[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4820-H4838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2003
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
wildland fire management
For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuel reduction on
or adjacent to such lands, and for emergency rehabilitation
of burned-over National Forest System lands and water,
$1,513,449,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such funds including unobligated balances under this
head, are available for repayment of advances from other
appropriations accounts previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That not less than 50 percent of
any unobligated balances remaining (exclusive of amounts for
hazardous fuels reduction) at the end of fiscal year 2002
shall be transferred, as repayment for past advances that
have not been repaid, to the fund established pursuant to
section 3 of Public Law 71-319 (16 U.S.C. 576 et seq.):
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, $8,000,000 of funds appropriated under this
appropriation shall be used for Fire Science Research in
support of the Joint Fire Science Program: Provided further,
That all authorities for the use of funds, including the use
of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, available
to execute the Forest and Rangeland Research appropriation,
are also available in the utilization of these funds for the
Joint Fire Science Program: Provided further, That funds
provided shall be available for emergency rehabilitation and
restoration, hazard reduction activities in the urban-
wildland interface, support to Federal emergency response,
and wildfire suppression activities of the Forest Service:
Provided further, That of the funds provided, $640,000,000 is
for preparedness, $420,699,000 is for wildfire suppression
operations, $228,109,000 is for hazardous fuel treatment,
$63,000,000 is for rehabilitation and restoration,
$20,376,000 is for capital improvement and maintenance of
fire facilities, $27,265,000 is for research activities and
to make competitive research grants pursuant to the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $58,000,000 is for state fire
assistance, $8,500,000 is for volunteer fire assistance,
$27,000,000 is for forest health activities on State,
private, and Federal lands, and $12,500,000 is for economic
action programs: Provided further, That amounts in this
paragraph may be transferred to the ``State and Private
Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', ``Forest and
Rangeland Research'', and ``Capital Improvement and
Maintenance'' accounts to fund state fire assistance,
volunteer fire assistance, and forest health management,
vegetation and watershed management, heritage site
rehabilitation, wildlife and fish habitat management, trails
and facilities maintenance and restoration: Provided further,
That transfers of any amounts in excess of those authorized
in this paragraph, shall require approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
163: 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 with State, local or non-profit youth
groups, or small or disadvantaged businesses: Provided
further, That in addition to funds provided for State Fire
Assistance programs, and subject to all authorities available
to the Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry
Appropriations, up to $15,000,000 may be used on adjacent
non-Federal lands for the purpose of protecting communities
when hazard reduction activities are planned on national
forest lands that have the potential to place such
communities at risk: Provided further, That included in
funding for hazardous fuel reduction is $5,000,000 for
implementing the Community Forest Restoration Act, Public Law
106-393, title VI, and any portion of such funds shall be
available for use on non-Federal lands in accordance with
authorities available to the Forest Service under the State
and Private Forestry Appropriation: Provided further, That in
expending the funds provided with respect to this Act for
hazardous fuels reduction, the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture may conduct fuel reduction
treatments on Federal lands using all contracting and hiring
authorities available to the Secretaries applicable to
hazardous fuel reduction activities under the wildland fire
management accounts: Provided further, That notwithstanding
Federal Government procurement and contracting laws, the
Secretaries may conduct fuel reduction treatments,
rehabilitation and restoration, and other activities
authorized under this heading on and adjacent to Federal
lands using grants and cooperative agreements: Provided
further, That notwithstanding Federal Government procurement
and contracting laws, in order to provide employment and
training opportunities to people in rural communities, the
Secretaries may award contracts, including contracts for
monitoring activities, to local private, nonprofit, or
cooperative entities; Youth Conservation Corps crews or
related partnerships, with State, local and non-profit youth
groups; small or micro-businesses; or other entities that
will hire or train a significant percentage of local people
to complete such contracts: Provided further, That the
authorities described above relating to contracts, grants,
and cooperative agreements are available until all funds
provided in this title for hazardous fuels reduction
activities in the urban wildland interface are obligated:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may
transfer or reimburse funds, not to exceed $7,000,000, to the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of
the Interior, or the National Marine Fisheries Service of the
Department of Commerce, 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 in fiscal years 2002 and 2003: Provided
further, That the amount of the transfer of reimbursement
shall be as mutually agreed by the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce,
as applicable, or their designees. The amount shall in no
case exceed the actual costs of consultation and conferencing
in connection with wildland fire management activities
affecting National Forest System lands.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
Page 77, line 8, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $43,000,000''.
Page 78, line 8, after the second dollar amount insert
``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
Page 78, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $35,000,000)''.
Page 114, line 7, after the dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $50,000,000)''.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I
hope will help those of us among the body who feel a terrible mistake
was made in an earlier amendment that actually increased funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts. My amendment reduces funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts by $50 million and redirects the
money into the budget for the U.S. Forest Service.
We all know and certainly have had a lot of discussion about the
devastating impact the fires have had on the American West, with
hundreds of thousands of acres in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and my home
State of Colorado reduced to charcoal by wildfire. In many of these
States, the fire season is only now underway. According to the Forest
Service, an additional 73 million acres remain at risk to catastrophic
fire. To put it in perspective, 73 million acres is an area slightly
larger than the State of Arizona.
While this amendment only reduces its budget, few programs seem more
worthy of outright elimination than the National Endowment for the
Arts. First created in 1965, the NEA has been one of the most
controversial government programs on the books, almost since its
inception. The most notorious aspects of the NEA have been talked about
for many years, and I will not go into them today.
[[Page H4821]]
Instead of squandering nearly $100 million on questionable and
offensive exhibits, we should utilize these funds in a way that better
serve the public interest. In a lean budget year like this one, we
ought to not squander limited resources on subsidizing the arts.
Instead, I believe we should use these funds to increase the
government's ability to help control and prevent wildfires in the
American West.
My amendment would do just that by redirecting the portion of the NEA
budget to the U.S. Forest Service Wildland Fire Management Plan,
splitting the dollars between fire suppression efforts and hazardous
fuels reduction programs.
Mr. Chairman, President Theodore Roosevelt's then agricultural
secretary James Wilson wrote a letter where he said, ``And where
conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question should always be
decided from the standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest
number over the long run.'' I ask my colleagues to let Mr. Wilson's
words guide them in their actions today when making a decision on this
amendment. Which program will do the greatest good for the greatest
number.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment on behalf of the committee.
This agreement that we have on NEA is long-standing, it is
bipartisan, it is very delicate, and conservatives and liberals and
moderates have come together on this in the past. Obviously, the
amendment that just passed increasing NEA funding makes this amendment
somewhat problematic for some on this side.
I have to also say, as a member of the subcommittee for 6 years, we
have seen tremendous improvement. Under Bill Ivey's leadership, the NEA
is much more accountable, much more responsive, and much more
efficient. I know he is no longer there, but it is a much-improved
organization. The funding levels have been agreed to.
This bill is a careful balance. On virtually every item in the bill
we have had to work through a compromise so that we could report the
bill out with comity and cooperation for the good of the country. This
agreement, at approximately $100 million for the NEA, is a carefully
crafted bill. This amendment cuts that in half, which obviously would
create the inability to ever pass this bill, to ever conference this
bill with the Senate, to ever finally arrive at an agreement here.
So we respectfully oppose the amendment and ask the entire body to
vote against the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in very willing opposition to this amendment.
This amendment is not about adding money to anything, it is about
cutting the minimal funding which is currently in this bill for the
arts. In light of the vote just taken by the House of Representatives,
in which 234 Members voted for the arts, I think it is also very
untimely.
This amendment would cut the NEA below the $116 million requested by
President Bush and recommended by the Republican leadership of the
committee. The $116 million provided in this bill for the National
Endowment for the Arts is only 1 percent above last year. It is $46
million below the level approved in 1994 for the agency.
The gentleman's arguments against NEA are outdated and do not reflect
the many reforms implemented by the Congress and former NEA chairman
Bill Ivey, and the new chairman, Eileen Mason, to address public
concerns about controversial arts projects supported by public funds.
Anyone who knows about the arts realizes that there will always be
controversy. These include broader distribution of funds throughout the
United States, elimination of general operating support for
organizations with no control on content, and prohibitions on
regranting of NEA funds to other organizations. Today, funds at NEA
flow to over 300 congressional districts with great enthusiasm and very
little complaint, and with an emphasis on quality.
Essentially, the same item was offered last year on the Interior bill
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). It failed on a vote of 145
to 264. I hope an even larger number of Members will vote ``no'' on
this amendment and finally declare an end to the culture wars which
started 8 years ago in this House. It is over.
Let me also say that the gentleman from Washington was the author of
an amendment to increase the firefighting funds available to this
administration in a supplemental attached to this bill by $700 million
with $200 million for the BLM and $500 million for the Forest Service.
Obviously, we recognize the need to deal with forest fires.
I would say that those who were voting yesterday to kill the cut of
the BLM funding are the same people who should be looked at in terms of
their commitment to having adequate funding at the BLM in order to do
the firefighting.
This amendment is bad, it is wrong, it is unnecessary, and I think we
should voice vote it and move along.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'',
for fiscal year 2002 in addition to the amounts made
available by Public Law 107-63 $500,000,000, remain available
until December 31, 2002, for the cost of fire suppression
activities carried out by the Forest Service and other
Federal agencies related to the 2002 fire season, including
reimbursement of funds borrowed from other Department of
Agriculture 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.
capital improvement and maintenance
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $572,731,000, to remain available until
expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and
acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for
construction, reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of
forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205, of which,
$64,866,000 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 further, That up to $15,000,000 of the funds
provided herein for road maintenance shall be available for
the decommissioning of roads, including unauthorized roads
not part of the transportation system, which are no longer
needed: Provided further, That no funds shall be expended to
decommission any system road until notice and an opportunity
for public comment has been provided on each decommissioning
project.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of 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
Forest Service, $146,336,000, 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.
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts
For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.
acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges
For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.
range betterment fund
For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6
percent shall be available for administrative expenses
associated with on-the-
[[Page H4822]]
ground range rehabilitation, protection, and improvements.
gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research
For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.
management of national forest lands for subsistence uses
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage
federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), $5,542,000, to remain available until
expended.
administrative provisions, forest service
Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed
113 passenger motor vehicles, of which 10 will be used
primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 113 shall
be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor
vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles;
operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to
exceed seven for replacement only, and acquisition of
sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the
operable fleet at 195 aircraft for use in Forest Service
wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs;
notwithstanding other provisions 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; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to
exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3)
purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other
public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land,
waters, and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5)
for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National
Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6)
the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and
(7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31
U.S.C. 3718(c).
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions if and only if all previously appropriated
emergency contingent funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire
Management'' have been released by the President and
apportioned and all funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire
Management'' are obligated.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless
the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
163.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.
No funds available to the Forest Service shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of
Agriculture that exceed the total amount transferred during
fiscal year 2000 for such purposes without the advance
approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $2,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
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 the funds available to the Forest Service, $2,500 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$2,500,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard
to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative
expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System
lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That
of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no
more than $300,000 shall be available for administrative
expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain,
by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance,
private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis
funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further,
That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the
recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds:
Provided further, That authorized investments of Federal
funds held by the Foundation may be made only in interest-
bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations
guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United
States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244,
$2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall
be available for matching funds to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709,
and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for
projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or
related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the
Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal
financial assistance, private contributions to match on at
least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service:
Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal
funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same
rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching
funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the
``National Forest System'' and ``Capital Improvement and
Maintenance'' accounts and planned to be allocated to
activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for
projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington
may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects.
Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest
Service for planning and administering projects. Project
selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the
Forest Service with such consultation with the State of
Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
For fiscal years 2003 through 2007, the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to enter into grants, contracts,
and cooperative agreements as appropriate with the Pinchot
Institute for Conservation, as well as with public and other
private agencies, organizations, institutions, and
individuals, to provide for the development, administration,
maintenance, or restoration of land, facilities, or Forest
Service programs, at the Grey Towers National Historic
Landmark: Provided, That, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, any
such public or private agency, organization, institution, or
individual may solicit, accept, and administer private gifts
of money and real or personal property for the benefit of, or
in connection with, the activities and services at the Grey
Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided further, That
such gifts may be accepted notwithstanding the fact that a
donor conducts business with the Department of Agriculture in
any capacity.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to
Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and
14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public
Law 101-612).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not
to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel
and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance
or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings,
training sessions, management reviews, land purchase
negotiations and similar non-litigation related matters.
Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and
the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums
previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law
enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural
resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such
amounts shall not exceed $750,000.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
clean coal technology
(deferral)
Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $50,000,000 shall not be available
until October 1, 2003: Provided, That funds made available in
previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any
ongoing project regardless of the separate request for
proposal under which the project was selected.
fossil energy research and development
For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of
[[Page H4823]]
mineral substances without objectionable social and
environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$664,205,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$11,000,000 is for construction, renovation, furnishing, and
demolition or removal of buildings at National Energy
Technology Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, West Virginia
and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and for acquisition of lands,
and interests therein, in proximity to the National Energy
Technology Laboratory, and of which $150,000,000 are to be
made available, after coordination with the private sector,
for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative
providing for competitively-awarded demonstrations of
commercial scale technologies to reduce the barriers to
continued and expanded coal use: Provided, That no project
may be selected for which sufficient funding is not available
to provide for the total project: Provided further, That
funds shall be expended in accordance with the provisions
governing the use of funds contained under the heading
``Clean Coal Technology'' in prior appropriations: Provided
further, That the Department may include provisions for
repayment of Government contributions to individual projects
in an amount up to the Government contribution to the project
on terms and conditions that are acceptable to the
Department, including repayments from sale and licensing of
technologies from both domestic and foreign transactions:
Provided further, That such repayments shall be retained by
the Department for future coal-related research, development
and demonstration projects: Provided further, That any
technology selected under this program shall be considered a
Clean Coal Technology, and any project selected under this
program shall be considered a Clean Coal Technology Project,
for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and
60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided
further, That no part of the sum herein made available shall
be used for the field testing of nuclear explosives in the
recovery of oil and gas: Provided further, That up to 4
percent of program direction funds available to the National
Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support
Department of Energy activities not included in this account.
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities, $20,831,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior
years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities.
elk hills school lands fund
For necessary expenses in fulfilling installment payments
under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United
States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as
authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106,
$36,000,000, to become available on October 1, 2003 for
payment to the State of California for the State Teachers'
Retirement Fund from the Elk Hills School Lands Fund.
energy conservation
For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation
activities, $984,653,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That $300,000,000 shall be for use in energy
conservation grant programs as defined in section 3008(3) of
Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such
sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows:
$250,000,000 for weatherization assistance grants and
$50,000,000 for State energy conservation grants.
economic regulation
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,487,000, to remain
available until expended.
strategic petroleum reserve
For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $175,856,000,
to remain available until expended.
spr petroleum account
For the acquisition and transportation of petroleum and for
other necessary expenses pursuant to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et
seq.), $7,000,000, to remain available until expended.
northeast home heating oil reserve
For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve storage, operations, and management activities
pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000,
$8,000,000 to remain available until expended.
energy information administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $80,611,000, to remain
available until expended.
administrative provisions, department of energy
Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year
shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase,
repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the
General Services Administration for security guard services.
From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance
authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless
specific provision is made for such programs in an
appropriations Act.
The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That
revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of
the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary
of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for
plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing
contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder
of revenues after the making of such payments shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof
entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority
shall not be executed 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 comprehensive report on such project,
including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of the proposed project.
No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the
Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process
procurement documents for programs or projects for which
appropriations have not been made.
In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the
Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and
private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds
account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or
private agencies or concerns.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
indian health services
For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $2,508,756,000, together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall remain
available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $468,130,000 for
contract medical care shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2004: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, up to $25,000,000 shall be used to carry out the
loan repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided
in this Act may be used for 1-year contracts and grants which
are to be performed in 2 fiscal years, so long as the total
obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds are
appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the
authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of
achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and
requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new
facilities): Provided further, That funding contained herein,
and in any earlier appropriations Acts for scholarship
programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2004: Provided further, That amounts received
by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be reported and
accounted for and available to the receiving tribes and
tribal organizations until expended: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts
provided herein, not to exceed $270,734,000 shall be for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract or
grant support costs associated with contracts, grants, self-
governance compacts or annual funding agreements between the
Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal organization
pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as
amended, prior to or during fiscal year 2003, of which not to
exceed $2,500,000 may be used for contract support costs
associated with new or expanded self-determination contracts,
grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding
agreements: Provided further, That funds available for the
Indian Health Care Improvement Fund may be used, as needed,
to carry out activities typically funded under the Indian
Health Facilities account.
[[Page H4824]]
indian health facilities
For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $391,865,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to
construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities:
Provided further, That from the funds appropriated herein,
$5,000,000 shall be designated by the Indian Health Service
as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
(YKHC) to continue a priority project for the acquisition of
land, planning, design and construction of 79 staff quarters
in the Bethel service area, pursuant to the negotiated
project agreement between the YKHC and the Indian Health
Service: Provided further, That this project shall not be
subject to the construction provisions of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act and shall be
removed from the Indian Health Service priority list upon
completion: Provided further, That the Federal Government
shall not be liable for any property damages or other
construction claims that may arise from YKHC undertaking this
project: Provided further, That the land shall be owned or
leased by the YKHC and title to quarters shall remain vested
with the YKHC: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000
shall be used by the Indian Health Service to purchase
TRANSAM equipment from the Department of Defense for
distribution to the Indian Health Service and tribal
facilities: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000
shall be used by the Indian Health Service to obtain
ambulances for the Indian Health Service and tribal
facilities in conjunction with an existing interagency
agreement between the Indian Health Service and the General
Services Administration: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 shall be placed in a Demolition Fund, available
until expended, to be used by the Indian Health Service for
demolition of Federal buildings: Provided further, That
notwithstanding the provisions of title III, section 306, of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law 94-437, as
amended), construction contracts authorized under title I of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of
1975, as amended, may be used rather than grants to fund
small ambulatory facility construction projects: Provided
further, That if a contract is used, the IHS is authorized to
improve municipal, private, or tribal lands, and that at no
time, during construction or after completion of the project
will the Federal Government have any rights or title to any
real or personal property acquired as a part of the contract:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law or regulation, for purposes of acquiring sites for a new
clinic and staff quarters in St. Paul Island, Alaska, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services may accept land
donated by the Tanadgusix Corporation.
administrative provisions, indian health service
Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefor as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities.
In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health
care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service
facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with
funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the
facility providing the service and shall be available without
fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be
administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation
Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this
Act, except those used for administrative and program
direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations
directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal
organization through a contract, grant, or agreement
authorized by title I or title III of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
determination contract under title I, or a self-governance
agreement under title III of such Act and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by
the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the
eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health
Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a
budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with
the proposed final rule, and such request has been included
in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
Funds made available in this Act are to be apportioned to
the Indian Health Service as appropriated in this Act, and
accounted for in the appropriation structure set forth in
this Act.
With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health
Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health
Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those
entities, on a reimbursable basis, including payment in
advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements
received therefrom, along with the funds received from those
entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may
be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account
which provided the funding. Such amounts shall remain
available until expended.
Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance.
The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service
may not be altered without advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$14,491,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development
payment to the institute
For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A),
$5,130,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for construction of the Library Technology Center.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
(including rescission)
For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings,
facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five
replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for employees, $450,760,000, of which
not to exceed $41,884,000 for the instrumentation program,
collections acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the
National Museum of the American Indian, security
improvements, and the repatriation of skeletal remains
program shall remain available until expended, and including
such funds as may be necessary to support American overseas
research centers and a total of $125,000 for the Council of
American Overseas Research
[[Page H4825]]
Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are
available for advance payments to independent contractors
performing research services or participating in official
Smithsonian presentations: Provided further, That the
Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal appropriations
designated in this Act for lease or rent payments for long
term and swing space, as rent payable to the Smithsonian
Institution, and such rent payments may be deposited into the
general trust funds of the Institution to the extent that
federally supported activities are housed in the 900 H
Street, N.W. building in the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That this use of Federal appropriations shall not be
construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee of, a transfer
of risk to, or an obligation of, the Federal Government:
Provided further, That no appropriated funds may be used to
service debt which is incurred to finance the costs of
acquiring the 900 H Street building or of planning,
designing, and constructing improvements to such building.
From unobligated balances of prior year appropriations
$14,100,000 is rescinded.
repair, restoration and alteration of facilities
For necessary expenses of maintenance, repair, restoration,
and alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the
Smithsonian Institution, by contract or otherwise, as
authorized by section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63
Stat. 623), including necessary personnel, including not to
exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$81,300,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$16,750,000 is provided for maintenance, repair,
rehabilitation and alteration of facilities at the National
Zoological Park: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and repair or
restoration of facilities of the Smithsonian Institution may
be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded on the
basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.
construction
For necessary expenses for construction, including
necessary personnel, $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
administrative provisions, smithsonian institution
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs
including closure of facilities, relocation, of staff or
redirection of functions and programs without approval by the
Board of Regents of recommendations received from the Science
Commission.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current
space or new facility without consultation with the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for
the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in
Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize
water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim
structural support.
National Gallery of Art
salaries and expenses
For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $78,219,000,
of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.
repair, restoration and renovation of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized, $16,230,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
operations and maintenance
For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $16,310,000.
construction
For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $17,600,000, to
remain available until expended.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $8,488,000.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$99,489,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the
arts through assistance to organizations and individuals
pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, for program
support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to
remain available until expended.
National Endowment for the Humanities
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$109,932,000, shall be available to the National Endowment
for the Humanities for support of activities in the
humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $16,122,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $10,436,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.
Challenge America Arts Fund
challenge america grants
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 89-209,
as amended, $17,000,000 for support for arts education and
public outreach activities, to be administered by the
National Endowment for the Arts, to remain available until
expended.
Administrative Provisions
None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may
be used as necessary for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That the
Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may
approve grants up to $10,000, if in aggregate this amount
does not exceed 5 percent of the sums appropriated for grant
making purposes per year: Provided further, That such small
grant actions are taken pursuant to the terms of an expressed
and direct delegation of authority from the National Council
on the Arts to the Chairperson.
Commission of Fine Arts
salaries and expenses
For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,255,000:
Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to
cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall
be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to
remain available until expended without further
appropriation.
national capital arts and cultural affairs
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000.
administrative provision
None of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act,
except funds appropriated to the Office of Management and
Budget, shall be available to study the alteration or
transfer of the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
program.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $3,667,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for
compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher
positions.
National Capital Planning Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40
[[Page H4826]]
U.S.C. 71-71i), including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, $7,553,000: Provided, That all appointed members of the
Commission will be compensated at a rate not to exceed the
daily equivalent of the annual rate of pay for positions at
level IV of the Executive Schedule for each day such member
is engaged in the actual performance of duties.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
holocaust memorial museum
For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as
authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310),
$38,663,000, of which $1,900,000 for the museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the museum's
exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.
Presidio Trust
presidio trust fund
For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $21,327,000
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended.
Mr. WAMP (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through title II be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 95, line 14, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000)
(increased by $3,000,000)'' after ``$984,653,000''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is being
cosponsored by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Mark Udall), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman),
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). To the best of my knowledge, it has been
agreed to by the majority, and I thank them very much for that.
The legislative intent of this amendment is to increase funding for
the highly successful Energy Star program by $3 million, bringing the
total funding for this program up to the President's request of $6.2
million. This increase in funding will be offset by a $3 million
reduction in salaries and expenses at the Department of Energy that I
hope will be restored in conference.
Mr. Chairman, the Energy Star program has a cost-effective proven
track record of saving energy and saving money. In fact, for every
dollar spent on program costs, the Energy Star program produces average
energy bill savings of $75 and sparks $15 in investment and new
technology. This voluntary partnership program helps businesses, State
and local governments, homeowners, and consumers save money by
investing in energy efficiency.
The bottom line is that if this amendment is passed, we will increase
energy efficiency, save consumers money, protect the environment and
enhance our energy security.
According to the Alliance to Save Energy, in 2001 alone, Americans,
with the help of Energy Star, saved $5 billion on their energy bills,
reduced carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking 10 million
cars off the road, and prevented 140,000 tons of nitrogen oxide
emissions.
To date, more than 55,000 Energy Star homes have been built, locking
in financial savings for homeowners of more than $15 million every
single year.
{time} 1545
Through the Energy Star Building Program, more than $25 billion
kilowatt hours of energy have been saved. However, as successful as the
Energy Star program has been, much more could be accomplished with
increased funding. For example, it is estimated that if all consumers
chose only Energy Star-labeled products over the next decade or so, the
Nation's energy bill would be reduced by about $100 billion while
avoiding 300 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
If all commercial building owners took advantage of the Energy Star
program, they could achieve another $130 billion in energy savings and
reduce 350 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the
next 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, rising energy costs and consumer demands make today's
investments in energy efficiency ever more vital to America's energy
security.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for accepting this amendment. I
think it is an excellent amendment, and we appreciate their support as
well as the support of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and
the minority.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the subcommittee, we have no
objection to this amendment and we commend the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) for offering it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I also commend the gentleman from Vermont.
This is a very good amendment. The gentleman every year has had a
constructive addition to this bill, and we compliment him for that.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment that would increase funding by $3 million for the Energy Star
program, bringing it to the level of the President's request.
Energy Star is a voluntary partnership program that helps businesses,
state and local governments, homeowners, and consumers save money by
investing in energy efficiency in homes, businesses, buildings, and
products.
For every federal dollar spent on program costs, the Energy Star
program produces average energy bill savings of $75 and sparks $15 in
investment in new technology.
Recognizing this impressive track record, the Bush Administration
called for Energy Star's expansion in last year's National Energy
Policy report, and this year requested a higher level of funding for
the program. Sixty of my colleagues in the House indicated their
endorsement of the President's request by signing a letter I circulated
this year in support of increased Energy Star funding.
Through programs like Energy Star, we can reduce pollution, promote
economic growth by stimulating investment in new technology, help
reduce dependence on imported oil, and help ensure the reliability of
our electric system by reducing peak demand. An investment in Energy
Star today means greater energy security tomorrow.
The President's FY03 request for increased funding for Energy Star
recognized that this program could accomplish more with increased
funding. It is estimated that if all consumers chose only Energy Star-
labeled products over the next decade or so, the nation's energy bill
would be reduced by about $100 billion while avoiding 380 million
metric tons of carbon-equivalent in greenhouse gas emissions.
These are real benefits that make the Energy Star program worthy of
funding at the level of the President's request. I urge support for
this amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the
gentleman from Vermont to restore $3 million requested by the
Administration for the Department of Energy's Energy Star program. I do
so with at least a measure of reluctance because I understand the
Appropriations Committee leadership's frustration with the current
administration of program and the agency's inability to meet deadlines.
As the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and someone
committed to the cause of energy conservation and energy efficiency, I
am a strong supporter of the goals of the Energy Star program. The
program helps identify products that are the most energy efficient
products currently available in the marketplace--thereby assisting
consumers in reducing their energy costs, encouraging manufacturers to
develop more energy efficient products and helping the nation to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. However, I can attest that timeliness
has been a serious problem for DOE's Energy Star program--at least in
the development of new standards for energy efficient windows.
It is my understanding that several manufacturers, not just one as
some have alleged, are ready to go forward with new window products
that could help cut energy losses through improved design. These
designs meet mandatory codes already in effect in several states.
Despite widespread support for the standards, DOE's has been working on
this issue for 18 months. The agency has proposed new standards on two
occasions, issued a delay to the
[[Page H4827]]
effective date once and now has withdrawn the proposal entirely pending
further analysis.
Therefore, I understand the committee's frustration with the program
as evidenced by their reduction of the amount requested. I am
concerned, however, that the reduction below the requested amount could
only further delay these important rules. I appreciate the committee's
sensitivity to the window issue and their willingness to provide
additional funding for window related research, research that should be
used to expedite the decision-making on the proposed new standards and
not to delay action further. However, I believe the Energy Star program
funds are needed to ensure the fastest possible action.
Accordingly, I urge a yes vote on the amendment to restore the
program to the level recommended by the Administration.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of the House Financial
Services Committee, I'm still new enough to hope that both sides of the
aisle truly want to accomplish meaningful corporate reform. But I'm not
naive.
A few months ago, in the wake of Enron, many of us on the Committee
offered amendments to the majority's corporate governance reform. We
offered an amendment to stop the conflicts between analysts and
investment bankers. The majority defeated it. We offered an amendment
to ensure independence of auditors. The majority diluted it. We offered
amendments to achieve true structural reform and end corporate
thievery. The majority delayed it.
And now, in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and two strikes,
suddenly the majority has seen the light and felt the heat of an
expansive population of angry Americans who are watching their
retirements dissipate.
The President has asked us to get a bill on his desk--while members
of his Administration deal with a daily barrage of reports on their own
conduct as the corporate leaders of Haliburton, Harkin, Enron and
others.
Tonight we have a choice. We can continue to allow the majority to
defeat, dilute and delay true protections of Main Street investors and
retirees. Or we can draw the line with the Sarbanes bill that puts
people ahead of politics.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 304. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 305. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations
and are approved by such committees.
Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 2002.
Sec. 307. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for
the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with
the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 2003, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the
Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section
314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 308. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by
Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
277, 106-113, 106-291, and 107-63 for payments to tribes and
tribal organizations for contract support costs associated
with self-determination or self-governance contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service as funded by such
Acts, are the total amounts available for fiscal years 1994
through 2002 for such purposes, except that, for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, tribes and tribal organizations may use
their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of
ongoing contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual
funding agreements.
Sec. 309. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment
for the Arts--
(1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be
used to make a grant to any other organization or individual
to conduct activity independent of the direct grant
recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments
made in exchange for goods and services.
(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs and/or projects.
Sec. 310. The National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to
solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the
United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other
property or services and to use such in furtherance of the
functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such
gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National
Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the
Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative
of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the
proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit
of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in
each case.
Sec. 311. (a) In providing services or awarding financial
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this
Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts
shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or
awarding financial assistance for projects, productions,
workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population
of individuals, including urban minorities, who have
historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities
programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income
below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
(2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson
of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that
priority is given to providing services or awarding financial
assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs
that will encourage public knowledge, education,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
(d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and
Humanities Act of 1965--
(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for
projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of
national impact or availability or are able to tour several
States;
[[Page H4828]]
(2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15
percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State,
excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually
and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each
grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to
improve and support community-based music performance and
education.
Sec. 312. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the
5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act.
Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
support Government-wide administrative functions unless such
functions are justified in the budget process and funding is
approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 314. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2002 in the
roads and trails fund provided for in the 14th paragraph
under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of March 4,
1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by the
Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in
which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or
to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health
conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in
the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally
high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing
risks to human safety and public health and property and
enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest
productivity, and biological integrity. The projects may be
completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not be
expended under this section to replace funds which would
otherwise appropriately be expended from the timber salvage
sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
exempt any project from any environmental law.
Sec. 315. Other than in emergency situations, none of the
funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering
machines during core business hours unless such answering
machines include an option that enables callers to reach
promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being
contacted.
Sec. 316. No timber sale in Region 10 shall be advertised
if the indicated rate is deficit when appraised under the
transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska
values for western redcedar: Provided, That sales which are
deficit when appraised under the transaction evidence
appraisal system using domestic Alaska values for western
redcedar may be advertised upon receipt of a written request
by a prospective, informed bidder, who has the opportunity to
review the Forest Service's cruise and harvest cost estimate
for that timber. Program accomplishments shall be based on
volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year 2002, the
annual average portion of the decadal allowable sale quantity
called for in the current Tongass Land Management Plan in
sales which are not deficit when appraised under the
transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska
values for western redcedar, all of the western redcedar
timber from those sales which is surplus to the needs of
domestic processors in Alaska, shall be made available to
domestic processors in the contiguous 48 United States at
prevailing domestic prices. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal
year 2002, less than the annual average portion of the
decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current
Tongass Land Management Plan in sales which are not deficit
when appraised under the transaction evidence appraisal
system using domestic Alaska values for western redcedar, the
volume of western redcedar timber available to domestic
processors at prevailing domestic prices in the contiguous 48
United States shall be that volume: (i) which is surplus to
the needs of domestic processors in Alaska; and (ii) is that
percent of the surplus western redcedar volume determined by
calculating the ratio of the total timber volume which has
been sold on the Tongass to the annual average portion of the
decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current
Tongass Land Management Plan. The percentage shall be
calculated by Region 10 on a rolling basis as each sale is
sold (for purposes of this amendment, a ``rolling basis''
shall mean that the determination of how much western
redcedar is eligible for sale to various markets shall be
made at the time each sale is awarded). Western redcedar
shall be deemed ``surplus to the needs of domestic processors
in Alaska'' when the timber sale holder has presented to the
Forest Service documentation of the inability to sell western
redcedar logs from a given sale to domestic Alaska processors
at price equal to or greater than the log selling value
stated in the contract. All additional western redcedar
volume not sold to Alaska or contiguous 48 United States
domestic processors may be exported to foreign markets at the
election of the timber sale holder. All Alaska yellow cedar
may be sold at prevailing export prices at the election of
the timber sale holder.
Sec. 317. A project undertaken by the Forest Service under
the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program as authorized by
section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended,
shall not result in--
(1) displacement of the holder of an authorization to
provide commercial recreation services on Federal lands.
Prior to initiating any project, the Secretary shall consult
with potentially affected holders to determine what impacts
the project may have on the holders. Any modifications to the
authorization shall be made within the terms and conditions
of the authorization and authorities of the impacted agency;
(2) the return of a commercial recreation service to the
Secretary for operation when such services have been provided
in the past by a private sector provider, except when--
(A) the private sector provider fails to bid on such
opportunities;
(B) the private sector provider terminates its relationship
with the agency; or
(C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with
the terms and conditions of the authorization.
In such cases, the agency may use the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program to provide for operations until a
subsequent operator can be found through the offering of a
new prospectus.
Sec. 318. Prior to October 1, 2003, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of
subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A))
solely because more than 15 years have passed without
revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest
System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary from
any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or any other
law: Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting
expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding
available, to revise a plan for a unit of the National Forest
System, this section shall be void with respect to such plan
and a court of proper jurisdiction may order completion of
the plan on an accelerated basis.
Sec. 319. Until September 30, 2004, the authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a cooperative
agreement under the first section of Public Law 94-148 (16
U.S.C. 565a-1) for a purpose described in such section
includes the authority to use that legal instrument when the
principal purpose of the resulting relationship is to the
mutually significant benefit of the Forest Service and the
other party or parties to the agreement, including nonprofit
entities.
Sec. 320. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to
conduct preleasing, leasing, and related activities under
either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)
within the boundaries of a National Monument established
pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where
such activities are allowed under the Presidential
proclamation establishing such monument.
Sec. 321. Section 347(a) of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in
Public Law 105-277 as amended, is amended by striking
``2004'' and inserting ``2005''. The authority to enter into
stewardship and end result contracts provided to the Forest
Service in accordance with section 347 of title III of
section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277 is hereby
expanded to authorize the Forest Service to enter into an
additional 12 contracts subject to the same terms and
conditions as provided in that section.
Sec. 322. Technical Correction Related to Cabin User
Fees.--Section 608(b)(2) of the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act
of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6207(b)(2); Public Law 106-291) is amended
by striking ``value influences'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``criteria'' and striking ``section 606(b)(3)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``section 606(b)(2)''.
Sec. 323. Extension of Forest Service Conveyances Pilot
Program.--Section 329 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (16 U.S.C. 580d
note; Public Law 107-63) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``10'' and inserting
``20''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2006''.
Sec. 324. A grazing permit or lease issued by the Secretary
of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture where
National Forest System lands are involved that expires (or is
transferred or waived) during fiscal year 2003 shall be
renewed under section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1752), section
19 of the Granger-Thye Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5801), or
if applicable, section 510 of the California Desert
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 410aaa-50). The terms and
conditions contained in the expiring permit or lease shall
continue in effect under the new permit or lease until such
time as the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture completes processing of such permit or lease in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, at which
time such permit or lease may be canceled, suspended, or
modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of
such applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section
shall be deemed to alter the statutory authority of the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture.
Any Federal lands included within the boundary of Lake
Roosevelt National Recreation Area, as designated by the
Secretary of the Interior on April 5, 1990 (Lake Roosevelt
Cooperative Management Agreement), that
[[Page H4829]]
were utilized as of March 31, 1997, for grazing purposes
pursuant to a permit issued by the National Park Service, the
person or persons so utilizing such lands as of March 31,
1997, shall be entitled to renew said permit under such terms
and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, for the
lifetime of the permittee or 20 years, whichever is less.
Sec. 325. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, employees of foundations established by Acts of
Congress to solicit private sector funds on behalf of Federal
land management agencies shall qualify for General Services
Administration contract airfare rates and Federal Government
hotel accommodation rates when such employees are traveling
on official foundation business.
Sec. 326. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, to promote the more efficient use of the health
care funding allocation for fiscal year 2003, the Eagle Butte
Service Unit of the Indian Health Service, at the request of
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, may pay base salary rates to
health professionals up to the highest grade and step
available to a physician, pharmacist, or other health
professional and may pay a recruitment or retention bonus of
up to 25 percent above the base pay rate.
Sec. 327. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any
other appropriations Act.
Sec. 328. In entering into agreements with foreign
countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior are authorized to enter into
reciprocal agreements in which the individuals furnished
under said agreements to provide wildfire services are
considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the
country receiving said services when the individuals are
fighting fires. The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary
of the Interior shall not enter into any agreement under this
provision unless the foreign country (either directly or
through its fire organization) agrees to assume any and all
liability for the acts or omissions of American firefighters
engaged in firefighting in a foreign country. When an
agreement is reached for furnishing fire fighting services,
the only remedies for acts or omissions committed while
fighting fires shall be those provided under the laws of the
host country and those remedies shall be the exclusive
remedies for any claim arising out of fighting fires in a
foreign country. Neither the sending country nor any
organization associated with the firefighter shall be subject
to any action whatsoever pertaining to or arising out of
fighting fires.
Sec. 329. Prohibition of Oil and Gas Drilling in the Finger
Lakes National Forest, New York.--None of the funds in this
Act may be used to prepare or issue a permit or lease for oil
or gas drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest, New
York, during fiscal year 2003.
Mr. WAMP (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill through page 135, line 13, be considered as read, printed
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Capps
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of amendment No. 2 is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Capps:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
expended by the Department of the Interior to approve any
exploration plan, any development and production plan, any
application for permit to drill or to permit any drilling on
Outer Continental Shelf Southern California Planning Area
leases numbered OCS-P0443, OCS-P0445, OCS-P0446, OCS-P0449,
OCS-P0499, OCS-P0500, OCS-P0210, OCS-P0527, OCS-P0460, OCS-
P0464, OCS-P0409, OCS-P0396, OCS-P0397, OCS-P0402, OCS-P0403,
OCS-P0408, OCS-P0414, OCS-P0319, OCS-P0320, OCS-P0322, OCS-
P0323-A, OCS-P0426, OCS-P0427, OCS-P0432, OCS-P0435, OCS-
P0452, OCS-P0453, OCS-P0425, OCS-P0430, OCS-P0431, OCS-P0433,
OCS-P0434, OCS-P0415, OCS-P0416, OCS-P0421, and OCS-P0422.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller). It is time to take action to
permanently end the threat of new oil drilling off the central coast of
California. Californians oppose new drilling. We have plenty of oil
platforms already, and even the oil companies themselves want a
resolution to our mess.
Passage of this amendment would be a major step toward terminating
the leases that threaten the central coast's environment and economy.
Specifically, our amendment would prohibit the Department of Interior
from spending any funds during this funding cycle to permit new
drilling activities on the 36 undeveloped oil and gas leases off
California's coast. We hope this will spur negotiations between the
administration, the oil company lease holders, and the State of
California about terminating these leases.
Mr. Chairman, there is precedent for this approach. Settlements to
remove leases from Alaska and North Carolina occurred after
congressional action to prevent new leasing and the development of
existing leases. Last year the House passed a historic amendment
similar to what we are offering here today. The Davis amendment halted
the sale of Lease 181 off Florida's coast. It passed by a wide
bipartisan margin, with 70 of my Republican colleagues voting in favor
of it. Following up on this action, the administration reached an
agreement with Florida to purchase drilling leases in Lease 181 area
and other coastal areas and the Everglades. These actions have been
widely acclaimed throughout Florida. I fully supported this bold step
to protect their environment and economy.
The President cited local opposition to new drilling as a prime
reason for the decision. Which left Californians asking, What about us?
According to Department of Interior Secretary Norton, ``A major
difference between Florida and California is that Florida opposes
coastal drilling and California does not.''
As the U.S. Representative for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
counties, and a nearly 40-year resident of the central coast, I was
dumbfounded by this assertion. The Santa Barbara News Press
editorialized about what it called Secretary Norton's jaw-dropping
remarks asking, ``What alternative universe is Ms. Norton living in?''
Mr. Chairman, I lived in Santa Barbara in 1969 when a huge blowout on
Union Oil's platform A put 4 million gallons of oil into our sea. It
killed thousands of sea birds, and I will show one. Sea birds like this
one, seals, dolphins, fish and other sea life; and it damaged a huge
swath of our beautiful coast.
It galvanized central coast residents, indeed virtually the whole
State, against more offshore oil drilling. While we were outraged by
the environmental damage, we knew another blowout would wreak havoc on
our tourism, fishing, and recreation industries, all critical
components of our local economy.
As the newspaper noted, ``This catastrophe helped spark an
environmental movement that has spread far beyond Santa Barbara.''
Since that time, at least two dozen city and county governments have
passed anti-oil measures. In 1994, Republican Governor Pete Wilson
signed into a law a permanent ban on new offshore leasing in State
waters.
In 1999, the State Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the
Federal Government enact a permanent ban on drilling off California's
coast. Even the Federal Government has demonstrated its sensitivity to
Californians' opposition to new drilling.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush placed a 10-year moratorium on
new leasing in Federal waters off California, later renewed and
extended by President Clinton. We have asked for the administration,
the leaseholders, and the State of California to work with us to
terminate the leases off California's coast.
It is time to end the long-standing controversy surrounding the 36
undeveloped leases. Californians have spoken loud and clear. We do not
want more drilling. The Federal Government should respect our wishes.
California's coastline is a priceless treasure. It is home to
everything from blue whales to otters, and it is home to two of our
national marine sanctuaries and the Channel Islands National Park. This
map shows where the park fits and where these leases are right in
between. More oil drilling is just not worth the risk to this
environmentally and economically valuable area.
I urge support for the Capps-Rahall-Miller amendment to demonstrate
the House's commitment to protecting the environment and the economy of
both coastlines, the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
[[Page H4830]]
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes
equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I very reluctantly rise on behalf of the subcommittee
to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. She is a class act in every
sense of the term, and such a wonderful person, and serves her State
and district with such distinction, and certainly her motives are pure
here in trying to take care of the environment in the great Pacific
region of our country. Certainly there is a need there.
However, there is no reason for this funding limitation in this bill
when there are no development plans approved by the Department of
Interior for this year. Both the State of California and the
leaseholders are currently litigating this issue. Some Members today
will likely point to the actions that Congress took last year with
respect to the leases off the coast of Florida, but the facts are very
different and there has not been offshore oil and gas development off
the coast of Florida.
We know there has been a significant amount of development off the
coast of California. As a matter of fact, Federal leases have produced
more than a billion barrels of oil, and State leases have produced more
than 2.5 billion barrels of oil.
I am the co-chairman of the House Renewable Energy Efficiency Caucus
and have worked with the gentlewoman there on a variety of new
technologies and alternative energy sources. And clearly with respect
to energy and the environment, we need to do that. I advocate that
greatly. However, we cannot reduce the amount of energy production that
our country has today without dramatically impacting our freedom in
this country.
In order to maintain our society as we know it, we are going to have
to maintain a certain amount of domestic production, and this obviously
would cut into that domestic production. Energy issues have dominated
recent debate, especially as both price and supply of energy fuels have
been in the headlines. This amendment would actually send the wrong
message right now to the markets. It would potentially drive up costs
at a time when we are experiencing economic pains; and clearly, we are
going to have to look at both reducing the demand and increasing the
supply.
That is what the President's comprehensive energy proposal is all
about. That bill is in conference today between the Senate and the
House. We need a conference report on the energy bill, but we better
not tie our hands behind our backs through this amendment and actions
like this amendment because we have to be able to produce a certain
amount of oil in this country in order to not be so reliant on foreign
sources and ultimately have the proverbial gun to our head from OPEC,
Iraq and other nations.
{time} 1600
Therefore, the subcommittee respectfully, very respectfully, opposes
the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the
Committee on Resources and the coauthor of this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding me this time, and I certainly want to commend her for her
excellent leadership on this issue, an issue that is dear and near to
her State and to her people. She has been a true fighter on this most
important matter.
Mr. Chairman, many of us concerned with the impacts of Federal oil
and gas leasing sought to overlook the politics of the issue when
President Bush, as a favor to his brother Jeb, recently announced the
buyback of certain oil and gas leases in Florida. These were highly
controversial leases and their development threatened parts of
Florida's coastline and efforts to restore the Everglades. Moreover,
there have been similar settlements in the past, although they were
prompted by congressional action in the case of OCS leases off the
coast of North Carolina and in Bristol Bay, Alaska.
So initially we sought to overlook the fact that the President's
brother was up for reelection as Governor of Florida and that the
buyback of these leases would help his candidacy as well as the
President's own fortunes in the State of Florida. And we sought to
ignore it as well because the buyback was the right thing to do.
I would say to my colleagues that we were not allowed to overlook the
politics for too long. I say this because the Governor of California
also asked for the same consideration for 36 highly controversial OCS
leases off the coast of that State. These are undeveloped leases,
several of which are over 3 decades old. Yet the Secretary of the
Interior, Gale Norton, denied that request. She stated, and it is
quoted here in this editorial, ``A major difference between Florida and
California is that Florida opposes coastal drilling and California does
not.'' As this editorial states, ``What alternative universe is Ms.
Norton living in?'' Even a person of my generation, born and raised in
the southern coal fields of Beckley, West Virginia, knows that the very
genesis of the campaign to limit offshore oil and gas drilling was in
that State of California.
We are offering this amendment today to say thank you, President
Bush, for what you did in Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
But the interests of all Americans should compel you to do the same
thing in the State of California. There are resources at stake here
that have national significance. The OCS oil and gas leases in question
are adjacent to the Channel Islands National Park which encompasses
250,000 acres over five islands. The park is of international
significance, having been designated a Biosphere Reserve by the United
Nations in 1976. Further, this area is also part of a national marine
sanctuary. Clearly oil and gas development is not compatible with these
national preservation designations.
This amendment is premised on seeking equity for all parties
involved, for the people of southern California who want to protect
their shoreline and their economy; equity for the American people as a
whole who have a vested interest in the integrity of units of the
national park system such as the Channel Islands; and equity for the
holders of 36 OCS leases themselves who are left holding the bag with
these stranded investments in some cases for 3 decades now.
In my view, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is time to come to grips
with this controversy, to own up to the fact that these 36 leases will
probably never be developed, and to work out a sensible solution. I
urge the House to adopt the pending amendment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I find this amendment
interesting. These 36 leases are suspended. They are not active. This
language only deals with 1 year, if my information is correct, so it
says no money in this budget could be spent. From my understanding of
the oil and gas business--and I come from where it started in
Pennsylvania, I live 5 miles from the first oil well--is that really
this legislation is of no value, or is somewhat meaningless, because
you could not facilitate in 12 months what it would take to get these
leases active, and so it prohibits activity for the next 12 months.
But I would like to speak a moment on the bigger issue. Coming from
an oil patch, I want to share with you what nature does. The hills in
Pennsylvania where oil was first discovered, and we did not know much
about production, they had gushers, it comes spurting out of the
ground. There are pictures of a place that is now called Oil Creek
State Park where there was nothing growing. Every tree was dead. Every
blade of grass was dead. The streams were polluted. The hills were
washing away every time you would get a rainstorm. Today, that is a
mature oak forest. It is a State park. It is beautiful.
[[Page H4831]]
The springs are clean. The streams are natural habitat for brook trout,
as good as it gets. It was totally destroyed 100 and some years ago
when oil was discovered, but nature has healed it.
Back then, we did not know how to produce oil. But I find it
troubling every time we get an oil or gas vote on this floor, we vote
to lock it up. We had the President's set-asides with his areas. We had
a vote last year on the Great Lakes where you now do slant drilling and
you do not drill into the lake but you drill under the lake. We buy oil
and gas from Canada that comes out from under the Great Lakes but we
prohibit Great Lakes drilling in the States. Much of the coastline is
locked up. Last year we locked up some more of the Gulf. Much of the
Midwest is locked up. I guess the question I ask is, is it more
important to lock up oil and gas drilling around this country when we
have safe, modern methods that do not cause environmental degradation?
You look at the record in recent years of oil and gas drilling in this
country, and it is pretty good, because we have the skill to do it. For
a country as dependent on energy as us and that energy comes from
countries like Iraq and Iran, does it make sense to continue, every
time we have a vote on oil and gas, to lock it up? I find it
interesting that one of the debaters for this amendment supports
mountaintop mining, certainly with greater environmental degradation
than drilling an oil and gas well, punching a little hole in the
ground.
I think we as a body need to be more thoughtful. Where do we go with
energy? We know it needs to be more renewable. We know we need to be
better conserving. But in the interim, until we have something to
replace oil, we need oil for this country. Every time we have a spike
in oil and gas prices, and we had one in 2000 and 2001, this economy
pays. We lost millions of jobs in this country with a spike in energy
prices just a year and a half ago. Yet we continue on a course, with
supposedly good environmental stewardship, of locking it up, resources
that we can extract today with good sound science, and I think it is a
debate we better think seriously about. These leases could not be
developed in the next 12 months if we wanted to, yet that is what this
amendment does. It says we lock it up for 12 more months because no
money can be spent. It is an amendment to raise another vote against
oil and gas development, something this country is dependent on for its
absolute economic future. I think it is something we need to be very
thoughtful about.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this amendment. It
is very important to this Nation, and let me point out why.
First of all, there is a big myth going on that we need this oil and
gas off the California coastline. These leases have been out there
since 1968 and the oil companies did nothing with them. They did not
drill on these leases. They have sat on them. They have been exempt
from all the moratoriums and now they want to continue these leases.
Why, we think? What has changed since 1968? What has changed is that
California has invested in alternative energy. No other State has
developed more alternatives. No other State has more geothermal, wind,
biomass, hydro, nuclear, natural gas. In energy conservation, we have
done more than any other State to make our State not dependent on one
source of energy but independent by developing all kinds of
alternatives.
We want our State coastline back. Why? Because a majority of
Californians live on that coastline. It is the most productive,
prosperous, enjoyed, visited, photographed, painted, lived-in coastline
in the United States. The people that come there to photograph it,
enjoy it and swim in that ocean are your constituents. They do not want
to come to visit offshore oil rigs. They want to enjoy the pristine
California coast.
So, Mr. President, do for California what you did for your brother in
Florida. Buy back the leases.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Interior.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for her
outstanding amendment. We have had similar problems in the State of
Washington. We passed numerous amendments to deal with that problem
and, of course, the issue now is that of equity between California and
Florida.
In May of this year, President George Bush reached agreement with
Governor Jeb Bush to buy back a series of oil leases which had been
awarded many years ago, but which were under a moratorium from
development as a result of public opposition to drilling near the
Florida coastline. This agreement, which we support, will cost $235
million. I would note, however, that the National Environmental Trust
has described the deal as a $235 million campaign contribution to the
incumbent Governor of Florida.
California is faced with very similar circumstances but has so far
received no similar accommodation from the Federal Government. There
are currently 36 Outer Continental Shelf leases off the California
coast which the Governor of California does not want to develop because
of threats to the beach and coastline. They have taken the Federal
Government to court as did the State of Florida. But a court case could
take many, many years due to the uncertainty with regard to the Federal
Government's position on drilling in California waters.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California and others
would send a clear signal that the Federal Government will not permit
drilling. This action, while effective for 1 year only, would push both
the State and the Department of the Interior to reach a settlement so
that the people of California will know that these areas remain free of
risk from drilling and potential environmental damage.
The amendment should be agreed to.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who is the past chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and
the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is very perplexing to be
a Member of Congress to note the way this body sometimes will simply go
with the trends, what is trendy, especially when it comes to issues of
science and energy. I am perplexed as much as I ever have been about
this particular issue. I, as most of you know and as many people in the
public may know, am an avid surfer. I am in the ocean water every
weekend. Less than 4 days ago, I was out surfing. I am also a scuba
diver. I am someone who loves the ocean. We have had offshore oil
drilling in my district for almost 50 years and there has never been
not only not a major problem but not even a significant problem with
any type of spillage or any other type of threat to our environment.
What did happen during that time period, however, was a major spill,
and guess where it came from? A tanker. Yes, a tanker that was
delivering oil. Let us also remember the Exxon Valdez was headed toward
southern California. If it would have had its accident down there, we
would still be cleaning up that mess. The tanker accident off of my
district was when a tanker inadvertently ran over its own anchor,
spilling a huge amount of oil onto our coastline.
What we hear being suggested today by people claiming to be concerned
about the environment and the ocean is to make our coastline perhaps
10, perhaps a hundred times more likely to suffer from an oil spill
because every drop of oil that we do not get from these offshore oil
rigs will come to us by tanker. We can philosophize that, oh, we
shouldn't be so dependent on oil in the first place.
{time} 1615
Okay, I will listen to that. I will listen to we should try to
develop other alternative resources, but in reality, everyone in here
knows that if we do not develop the actual oil resources, we are going
to get that oil from someone who will deliver it to us by tanker, which
is perhaps 10 to 100 times more likely to spill that oil on our
coastline.
This bill is an antienvironmental bill. This proposition is against
cleanliness in the ocean, but it is trendy, it is
[[Page H4832]]
happy; we do not have to explain ourselves because everybody knows that
one has to be against actual oil drilling to be for the environment.
Let me note that this also has a bad effect on the environment. I can
tell my colleagues, I have gone as a scuba diver and taken dives off
the offshore oil rigs and found that is where all the fish are because
they know it is safe for them to be around those rigs. They are not in
the other places, they are near those rigs. But what else does it do
for us? It is better for the environment not to be dependent on these
oil tankers, but it is also better for our country not to be dependent
on hostile powers.
Why is it that we have people in this body who will vote against any
type of energy development when it comes to oil or natural gas? Why is
that, when they realize we have people overseas at this minute risking
their lives because our country is dependent on potentially hostile
powers for our oil. Again, we could philosophize and say, oh, well, we
should not be so dependent on oil, we should develop wind and solar and
the rest of it, and I am for that. But we know that if we do not
develop our oil resources, we are going to have the Saudi Arabians, the
Iraqis, all the others who we are going to be more dependent on.
So we cannot even drill in Alaska, one of the most God-forsaken areas
of the world. So we cannot drill there and we cannot drill offshore,
and what does that do to our economy? By the way, the local offshore
rigs in my district have been providing revenue to our State and our
local areas all of this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, why is it that we are doing this? Number
one, it is trendy. It is very trendy to be against offshore oil
drilling and, number two, we have some very wealthy people who are
concerned about their view, and that is it; very wealthy people
concerned about their view. We are making our country more likely to
have oil spills. We are putting ourselves in jeopardy by being
dependent on these overseas powers to give us the oil, and we are
hurting ourselves by eliminating that resource in terms of tax
resources. And, by the way, when we talk about the balance of payments,
if we are concerned about our economy, and it is wavering now, this is
a major cause of unbalanced payments. We are not going to do anything
to try and help those things, but we are going to help the rich people
so they do not have to see an ugly oil well. Well, I would support
anything that says let us make those oil wells not ugly. But I will not
say we should not have oil. We can build those oil wells offshore that
are safe and are beautiful, but let us not say we are not going to
utilize what God gave us as these natural resources when it is safer to
do so.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), my esteemed colleague.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States of
America has taken action against offshore oil drilling in Florida. The
problem we have here is we just have not been able to find any of his
relatives in California.
I have checked the Santa Barbara phone book and I found an Allison
Bush, an Albert Bush and an Anna Bush, and I hope that they or any of
the other people named Bush in the Santa Barbara area will call the
White House and ask the President to afford them the same courtesy he
afforded his relative in Florida.
The President takes care of his family, and this is a noble, virtuous
thing. We believe in family values on this side of the aisle, but we
want to believe that to take care of all of the Bush relatives in the
State of California, I do not care if it is a second cousin, third time
removed, call the White House and ask him to take care of California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, about 1 year ago, former
Congressman Joe Scarborough and I led a debate on the floor of the
House that is remarkably similar to the one today, except it had to do
with the coast of Florida. One of the arguments we raised was that the
minimal amount of supply available off the coast of Florida did not
warrant the extraordinary risk to our State, its pristine beauty, and
to so many people that depended upon the economy associated with those
beautiful beaches. Those same arguments apply here today in California.
We are talking about supply related to asphalt. I do not hear anybody
here complaining we are depending on other countries to build enough
parking lots in this Nation. California needs a few less parking lots
and so do the State of Florida and others. So we are not talking about
a precious supply for motor vehicles, for generating electricity for
industry and manufacturing; we are talking about asphalt. I think the
Democrats and Republicans in the State of California are entitled to
the same respect that we afford to Floridians when we sat up and told
our colleagues of the economic impact to our State associated with a
spill that could occur.
The final point here is that the President of the United States and
others need to stand up and say, why are Californians different than
Floridians? Are they of some inferior status? Of course the answer is
no. We are a country. This is an issue to put politics aside. It does
not matter who the Governor of the State of California is this year or
in the future. It is the same issue. If this Congress will pay
attention to the details, because the devil is in the details, as we
did last year, we will adopt the Capps amendment, and I urge adoption
of the amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the former chair
of the Committee on Resources.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a critical
issue for so many reasons. It is not only a question of equity of
whether or not California will be treated the same as Florida, but it
is also a question about the California economy.
Our oceans, our beaches, our seaside landscapes are huge economic
engines within our State. They are the engines that drive individuals
who want to come and reside there and start businesses and provide
opportunity. They are the engines for tourism. They are the engines for
a whole range of economic activity.
Now, we know that this is a much better oil industry today than it
was at the time of the Santa Barbara oil spill. We know that the
technology is much better today than it was then. But we also know that
we have a much more intense concentration of economic benefits on our
coast today than we had then, and that an accident and the risk of that
accident for the benefits of the amount of oil available just does not
make sense.
Mr. Chairman, our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) said, how can we do this? How can we turn down the supply
of oil? Well, if we are going to take the supply of oil and put it into
cars that get 12 and 13 miles a gallon, we have already made a decision
that we are going to waste this oil. Seventy percent of our oil goes
into transportation, and earlier this year, this Congress made the
decision that we are not going to improve the CAFE standards, not a
mile, not 2 miles, not 3 miles. So why would we risk this magnificent
coastline, its magnificent benefits to us and its dynamic economic
energy, why would we risk that at a time when the Congress has made a
decision that they are simply going to waste the oil?
We have to support the Capps amendment. I want to thank the
gentlewoman for her leadership and her tenacity on this issue. We are
not going away until we get the same justice that the people in Florida
got and we get it for our economy and for our environment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague on the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this very important
amendment today.
I would like to state some facts for the Record. Why are we in
support of
[[Page H4833]]
this? First of all, we have the fifth largest economy in the world,
California does. We are a nation State and, you bet, we are going to go
to bat for our economy. A good deal of our economy rests on our coast
side. We have fishermen, we have tourism, we have many small
businesses, and we want to protect them. We do not want these parts of
our coast side despoiled.
Now, I purposely said ``parts.'' We are not talking about the entire
coastline of California. California today produces its fair share of
our Nation's need for oil supply from its coast. We want a fair shake
from the President, from this administration, that we be able to buy
these leases that have been outstanding.
We think that the President should speak to his father, who agreed
with us on this. This is a long-term, bipartisan issue in California.
Today the Republican nominee in California says no offshore oil
drilling; continued moratorium on these specific leases. So as the Bush
administration of today says ``yes'' to his brother in Florida, we say,
Mr. President, Members of Congress, follow the previous President's
support and the President before that, George Bush 41. Give us a fair
shake. Let us buy back these leases to protect California's coastline
and her economy.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a battle that my California
colleagues and I have been fighting for many, many years. It is not a
fad. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), as well as
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for their leadership on this issue.
Without this amendment, the Bush administration's concern with
promoting the interests of big oil over serving the people of
California will cause great harm to our coast.
The answer to America's energy needs is not contained in 36 oil
leases; our energy future depends on increased use of renewable energy
sources and conservation measures. Drilling for oil off our coast will
threaten to destroy our environment, wreak havoc on our economy, an
economy that depends on tourism and a great deal on fishing.
Unfortunately, the future of these 36 undeveloped leases is only a
symptom of a bigger problem.
The real solution is for the Federal Government to enact a permanent
ban on drilling off California's coast. For too long now, the coast of
California has been protected only by a multiyear presidential order.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I
thank my colleagues for joining with me in presenting our case for the
State of California. This is about our economy, it is about a national
economy, a State that produces its fair share of energy resources, a
State where we have a coastline that needs protection. This amendment
seeks to limit the Interior Department's funding for the funding cycle
so that we can encourage the Federal Government and the State of
California to sit with the local oil lessees, oil lessees who have come
to my office and told me that they would like to settle, they would
like to find a way out, and this amendment can give them that time and
give us the opportunity to make a resolution in some situation such as
Florida has done.
{time} 1630
Again, it will protect our environment. This oil-soaked bird is an
example of what can happen with one accident.
Our economy needs this protection; our environment needs this
protection. I am pleased to implore my colleagues to support this
amendment and work with us to allow these negotiations to occur for the
State of California, for our environment and our economy.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, I do commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) and all of our friends from California for fighting for a clean
environment and fighting for what is right and good in our country. I
have been there and seen the whales and enjoyed it as much as anyone.
But I think we must be vigilant and continue to recognize in the days
following September 11 how fragile our economy is, how fragile our
freedom is, and how much we must reduce our dependence on the Middle
East for oil.
If we are going to do that, we cannot cancel leases. We cannot use
funds to restrict oil and gas leases that we have domestically. The
vast majority of people in this country believe we must have our own
production capabilities, and we must not retreat from that, and in
doing so, keep our country free and strong and productive. That is what
we must do.
So on behalf of the subcommittee, we respectfully ask that the
amendment be denied, with the greatest respect for those that offered
it, because their motives are pure; but it is not in our country's best
interest to limit this capability at this time through this
appropriations bill.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps-
Rahall-Miller amendment as a matter of equity for California in its
long effort to protect its coastline from the potential effects of
offshore oil production.
Many of us remember the devastation to the Santa Barbara coastline
because of an oil spill. The state of California has been actively
fighting these leases since then, including a 1994 law permanently
banning new offshore oil leasing in state waters.
Like Florida, the coastal resources of California are critical to the
strong economy of the state as well as to the aesthetic appreciation of
its citizens and people around our Nation. I have been proud to join
the authors in a series of efforts to insist that California be
protected from potential environmental effects of new oil and gas
offshore drilling.
It is important to protect our coastline by preventing the
administration from expending funds to allow new drilling activity.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for
the Capps-Rahall-Million amendment. This important amendment would work
toward ending 36 undeveloped oil leases off the Californian cost. If
these leases are allowed to be developed, we risk the tragic
environmental contamination of a great swath of coastline. Executive
Orders have placed moratoriums on developing these leases since 1990
and this outstanding amendment moves us closer to a permanent solution
that will protect the health of the coast.
While I am greatly pleased with this amendment, I must also voice my
criticism of two provisions within this bill that I find objectionable.
I have long been an opponent of corporate welfare in its many forms.
This bill contains several provisions that benefit corporate America at
the expense of the American taxpayer. I believe that the are wrong and
should be addressed.
The fee charged for grazing animals on public lands is one of the
most blatant and objectionable subsidies in this bill. Currently,
ranchers may apply for permits to graze their animals on Federal land
at significantly below market rates. The Bureau of Land Management and
the Forest Service each charge approximately $1.43 per animal per
month, whereas the market value of the same averages $13.10 per head.
This is a 915 percent difference. This body and this country should not
allow this gift to continue unabated.
This bill also contains another offensive subsidy to corporate
America that should be addressed. Hardrock mining, the mining of solid
minerals that are not fuel from rock deposits, are governed by the
General Mining Law of 1872. The law ranges free access to individuals
and corporations to prospect for minerals in public domain lands, and
allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or ``locate'') a claim
on that deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the
minerals and may be ``patented'' to convey full title to the claimant.
The total amount of money that the claimant pays to the government to
develop the mining claim is a $100 a year holding fee and between $2.50
and $5.00 an acre (not adjusted since 1872) for an application fee.
The 1872 law allows companies to extract minerals without paying a
royalty. This is unlike all other resources taken from public lands.
For example, oil gas and coal industries operating on public lands pay
a 12.5 percent royalty on the gross income of the operation. We are
giving away resources that belong to us all. The public interest is not
being served, and will not be served until we eliminate this example of
corporate welfare.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and Chairman announced that the noes appeared
to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H4834]]
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Add at the end, before the short title, the following new
section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to enter into any new
commercial agricultural lease on the Lower Klamath and Tule
Lake National Wildlife Refuges in the States of Oregon and
California that permits the growing of row crops or alfalfa.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debates on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes,
equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) will control
20 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, Members may remember the huge controversy from last
year when the Bureau of Reclamation shut off irrigation water to
farmers in order to provide enough water for endangered suckerfish and
threatened coho salmon. It was back in the news again recently, where
the Bureau of Reclamation announced last week that this will be another
dry year in the Klamath Basin.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is always going to be a story, or on the
verge of being one, for two reasons: number one, land management on our
refuges in the Klamath Basin, and part of what I want to talk about
here today deals with this remarkable wildlife refuge, it is guided by
incompatible priorities: the reclamation of wetlands for agriculture
and the preservation of wetlands for wildlife.
The water in this basin is overallocated by some 100,000 acre feet a
year. Visualize 100,000 football fields covered by a foot of water. The
water will be available for competing uses in the Klamath Basin only
for perhaps 6 out of every 10 years; 2, 3, 4, 5 of those 10 years, we
are going to be in deficit.
Now, the Federal Government created this mess at the beginning of the
century by draining regions where there was too much water and creating
an artificial hydrological system in the basin. The basin was a 3,500-
acre wetland. Now, over 75 percent of this 350,000 acres has been
drained for agriculture and other developments.
The water that is left in the basin is damaged. The Klamath River is
one of the more polluted rivers in the State of Oregon, and the Upper
Klamath Basin Lake is severely polluted. American Rivers has listed the
Klamath as one of America's most endangered rivers.
The basin is always going to be in the news unless and until we take
steps to reduce the damage. This amendment is a simple, commonsense
step towards addressing part of the conflict in the basin between
farmers, endangered species, the wildlife refuges, and Native
Americans. It aims to reduce the damage from commercial agriculture and
the refuge lands in the basin.
The Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge was established by Teddy
Roosevelt as the Nation's first waterfowl refuge in 1908. Members may
be surprised to find out, as I was, that the Klamath Basin refuges are
the only refuges in the country that allow leasing for commercial
agriculture of this nature. They are damaging wildlife in the process.
Farming on the refuge currently uses 56 different pesticide products,
including 10 carcinogenics, two neurotoxins, and 13 endocrine
disrupters. At least six of the pesticides have been determined by the
U.S. EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey to be toxic to salmon. This is
activity that is going on in one of our precious natural wildlife
refuges.
That is one of the reasons, perhaps, the daily peak of overall number
of birds who visit the refuge have declined from 6 million birds in the
sixties to less than 1 million birds today.
For most of America, the conflict between wildlife refuge use and
agriculture was fixed by Congress when it passed the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997 by an overwhelming vote of 407 to
one. The act clarified that wildlife conservation is the singular
mission of wildlife refuges. It requires that the economic uses of
national wildlife refuges only be permitted if they contribute to the
achievement of refuge purposes and that such uses not degrade
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.
Unfortunately, this standard has not yet been applied to the Klamath
Basin.
I want to be clear: the amendment would not eliminate the lease land
program on Tule Lake in the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge. The
amendment only applies to the 17 agricultural leases that will be up
for renewal in October of this year, a little over 2,000 acres out of
the 22,000 acres that we are currently leasing.
The amendment does not stop agricultural activity. Farmers would be
able to continue to farm in the wildlife refuge; but it would prohibit
the growing of alfalfa, which is water-intensive, and row crops such as
onions and potatoes, which are pesticide-intensive, on any new leases.
The statistics are rather stark about the intense use of water for
these row crops during the summer months when water is scarce in the
basin. Farmers would still be able to grow crops that are beneficial to
wildlife, such as barley, oats, and wheat.
The Federal Government's efforts in the Klamath Basin have been
uncoordinated; and in fact, in concert with some local boosters over
the last 100 years, they have made environmental shortcuts and did not
honor basic agreements on the scale of ownership, financial commitment,
and water use. In this process, Native Americans, the environment,
wildlife, and the taxpayers have all been shortchanged.
I strongly urge that my colleagues join me in helping restore the
integrity of the Klamath Basin and the National Wildlife Refuge system,
and support this amendment that has been offered by myself and my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the subcommittee, I rise in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, the lease land program is a perfect example
of how wildlife and agriculture can thrive together. Congress
recognized that balance and specifically afforded farming a special
status in the national wildlife refuges of the Klamath Basin. The
Kuchel Act enshrined the lease land farm program in Federal law,
specifying a compromise between row and forage crops and cereal grains
in a way that would satisfy the requirements of the law, including
maximizing revenues to the government and to local counties, and
providing food and habitat for the migrating birds and other wildlife.
While couched in seemingly innocent terms, this amendment takes a
short step in the direction of eliminating the lease land program by
chipping away at its foundation. If we remove row crops, we remove the
greatest incentive to farm and upset the balance that was established
in Federal law almost 40 years ago.
Moreover, this would deal another devastating economic blow to these
communities, which have already suffered incredible hardship in the
wake of last year's tragic water shutoff. Estimates are that these
crops generated an average of approximately $10 million annually over
the last 5 years. Those same acres planted to grain, as required by
this amendment, would generate a little over $1 million. That is a $9
million out of $10 million loss that would cripple this community.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues with agriculture in their districts know
how
[[Page H4835]]
tenuous commodity markets are. Farmers need opportunities, not more
baseless limitations. The irony here is, Mr. Chairman, that despite the
gentleman's stated desires to help wildlife, their amendment would do
precisely the opposite. By preventing the planting of onions, potatoes,
and alfalfa, we effectively eliminate an important food source.
The potatoes, which I should note the gentlemen have specifically
targeted, provide a particularly important source of nutrients for
geese, allowing them to migrate and breed successfully; and they remove
the very mechanism, crop rotation, that allows farmers to maintain the
quality of the soils, and, in turn, enhance the production of the
cereal grains that provide food and habitat. That is why it is in the
Kuchel Act.
Claims of harm from pesticides used are simply unfounded. There is
not a shred of evidence, not one, despite years of study, that lends
any support whatsoever to that argument. The refuge manager himself has
stated that there is ``no smoking gun.'' That is because pesticide use
is severely restricted. California has the most stringent pesticide
rules in the country, and over 95 percent of those allowable pesticides
are prohibited on the leased lands.
Despite the rhetoric of the radical environmental groups, all the
evidence is exactly to the contrary. Mr. Chairman, consider this
statement from the California Waterfowl Association: ``For nearly 100
years, farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin have co-existed with
immense populations of wildlife. Many wildlife species, especially
waterfowl, are familiar visitors to their highly productive farms and
ranches. Klamath Basin agriculture provides a veritable nursery for
wildlife.''
So if there is no harm here, if experience over the long history of
this program has shown that agriculture helps and enhances wildlife,
then why seek to undo the delicate balance? The only explanation is,
quite simply, that this is another attempt to shrink farming in this
area.
Note that some of the same radical environmental groups behind this
amendment were the same groups that were pursuing a similar proposal 2
years ago which would have eliminated the leases entirely. There is no
doubting these groups' desire to remove agriculture from the Klamath
Basin.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this anti-agriculture
amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Oregon for yielding time to me and for his work on this
very important matter.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is good for agriculture, it is good for
waterfowl, it is good for the fishing industry, and it is good for the
families in the Klamath Basin, the north coast of California, and the
coast of Oregon.
In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt established our country's first
waterfowl refuge in the Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
{time} 1645
These are among the most important refuges in our country and they
are the most important refuges in California. It is the largest staging
area for waterfowl in the entire Pacific flyway. It also has the
greatest concentration of wintering bald eagles in the United States.
As was pointed out earlier, these are the only refuges in the country
that allow commercial lease land farming. They farm over 20,000 acres
of farmland. Many of the crops are water-consumptive and chemically
intensive. The area is an area of very little waterfall. The average is
less than that of some parts of Arizona where they have next to
nothing.
There are about 100,000 acre-feet of water that are overallocated in
the basin; and this, Mr. Chairman, coupled with a multiyear drought,
has hurt farmers, it hurts fish, and it hurts waterfall. The area of
the headwaters of the Klamath River, which was the number one salmon
river in the Lower 48 States. Today's water shortages and intensive
chemicals have greatly diminished the fish and the economy of the
coastal communities of Northern California and some parts of Oregon.
In 1988, sports and commercial fishing in the Pacific region
generated over $1.2 billion to our regional economy. Today's salmon
fishing between Fort Bragg, California and my district and Coos Bay,
Oregon has been all but shut down for the last 10 years. Klamath River
salmon are 1 percent of their historical population, and the coast
families in California and Oregon have lost over 72,000 family wage
jobs. We must address the water problems of the Klamath Basin. We have
got to do it soon.
This amendment, I believe, is a very important first step in doing
that. The amendment will limit the crops grown on about 2,000 acres of
the refuge that is leased to farming. That is 17 leases and, remember,
they farm 2,000 acres of lease farming there. The crops that will be
grown on those 17 leases, on those 2,000 acres, will be less water-
consumptive. They will rely less on chemicals and they will provide
some very needed food to waterfowl.
We are talking about going from row crops and alfalfa to potatoes to
cereal grain to crops that are beneficial to the important wildlife
that fly through the entire Pacific flyway. And most important and
against what some of the critics of this amendment will say is that it
still allows families in the area to farm. These areas will not go out
of farming production. They will continue to be farmed. There are just
going to be restrictions on what can be farmed in this area,
restrictions that will be good for the coastal communities, good for
the farming communities, good for the Native American community, good
for fish, good for wildlife and good for waterfowl.
This is an important solution to the Klamath Basin water problem and
it will help immensely with the downturn in the economy for the
aforementioned reasons, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote
in favor of this initiative, and do so knowing this can be good for
fish, good for waterfowl and good for people.
I thank the gentleman from Oregon again.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and the Committee on Resources.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed that my colleague
from Portland has chosen to attack farming the Klamath Basin with this
reckless and harmful amendment. By doing so, we are kicking the very
farmers in the stomach just when they have been begun to recover from
the last attack that this government hit them with. You remember, these
are the men and women of the Klamath Basin who had their irrigation
water cut off to them last year. They could not raise their crops and
then the National Academy of Science has found the government's
decision to cut off their water could not be backed up by science.
In short, the Federal Government got it wrong, terribly wrong.
What makes this amendment especially troubling is that it flies in
the face of science and could hurt the farmers, the economy, the
community and the very species that it is supposed to be introduced to
protect.
Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility to see that this Congress does
not get it wrong again and do even more damage in the Klamath Basin,
damage not only to the farmers who lease the lands on the refuges but
also damage the wildlife, the waterfowl and refuges.
The proponents make two arguments: That growing row crops and alfalfa
are incompatible with the refuges and the pesticides are adversely
affecting the environment of the refuges. First, growing row crops is
not only compatible with the refuges, but is also a practice that
benefits the soil by improving its fertility as crops are rotated. This
practice is as old as farming in America. The increased fertility of
the soil in turn benefits the cereal grains that represent more than 75
percent of the acreage in the refuges which are then eaten by various
species.
Mr. Chairman, activities on the Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges are
governed by several Federal laws, including the 1964 Kuchel Act, which
restricts row crops on the refuges to no
[[Page H4836]]
more than 25 percent. It is worth noting that current planning of row
crops represents less than that figure.
Periodically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts a
compatibility determination, a formal and involved public process to
make sure that agricultural processes are consistent with operating the
refuges for the benefit of wildlife and waterfowl. The latest
compatibility determination was issued on June 4 of this year. It
selected a no-action alternative which means that the farming
activities are indeed compatible with the goals of the refuge.
Further, Fish and Wildlife determined that even if these leased lands
are reduced, the increased returned flows of water generated from
reduced lease land farming would not be available to refuge wetlands.
They are the lowest on the priority list to water rights in the basin.
This is because the Endangered Species Acts, tribal trust assets, and
agricultural contracts take precedent.
In short, cutting back on leasing the lease lands will not result in
more water to the refuge wetlands.
Now let us talk about alfalfa. We are talking about onions and
potatoes. Growing onions requires hand-weeding which helps keep down
the noxious weeds. What better way to control noxious weed infestations
than by hand-weeding. Growing potatoes benefits waterfowl. According to
the California Waterfowl Association, potatoes specifically benefit two
types of geese, the lesser snow and the white-fronted geese, because
after the first frost the potatoes left in the field provide food for
these geese. The pronghorned antelope on the refuge eat the alfalfa
sprouts.
Mr. Chairman, the Blumenauer-Thompson amendment would deny leases
that allow farmers to raise these row crops that have indeed been found
compatible with the purposes of the refuge.
Now let us move on to pesticides. It is ironic that my friend from
California would be on this amendment about pesticides when all the
scientific studies, and I have a list of them here, found no adverse
effect from these pesticides. And, in fact, I want to go to a statement
by the manager of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge. ``We have
never found that the pesticides have had an adverse effect on the
environment.''
The Littlejohn report from 1993, the Boyer and Grew reports from
1994, the Moore report in 1993, on and on. These farmers used
integrated pest management programs to minimize the use of pesticides
in this basin. Each year they go through a pesticide use proposal
process. I have the minutes of the April meeting here where they go
through and look at how they can minimize the use.
California, and you all from California know this, probably has the
most restricted use of pesticides in the United States of America. On
this refuge, 97.8 percent of those pesticides allowed everywhere else
in California are denied in this refuge already. They only use 2.2
percent of the available pesticides. For nearly a decade scientist
after scientist has studied the use of the pesticides and found no
problems. Where they have thought there might be some concerns, they
have moved back how they applied the pesticides so it does not get in
the water, does not get in the canals, and does not adversely affect
the species in the Klamath Refuge.
It is important to note, because I know my friend and colleague from
Portland originally wanted to ban funding for any renewal of leases but
then compromised and just wants to do away about the row crops. Let me
point out what Phil Norton, the manager of the Klamath Basin Refuge
said. His greatest nightmare would be to have a whole bunch of lands
that we were not set up to handle. That is what will happen if we start
cutting off these leases.
Again, I want to make the point, if the lease lands are not used, the
water does not go to the refuge but to other higher-use priorities.
Finally, let me close by saying this. Those of us who represent rural
areas have a concern when those in the urban areas have situations far
worse than polluting rivers. In the city of Portland, 3.4 billion
gallons of stormwater and sewage flow in in 55 locations into the
Columbia and the Willamette River; 3.4 billion gallons of raw sewage.
They flush it and it flows right into where the endangered salmon are.
Right over where there are toxic dumps, Superfund sites in the
Willamette River. Yet the American Rivers Council does not say that one
is polluted. They just say that Klamath is.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment for agriculture. It does not
work for the wildlife. What they have done on that refuge is
compatible, and I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask if there is a chance we could get a
unanimous consent agreement on dividing the time equally, but limiting
the remaining debate to 12 minutes so we can honor leadership's
commitment to rise at a time certain, and that would be six minutes per
side?
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. With all due respect, I wanted to cooperate with the
gentleman. I did this from the beginning. It was the other side who
asked for 20 minutes. I had agreed to 15 minutes a side. Now I am going
to get behind the curve. If you give me 9 minutes, I will agree to 6. I
think that will put us even and I am a happy guy.
Mr. WAMP. If we go beyond 12, we will have to rise and come back at 6
o'clock. That was an agreement we made earlier.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will be happy to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have been working very hard, as I think
my gentleman friend from Eastern Oregon knows, to deal with the
problems in the Willamette River. I negotiated a settlement. We put a
lot of money into it. I am continuing to work on that. But one thing we
decided is we were going to make it better, not worse. And what this
amendment is seeking to do is to make sure that we are making it
better.
Second, the notion is given to the 1964 Kuchel Act. Well, give me a
break. We have learned a lot about managing the environment in the last
28 years. And if we were doing it over again, we would not enact, I do
not think even this Congress would enact something that looks like that
1964 act. And I am suggesting that what we are doing here is an attempt
to bring that into conformity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time and for offering this amendment.
To follow up on what he said, we have spent the last 15 years
cleaning up after the reclamation projects that were started in the
1950s, the 1960s and even into the 1970s. We completely reorganized the
Central Utah project, the Central Arizona project, the Garrison
project, the Central Valley project in California. Why? Because in 1964
and 1960 and 1970, we made some very bad decisions about the use of
those lands, and the damage from those decisions was now spilling over
onto other farmers, onto the cities, onto water users, onto tribes,
onto the environment.
We have an opportunity here under this amendment to take a realistic
look at a very oversubscribed basin on the use of water. And the
particular use here is at the behest of Federal leases that are
subsidized; at crops, in some cases, that are subsidized or the farmer
was growing crops, one subsidized, one unsubsidized, and I am not clear
whether or not yet the water is in fact subsidized.
That is kind of what makes this basin go. But the spillover effect of
this basin is all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and it spills over to
the recreational industries, onto tourism industry, onto the farming
industry, onto the Pacific Coast fisheries, onto the
[[Page H4837]]
water qualities issues, and the environmental issues.
At a minimum what the gentleman has raised is something we ought to
take very seriously because we had a huge outbreak of concern in the
Klamath about how we will allocate water between species and farmers
and Indians and fish and all the rest of it.
We have an opportunity with the renewal of these leases to put some
of this in abeyance and see what the impact is on the other entities in
what is an area that is clearly oversubscribed. If everybody exercises
their water rights, the species, the farmers, the tribes, then we know
that it is oversubscribed. That is why we are having this problem. Yes,
this might have made sense 40 years ago and it might have made sense at
the turn of the century when people came to the Klamath Basin. But the
State of Utah made a decision, the State of Arizona made a decision, to
some extent the State of California, it does not make sense to keep
raising alfalfa in the desert.
{time} 1700
Because the usage of the water is just too high, especially if we are
doing it on subsidized land, and those are the kinds of changes that
have to be made.
I do not know if this is the perfect amendment, but we ought not to
turn down the serious consideration, what the gentleman is offering
here, as we in the Committee on Resources sit and look at the struggle
that is going on in this basin. This may be one of the easier options
that we can have in trying to sort out an area that is so terribly over
subscribed and short of water for all of the competing uses, all of
which have very, very legitimate claims on that water. But as we try to
sort it out, I think the gentleman has brought forth one of the tools
that might be used that is under the control of the Secretary who has
to make some very tough decisions and can try to balance out the
competing interests of the parties.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), a distinguished member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
I am sort of amazed at the overkill, the overrhetoric that comes on
some of these debates. I know there has been allegations by the
distinguished gentlemen who were the sponsors of this amendment, both
of whom I respect, who said there is damage to the fowl and the fish;
and yet the manager of the refuge has not made that determination at
all. In fact, he said we found that the pesticides that are used, that
none of these pesticides have an adverse effect on the environment.
I listened to the gentleman from California talk about environmental
protection. Ninety-eight percent of the pesticides that are allowed in
California are already prohibited from use on this refuge. So I say let
us clean up California. Maybe if there is such a pesticide problem in
California or on this refuge, clean up California first rather than
coming out and trying to whack away at farmers.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is 17 families that are affected by this
issue, 17 leases. Well, that is 17 families who were trying like crazy
to make a living in farming. In fact, the refuge monitors pesticides
all the time. That is why we have managers of refuges. That is what
they do. They make sure there is no adverse effect on fish or fowl.
So to come in here and keep saying there is damage to this and there
is damage to that, it just is not true. There is no evidence of it, and
I think that this House ought to stand up and say, wait a minute, this
is overkill and let us not go to extremism that I think some of the
supporters of this amendment want us to go to.
In fact, if a person does not grow potatoes in this refuge, the
lesser snow and white fronted geese feed on the first frost in the
refuge. So my point is this is good for wild fowl and snow and white
fronted geese. Same with alfalfa, it is good for the fowl and the
animals in the refuge.
So enough overkill. That is what this amendment is, and I urge its
defeat.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the rhetoric,
and I find it somewhat amusing. First, they have been quoting Phil
Norton, the refuge manager, about the fact that there are not any
problems with pesticides. First of all, it might be hard to tell the
effect of the pesticides when the farmers are not allowed to go on the
fields after they spray for 48 to 72 hours. That is a hint that it may
not be as healthy as one suggests.
The notion that this Mr. Norton somehow is a proponent of
continuation, I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Mr.
Norton said, ``We want to manage the land we already own.'' That, ``we
want.'' The leased land program has to go. We get conflicting reactions
from the wildlife manager; but the point is, I think it is bizarre that
it is being advanced that somehow the wildlife are not going to survive
unless we are growing things like potatoes on the wildlife refuge.
The fact is that the wildlife got along quite well without us. It is
after we went in and monkeyed with the ecosystems up and down the
coasts that we have had problems.
We are suggesting that farming can continue consistent with the uses
of the refuge. We are hearing about potatoes; $10 million was
referenced by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
That has been a wildly up and down notion in terms of the value. My
friend who is in the Chair right now knows that last year people were
leaving potatoes in the field because they cannot afford to harvest
them. The point is the potatoes use extensive water, particularly
during the growing season. It is not the best use.
We have the charge about reckless and damaging; and with all due
respect, as I think my colleagues review the hundred-year history of
the Klamath Basin, the people who are reckless and damaging are those
who feel that we do not need any changes, that somehow we can continue
to ignore the demands of the overall environment of wildlife, of Native
Americans, and that the failure to renew 17 leases for other than uses
that are compatible with agriculture is reckless and upsetting, I
think, Mr. Speaker is overblown, and anybody who looks at it will
concur.
Dennis Healey once talked about the theory of the hole; when a person
is in it, stop digging. This is a tiny step to restoring the health of
the Klamath Basin and protecting the wildlife refuge.
I urge its passage.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let us get to the facts here; and
the facts are these, and let me read this. I will turn to pesticides.
Although current studies and modern activities have failed to detect an
acute problem with pesticides on the refuge, they go into this. That is
why they did, the IPM, the integrated pest management plan. I can give
my colleague study after study right here of great researchers in the
State of Oregon that have looked at pesticide use and have found no
significant impact.
Beyond that, let me just say this. I have supported, as have the
gentleman, legislation to study the water quality and quantity in this
basin. It has passed this Congress, probably unanimously, and the
agencies are working on that. I have supported and the gentleman has
supported legislation to improve fish passage at Chilicottan dam. I
have supported conservation efforts to improve water quality and
quantity in this basin and habitat.
My feet are not stuck in concrete, but I want to do it in a way that
works in the basin for the farmers and the fish and the fowl with
science-based decisions. The rest is the rhetoric.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that when I
see somebody from an urban area sponsoring an amendment that deals with
[[Page H4838]]
rural America, I get a little bit antsy, and I think that is the case
that is happening right here.
I was down at Klamath Basin a little over a year ago at a hearing,
and I heard what the farmers went through. It was devastating to them;
and now this amendment, which looks innocuous, it just simply says a
person cannot grow row crops and no money should be used for row crops
or alfalfa. That has an unintended consequence in my view in the future
of now saying on reclamation projects a person is limited to what crops
they can grow.
It sets a precedent and I think a very bad precedent that could apply
to areas probably all over the country, including the central valley of
California and my area of Washington, Columbia Basin Project, that I
think is very detrimental because those larger areas have the large
diversity of crops.
I think the gentleman comes at this with strong feelings. It is a bad
way to go, in my view. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this area has been devastated by
government mismanagement already. We already know the history when for
no good scientific reason the water was cut off to the farmers. It did
irreparable harm, and it should not have happened, and now we come with
this new amendment which is going to just compound the error that was
made then and will do grave injustice to a community that depends upon
the farming.
The farming is essential to these refuges. These refuges do not use
much water. I think 2 percent of the water developed in the basin goes
for the purpose of agriculture. It is really a de minimus amount.
It is clear that pesticides are not a problem. We have had these uses
compatible that have gone on for over a hundred years in this area.
There is a waterfowl area. We need farming. The Kuchel Act mandates we
have farming in order to sustain the refuges. We have to have this
continue. It would be a terrible injustice to enact this amendment.
We need to stay focused, get the good science; and the good science
says that agriculture and refuges are compatible. Please defeat this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer)
will be postponed.
Mr. WAMP. 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. Dan
Miller of Florida) 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.
____________________