[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 106 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7025-H7047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 319 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2691.
{time} 1018
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2691) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July
16, 2003, the bill was open from page 101, line 4, through page 101,
line 13.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to
engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced
it was proceeding with the development of new voluntary guidelines to
protect migratory birds from electrocution and collisions with power
lines. This is an important development.
For the past 70 years, the Nation's rural electric cooperatives have
provided power to millions of people in rural America. Distribution and
transmission lines cross many miles of wide open spaces and sometimes
those wide open spaces are filled with migratory birds. Under two laws,
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection
Act, electric utilities can be found guilty of so-called takings if
birds fly into those lines or land on them and are killed. Many
utilities have responded by redesigning the towers for new power lines
and locating these lines outside of known flyways. Yet birds continue
to fly into power lines and as things currently stand, these utilities
are liable for penalties under these two laws. Mr. Chairman, no one in
their right mind, when these laws were enacted, would have thought that
these laws would be interpreted in this kind of a way.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been very forthcoming in a series
of meetings with myself and my colleagues, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
However, we ask you, Mr. Chairman, to join us in emphasizing to the
Service the importance of resolving this issue. All of America, not
just rural America, needs electric power and this problem has the
potential of interfering with delivery of that power.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield a moment to the
gentlewoman from Colorado who represents the eastern plains of Colorado
and has spent an
[[Page H7026]]
enormous amount of energy on this particular subject. She actually
represents an area bigger than some States.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I do represent an area that has wide open spaces. A
few years ago, I attended the 50th year anniversary of YW Electric in
Akron, Colorado. This rural utility serves a vast area. There were
individuals at that anniversary celebration that remembered the day
that they got electricity to their rural home. Of course, rural
Americans want all of the amenities that we have because of
electricity. It just so happens that rural electric lines are built in
areas that are remote. It just so happens that that is where raptors
are. Again as the gentleman from Colorado said, no one could anticipate
the time when laws would be interpreted in such a way that when a bird
landed on lines and was electrocuted, a rural electric could be found
guilty of an intentional taking.
Mr. Chairman, I just ask that you work with us in order to resolve
this problem. There, of course, is no intention in the taking of a
bird. When lines are changed to pose less danger to birds, of course,
those costs will be passed on to our ratepayers, the individuals who
purchase electricity from the rural electrics. We would just ask for
the chairman's help in this issue solving this in a reasonable way so
that it will be beneficial to all of us who care about the birds, but
those of us who realize that we have to have some common sense in this
approach to whether or not a rural electric is guilty of an intentional
taking when a raptor dies because they have landed on the lines.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, we do need your help on this and wanted to
bring this matter to your attention. You also represent a great deal of
rural area, I am sure many rural electrics, so you probably are quite
aware of the problem.
I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the
gentleman and gentlewoman for their leadership on this issue of fowl
mortality associated with electric power lines. We always want to save
any bird possible, but this is somewhat of a bird-brained
interpretation of what the rule is meant to do. I recognize the
importance of electric cooperatives in rural America and will work with
the gentleman and gentlewoman to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife
Service continues to work closely with the electric power industry to
resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial manner.
Mr. HEFLEY. I want to thank the chairman for his assistance in this
important matter.
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy between myself and
Chairman Taylor.
Mr. Chairman, on June 23, 2003, President Bush signed into law the
Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003. This new law
settles a longstanding dispute over the water rights of Zuni Heaven
among the local, county, State, tribal, Federal and private interests
and restores and protects the wetland environments that previously
existed on Zuni lands. Specifically, this recently enacted law provides
the Zuni people with the resources and protections necessary to acquire
water rights from willing sellers.
The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act authorized
appropriations for $3.5 million for the Zuni people to help them
acquire and develop these water rights. This funding is to be used for
the acquisition of water as well as associated lands by the Zuni tribe
to facilitate the enforceability of the settlement agreement, including
the acquisition of at least 2,350 acre-feet per year of water rights
before December 31, 2006.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Zuni people, I would appreciate it if
you could do all you can to support the inclusion of this funding when
we conference this bill with the Senate.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RENZI. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been
very attentive in bringing this to my attention. You continually fight
for the rights of Native Americans and you have persistently expressed
to me the need to properly fund our trust responsibilities to the
tribes. It has been a longstanding policy of this committee to fund
water rights settlements that have been enacted into law. This one is
no exception. However, this settlement will be a challenge for funding
in the fiscal year of 2004.
Mr. RENZI. I appreciate the gentleman's help on this important matter
so that the Zuni people have enough water to bring back the original
lush environment to the Zuni Heaven. I am grateful for his support.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I will be happy to work with you to
fund this Indian water rights settlement.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 the House report
accompanying this Act.
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 the House report accompanying this
Act.
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.
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, $3,000,000
may be advanced in a lump sum to the National Forest
Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in
support of the Forest Service mission, 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 to aid conservation
partnership projects in support of the Forest Service
mission, 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.
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.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to
Congress, and make available to interested persons, a report
containing the results of a management review of outfitter
and guiding operations in the John Muir, Ansel Adams, and
Dinkey Lakes Wilderness Areas of the Inyo and Sierra National
Forests, California. The report shall include information
regarding: (1) how the Secretary intends to minimize adverse
impacts on the historic access rights of special use
permittees in these three wilderness areas; and (2) how the
Secretary intends to ensure timely compliance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to
[[Page H7027]]
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 $1,000,000.
The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the sale of
excess buildings, facilities, and other properties owned by
the Forest Service and located on the Green Mountain National
Forest, the revenues of which shall be retained by the Forest
Service and available to the Secretary without further
appropriation and until expended for maintenance and
rehabilitation activities on the Green Mountain National
Forest.
The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer or reimburse
funds available to the Forest Service, not to exceed
$15,000,000, to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Commerce to expedite conferencing and
consultations as required under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536. The amount of the transfer or
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.
Beginning on June 30, 2001 and concluding on December 31,
2004, an eligible individual who is employed in any project
funded under Title V of the Older American Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service
shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
clean coal technology
(deferral)
Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $86,000,000 shall not be available
until October 1, 2004: 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 mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$609,290,000 to remain available until expended, of which
$2,000,000 is to continue a multi-year project for
construction, renovation, furnishing, and demolition or
removal of buildings at National Energy Technology Laboratory
facilities in Morgantown, West Virginia and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; and of which $130,000,000 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 research, development,
and demonstration projects 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 42 U.S.C. 5903d: 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, $20,500,000, 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, 2004 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, $879,487,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That $270,000,000 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:
$225,000,000 for weatherization assistance grants and
$45,000,000 for State energy program grants.
{time} 1030
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 109, line 22, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $15,000,000, decreased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 109, line 23, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 110, line 2, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the Sanders-Kind amendment would increase
funding for the very successful Weatherization Assistance Program by
$15 million, from $225 million to $240 million. Even with this $15
million increase that we are proposing, funding for the weatherization
program would still be $48 million less than the President's request.
We are not sure yet what the offset is, and that is an issue we will
be working with the majority on. According to the statement of
administration policy that was endorsed by the Office of Management and
Budget: ``The administration opposes the $63 million reduction from the
President's $288 million request for the Weatherization Assistance
Program that assists low-income families with their energy bills while
conserving energy for the Nation. The President is committed to
increasing funding for this program by $1.4 billion over 10 years.''
I do not often agree with the priorities established by the Bush
administration, but on this issue they are absolutely right.
One of the absurdities in terms of public policy both for the needs
of low-income people and in terms of environmental protection is that
we have huge numbers of low-income people throughout this country who
are living in homes that are very poorly insulated, where energy is
going right through the doors, through the roofs, through the windows,
and it is a very sound investment indeed when we improve the
weatherization of their homes. Low-income people save substantial sums
of money on their limited budgets, and as a Nation concerned about the
environment we do not see energy going right up.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to
the extra $15 million. We may not be able to keep it through
conference, but we will certainly support it now.
Mr. SANDERS. Will the gentleman do his best?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. We will. We will try to keep the $15
million in.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the gentleman
for his leadership on this issue, and I know that the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has also been concerned about this. We appreciate
his efforts and will do our best to help.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind); and
[[Page H7028]]
I thank the majority for their support for this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Sanders-Kind Amendment to increase funding for the Weatherization
Assistance Program. Although, I am aware of the worthy funding for the
Committee has offered to this program, I am bothered by the neglect to
follow suit in the President's request to increase funding to $288
million from its current funding level of $223 million.
The decision to not increase funding to an adequate level for the
Weatherization Assistance Program will directly effect my District and
my constituents. Chicago endures some of the country's most severe
temperature extremes. In 2002, with on the onset of a harsh winter,
Chicago residents saw their heating cost soar to record levels--nearly
tripling the cost of 1999. Chicago experienced another cold winter in
2001 causing cost once again to be extremely high for residents. There
were countless stories about seniors in my district, on a fixed income,
making approximately $700 a month but whose December's gas bill was
$400. The heating cost just did not affect residents, but small
business, high-rises, and schools. The Chicago Public Schools reported
in 2001 of having heating cost that were up $7 million, 50 percent more
than what was called for in their budget. Historically, Chicago has
experience the highest electricity rates in the Midwest and are among
some of the highest nationwide.
The President's request to increase funding would have permitted an
additional 25,000 poor and elderly families to be served by this
program. It is estimated that each home that is weatherized will
generate $275 in annual savings and $4,650 of life-cycle savings per
household. These savings are critical for the countless families in my
district living near or below the federal poverty level and depend on
this program and programs like it to have a warm home. I am proud that
in January of 2002, the city of Chicago implemented its New Energy
Conservation Code which re-defines energy efficiency requirements for
all new and rehabilitated homes and commercial buildings. The goal of
this new code will improve energy efficiency standards by 10 to 20
percent. But this is just one small step in the process to lower energy
cost for our constituents that need the federal government's
assistance.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not help our constituents weatherize their
homes to become more energy efficient and heating cost continue to
rise, our constituents will only be spending more of their money on
energy bills and less towards the growth of our economy. This amendment
is good for our constituents, is good for energy conservation and is
good for our economy.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
economic regulation
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,047,000, 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.), $175,081,000,
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,
$5,000,000, to remain available until expended.
energy information administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $82,111,000, 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, $2,556,082,000, 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 $18,000,000 shall remain
available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $460,046,000 for
contract medical care shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2005: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, up to $27,000,000 to remain available until
expended, 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 one-year contracts and grants which
are to be performed in two 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 until expended: 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 2004, 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.
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
[[Page H7029]]
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,
$392,560,000, 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 complete 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 none of the funds
appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for
sanitation facilities construction for new homes funded with
grants by the housing programs of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development: 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.
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.
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,
$13,532,000, 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),
$5,250,000.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
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, $489,748,000, of which
not to exceed $46,903,000 for the instrumentation program,
collections acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the
National Museum of the American Indian, and the repatriation
of skeletal remains program shall remain available until
expended; and of which $828,000 for fellowships and scholarly
awards shall remain available until September 30, 2005; 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 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.
facilities capital
For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, 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), and
for construction, including necessary personnel, $93,970,000,
to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$10,000 is for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109:
Provided, That contracts awarded for environmental systems,
protection systems, and repair or restoration of facilities
[[Page H7030]]
of the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with
selected contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor
qualifications as well as price: Provided further, That
balances from amounts previously appropriated under the
headings ``Repair, Restoration and Alteration of Facilities''
and ``Construction'' shall be transferred to and merged with
this appropriation and shall remain 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 from
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.
None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be
reprogrammed without the advance written approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the procedures contained in the House report
accompanying this Act.
The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution may establish
a voluntary separation incentive program substantially
similar to the program established under section 1313(a) of
the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'' (Public Law 107-296,
116 Stat. 2135) for individuals serving in civil service
positions in the Smithsonian Institution.
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, $88,849,000,
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, $11,600,000, 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, $16,560,000.
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, $16,000,000, 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, $8,604,000.
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,
$117,480,000, 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, including
$17,000,000 for support of arts education and public outreach
activities through the Challenge America program, for program
support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the
Arts ``Matching Grants'' account and ``Challenge America''
account may be transferred to and merged with this account.
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,
$120,878,000, 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.
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 the 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), $1,422,000:
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), $4,100,000:
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 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,730,000:
Provided, That for fiscal year 2004 and thereafter, 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),
$39,997,000, 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, $20,700,000
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended.
[[Page H7031]]
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, charges, or billings may be
levied against any program, budget activity, subactivity, or
project funded by this Act unless advance notice of such
assessments, charges, or billings and the basis therefor are
presented to the House and Senate 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, 2004, 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, 107-63, and 108-7 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 2003 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;
(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. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds in this Act may be used for GSA
Telecommunication Centers.
Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal year 2004 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed
restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the
Woods'' Program established in Region 10 of the Forest
Service to individuals and entities in historically timber-
dependent areas in the States of Washington, Oregon, northern
California, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska that have been
affected by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands. The
Secretaries shall consider the benefits to the local economy
in evaluating bids and designing procurements which create
economic opportunities for local contractors.
Sec. 316. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2003 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
[[Page H7032]]
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. 317. 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. 318. No timber sale in Region 10 shall be advertised
if the indicated rate is deficit when appraised using a
residual value approach that assigns domestic Alaska values
for western redcedar. Program accomplishments shall be based
on volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year 2004,
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 using a
residual value approach that assigns 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 2003,
less than the annual average portion of the decadal allowable
sale quantity called for in the Tongass Land Management Plan
in sales which are not deficit when appraised using a
residual value approach that assigns 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 a 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. 319. 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. 320. Prior to October 1, 2004, 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. 321. 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. 322. 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 ``20'' and inserting
``30'';
(2) in subsection (c) by striking ``3'' and inserting
``8''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2007''.
Sec. 323. Employees of the foundations established by Acts
of Congress to solicit private sector funds on behalf of
Federal land management agencies shall, in fiscal year 2004
and thereafter, qualify for General Service Administration
contract airfares.
Sec. 324. 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 fire management services are
considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the
country receiving said services when the individuals are
engaged in fire management activities: Provided, That 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: Provided further, That
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: Provided further, That neither
the sending country nor any legal organization associated
with the firefighter shall be subject to any legal action
whatsoever pertaining to or arising out of the firefighter's
role in fire suppression.
Sec. 325. A grazing permit or lease issued by the Secretary
of the Interior or a grazing permit issued by the Secretary
of Agriculture where National Forest System lands are
involved that expires, is transferred, or waived during
fiscal year 2004 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. 580l), title III of the Bankhead-Jones
Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), or, if applicable,
section 510 of the California Desert Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 410aaa-50). The terms and conditions contained in the
expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease shall
continue in effect under the renewed permit or lease until
such time as the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of
Agriculture as appropriate 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: Provided, That where National
Forest System lands are involved and the Secretary of
Agriculture has renewed an expired or waived grazing permit
prior to or during fiscal year 2004, the terms and conditions
of the renewed grazing permit shall remain in effect until
such time as the Secretary of Agriculture completes
processing of the renewed permit in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations or until the expiration of
the renewed permit, whichever comes first. Upon completion of
the processing, the permit may be canceled, suspended or
modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of
applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section
shall be deemed to alter the Secretary of Agriculture's
statutory authority.
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 2004, 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. 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 2004.
Sec. 329. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the planning, design, or construction of
improvements to Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White
House without the advance approval of the Committees on
Appropriations.
[[Page H7033]]
Sec. 330. In awarding a Federal Contract with funds made
available by this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior (the ``Secretaries'') may, in
evaluating bids and proposals, give consideration to local
contractors who are from, and who provide employment and
training for, dislocated and displaced workers in an
economically disadvantaged rural community, including those
historically timber-dependent areas that have been affected
by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands and other
forest-dependent rural communities isolated from significant
alternative employment opportunities: Provided, That the
Secretaries may award grants or cooperative agreements to
local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps or
related partnerships with State, local or non-profit youth
groups, or small or disadvantaged business if the contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement is for forest hazardous fuels
reduction, watershed or water quality monitoring or
restoration, wildlife or fish population monitoring, or
habitat restoration or management: Provided further, That the
terms ``rural community'' and ``economically disadvantaged''
shall have the same meanings as in section 2374 of Public Law
101-624: Provided further, That the Secretaries shall develop
guidance to implement this section: Provided further, That
nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the
Secretaries of any duty under applicable procurement laws,
except as provided in this section.
Sec. 331. No funds appropriated in this Act for the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands may be expended
for the filing of declarations of taking or complaints in
condemnation without the approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That this provision
shall not apply to funds appropriated to implement the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of
1989, or to funds appropriated for federal assistance to the
State of Florida to acquire lands for Everglades restoration
purposes.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through Page 150,
line 23 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
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 332. Section 315(f) of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained
in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-200;
16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), is amended--
(1) by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2006''; and
(2) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
At the end of section 332, relating to the recreation fee
demonstration program, page 151, after line 6, insert the
following sentence:
The amendments made by this section apply only with respect
to areas under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous
consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to 20 minutes to
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. And any amendments thereto?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, would it not
be better to have a discussion on the point of order first before we
get a time agreement, whether we should debate this for 20 minutes?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, we are
trying to determine which amendment the gentleman is offering.
The CHAIRMAN. It is amendment 18.
{time} 1045
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we withdraw the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn. Is
the gentleman still making his unanimous consent request relative to
the time limit on this amendment?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I am, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that to be 20 minutes on this
amendment, equally divided, 10 minutes on each side, and on all
amendments thereto.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized
for 10 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would extend the authorization for the Park Service
which, I think, most Members of this body support, particularly given
the backlog we have heard about and the underfunding to levy these fees
under what has been commonly called the Rec Fee Demo Program. However,
it would not prematurely extend the authority to the United States
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to extend these fees.
These fees, under current law for the United States Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management, are authorized by prior
appropriation, not through the authorizing committee, through October 1
of next year. The authorizing committee has actually been processing,
beginning work on an authorization bill, which will be the first time
since 1996 that these were properly authorized for the Forest Service
and the BLM. If this amendment would pass, that committee would have
ample time to properly authorize the program before the expiration a
year from next October.
So I think that this would address the concerns of many Members of
the House who are split between those who feel very strongly we need
these funds for the Park Service, and those of us who feel very
strongly that levying these fees indiscriminately across the Forest
Service and the BLM, to nondeveloped areas in particular, is of great
concern. Basically, if you want to drive your car around a park and go
hunting or go fishing or just walk with the kids or the dog, you have
to buy a pass for nondeveloped sites, and a lot of us have strong
concerns about that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume, and I oppose this amendment.
The amendment would strike the extension of the recreation program
which provides resources for the national forests, refuges, and public
lands. Over and over again, at many hearings and in visitors' surveys,
and in my own travels, I hear that the public wants a recreation
program that is consistent and simple. The President fully supports
this program. This amendment would confuse the public.
I agree with the gentleman that this program should be run through
the authorizing committee. Our committee and others have had many
hearings on this, and I have assurances that the chairman of the
Committee on Resources will work on this issue soon. But for now, it is
essential that the recreation industry has certainty and ability to
plan ahead for tours and recreation packages. The recreation industry
needs to have a full year advanced knowledge of fees in order to plan
tours and other services.
This program, begun in 1996, allows the National Park Service and the
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest
Service to charge certain fees for recreation activities and retain the
fees at the site to reduce the backlog in deferring maintenance and
enhance the visitors' experience. This is not a charge to enter the
forest or the reserve, this is a fee for recreational activity.
To date, the fee program has raised nearly $1 billion to enhance
recreation experiences on America's public lands. If we accept the
DeFazio amendment and allow only the Park Service to have this
authority, the other agencies will lose some $110 million over the next
2 years that go to maintenance and enhancing visitors' services.
We should not give this authority only to the National Park Service.
[[Page H7034]]
This would cause confusion and inconsistency for our visitors to public
lands. We need to work to create a seamless recreation program to make
it easier, not more complicated, for visitors to our public lands.
The program has been discussed in numerous hearings in both the
Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committees, and has
been the subject of several House Floor debates and votes, all of which
have supported the program. We need to keep this program going while
the authorizing committees address the permanent solution. This funding
is very important to provide focused improvements to the huge backlog
and maintenance needs and to increase specific services.
Please oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to respond
to the esteemed chairman.
I just want this to be conducted factually. The total amount of
funds, including the Park Service, may be the number the gentleman
quoted, but the actual amount of money in the last year that we have
figures for for the Forest Service was $36 million, not $191 million,
and only $13 million of that was applied somewhere, somehow on the
ground. This program is, in fact, eating up more than half of its costs
in overhead.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon
for yielding me this time.
With great respect for my colleague and the committee, I rise in
support of this amendment for this reason: When you get out my district
in Oregon and over half of our lands are public lands. And the concerns
raised by my colleague from the Lammot Valley are valid. People want to
be able to go out and take the family, drive out one of these Forest
Service roads, park their car, and walk out in the woods. They cannot
do that now if they do not go buy a permit.
If my colleagues want to talk about confusion, there are parts of my
district where now you have to buy 3, 4, or 5 permits, depending on
which part of public land you want to go on, whether it is a public
park or the National Forest Service or the county or whoever. I have to
tell my colleagues, there are a lot of people who want us in this
Congress to vet this issue better. I think it is only appropriate.
I have no problem paying a fee for a permit to plow the snow where I
go skiing, and I do not know of anybody who does. I have no problem
paying for developed campground areas, and I laud the effect of this
program in that respect. But I resent the part of the program that says
simply to take a walk out in the woods and look at trees in an
undeveloped area, I have to go to some park ranger district somewhere
or some Forest Service office somewhere that I do not even know where
it is, maybe, and buy a permit to put in my window and spend 50 bucks
or so so I can take my family out. I represent the 12th poorest
district in the United States, and over half of our land is Federal
land, and this is a burden these people should not have to shoulder.
So I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it needs to be vetted
better in our authorizing committee, and I look forward to that
opportunity.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I listened to my friends from Oregon talk about this, and I
substantially agree with everything that they are saying, but I do
oppose the amendment.
I believe it is extremely important that we continue on this process.
Obviously, it is a very popular program that has some problems, and as
the authorizing committee which both of the gentlemen from Oregon sit
on, we are going to sit down in the next couple of months and
reauthorize this program and fix the very problems that you are
describing here today.
I happen to believe that all of this money should go to increasing
the enjoyment of the recreational experience on these lands. That was
the intention of this program when it was adopted. The money should not
be going to other things. That is the intention that I have going into
authorizing this for all public lands, and I believe it is extremely
important that we continue doing that.
I think it is a mistake to limit this at this point in time to just
Park Service. I do understand what the gentleman's argument is, but I
think it is a mistake at this point to do that.
I can tell my colleagues that I have had serious concerns over this
program in the past and we have talked about that, but I do believe
that we need to continue on with the program the way it is right now.
The authorizing committee is going to sit down and work on this.
Obviously the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is going to be a big
part of that effort to move forward with reauthorizing or authorizing
this program into the future, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden) will as well. But we are going to do that.
I think it would be a mistake at this time to limit it just to the
Park Service. It is an important source of revenue for local recreation
in these areas, and I think that we need to continue doing that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I share a lot of the sentiments expressed
by the chairman. But I would point out that both of these programs,
both the Forest Service and the Park Service are authorized by the
appropriators through October 1 of next year, which would give our
committee more than ample time to authorize before the expiration. Just
to have a degree of certainty because people are so concerned about the
parks, I said, well, the parks would still fall under the 2-year
extension here. But the Forest Service, I just want to make sure that
we get it done and the other body does not somehow mess us up on this.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is going to be studying this
and making sure that these fees are for actual services, not visiting
the recreation lands that the public already has paid for and owns, but
getting special recreation services; is that correct?
Mr. POMBO. Yes, sir. The intention of myself and my committee is that
this money will be going to enhancing the visitors to these
recreational areas and national parks.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
further yield, if we find, I would say to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio) and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), that we
are not providing actual services, I will join the gentleman in
supporting the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. And
we have had the opportunity to discuss this in the past. There is a lot
of concern, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has brought up,
about how this money is being used and whether or not it is going to
enhance the experience of the people that are paying for it as it
should. That is something that we are going to change. There is going
to be very strict guidelines that come out of an authorization that
goes to these agencies so that this does not happen in the future.
I will say I oppose doing the amendment at this point in time, but I
will tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that in the future,
if we cannot authorize this program and change the way that it is being
run, that I would join him in eliminating the program all together,
because I think people that are paying to go into these Federal lands,
these public lands should be getting something for their money, and I
think there is a big question as to whether or not they are, the way
the program is currently being run.
So at this point in time, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I will
work with him and others that have concerns over this program so that
in the future, we have a program that works and enhances the experience
that people have.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I get the division of the time that
is left?
[[Page H7035]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 6 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the bipartisan DeFazio-Bradley amendment to
remove the bill's provision extending the recreation fee demonstration
program. I rise also in support of the conversation which has just
occurred and am happy to follow my California colleague, the Chair of
the authorizing committee, first to note that this is not just an
Oregon issue. There are thousands of miles of public lands, a lot of
that in the western States, which are not national parks, but which are
national forests and have multiple access points.
In my district on the central coast of California where Los Padres
National Forest is in our backyard, few issues have galvanized such
opposition as what we have come to call the recreational fee
demonstration program known locally as the Adventure Pass.
{time} 1100
There are many takes on that word by many of my constituents.
As the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has said, this Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program was passed into law without hearings in
authorizing committees and without public debate. It sounds like it now
will get a full hearing within an authorizing committee, which is a
good thing. The program should not be blindly extended, however,
another 2 years without oversight or debate.
I support full funding, as all of us do, for our national parks and
recreation areas. I recognize there is a serious backlog of maintenance
and recreation needs on our Nation's public lands, and a lot of that
exists within these beautiful forests on the central coast of
California.
The mismanagement of the program by the Forest Service as it exists
today is staggering. The program was created to address the maintenance
backlog on public land facilities, but only 50 cents of every dollar
collected goes toward maintaining or improving our public lands. The
rest is eaten up by administrative and collection costs and also
litigation costs. Fifty percent overhead costs does not make an
effective government program.
Let us find more equitable sources for this money. Americans should
not be charged twice, our constituents say that over and over again,
first through their taxes and then again through these fees to go and
have a picnic in their backyard, to take a hike, getting out of their
car and see a sunset in our national forests. Big logging companies are
receiving subsidies for their activities on these very same lands.
Our national forests are natural treasures to be enjoyed today and to
be preserved for future generations. I think we can accomplish this
goal, but we should end the Adventure Pass misadventure. Let us go back
to the drawing board, it sounds like we may be doing that, have
hearings on this demonstrations program and conduct a full and open
debate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I agree with what the chairman of the Natural Resource Committee had
to say, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); and I think the
problems of concern here can be addressed in a hearing for permanent
legislation. So I think the chairman is right on.
I just want to point out this past week the National Public Radio had
two segments on maintenance in the parks, and they probably overstated
the case substantially about how terrible maintenance is, but without
the billion dollars that had been brought in over the past 3 or 4 years
from the fees, it would be a lot worse. And these fees are to stay in
the park or the forest or the Bureau of Land Management, or whatever it
might be, to enhance the visitors' experience. We want them to have
good restroom facilities, trails, and the things that are important to
the visitors.
To pass this amendment would confuse the public. Because the fee
program is a package. It includes the Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife, and USDA. The Forest Service has
received over the period of this experimental program $206 million; and
that has done a lot to enhance the visitors' opportunities.
But I think the questions that have been raised by the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and addressed by the chairman of the Committee on
Resources ought to be the subject of a hearing to make sure that the
program works well for everyone.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the
gentleman's remarks. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was the
person who was really the driving force behind the creation of the rec
demo program. I think it has done enormous good, particularly in our
parks areas. I think the chairman of the authorizing committee has
given us appropriate promises that they will deal with this issue. I
think we should defeat the amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
(Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
commitments made by the gentleman from California to look at this very
onerous program as it is implemented in the White Mountain National
Forest in New Hampshire.
I am an avid hiker. I am taking part in what for many people in the
Northeast is a lifetime accomplishment, to try and climb all of the 48
peaks in the White Mountain National Forest; and I am at 37. I
constantly am hearing from my constituents how little they like this
program and the reason they like this program so little is the hassle
that is involved, and then to find out that the administrative costs
are so staggering.
I really appreciate the comment from the gentleman from California to
look at this, but I believe we can pass this amendment and finish and
make a very clear statement that the program as it exists today does
not need to be extended past September, 2004, and make sure that if a
subsequent program comes into effect in the future that it is well run,
that the administrative costs are within reason, and it is not an
onerous burden, in particular, on the people that use the national
forests where there does not need, in my opinion, to be an expensive-
to-collect forest fee. I look forward to working with both sides on
this issue.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the
amendment. Before I do that, I would like to correct one thing on the
record a few minutes ago. A statement was made that the timber
companies get huge bonuses for cutting timber on public lands. That is
not true. Timber companies bid for timber, a very little bit of it that
is put up for sale, and there is no subsidy. They bid for it. They win
the bid, and they pay for it. I do not know how you call that a
subsidy.
Back to this issue. I have many forest service recreational sites in
my district. We do not get a lot of complaints on this program. I see
the benefits as where the money is put back into enhancement.
Let me tell you why it was needed. This Congress every year will take
money that ought to go for maintenance of our parks and our forest
service recreational sites to buy land. Buying lands wins every time.
We have underfunded every one of our recreational opportunities, and
because of that we have gone to a demonstration fee.
My State parks have fees. We want enhancement. People like these
sites. People are using these sites more and more. They are wonderful.
But if we want them well-maintained, we will have to help pay for them.
[[Page H7036]]
I think there are some problems in this system, but everything I have
heard today would be very fixable.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Taylor)
time has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the key points here are, and a number have been made by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for whom I have great respect,
that the Park Service needs this money. They do, and that is why I have
offered this amendment. It is to make certain that we cannot fail in
our duty to the Park Service. This would extend 2 years further, which
means a grand total of 38 months for the Park Service before we would
have to pass an authorization; and surely the United States Congress in
38 months can come up with a permanent authorization for the Park
Service.
But what I fear is, and we have heard this before on the floor, I
heard 5 years ago from a former chairman of the authorizing committee
that he would never, ever support further extension without proper
authorization. The gentleman is now retired, but we did reauthorize
this program with a rider in an appropriations bill without going
through the authorizing process.
I am pleased the current chairmen of the full committee and the
subcommittee are working on legislation, but I fear this takes the
pressure off, that if we pass now an extension for another 2 years from
October 1 of 2004 for the United States Forest Service, we will not get
to cleaning up that program and making the changes that need to be
made.
I am surprised anyone would want to support a tax where 50 percent of
the tax is spent on overhead, and that is what is happening with the
Forest Service. And the other 50 percent we do not really know where
that money is going. There is no tracking. There is nothing to show
that is going to meet inventoried unmet needs or enhancement needs for
the recreational experience of the people who are paying this tax. And
it is, in fact, a tax.
Take the town of Oak Ridge in my district, totally surrounded by the
national forests. If they go out to recreate with their families, just
to drive up the nearest roads to park and walk over and fish, it is a
paved maintained road, they are going to have to pay $35 to do that.
Now that is not right. It is a low-income community, and it is just not
right. They are surrounded by national forests. They don't have any
options. They have to pay this tax.
Then, to add insult to injury, half of the tax they are paying is
going to bureaucratic overhead; and they do not know where the other
half is going because the Forest Service is not tracking it. We have no
system.
I am certain the authorizing committee can rectify those matters,
hopefully even eliminating a requirement of a tax on people who want to
go to undeveloped recreation. I have no problem with charging this. It
would obviously allow the continued charges at parks, but I do not have
a problem for continuing to charge for developed campsites, boat ramps,
special use areas, and other things on Forest Service and BLM lands.
I would urge my colleagues to support this because I fear if we once
again, through this process, extend this for 38 months into the future
for the Forest Service, we will never get to correcting this program.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to provide broader
explanation of my vote in favor of an amendment offered by my
colleague, Peter DeFazio, which would remove a provision from the
Interior appropriation spending bill extending the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program for the Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Historically, Mr. Chairman, I have been a proponent of the Rec Fee
Demo Program under certain narrowly tailored circumstances.
Regrettably, recreation-related appropriations have never reached the
level of need. The agencies covered by the Fee Demo Program have
experienced massive and growing deferred maintenance backlog expenses,
large portions of which are recreation related. At the same time, more
and more Americans are flocking to our national forests and parks to
experience the wonders of nature. Under the weight of these self-
escalating pressures, both the resource and the user-public suffer.
This is unacceptable. I have supported the Recreation Fee Demo Program
as a mechanism to augment recreation-related appropriations.
But when the Fee Demonstration Program was established as part of an
appropriation bill in the middle 1990s, it was done so on a pilot
basis. It was a public policy experiment--a test of the user pays
concept, and the ability of the affected agencies to implement this
authority fairly, wisely and with accountability, both to Congress and
the user public.
Today, some 9 years after Congress initiated this laudible test, and
several Fee Demo extensions later, I believe it is time for Congress to
make a longer term judgment as to whether or not the program should be
extended into the future. Piecemeal extensions for all agencies that
yield no oversight and exact no accountability are not longer in order.
I believe it is time for Congress to sit down and in a thoughtful and
deliberative way review this experiment and determine what has worked
and what hasn't.
We need to enter into a dialog with the user public, the affected
agencies, the General Accounting Office and others with a stake in this
program and make an informed decision--an accounting of lessons
learned. Where weaknesses in the program exist, Congress should address
them. Where strengths are found, those should be augmented. Where
accountability has been lacking, greater accountability should be
required. In any case, there is a legitimate policy debate that must be
entered into before we again decide to extend this user pays
experiment.
So while I commend Chairman Taylor and all of the Appropriations
Committee members and staff who have worked so hard on this program
over the years, I am voting for the DeFazio amendment today with the
knowledge that I intend to work with the chairman of the Resources
Committee, Mr. Pombo, as well as other interested member of the
Resources and Appropriations Committee, in a deliberative and
systematic discussion about the future of ``user pays'' on our national
parks, national forests, and public lands.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 333. Subsection (c) of section 551 of the Land Between
the Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460lll-61) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
expend amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to
carry out this title in a manner consistent with the
authorities exercised by the Tennessee Valley Authority
before the transfer of the Recreation Area to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary, including
campground management and visitor services, paid
advertisement, and procurement of food and supplies for
resale purposes.''.
Sec. 334. Section 339 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted into
law by section 1000(a)(3) of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat.
1501A-204; 16 U.S.C. 528 note,), is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``not less than the
fair market value'' and inserting ``fees under subsection
(c)''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following: ``The Secretary shall establish appraisal methods
and bidding procedures to determine the fair market value of
forest botanical products harvested under the pilot
program.'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following new paragraph (1):
``(1) Imposition and collection.--Under the pilot program,
the Secretary of Agriculture shall charge and collect from a
person who harvests forest botanical products on National
Forest System lands a fee in an amount established by the
Secretary to recover at least a portion of the fair market
value of the harvested forest botanical products and a
portion of the costs incurred by the Department of
Agriculture associated with granting, modifying, or
monitoring the authorization for harvest of the forest
botanical products, including the costs of any environmental
or other analysis.'';
(3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``charges and fees
under subsections (b) and'' and inserting ``a fee under
subsection'';
(4) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsections (b) and''
and inserting ``subsection'';
[[Page H7037]]
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``in excess of the
amounts collected for forest botanical products during fiscal
year 1999'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``charges and fees
collected at that unit under the pilot program to pay for''
and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``fees collected at that unit under subsection (c)
to pay for the costs of conducting inventories of forest
botanical products, determining sustainable levels of
harvest, monitoring and assessing the impacts of harvest
levels and methods, conducting restoration activities,
including any necessary vegetation, and covering costs of the
Department of Agriculture described in subsection (c)(1).'';
and
(D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``subsections (b) and''
and inserting ``subsection'';
(5) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``charges and fees under subsections (b)
and'' and inserting ``fees under subsection''; and
(B) by striking ``subsections (b) and'' the second place it
appears and inserting ``subsection''; and
(6) in subsection (h), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following new paragraph (1):
``(1) Collection of fees.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
collect fees under the authority of subsection (c) until
September 30, 2009.''.
Sec. 335. None of the funds in this Act can be used to
initiate any new competitive sourcing studies.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Sessions
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Sessions:
Strike section 335 of the bill (page 154, lines 12 and 13).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and I
approach the floor today to discuss section 335 which would block the
Department of Interior from conducting public/private job competitions.
As a result of this opportunity to be on the floor, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I have chosen to have side-bar
conversations with the chairman of the committee.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Let me make a couple of comments.
First of all, the underlying language in the bill gives me concern
because it stops all competitive sourcing in the Department of
Interior. I think the current administration plans are probably an
overreach. I think there are a lot of concerns that are expressed over
the current A-76 circular, and I get concerned sometimes that they may
be biting off more than they can chew, moving a little faster and
competitively sourcing too many things at one time and not exercising
the appropriate oversight.
But I think banning it in its entirety from this or any other agency
is probably ill-conceived because, after all, this is one of the
pillars of the administration's management policies, of their agenda.
This provision constitutes really an unprecedented intrusion in the
executive management discretion.
Having said that, I do want to express a couple of concerns about the
President's agenda on this issue. One is that we need to be concerned
about Federal employees who enter for career service and will have
their jobs uped every 5 years. And I think for competitive sourcing in
terms of their being able to look at the appropriate career path,
particularly in some of these areas, we have talked to a number of
Members on this, and if we could get some kind of reading where the
President would have some kind of flexibility in this area, I think we
could move ahead.
I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions),
offering this amendment. I think it is the right way to go when you get
overreaching amendments like this on there, and I certainly support his
efforts.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to engage, if I could,
in a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the
chairman of the subcommittee, concerning this matter.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and belief that you and I will be able to
work together on this issue such that it might be able to be resolved
in conference; and it is my understanding that what we will do is, as
we work towards that resolution, it will allow completion of the work
today to move on this bill and then that negotiation to begin.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman's understanding, and I certainly will be willing to work with
him.
I want to say at the outset we do not oppose competitive sourcing. I
also want to say that this is not a limiting amendment. Section 335
provides that all studies that are currently ongoing for fiscal years
2002 and 2003 shall be completed and the results of those studies
should be reviewed before new studies are initiated. The language makes
no judgment on what the outcome of those studies should be, and it
merely is an attempt to ensure appropriate congressional oversight of
this important initiative.
The Interior Committee on Appropriations is no stranger to
competitive sourcing. In 1996, the committee required the United States
geographical survey to contract out 60 percent of its map and digital
data activities. In 1999, the committee required the outsourcing of 90
percent of the National Park Service's consultant operations. So we are
certainly no stranger in outsourcing, and we do not oppose that at all.
What we expect is clear budgeting in annual budget requests the
amounts and purpose of the study, complying with the committee's
reprogramming guidelines for use of funds that have not been clearly
indicated in budget request, and OMB should provide clear direction to
the agencies on how to manage these studies in a fiscally responsible
manner.
{time} 1115
We will be happy to work with the gentleman from Texas between now
and conference, and hope that we can do that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform. It is obvious to me, based upon this dialogue,
that we will work diligently between now and the time that the
conference on this important bill comes forth.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sessions-
Davis motion to strike the bipartisan language in the FY 04 Interior
Appropriations bill that protects our National Parks by requiring a
reasonable delay in the administration's efforts to outsource National
Park Service jobs.
As the Ranking Member of the National Parks and Public Lands
Subcommittee, I have met and worked with many of the hard-working men
and women of the National Park Service--a significant number of whom
are minorities and women. Instead of promoting and increasing diversity
within the Park Service, it is likely to do the opposite, especially at
higher levels, but we appreciate the Director's concern for this and
want to work with her and staff to ensure such diversity is enhanced.
It disturbs me, that the National Park Service has spent millions of
dollars on outsourcing positions which are central to the protection of
our national treasures at the expense of enormous pressing fiscal needs
of the parks, without Congressional approval.
Furthermore, the significant costs of fulfilling the Administration's
quotas are unfunded and these costs could seriously hurt visitor
services and seasonal operations. The privatization of 808 of the 1,708
jobs in question could carry consultant costs of up to $3 million.
The bipartisan language in the Appropriations bill, which this
amendment seeks to strike, protects the national parks by requiring a
reasonable delay in the administration's effort to outsource National
Park Service jobs. It would provide a reasonable pause in order that
these issues are evaluated responsibly and that their ultimate
resolution is in the best interest of protecting our national Parks for
future generations.
I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to strike and support our
National Parks and the hard working men and women who are dedicated to
their protection.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against
the Sessions-Davis amendment. The provision contained in the Interior
Appropriations bill that this amendment seeks to strike, is a well-
crafted, bipartisan effort that has the support of both the Chairman
and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee.
After careful review of the Office of Management and Budget's
competitive outsourcing initiative, the subcommittee believed that the
[[Page H7038]]
massive scale on which the initiative is being carried out and the
arbitrary targets involved is of great concern, especially considering
the enormous costs associated with the initiative which are expected to
be absorbed by the agency.
During last year's consideration of the FY03 Treasury-Postal
Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment prohibiting OMB or any
other federal agency from using numerical quotas, targets, or goals for
outsourcing initiatives. The point was to give federal agencies the
flexibility to contract out as much or as little government work as
they feel is necessary to meet their mission requirements.
The House passed this amendment overwhelmingly with bipartisan
support. Unfortunately, the provision was watered-down in conference
and the administration is still moving full steam ahead with their
quotas-driven agenda for the current fiscal year.
As has been reported in the news over the last several weeks, in an
effort to meet OMB's quota for the end of this fiscal year, the
Interior Department has targeted thousands of jobs to be outsourced
including archaeologists, scientists, engineers, and firefighters.
Specifically, Interior's quota is 5,000 jobs, with the biggest piece--
1,708 jobs--coming from the Park Service.
To conduct these massive outsourcing studies, the department is
diverting critical funds and staff from high-priority assignments and
consumed funding that is directed towards fulfilling important mission-
essential requirements.
Personel from the Interior Department agencies, including the
National Park Service and Forest Service, have expressed concern over
the declining morale due to OMB's rigid and arbitrary requirements.
With this country in the midst of a ``human capital crisis'' what
kind of message does this send in recruiting and retaining our best and
brightest to safeguarding America's natural treasures.
Time and again, OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to
justify the privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY
2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
What Section 335 in the Interior Appropriations bill does is limit
competitive outsourcing studies that are underway for fiscal years 2002
and 2003 until the department and agencies submit a report detailing
schedules, plans, and cost analysis.
Striking this section would only give OMB the green light to continue
with their competitive outsourcing initiative without the oversight and
accountability reasonably requested.
I understand the sponsors of this amendment have agreed to withdraw
their amendment. I thank them for doing so and support the retention of
Section 335 of the Interior Appropriations bill.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Section 335, which this amendment would strike, is a calm and
measured response to a problem that is jeopardizing the ability of the
Department of Interior and related agencies to safeguard America's
natural treasures.
This is about taking measures to make sure our national treasures are
not put at unneeded risk by brash privatization with unclear results.
The section would not halt the many outsourcing studies currently
ongoing, nor would it stop new outsourcing studies from being
commissioned before this bill is enacted. It would simply suspend
privatization efforts in 2004 to allow the House Appropriations
Committee to review an ``in-depth'' report on the results of pending
privatization efforts.
Section 335 is crucial because Interior and related agencies are
currently under extraordinary pressure to privatize critical programs
because of an onerous quota imposed upon all agencies by OMB to review
for privatization 15 percent of their ``commercial'' activities by the
end of fiscal year 2003.
This quota is being applied regardless of the impact on the mission
of Interior and related agencies or the needs of all Americans who
depend on those agencies for efficient and reliable service. In fact,
OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to justify the
privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY 2003
Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
The Forest Service expects to spend $10 million during FY 2003 to
meet the competitive sourcing mandate from the OMB. Instead of
concentrating on bolstering emergency fire fighting, the Forest
Service's contracting officers will be carrying out OMB's privatization
quota. Instead of using funding to hire seasonal employees to handle
the crush of summer visitors and making much-needed repairs to bridges,
cabins, and historic buildings, the National Park Service will be
paying high-priced privatization consultants. As the Committee report
states, ``this massive initiative appears to be on such a fast track
that Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor
understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made.''
That is reason enough to temporarily pause the funding of new
outsourcing studies.
In addition to the devastating impacts this arbitrary outsourcing
quota could have on the visitor services and seasonal operations of our
National Parks and Forest Service, this plan will significantly
undermine the diversity in the National Parks Service and Forest
Service workforce. According to one Administration official, the
current plan to outsourcing more than 1,700 jobs by the end of Fiscal
Year 2004 will disproportionately affect minorities.
This comes at a time when the Park Service has explicitly stated its
mission to improve diversity in its rank and file.
The fact is, we don't know what the full impacts of the OMB's
privatization plan will be. That's why this language was put in the
bill, and why it should stay in the bill.
Section 335 is bipartisan.
Section 335 would not prevent Interior from continuing privatization
reviews already underway.
Section 335 simply says, ``proceed with caution'' when it comes to
our national treasures.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. A ``no'' vote is
a vote to protect our National Parks and Forest Service.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on this day, I will join many of
my colleagues in voicing my disapproval of the amendment presented by
Rep. Pete Sessions and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III on H.R. 2691. H.R. 2691
makes appropriations for the Interior Department and related agencies
for the fiscal year 2004. This amendment strikes out Section 335 from
the bill which prohibits new competitive sourcing studies.
In the Interior subcommittee's report language, a bipartisan majority
of lawmakers expressed concern about the massive scale, the arbitrary
targets, and the cost. This initiative remains on a fast track, without
consideration for the implications or impacts of such a massive
privatization scheme. The haphazard manner in which agencies are
implementing privatization has had a horrendous impact on the agencies'
abilities to provide basic services and due to incredibility short
timeframe, agencies have been unable to designate and protect those
programs that are ``inherently governmental'' as well as critical
programs, which should not be subject to privatization.
While we support our federal agencies in their efforts to streamline
their processes, we contend that all efforts to ensure the success of
innovative process management requires due diligence, and should be
afforded all resources necessary to conceptualize, plan, test,
implement and evaluate said processes. As our agencies are forced into
a trust relationship with contractors, they are faced with conflicts
which impact their Vision, Mission and Goals of providing efficient and
effective quality services to our Nation, while ensuring the solvency
and viability of its organization and workforce. We must remain
diligent and steadfast in our efforts to protect the Workforce of
America, and we must ensure that we do not replace our existing
workforce with a new Corp of Contractors, whose Statements of Work
preclude them from the commitment and accountability which has remained
the focus of our Federal workforce.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow members of Congress, to vote ``no'' on
this amendment, which, sir, is a vote ``yes'' for the future of America
and her workforce.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I am pleased to see
that the proposed amendment was withdrawn, but I just needed to respond
to one thing that one of the previous speakers said. I believe it was
the gentleman from Virginia who indicated his disquiet about the
committee provision because he said this goes to ``one of the pillars
of the administration's management policy.''
That may be, but I think it is worthy to note that the
administration's initiative runs the risk of screwing up one of the
pillars of American excellence, which is the National Park Service. To
me the value of keeping the National Park Service whole without
outsourcing many vital activities of the Park Service is that you,
first of all, maintain the institutional memory that comes from that
dedicated service. You maintain the passion for the mission of the
National Park system, which is I think part of the appeal to virtually
every American citizen who visits one of the crown jewels of this
country's heritage.
I think it is also worth noting that the park system lives off the
volunteer activities of thousands of Americans
[[Page H7039]]
who give their time and service to help fill in the gaps in making
certain that those parks are fully open to everyone. I think it is
obvious, and I know I have heard many volunteers say, look, I give
hours and hours of time to the parks, but I would not give one hour of
time simply to improve the profitability of a corporation.
I appreciate the gentleman's desire for some flexibility on this, and
I know that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) means what
he says on that score, but I would hope that the administration will
take a second look at what they are doing with respect to the Park
Service. Because if there is one institution in which the public has
confidence, I think it is the National Park Service.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentleman's
comments on the Park Service. The difficulty with this amendment is it
was Department-wide throughout the Department of the Interior.
Hopefully, we can come up with some satisfactory language that will
satisfy the gentleman's concerns and ours as well.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the Park Service, I think
there are many other agencies that are just as professional and just as
crucial, such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and
many others. I marvel at the quality of individuals who are in many of
those jobs throughout the country.
The parks are a spectacular national asset, and I think we have to
take great care before we mess something up. If ever we ought to follow
the rule ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' we ought to follow it
with respect to the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management and many other services who have incredibly dedicated
employees, at least as dedicated as any of us are.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add my own personal concern here,
particularly with the Forest Service and the Park Service, because the
way the funding for these studies were done violates the reprogramming
agreements that the Committee on Appropriations has with the agencies.
This has been called to their attention by the committee with the
chairman's leadership.
I think it is very crucial that we protect the integrity of the
reprogramming process so that agencies are just not taking money and
going out and doing these studies without getting the prior approval of
the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment to strike
the language carried in our bill with broad committee support.
The bipartisan language related to competitive sourcing was well-
though out and should remain in our bill. Congress must ensure that our
agencies are not spending untold millions of dollars related to
outsourcing activities without any defined plan from the administration
about what the goals are and how much money they intend to spend.
I am deeply concerned about the loosely defined policy and believe
that the committee was well within its bounds to simply ask for a
``pause'' until we can better understand the parameters of the policy.
The Chairman and I were extremely surprised to learn that agencies
within the jurisdiction of our Subcommittee were spending, or were
planning to spend, millions of dollars on competitive sourcing without
coming to the Committee through the normal budget process to tell us
how they intended to pay for it.
Recently we learned that the Forest Service had already committed $10
million on these studies despite the fact that they are still owed $372
million in un-repaid forest-fire borrowing from 2002. The agency also
admits that their budget for the National Fire Plan is insufficient,
making borrowing more likely each season. For the life of me I simply
cannot understand how the Forest Service could find the money to study
outsourcing when they clearly don't have the money to fight forest
fires without raiding other accounts.
Adding to this, neither the Forest Service nor the National Park
Service has come to the Committee for a formal reprogramming. Instead,
the agencies apparently moved forward on this on their own. I am deeply
troubled that the Park Service would undertake this effort without
prior approval from Congress, especially since their own budget
estimates suggest that these studies would cost $3,000 per FTE.
Last month, Mt. Rainier National Park in Washington State was
featured in an article in the Washington Post regarding outsourcing.
The article detailed a memo that was sent to parks in the West from the
Director's office that warned of budget cuts to pay for anti-terrorism
policing and consultants to study outsourcing. Cuts that meant several
projects that were ready to go in these parks would not happen this
year. Administrators at Mt. Rainier had been instructed to absorb a 40%
cut in their repair budget, which obviously meant several projects
would not happen.
I have been a member of this Subcommittee for 27 years. I am
intimately aware of the backlog of maintenance on our public lands--and
particularly our parks. Yet here we see money being literally pulled
back from the field--money that Congress appropriated and directed how
it would be spent--going towards consultants. As soon as I finished the
article, I called Park Service Director Fran Mainella personally. I was
able to get an agreement with her that this money would in fact not be
pulled from Rainier--but I'm not convinced that other parks are not in
some jeopardy.
I understand the agencies seem to be caught in the middle of a larger
issue between the Office of Management and Budget which is pushing hard
on outsourcing, and the Congress which is understandably concerned
about the policy. This is precisely why we need this language. We have
got to have a better understanding of the goals and costs of
outsourcing. Only then can we make a rational decision about how--or
if--to proceed.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for withdrawing their
amendment. I was planning to oppose the amendment and speak on the
floor. I think as they work with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) to work out compromise language, it is a step in the right
direction. It is very important that we do this in a systematic way.
I have supported the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and continue
to believe that contracting out is one method to make government more
effective. I believe contracting out has worked well, including in the
Park Service. Some parks are 50 percent contracted out already.
The question is, do we move full steam ahead, kind of willy-nilly
bidding, or do we do this in a logical, orderly way? Some of these
areas are in very remote areas. Contracting will work or not work in
some of the urban areas. There are many variations in the Park Service
and other institutions.
Generally speaking, I believe it is important to put on the record
that parks already contract out. The Forest Service already contracts
out. We need to have an analysis on where they are on that. It is not
whether Members are for or against the original amendment. It is not
for or against contracting out. It is more what the chairman was trying
to address. Let us do this in a logical way.
I hope the conference compromise works to address that, but I am
concerned that just to do it the way the administration was going ahead
with the National Park Service would have done grave damage to the most
effective institution and an institution which already had been
following mandates on contracting out at a time when they are under
tremendous budget pressures, when we in Congress keep adding units to
the Park Service, keep adding heritage areas to the Park Service, and
while we have increased funding, have not increased funding at a rapid
enough rate.
We have homeland security pressures on the parks, narcotics pressure,
and at the same time the money is not keeping up. This would have had a
tremendous demoralizing effect on the entire National Park Service had
we not taken this effort to work it out.
At the same time, I think it is important to acknowledge that there
will be contracting out, there has been contracting out, and we just
need to do it in an effective way.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is my great privilege to represent portions of Mount
Rainier National Park and Mount St. Helen's National Monument. I would
like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder).
I personally know some of the people who work in these fine resources
for the benefit of the American people. Our
[[Page H7040]]
national parks are truly great treasures of the people of not only our
country but the entire world. The people who work in these parks are
not there, for the most part, for the money. They are there because
they value and cherish this resource.
I can tell Members, having spoken to some of these folks, that this
move towards privatization has had a chilling effect on morale. Let me
share two brief anecdotes not just germane to this issue but about the
broad effect of privatization.
A dear friend of mine works for the U.S. Geological Service, and he
told me that when he first began working for USGS he and his colleagues
put in typically 60- 70- 80-hour work weeks, not getting paid overtime,
just putting in personal time because they so cared about their
mission. Indeed, when Mount St. Helen's erupted, many of the geologists
who were there had taken vacation time on their own time to be there to
study that danger, and some lost their lives in the disaster.
Last week, I was flying back here with a member of the civilian
workforce who is in charge of safety at naval facilities. She told me
that what surprised her most was how dedicated many of her employees
were even as they faced privatization. But I also hear that it is only
humanly natural, if one believes their job is soon to be put on the
block, it is difficult to establish the institutional loyalty to put in
that overtime, to develop the career path that will lead to the skilled
and the trained and accomplished experienced workforce we need to staff
our parks and other Federal agencies.
In the name of our dear love for these resources, I plead with the
committee to make sure that we do not move forward with this
privatization. I thank the sponsors of the amendment for withdrawing
it, and I will vigorously oppose the amendment should it reemerge.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, on the issue of hazardous fuels reduction activities,
as the gentleman from North Carolina knows, many of our national
forestlands are covered with unnaturally dense vegetation. This
unnaturally dense condition has contributed immensely to the
devastating wildfires which the western United States is experiencing
right now and which it has experienced for the last several years. My
own State of Arizona is experiencing the most severe wildfires of the
entire West right now and is being devastated by those fires.
Scientific research has shown that unnaturally dense vegetation not
only leads to an extreme risk of catastrophic wildfire, such as the
Rodeo-Chediski fire we had in Arizona last year and the Aspen fire we
are having this year, but also that overgrowth in and of itself is
extremely damaging to the health of the forest ecosystem.
One example is the bark beetle infestation, which is currently
affecting over 800,000 acres of forest in Arizona, and whose outbreak
was directly tied to the overdense tree growth in our forests. Insect
infestation not only kill and weaken the vegetation but also increase
the threat of fire.
Hazardous fuels reduction treatments which are narrowly confined to
the wildland-urban interface are simply ineffective to reducing the
risk posed by catastrophic wildfire both to communities, watersheds and
to the overall forest ecosystem. During the Rodeo-Chediski fire, which
destroyed almost 1.5 million acres in Arizona, that fire jumped on some
occasions more than 3 miles ahead of the main fire line. As a result of
that, it is obviously futile to confine hazardous fuel treatment
activities to just the narrow wildland-urban interface, a ban often
defined as half a mile wide. If the fire can jump 3 miles, thinning and
protecting a half mile will not protect the forest or the communities.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts on this issue and I would
like to clarify that the Forest Service hazardous fuels and authorities
in this legislation are not limited to that narrowly defined wildland-
urban interface but may be used in those areas of the forest where
hazardous fuels reduction activity is needed the most, not just to
protect homes and structures in communities but also to protect the
forest itself and the overall forest ecosystem.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I
agree that many of our National Forests do have unnaturally dense
growth which contributes greatly to the extreme threat of catastrophic
wildfire that our forests and communities face. Such fires pose a
serious threat to the lives and homes of individuals who live in these
communities and also to the health of the forest ecosystem, as the
gentleman points out. Using funds and authorities in this act, the
professionals of the Forest Service should use the best local
information to prescribe treatments where needed to effectively reduce
the threat of wildfire by improving the health of the forest ecosystem.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and I appreciate the gentleman
clarifying that those funds can be used where most needed.
{time} 1130
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), Insert the
following new section:
Sec.______. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by one percent.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited
to 10 minutes to be equally divided between the proponent and an
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will admit that I offer this amendment with a great
deal of ambivalence because the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) takes a back seat to no one when it comes to trying to get
control of the spending of our Federal budget. I have appreciated that
over the years and have worked with him over the years on this effort.
This amendment does offer an across-the-board cut of 1 percent or
about $194 million. Actually I think this is generally a good bill. It
addresses concerns that I have concern about, many things that are very
important to me, many areas that I have been concerned about for years,
including wildfire prevention and suppression. It has managed to do
this at a level of about $186 million less than last year. I appreciate
that. That took a lot of effort. It is still $110 million over the
President's request, however.
I offered a similar amendment on the Labor-HHS bill a week ago and
intend to do this on most of the appropriations bills, so it is no
reflection on your bill. It is just that I want some way to express the
concern. Last week when we were talking about this, we were talking
about a $400 billion deficit. Today they have changed those projections
and now we are talking about a $450 billion deficit and say next year
it will be $475 billion. When I arrived in Congress in 1987, we were
running a $200 billion deficit and everyone thought that was the worst
problem facing us. I have devoted over the years a lot of attention to
that. We finally did balance the budget, and now we have a deficit that
is twice as much as we were talking last year.
I know that in circumstances like those we face with a sluggish
economy and mounting war costs, that we need to show fiscal restraint
and we need to show that balancing the budget is an important value and
an important priority that we are still concerned about. It seems like
when we have the excuse of the war and the economy, that all of a
sudden we say, oh, well, we've got that excuse so we can continue to
spend. I thank the gentleman for the good job he has done on this bill.
I do offer this amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
[[Page H7041]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's
tireless effort in trying to work in the areas of budget control. I
know yesterday the announcement was made that we are in a deficit of
$450 billion. We must work to solve that this year and in future years
as we move forward. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we have opposed a number
of much larger amendments, of over $100 million or $500 million that
have been proposed here yesterday and this morning. We have worked the
best we can to balance this bill. We think it is a good bill.
There are 13 subcommittees. We work with one, with the Interior and
Energy. We hope that we can convince the Senate to go with us and we
will come out with a balanced appropriations bill that will be
conservative as well as meet the needs of our Interior Department.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the
gentleman from Colorado, but I think in this case this amendment is
ill-advised. First of all, on the issue of how much it would affect, it
would take $196 million out of this bill, a bill that is already
inadequate in many respects. We get right to the first two items,
conservation spending, which has already been devastated, would be cut
$10 million, and then right here on the issue that is so important out
in the West, wildfire funding would be cut $23 million. The
administration is up here with an emergency supplemental asking for
well over $200 million to add to this. How could we cut $23 million out
of wildfire spending in this across-the-board meat axe approach?
If you are going to have an amendment to reduce spending, I think you
are better served in picking out the items you want to make reductions
in. Maybe some of them would be over 1 percent. But to cut wildfire
funding is just not responsible in the situation we find ourselves in.
In fact, the agencies under this bill have had money borrowed from them
to pay for the 2002 fire season that the administration has not even
requested the funding to put back into place. So to compound that
problem with another cut of $23 million to me is just not responsible.
And then you get over to the Bureau of Land Management and there is
another $7 million for BLM fire that would be cut. So you have got $23
million in wildfire funding and another $7 million in BLM fire funding,
and then you get to the Forest Service and it is $16 million, another
$16 million. Or maybe it is the two of those together is $23 million. I
think that is correct. The point is taking that kind of money out of
this bill is just not right and it is going to go to conference. The
House and the Senate are going to get back together. There is going to
be a 302 allocation and we are going to fund the bill at the end of the
day at the level that we have gotten an allocation for.
I think this is just a waste of time and I urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, while I oppose the
amendment, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
in opposition.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have yielded back my time, and I do not
want much time, but I want to say the gentleman from Washington is
using the oldest trick that government uses and, that is, when any time
you try to cut something, you pick out things and say, oh, it's coming
out of here, it's coming out there. No, it does not have to come out
here, and there. It can come out somewhere in there where they find
waste, where they find things that are not the top priorities. You set
the priorities and decide where that is. It does not have to come out
of wildfire or some of the things are more high priorities. But this we
do all the time. Anytime you talk about cutting, this is what we say we
do.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this to the gentleman because I
have the greatest respect for him, but it says here, ``Each amount
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act that is not
required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision
of law is hereby reduced by 1 percent.'' So it takes every line item
and reduces it by 1 percent. That means $23 million comes out of
firefighting. I do not think that is what the gentleman intended
because I have the greatest regard for him, but this is why we should
vote against this amendment because of its unintended consequence
because the language says one thing and the discussion and description
of the amendment says another.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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. Hefley)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or
supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by
substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially
all''; or
(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,
alteration, or repair of any public building or public work
unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is
applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65
percent'' for ``substantially all''.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to ask this House again
to engage in the struggle that we have to try to return this country to
some semblance of a manufacturing base. We are now down to 14.5 million
workers engaged in manufacturing. That is about 6 percent that we have
lost in the past 2 years. For the past 35 months, we have lost an
average of 55,000 manufacturing jobs. We are being bored out. The jobs
that we have left in manufacturing, many of them you might as well say
we are in the process of assemblers as opposed to manufacturers.
What this bill does is simply say as to acquisitions by the
Department of Interior, which procured about $2.5 billion last year
with regard to new construction, repair buildings, roads, dams,
bridges, culverts and other projects, it simply says as opposed to
using the 50 percent figure in the existing Buy American Act, that we
raise it to 65 percent. This is no hardship to the Department from
adapting to a higher percent of American domestic content for its
procurements. We owe nothing to any foreign countries to guarantee them
the opportunity to make things to put into our precious national parks.
The area that I represent, Rockford, Illinois, in 1981 led the Nation
in unemployment at 25 percent. Rockford today is at 10.5, 11 percent.
Again today I got a letter from another manufacturer closing down a
facility saying, sorry, we're moving everything to China. I just wonder
how much bleeding, how much hemorrhaging the people of this country can
take where there no longer will be any manufacturing jobs left enough
to pay the taxes to buy the things that the government wants to buy.
This is a simple statement, that the things that we put into our
national parks, the things that the Department of Interior buys, the
desks, the telephones, the stationery, at least let us use our
government procurement to level the playing field and to keep Americans
employed.
[[Page H7042]]
I would implore this House if this amendment were in order, which it
is not, but under any circumstances to force our government agencies,
at least them, the ones that are using U.S. taxpayers' dollars, to
increase the content of the things they buy from 50 to 65 percent.
Mr. Chairman, with that statement being made and because of the rules
of the House, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 17 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. 17 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for ``National
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities--National Endowment
for the Arts--GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION'' and by increasing
the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--
Forest Service--WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT'' for hazardous
fuels reduction activities by $57,480,000 respectively.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited
to 10 minutes to be equally divided between the proponent and an
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The last two fire seasons have been devastating for the American
West. Millions of acres in States like Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and
Colorado have been reduced to charcoal by catastrophic wildfire. By
most estimates, an additional 73 million acres at the very least remain
at extreme high risk to catastrophic wildfire. To put that in
perspective, 73 million acres is an area larger than the State of
Arizona.
Central to reducing the threat that these unnatural fires pose to
communities, water quality and wildlife is restoring our densely packed
forests to a more natural state.
{time} 1145
To do that, we must thin our forests.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Healthy Forests bill we passed
earlier this year will go a long way towards streamlining the
``analysis paralysis'' that has prevented our land managers from
reducing the threat of wildfire in our overstocked forest. But in order
to carry out more thinning projects, as many of my friends on the other
side are fond of pointing out, the Forest Service needs additional
funds.
I want to give them an opportunity to put their money where their
mouths are. If adopted, my amendment would transfer $57 million to the
Forest Service for thinning operations from the National Endowment for
the Arts. 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.
In a tight budget year like this, it is irresponsible to squander
scarce public funds on subsidizing the arts to the tune of $117
million. Clearly, enhancing the ability of the Forest Service to
protect communities from wildfire is a better use of our public funds.
In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt's Agriculture Secretary James
Wilson wrote a letter to the first chief of the Forest Service, Gifford
Pinchot. In that letter Wilson wrote, ``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.''
The choice between buying art with our tax dollars or protecting our
communities from the catastrophic wildfires should be a no-brainer. It
does not take a rocket scientist to determine which of these programs
benefit the ``greatest number over the long run.'' I hope the Members
will keep Mr. Wilson's words in mind when they consider the merits of
my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor)
seek the time in opposition?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The committee bill already
includes a large $20 million increase for fuel reduction work, fully
$15 million above the President's request. This work is essential, but
the agencies can only ramp up so fast in, and extra funding is not
needed this year.
Our bill makes a very strong contribution to the national fire plan.
It is something that the Members can be proud of.
The bill also increases wildfire suppression funding by $179 million
and an $89 million increase for wildfire land restoration, forest
health projects, and State and community fire assistance. Despite the
good intentions of this amendment, I must oppose it. We have a balanced
bill, and we think that we can help in many areas, especially in the
areas of forest restoration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. This would take $57 million
out of the National Endowment for the Arts. I think that is a big
mistake. We are going to work on these fire issues. The chairman and
the committee have added funds for that purpose. We have money coming
up in the emergency supplemental. So I think this amendment is not
warranted and should be strongly opposed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin,
ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I would join both
gentlemen in saying that some of these amendments I guess I would refer
to as the ``anything you can do, I can do better'' amendments. It
sometimes seems that no matter what the committee will do someone will
want to move a dollar and a half around in order to make a political
point. That is legitimate. Sometimes I do it. But I think we need to
recognize it for what it is. There is no reason we ought to be robbing
Peter to pay Paul. We ought to be funding both of these accounts
adequately, and I would expect that by the time the bill works its way
through the process, we will.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will make one final
comment. No Member has worked harder to increase funding for
firefighting in these bills than I have. The gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and I have made this one of our very highest
priorities and included a $335 million increase over the current year
for firefighting programs. In addition, we have worked with the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to ensure that additional funds
for the current fire season are included in the emergency supplemental
bill which we hope to conference this week.
So what I would suggest to the gentleman is that he should join us in
opposing the Hefley amendment that would take another cut out of
firefighting. But let us all oppose the Tancredo amendment for this
meat-ax approach to the endowment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I consume.
We are interested in how this is playing out. The gentleman just a
few minutes ago, in discussing the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr.
Hefley) amendment, said that these accounts were underfunded, that the
President had not replenished them to the extent necessary, and I am
giving the gentleman an opportunity to in fact replenish these funds.
Any appropriations is a priority-setting document. That has been
stated
[[Page H7043]]
over and over again, and it is certainly the truth. So I am simply
asking people on the floor of the House and this body to establish a
priority here. What is more important? Is it, in fact, the preservation
of our forests? Is it to try to mitigate against the catastrophic fires
that we have been experiencing and that we will continue to experience
because of the overloaded conditions in the forests? Is that more
important than purchasing $50 million worth of art?
The gentleman and I both know I think it is patently clear that,
regardless of whether or not the Federal Government ever bought a piece
of art or funded a particular artist, art would thrive in America.
People would paint. People would do everything that they have been
doing, regardless of whether or not the Federal Government chose to
participate in that particular endeavor. So, again, I am just asking
that the House establish a priority here. What is more important? Our
forests or somebody's opinion of what is art and how everyone's
constituents should be taxed to support it? I mean, that is really the
question we are facing here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Amendment No. 14 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. 14 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. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year since we last
considered this amendment. In that period of time we have come right
back to an era of water shortage. Actually, we had a little rain, but
the controversy continues.
Last year, after the amendment was voted on, we saw an unprecedented
33,000 fish killed by what many claim was a direct result of a lack of
water. Whether my colleagues think that was entirely the case or not,
virtually any common-sense appraisal would understand that the water
shortage did, in fact, contribute to the problem.
We are in a situation, Mr. Chairman, where we have an elaborate
system of plumbing in the Klamath Basin that basically we have a
problem where there is not enough water. I have had people from the
Basin calling our office expressing appreciation for raising these
issues.
Because the fundamental problem is not fish. It is not problems with
the native Americans, the sportsmen or waterfowl, and it is certainly
not the problem with the farmer. It is that the Federal Government has
promised more than this elaborately plumed basin in the middle of a
desert can deliver. We have overcommitted tens of billions of gallons,
and we will continue to have all these problems. We will continue to
see fish dying, wildlife habitat destroyed, the demise of recreational
commercial fishing activities, and we are going to continue to see
farmers in the Basin pinched.
The Federal Government right now, today, can make a small but
significant improvement by reducing millions of gallons of peak summer
demand.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto to be
limited to 30 minutes to be divided as follows: 10 minutes to the
proponent, 15 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, and 5 minutes to the ranking member.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. So the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is clear,
his 10 minutes starts from now.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am happy to accommodate the recommendation of the chairman of the
subcommittee. My point, Mr. Chairman, was that the Federal Government
right now, today, can make a small but significant improvement by
reducing millions of gallons of peak summer demand.
Teddy Roosevelt helped designate one of these wildlife refuges as the
first waterfowl refuge in 1908. We continue to lease water within these
refuges for intensive agricultural uses. The amendment today would be
an important step to stop making the problem worse. If the amendment
were approved, we would be limiting the leases that expired this year,
which are approximately 2,000 out of 20,000 acres.
Number one, the basin limitation is what we do virtually everywhere
else on wildlife refuges where there are few refuges where farming is
allowed but there are controls. If there is truly an agricultural or
economic imperative for some of the water-intensive crops, there is
private land that is available in the region where people can pay
market rate leases rather than having the ground cut out from
underneath these private property owners by the Federal Government. It
will be market rate, profits go to the local economy, and the Federal
Government will not be wasting water on its land.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that we send a signal today to lead by
example. By pretending that water does not matter, that the interests
of the Federal Government are supreme, that we can undercut the private
market even if it is not good for wildlife, not good for endangered
species, not good for other agricultural commitments or those to our
native Americans--this is an easy, simple, direct environmental vote,
and it is also a reaffirmation of our responsibilities as stewards of
the land to start making the Federal Government part of the solution
rather than continuing to be part of the problem.
One of my major goals as a Member of Congress is that the Federal
Government be a better partner in promoting livable communities, and
the simplest way to do that does not require new rules, regulations,
laws, or taxes but simply for the Federal Government to behave the same
way we want the rest of the country to behave.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that here in the Klamath Basin, where we are
encouraging farmers to cut back because of their continuing water
crisis, the Federal Government is prepared to extend leases on land
that we owned for water-intensive agriculture. That is not just foolish
and hypocritical. It is why we continue to have a problem in the
Klamath Basin. It is always someone else's fault.
By adopting the amendment that I am introducing with the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays), we will stop being hypocritical. We will lead by example, stop
competing with private farmers who have land to lease, and we will stop
pretending that steps that would save hundreds of millions of gallons
and ultimately billions of gallons during the worst time of the year
are inconsequential or worth nothing.
It would be a tragedy if Congress did not accept this common-sense
approach that would be better for farmers, better for wildlife, better
for the environmental community and, most important, will start us down
the road of recovery rather than wallowing in denial, acrimony, and
recrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
[[Page H7044]]
I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Lower Klamath and Tule
Lake National Wildlife refuges were established with the expressed
intent that agriculture uses of certain lands within the refuge should
be continued. Under the law, not more than 25 percent of the total
leased lands may be planted in row crops. The agricultural activities
must be consistent with proper waterfowl management.
Now, we should step back and allow the process to work. The amendment
can only serve to further complicate a very complex and touchy
situation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for bringing forward this amendment.
I rise in support of this amendment, and I want to emphasize that
this amendment is not anti-agriculture. This amendment is pro-water
conservation.
The water situation in the Klamath Basin is in bad straits. We are
oversubscribed in the Klamath Basin and, as a result, last year some
38,000 salmon, adult-spawning salmon in the lower Klamath Basin, were
killed because of the oversubscription, the drought, and the extreme
water problems that impact the entire Klamath Basin. This amendment
will provide more water for fish without harming agriculture.
The Klamath Basin water problems are not insurmountable. We can fix
them. But it is going to require that all parties take a seat at the
table and show a willingness to work towards a solution. I would
encourage all, those who are opposed to this and those who are in
support of it, to come together, finally come together, join forces and
attempt to fix this problem. I think this amendment is a step in that
direction. It frees up a lot of water that can be used to mitigate the
environmental problem that led to the death of some 38,000 fish, the
largest fish kill in the history of this country.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let me address this issue of the
fish kill last year, because the science is really in dispute. Dave
Vogel says, In 1988, and he is a scientist who has studied this
carefully, a run totaling 215,322 salmon occurred on the Klamath River
with identical flow conditions: 2,130 cfs in 1988; 2,129 cfs in 2002,
but no fish die-off occurred. In 2002, there were 132,000 salmon and
33,000 died.
But why? Two dramatic and uncharacteristic cooling and warming trends
occurred during late August and September where the Upper Klamath River
was still naturally unsuitably warm that probably both attracted fish
into the lower river and then exposed the fish to chronically and
cumulatively stressful conditions.
The point being, in 1988 we had nearly double the number of salmon
coming back, there was no fish kill, and we had the same amount of
water as in 2002 where we had about half the run coming back and we did
lose fish. None of us wants to see a fish kill. We are all trying to
work together; and I would welcome the opportunity to work with my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), to find a
global solution. But this is not it. This is not the solution.
I have to raise an issue that was raised on this floor last night by
my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Oregon, when he told the
House that he would offer an amendment today, and I quote from his
words last night: ``That would reduce water-intensive agriculture in
one of the wildlife refuges in the United States where there is
unregulated agriculture practicing on leased land dealing with the
Klamath Basin.''
I would suggest that that was a misstatement. It is a misstatement
because, first of all, these lands are governed by the Kuchel Act
passed in 1964 that says: ``Such lands shall be administered by the
Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of major waterfowl
management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use
that is consistent therein.''
The leases, and I have a copy here of the draft leases, these are
what the farmers have to agree to. And it includes information relating
to the previous year's operations which include a report of planting
date, cultivar variety, seed and seed piece treatment, crop yield, and
units of tons by acre, and harvest date; on and on, including what
pesticides are used, irrigation, tillage, burning, fertilizers on each
crop. This is regulated, I would suggest, more than the Chinese
regulate their agriculture.
Finally, these farmers work very hard to reduce pesticide use, and
every year they are evaluated and they enter into probably the most
progressive activity when it comes to limiting and reducing pesticide
use that we have, and that is the integrated pest management concept.
Time and again, they have entered into these agreements; and time and
again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and even the courts have
found that these lands are being used in a compatible way.
Now, it is important to understand as well that even if we could find
the water that was freed up by limiting crop restrictions on these
2,250 acres, it would not go to the refuges. It would go to other uses
having higher priority, which could include private farmland. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service realized this in their determination made in
2002. Environmental groups sued on that determination and were
unsuccessful.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also found that based on a USGS
study that if you did not irrigate, I mean if you took irrigation
completely off of these leased lands, at all, only a minor amount of
water would be freed up because there would be a substantial
consumptive use of water by the weeds.
Now, their amendment basically tells farmers in my district, and 62
percent of my folks have these leases, that they cannot grow onions,
potatoes or alfalfa. They can only grow grain crops. And somehow, that
is going to solve the problem or a part of the problem.
What my colleagues may not understand is that onions use 1.88 acre
feet of water per acre. Potatoes, the villain from last year, consume
1.73 acre feet of water per acre. The very grain crops that you want
them to only be able to grow consume 1.87 acre feet of water per acre,
more than the potatoes use, equal to what the onions grow. Now, sure,
maybe alfalfa consumes more water. But do my colleagues know what? If
we just turned this over to wetlands, wetlands themselves consume 2\1/
2\ to 3\1/2\ times the amount of water that potatoes and onions
consume. So if you turned this over to the noxious weeds, they will
drink up more than these farmers will.
Finally, these people have been devastated economically down there as
farmers, and they have done enormous work to try and solve this
problem. We spent $16 million putting in a new sophisticated fish
screen in the canal that now routes nearly a million sucker larva down
to three-eighths of an inch back into the river or into the lake. That
would have languished forever. We got it done.
In conclusion, we are making efforts through the EQIP money that my
colleague from Oregon voted against when he voted against the farm bill
to do water reduction efforts to have more efficient irrigation
systems. That farm bill, too, which the gentleman voted against,
included the study, the 1-year study for removal of Chiloquin Dam,
which has now been completed which we restored access to 95 percent of
the habitat for suckers on the Sprague River. It was a principal
blockage and reason why the suckers were limited in the first place.
My point is, we are taking action to try and solve the problem. This
does not help.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) to respond to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Washington for yielding me this time.
[[Page H7045]]
I just want to make a couple of observations, and this has come from
someone who voted for the farm bill and someone who actually farms.
Again, this is not an antifarming amendment; it is a pro-water
conservation amendment. That is what is needed in the Klamath Basin.
I just want to raise the issue that the low flows that we were
talking about, this last year when 38,000 adult-spawning salmon were
killed, this was the lowest water flows ever recorded since they have
been recording the flows out of Irongate, the lowest flows ever during
the migration period of the salmon.
The other thing I want to mention is that we can argue science all
day, but there is one thing that is not arguable, and that is, fish
need water. This is a good amendment. It is not antiagriculture. It
does not have anything at all to do with the farm bill. There is
nothing in it about chemicals or chemicals used in agriculture. This is
water conservation. It will save fish. It will help farmers on both
ends of the Klamath Basin. I ask for my colleagues' ``aye'' vote.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, so this amendment seeks to save the
wildlife refuges of the Klamath Basin. From what, Mr. Chairman? Farming
in the refuge of the Klamath Basin has occurred since they were created
nearly 100 years ago. Today it continues to represent a shining example
of how agriculture and wildlife cannot only coexist, but thrive
together.
And as if the farmers I represent in this area of Northern California
have not suffered enough, it would cause them even more economic harm.
And not unlike the disastrous decision that shut off 100 percent of
their water just 2 short years ago, there is absolutely no valid
justification or factual basis for it.
Row crops are an essential part of the balance that embodies the
lease land farm program. They are specifically required under the law,
because they benefit wildlife and maximize revenues for farmers in
local counties. On average, row crops have generated $10 million
annually. If those same acres were planted only in grain, as this
amendment would require, they would generate only $1 million. Make no
mistake: that $9 million loss would cripple this economy.
The irony, Mr. Chairman, is that despite the gentleman's desire to
help wildlife, this measure would do precisely the opposite. For
generations, farmers have worked and nurtured these lands for the
benefit of the wildlife. Waterfowl populations in particular are
thriving. Consider this statement from the California Waterfowl
Association: ``For nearly 100 years, farmers and ranchers in the
Klamath Basin have coexisted 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.''
Row crops are not just an economic necessity to farmers; they provide
food for migrating birds. Crop rotation improves the health of soil
and, therefore, the productivity of the cereal grains that provide
other essential wildlife benefits.
Allow me to address the notion that this measure would somehow
provide more water to the refuges. That is simply inaccurate. For 100
years, all interests in the Klamath Basin, farmers, fish, and refuges,
have gotten by together, sharing the pain and the profit alike. It was
not until 2001 that the Endangered Species Act caused some interests to
do without. Shortages are not the result of an overallocation; they are
the result of environmental laws that do not allow for balance.
Mr. Chairman, the lease land program is a win-win. It benefits the
environment. The Fish and Wildlife Service have found that it is
entirely compatible with refuge management, and a Federal district
court has agreed. So what is the problem, Mr. Chairman? Why the
persistent attacks on farmers when these facts are so clear?
The purpose of the radical environmental groups supporting it is the
removal of agriculture entirely. Consider that virtually the same
groups behind today's amendment pursued a version several years ago to
eliminate any new leases, and the same kinds of radical environmental
groups have unsuccessfully attacked the program again and again in the
courts.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look at the facts and consider
the lives and the families of those who will be directly impacted
should this amendment succeed. Reject this veiled attempt to undermine
agriculture.
{time} 1215
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle.
(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Klamath Basin is represented by
three Members, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), and myself from California. It has today
about 50,000 people in it. It is one of the earliest reclamation
projects in the United Nations. The Reclamation Act was passed in 1902,
and this was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior in that same
year.
You will see here the cover of Life Magazine, January 20, 1947. By
the way, it was 15 cents in those days. They have a homesteading
veteran portrayed on the cover with his wife and family. People were
attracted to this area by government policy to settle the area. It was
a good area for farming, and it would be a benefit to the wildlife
because of the refuges that existed there.
I want to show you now a picture in 2001 of a real family that lives
there, tries to farm there today under the very difficult circumstances
imposed by the government. This is lease land farmer Rob Crawford and
his family. You can see it does not look very inviting because that is
what happens when you cut the water off. It is basically a desert.
These people in our districts have suffered terribly at the hands of
the government and misguided people who think they are trying to bring
about a good policy. But they are not bringing about a good policy.
This amendment is an anti-farming amendment. I do not care what the
sponsors say. That is its effect. The wording of this amendment
basically bars the alfalfa and the potatoes and the onions. Those are
higher value crops. These are the crops that feed this family. But did
you know that they are the crops that the wildlife feed on? The geese
actually eats the potatoes after the first frost, the antelope come
through for the alfalfa and the geese back again in the spring. So this
is of great benefit. The law recognizes this benefit, and the whole
system was set up so that this could occur.
The proponents claim that their amendment will save water. It will
save no water. The crops that they will restrict us to growing, which
are lower-value crops and will throw people onto welfare, there will be
no less water required to grow those crops than required to grow the
higher-value crops that this amendment would prohibit. This is an anti-
farming amendment.
If you set the precedent today that we as the Congress will going to
dictate what crops a farmer can grow, watch out the rest of you,
because today it is in a small part of remote northern California and
southern Oregon but tomorrow it will be all over the country as these
people with their agendas come after you and your families and your way
of life. Vote no on this amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has 6
minutes remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 1
minute remaining. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I did not come to the floor to speak on this
amendment, but after hearing the debate I must rise. Because this is
not a debate about farming versus the environment. This is a debate
about economics versus economics. It is about coastal economics, where
the majority of the population of the people in California live, versus
interior economics. It is an issue that cries outs for a solution to
both parties.
[[Page H7046]]
There is not a win-win here. Without this amendment, you have a win-
lose.
You have the entire tourism industry which is dependent on where this
stream comes into the ocean which is dependent on that fish coming into
the stream. There is an economic survival, both in the tourism and the
fisherman there versus the farmers.
Alfalfa is one of the most water-intensive crops that we grow in the
United States. Certainly the farmers through best management practices
can do with less water. We do that in our area all the time. We are
always struggling to have it.
What this problem cries out for is a solution for a win-win. In order
to do that, somebody has to give up something.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was incorrect earlier. The gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr)
on this amendment, that this really does cry out for compromise.
We have had some of the most bitter environmental battles in the
Pacific Northwest over the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, salmon,
and in most of these instances we have been able to sit down and work
out a compromise on these important issues.
What happened last year, and there may be a multitude of reasons, the
death of these fish, I think, caused a tremendous impact not only in
the Northwest but across the country; and we have a scientific study
that will look into and give us the reasons for the loss of this fish.
But the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Blumenauer) amendment I think is
an attempt to try and deal with the basic underlying issue, that is,
the allocation of water.
We have the same problems in the State of Washington. We have to work
out agreements between farmers and fishermen. And we work on these
things, and it is not easy to accomplish. But the last thing we need to
do is to end the dialogue.
I heard my friends, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), say they were prepared to enter
into a dialogue. I think there ought to be a dialogue with the Members
and the agencies. But the one thing you have to do with situations like
this is to rely on science. This cannot be done on emotion. We just
heard a very emotional appeal. This has to be done on good science.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I fully concur with the gentleman
about basing this on science. In fact, when we had the National Academy
of Sciences review the biological opinions that set up the water cut-
off in 2001, the initial findings came back and said the decisions by
the government were not backed up by science, and we are waiting for
the final review now.
This bill is a rifle shot at a very tiny piece of a huge problem. And
as I mentioned in my comments, fixing the fish screen on the A canal,
dealing with fish passage at Chiloquin, which will probably result in
removal of that dam which I will support if that is what the consensus
is, those are the things we can deal with.
Mr. DICKS. Was water temperature here an issue?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Ambient temperature as much as water
temperature are both issues. I will be happy to discuss this further
with the gentleman.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
The gentleman raised a point that we stated in the beginning. I
oppose this amendment because it will disrupt the very technical
amendment that has been worked out.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time and his opposition to this amendment. As the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, I want to rise in strong opposition to this
amendment as well.
I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that
compromise is certainly needed and sound science is certainly needed,
but the sound science has not been put forward today, and this is not
the place to be doing it. This is barely inside not being struck for
being authorized on an appropriations bill, because all you are doing
is limiting expenditures for specific crops.
I would say that this is exactly the wrong place, and the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) ought to withdraw his amendment and work
with the appropriate authorizing committees that are involved and
interested in this as well as with the gentleman from North Carolina
(Chairman Taylor) to come up with a solution that works and not try to
not compromise, which is exactly what you are doing here.
You are trying to stuff this issue down the throats of the citizens
of Eastern Oregon, and I would strongly oppose the amendment. The
amendment would sacrifice farming families in the Klamath Basin by
restricting the acres planted and restricting the options of families
farming under the false premise of providing water for wildlife. You
cannot replace some of the crops that you want to replace them with the
crops that are being planted now because they are not as profitable.
The farmers cannot make a living by having the government dictate to
them what they should be doing. This is the wrong place with the wrong
solution.
In reality, the Blumenauer amendment would provide less food and
water for the millions of waterfowl that use the Klamath National
Wildlife Complex in California and Oregon each year.
Congress itself has recognized the dual benefits of the leased lands,
and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is the only
Member with time remaining, and he has 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first two factual observations:
One, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture
suggested that we were going to be flinging these farmers off the 2,000
acres that are leased and denying them a way to earn a living. There
are people in the Basin who are trying to lease their own private land
right now. I have heard from them. In fact, they were in the gentleman
from California's (Mr. Herger) office yesterday. They have land to
lease, but they are undercut in their efforts to lease their land
because the Federal Government is leasing land at below-market rates.
Now if there is a dramatic demand to grow water-intensive crops,
there are private lands that are available to be leased. Nobody has
made the argument that there is not. I have heard from farmers down
there who have land ready to lease and wonder why we are competing with
them.
Second, several of my colleagues have said you are not saving any
water because some of the things that you would permit to grow, if this
amendment were enacted, actually consume more water. But what my
friends did not tell you and, in fact, again, I had a farmer from the
Basin yesterday in my office explaining why it is a savings of water,
because they can take the water in the winter, charge the ground, do
winter irrigation and the water is available for these serial crops in
the summer. They do not have to irrigate during the summer when we do
not have the water available.
So it is a net gain because it takes the water when it is plentiful,
put into the ground, store it up for the summer. It helps recharge the
groundwater, and it uses less water when the fish need it, when the
Native Americans need it, when it is needed for recreation activities
that are far more valuable than just the agricultural interests alone.
I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that the
Federal Government is the culprit. Absolutely. We have promised more
water to the Native Americans, to the farmers, to the needs of
endangered species
[[Page H7047]]
and wildlife, and it is time to stop pretending that we can blame it on
somebody else.
I have watched people play politics in the basin. I have watched the
sad spectacle when law enforcement officials said they could not
enforce the law. And people play to inflame the attitudes and emotions.
I think that is wrong. I think that is sad.
The problem in the basin is that the Federal Government has committed
more than nature can produce, and for us to stop the nonsense of
assuming that we can just be business as usual is the first step.
I commend my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who has
been working on this for years. I commend many of the issues that he
wants to move forward in terms of dam removal and fish screens. I will
support him. I will support major Federal investment to buy out willing
sellers to reduce the water demand. Because unless and until we come
face to face with the fact that we have promised more than we can
deliver, we will be in this mess year after year after year.
This amendment will not throw any farmers off the land. In fact, the
farmers in the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) in
the wildlife refuge do not irrigate. It will not affect the farmers in
his district in the wildlife refuge. I wanted to make the point that it
is not going to affect the farmers in the wildlife refuge in his
district. The farmers that are in the Tule Lake area can go ahead. They
can lease land if they want. But for the land that the Federal
Government provides, it is time for us to face reality, limit the use
away from water-intensive agriculture.
{time} 1230
This is not trying to play the blame game. It is for the Federal
Government to lead by example and stop leasing lands for water-
intensive agriculture, allow the water to be used at a time when it is
most plentiful. They can continue like they have in the other part of
the refuge.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote on a path towards a more
sustainable future in the basin, cooperate where we can, but do not
make it any worse by continuing to lease land in the refuge for water-
intensive agriculture.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes
that the House of Representatives arbitrarily declare what crops a
farmer can and cannot grow.
I am concerned that this amendment is being sponsored by those who do
not represent the areas affected--members who are from urban areas.
This amendment is opposed by those who represent the communities that
will be affected, those people who are closest to the land, and those
who care the most for the land because it is where they live and where
they raise their children.
This amendment is targeted at the Klamath Basin--an area that has
seen its farmers and entire economy devastated by actions taken by the
federal government. I have traveled to the Klamath Basin and seen the
effects first-hand.
I also represent two very large reclamation projects--including one
of the largest in the country--and the success of these farmers comes
from their hard work, the care they give the land and diversity of
their crops.
Passage of this amendment would set a very bad precedent of the
government stating what crops can be grown and which can't. The impacts
of the amendment would directly harm farmers and communities. The
precedent it is sets would be far-reaching and very detrimental.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by 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. TAYLOR of North Carolina. 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.
Herger) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, 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. 2691)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________