of the Interior or the Department of Justice 
     can be used to compensate the Special Master and the Court 
     Monitor appointed by the United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia in the Cobell v. Norton litigation at an 
     annual rate that exceeds 200 percent of the highest Senior 
     Executive Service rate of pay for the Washington-Baltimore 
     locality pay area.
       Sec. 133. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act the 
     Special Trustee for American Indians, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the Tribes, shall appoint 
     new members to the Special Trustee Advisory Board.
       Sec. 134. The Secretary of the Interior may use 
     discretionary funds to pay private attorneys fees and costs 
     for employees and former employees of the Department of the 
     Interior reasonably incurred in connection with Cobell v. 
     Norton to the extent that such fees and costs are not paid by 
     the Department of

[[Page H4760]]

     Justice or by private insurance. In no case shall the 
     Secretary make payments under this section that would result 
     in payment of hourly fees in excess of the highest hourly 
     rate approved by the District Court for the District of 
     Columbia for counsel in Cobell v. Norton.
       Sec. 135. Section 124(a) of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1997 (16 U.S.C. 1011 
     (a)), as amended, is further amended by inserting after the 
     phrase ``appropriations made for the Bureau of Land 
     Management'' the phrase ``including appropriations for the 
     Wildland Fire Management account allocated to the National 
     Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs''.
       Sec. 136. Public Law 107-106 is amended as follows: in 
     section 5(a) strike ``9 months after the date of enactment of 
     the Act'' and insert in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2003''.
       Sec. 137. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     funds provided in the Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002, 
     Public Law 107-116, for the National Museum of African 
     American History and Culture Plan for Action Presidential 
     Commission shall remain available until expended.
       Sec. 138. 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, the Secretary of the Interior, and the South Florida 
     Water Management District.
       Sec. 139. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall, in 
     carrying out its responsibilities to protect threatened and 
     endangered species of salmon, implement a system of mass 
     marking of salmonid stocks released from Federally operated 
     or Federally financed hatcheries including but not limited to 
     fish releases of the coho, chinook, and steelhead species. 
     The requirements of this section shall not be applicable when 
     the hatchery fish are produced for conservation purposes.
       Sec. 140. The visitor center at the Bitter Lake National 
     Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico shall be named for Joseph R. 
     Skeen and, hereafter, shall be referred to in any law, 
     document, or record of the United States as the ``Joseph R. 
     Skeen Visitor Center''.

     SEC. 141. COMMISSION ON NATIVE AMERICAN POLICY.

       (a) Establishment.--Hereafter, there is established a 
     commission to be known as the ``Commission on Native American 
     Policy'' (in this section referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 13 
     members appointed for the life of the Commission by the 
     President as follows:
       (1) A representative from the National Governors' 
     Association.
       (2) A representative from the National Association of 
     Attorneys General.
       (3) The Attorney General, or a designee.
       (4) The Secretary of the Treasury, or a designee.
       (5) The Secretary of the Interior, or a designee.
       (6) The Secretary of Commerce, or a designee.
       (7) The Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission, 
     or a designee.
       (8) 2 representatives from Indian tribes that operate 
     Indian gaming facilities.
       (9) 2 representatives from Indian tribes that do not 
     operate Indian gaming facilities.
       (10) 1 representative from a unit of local government that 
     is located near an Indian gaming facility.
       (11) 1 representative from the chamber of commerce of a 
     unit of local government that is located near an Indian 
     gaming facility.
       (c) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (d) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold 
     hearings.
       (e) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall 
     be elected by the members of the Commission. The term of 
     office of the Chairperson shall be for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (f) Basic Pay.--
       (1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     or whose compensation is not precluded by a State, local, or 
     Native American tribal government position, shall be 
     compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for Level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of service for the Commission.
       (g) Hearings and Sessions.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out its duties, hold hearings, sit and act at times 
     and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as the 
     Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may 
     administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing 
     before it.
       (2) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
     the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to 
     witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. 
     The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be 
     paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
       (h) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action which the Commission is authorized to take by this 
     section.
       (i) Obtaining Official Data.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out its duties. 
     Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head 
     of that department or agency shall furnish that information 
     to the Commission.
       (j) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (k) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its duties.
       (l) Contract Authority.--To the extent or in the amounts 
     provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Commission may 
     contract with and compensate government and private agencies 
     or persons for services, without regard to section 3709 of 
     the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
       (m) Study; Report.--
       (1) Study.--Not later than 18 months after funds are first 
     made available for this section, the Commission shall 
     complete a study on the following:
       (A) Living standards in Indian country, including health, 
     infrastructure, economic development, educational 
     opportunities, and housing.
       (B) The effectiveness of current Federal programs designed 
     to improve living standards in Indian country, including 
     health, infrastructure, economic development, educational 
     opportunities, and housing.
       (C) Crime control on Indian reservations.
       (D) The influence of non-Native American private investors 
     on the Indian Federal recognition process.
       (E) The influence of non-Native American private investors 
     on the establishment and operation Indian gaming facilities.
       (F) The influence of organized crime on Indian gaming.
       (G) The impact of Indian gaming facilities on local 
     communities, including the impact on economic, environmental, 
     and social issues.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after completion of 
     the study required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing a detailed statement 
     of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together 
     with its legislative recommendations for improving--
       (A) the welfare of Native Americans, including health 
     infrastructure, economic development, educational 
     opportunities, and housing;
       (B) the relationship between tribal entities and nontribal 
     communities that live in the same area as tribal entities or 
     Indian gaming facilities; and
       (C) regulations that govern tribal gaming to reduce the 
     potential for crime and exploitation of Indians and Indian 
     tribes.
       (n) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days 
     after submitting its final report pursuant to this section.
       (o) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated in this Act for 
     ``Bureau of Indian Affairs--operation of indian programs'', 
     $200,000 shall be available to carry out this section.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title I?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
language contained in section 138 of the bill. This section, on page 68 
of the bill, requiring the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department 
of Interior to jointly manage the central and southern Florida 
remediation project without delay, constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the 
rules of the House of Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
language is stricken.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
language contained at pages 29-30 of the bill. This language, starting 
with the word ``provided'' at page 29, line 22, through line 11 at page 
30, requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to implement so-called 
alternative 6D without further delay, constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill in violation of clause

[[Page H4761]]

2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
language will be stricken.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hansen

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hansen:
       Page 8, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,800,000)''.
       Page 15, line 1, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,800,000)''.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would shift $1.8 million 
from Bureau of Land Management land acquisition for Utah's Grand 
Staircase Escalante National Monument to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
construction account. The purpose is to provide the final installment 
of $1.8 million that is required to start construction and provide for 
the completion of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Education Center 
in Brigham City, Utah.
  This center has been previously authorized by the House pursuant to 
its recent passage of H.R. 3322 which approved the project for a total 
of $11 million. This $1.8 million provides the last and final 
installment which allows the project to move forward to completion.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, and this is the 
important part, this amendment is revenue-neutral and does not increase 
outlays or spending rates. This amendment does not affect projects in 
any other State.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have seen the amendment by the gentleman 
from Utah and the chairman of the House Committee on Resources and my 
good friend. I note that it moves money from one project in Utah to 
another, and as such, I have no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I hope that the gentleman will 
make certain that the commitments that were made about matching funds 
are made and kept on this project. From the majority staff, we have 
been told that there has been a question about that, but if the 
gentleman has assured me that those questions will be answered 
affirmatively and positively with his personal commitment, I will have 
not have any objection to the project.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to make that commitment to 
the gentleman. I was personally involved in some of the fundraisers 
that have been involved in this, and I have no problem taking care of 
the gentleman's concern.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Dicks

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 210, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               YEAS--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Dooley
     Hastings (FL)
     Mascara
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Ney
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Traficant

                              {time}  2319

  Messrs. SULLIVAN, NORWOOD, GILMAN, SMITH of Texas, BURTON of Indiana, 
COLLINS, HYDE, ADERHOLT, FLAKE, WHITFIELD, HOUGHTON, SAM JOHNSON of 
Texas, HORN, and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).

[[Page H4762]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman 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. 5093) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________