[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.
____________________