[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10190-H10205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2691, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 418, I call up the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 418, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 28, 2003, at page H9898.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
General Leave
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2691,
and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we bring to the House the conference agreement on H.R.
2691, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2004.
Let me take a moment to thank the members of the Interior
subcommittees for their support and guidance this year. I want to
especially and personally thank the ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for the extraordinary assistance
that he has given in helping us to shape this bill.
This conference report balances many competing needs and stays within
the 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. It is fiscally
responsible, providing $19.6 billion for our public lands, Indian
programs, and critical science and energy research programs, and for
cultural institutions like the Smithsonian Institution. It also
provides $400 million as requested by the administration to repay
partial funds borrowed from the program accounts to pay fire
suppression. Also, another $289 million for wild fires and I will talk
about that again.
You may hear that we are not doing enough for conservation programs
in this bill. I disagree. Given the constraints allocated, we have
provided over $1 billion for programs in the conservation spending
category. But more to the point, there are a number of critically
important conservation programs in this bill that have never been
included in the conservation spending category, but are equally
important. We provide increases of $65 million for national parks, $47
million for national wildlife refuges, $27 million for forest health,
$10 million for hazardous fuel reduction. And I would like to argue
that most of the funding of this bill is for conservation activities.
Some Members will argue that we need to buy a lot more Federal land.
What we really need to do is a better job of taking care of the lands
we have, and this bill does that by providing additional operation
increases and funds for critically backlogged maintenance activities.
Firefighting needs are addressed in this bill as I mentioned before,
$400 million in the President's requested amount and another $289
million above the enacted level for suppressing the wild fires. That is
almost $700 million for the fire programs. We continue to provide
support for the national fire plan with the investment of $2.5 billion.
We support preparedness activities so that we have the people and the
equipment in place to handle wild fires. We provide funding increases
for hazardous fuel reduction, State fire assistance and forest health
programs. And with the passage of that bill, I think we can stop many
of the fires that we will have to contend with this past year.
We have provided substantial new resources to handle the Southern
pine beetle and mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the West. I am proud
of the balance we have achieved in these critical programs that are
important to all Americans.
The bill ensures that energy research programs are appropriately
funded and that we maintain a proper mix between research on
improvements to existing technologies and longer-term higher risk on
new technologies. We need to keep all of our options open and not fall
into the trap of picking winners and losers.
When it comes to energy resources, ultimately the consumer, not the
government, will determine what energy technologies will be successful
in the marketplace.
The bill provides for the continued crux of critically needed schools
and hospitals for American Indians and Alaskan natives. It also
includes a 1-year limitation of funds for historical accounting.
The September 25, 2003, court order would require the Department of
the Interior to spend an estimated $9 billion for an accounting that
benefits attorneys and accountants. This subcommittee has maintained
that this lawsuit continues to divert scarce resources away from
critical programs that benefit Indian people and other programs in the
bill. If we were to fund this court-required historical accounting, we
would have to shut down one-third of the U.S. Department of the
Interior. We would critically underfund education for Indians and
health care for Indians. This is not worth the recommendation of the
accountants and lawyers.
Finally, the bill takes care of our cultural agencies and provides
the funding needed to ensure that the Smithsonian Institute maintains
its responsibility for providing quality visitor services and world-
renowned research. It provides increases above the enacted level for
the National Gallery of Art and for the National Endowment for the Arts
and the Humanities. The conference agreement for the interior and
related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 strikes an
appropriate balance among competing funds needs, and I ask for support
for this bill.
[[Page H10191]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.001
[[Page H10192]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.002
[[Page H10193]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.003
[[Page H10194]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.004
[[Page H10195]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.005
[[Page H10196]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and his staff.
We had a very cooperative working relationship on this conference
committee. I am pleased that we have very substantial funding in this
bill for firefighting. I see my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), whose district has been ravaged by these forest
fires recently; and I know he has been working hard to make sure that
the forest service and the BLM have adequate resources to deal with
these issues.
I want to also mention that we had a nice vote here on the House
floor to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and
Humanities. Both of those increased this year, $6.7 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts; and I want to thank the chairman for
his efforts on that in our conference committee.
We have had questions on privatization studies, as we have been
debating all afternoon. I think the provision that we worked out in
this bill is a good one and will protect government workers.
As was mentioned by the chairman, we had a very low figure in the
House bill for lands and water conservation for acquisition of Federal
lands for our Federal agencies. That number came up in conference
committee. I, of course, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
we were two of the authors, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) of the conservation spending amendment, we are disappointed
that we have not been able to keep that funding level where it should
have been under the agreement that was reached in 2000. But one of our
problems is with the budget resolution; our committee has gotten a very
low allocation; and the strategy of the majority has been to try to
take care of the Forest Service, the Park Service the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the major agencies and that is understandable, though I regret
that we cannot do more on the Conservation Trust Fund.
{time} 1915
So I think all in all this is a good bill. We are going to have a
little debate here on other matters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control
that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations conference report contains
language which represents nothing less than a gag order on some 500,000
American Indians who have waited over 100 years for an accounting of
their trust funds accounts by the Federal Government.
On two occasions, we have fought similar provisions. Last year, I
offered an amendment on the House floor to strip language with a
similar intent from the Interior appropriations bill and it prevailed
overwhelmingly. This year, our chairman, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo) took the same action and he was also successful.
Yet this language keeps rising from the dead in this conference
report. In effect, it would destroy a Federal court's order to the
Interior Department to fully account for amounts derived from royalties
and other receipts from lands in Indian country. Going even further,
this provision appears to shield officials of the Interior Department
from judicial actions requiring compliance, such as contempt of court
citations.
This is, simply put, appalling. It is an affront to the American
system of government, especially our judiciary system, and it
undermines the long-standing trust responsibility we have for Indian
Nations and individuals. It is, in my view, unconstitutional and will
most assuredly cause more litigation and more mistrust of Congress
throughout Indian country.
The Committee on Resources is in the middle of hearings on a
settlement process of the Cobell litigation, and this sneak attack only
makes it harder for us to conduct our business with the trust of those
involved.
How long will it take for the Interior Department to quit with the
gimmicks and sleight of hand and legislative riders that are snuck into
appropriation bills without any consultation with Indian tribes or
representatives of the individual account holders or even the chairman
of the appropriate committee? How long will it take for the Interior
Department to step up to the plate and accept responsibility and act
responsibly in fulfilling its commitment, statutory and moral
commitment I might add, to these aggrieved parties? Apparently, we
should not hold our breath waiting for that to happen.
I urge a vote for the motion to recommit so that this matter can be
addressed, and that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey), and pending that, I urge defeat of the conference report.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I just want to express my strong support for
the appropriations conference report. I think the committee's done a
great job.
They have dealt with backlog maintenance which is extremely important
in terms of maintaining our parks and giving the public the quality
experience they expect.
I was also pleased to see they extended the fee program. We are
working to pass permanent legislation authorizing the direct fee
program, but I would point out that this program has produced over $1
billion in the past years. It has gone into improving the quality of
the visitor experience, and the money has stayed largely in the park
that has produced it. I believe the public, generally, has been very
supportive because they recognize that they are the beneficiaries of
the small fees for using the public lands.
Also, I was pleased to see that the Committee restored cuts in the
USGS budget, restored the cuts made in the President's budget. This is
an extremely important agency because it allows us to understand the
science of the earth and to better manage the resources of our programs
that are their responsibility.
Everglades, again, this bill continues our strong support for the
restoration of the Everglades, provides $68 million toward the historic
initiative, and it does have the assurance from the State of Florida
that it will meet its obligations.
Energy programs, extremely important to our Nation's economy. We are
a Nation of large consumers of energy, and this is essential to the
quality of life that we enjoy. I am particularly interested in
developing programs to develop vehicles that will use natural gas. I
think this is one of the ways to save our petroleum reserves and make
us less dependent on imports. It is something that we are moving
toward. A lot of buses, if my colleagues notice, around the city are
powered by natural gas. The technology is clearly workable. It is a
matter of getting infrastructure, and I would hope that the committee
that does the reform of the transportation bill will recognize that
there should be some funds to develop infrastructure for the fueling of
natural gas vehicles.
On balance this is a very good bill, given the limited resources
available.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democratic member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a mixed bag. There is
much in it to commend it, and I especially want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for the
way that he has fairly involved the majority and minority in the
fashioning of this bill, and also for the fact that he has treated
Members with great fairness in my judgment.
There are two problems that I see with the bill that I find
troublesome. First, there are a number of what I consider to be
antienvironmental riders involving Alaska and other areas. I would say,
frankly, that these are not the worst antienvironmental riders I
[[Page H10197]]
have seen in an Interior bill, but I guess that is damning, by faint
praise, from my perspective.
I think the basic problem is that the bill falls $447 million short
of measuring up to the agreement that this committee signed on to 3
years ago. At that time, a majority of the House had signed on to what
was known as the CARA bill which would have created land acquisition
programs and land conservation programs as an entitlement. Those of us
on the Committee on Appropriations thought institutionally that was the
wrong thing to do, and so we tried to work out an alternative. And we
did. That alternative said that funds for those programs would be first
in line in this bill for the next 6 years, and we spelled out a
specific funding schedule that was supposed to be met over that time
period.
Unfortunately, the committee has now, in essence, walked away from
that agreement. At the time that we entered into that agreement,
because I was one of the parties to it, I pledged that if the committee
at any time walked away from that agreement that I would vote against
any legislation that was at variance with that agreement. And so I feel
constrained to have to vote against the bill today. I am sorry about
that, but I believe that we are making a long-term mistake,
institutionally, by not living up to that agreement.
I recognize the committee is short of resources. I think that the
House should have corrected that by making more resources available so
we would have not been in this jackpot. Nonetheless we are, and so that
is why I, despite many of the good things in the bill, feel constrained
to vote against it when the rollcall is called.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my
colleague yielding me this time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking
member, has referred to the fact that I am facing a rather tremendous
challenge in California with the devastation that is impacting my
District directly. In talking early this morning with one of my very
dear friends that has great expertise in this arena of professional
work, it was from him that I first heard the reality that there are two
kinds of money that involve fire money. When we are talking about
protecting the forest and trying to get the dollars that are necessary
to clear the brushes, make sure we do not have too many trees go
through, et cetera, et cetera, that kind of money is very, very
difficult to come by, and then suddenly we have a disaster, a fire, and
a green light goes on. The difference is red money, green money. A
green light goes on, and whatever is available or required suddenly
comes forth.
The deal with the challenges in my forest in recent years was we
worked very hard to try to get some money to lay the foundation for a
better management of the forests. Just in the last couple of years, we
have finally gotten as much as $30 million. This evening, later, we
will be considering the supplemental. After the fires had begun in the
West, and within that package, there is a $500 million addition to the
process that will help us deal with these problems in the West now,
after the fire occurred.
So I have great empathy for the challenges of the people on this
committee who struggle to get adequate dollars up front to make sure we
are managing our forests well, and it takes the kind of challenge we
are facing at this moment to really bring the point home.
I would have my colleagues know that I am very sensitive about my
following remarks, and I would have the Chair be very careful with me,
for it is a very unusual thing for me to do. Each of us has two U.S.
Senators in each of our States. And in my case, there are two U.S.
Senators and they are speaking about this general subject area, and I
find great confusion here. I am going to be very careful as I refer to
the other body and even Members in the other body to only use
quotations from those individuals, but it makes it a very significant
point as it relates to this bill.
So in an attempt to do that, I would speak of one of my Senators
first. The gentlewoman speaking on the Senate floor about the healthy
forest legislation currently under consideration has said, ``We have an
open invitation to destroy our forests without getting anything back
for it. There are no limits on old growth forest logging. Timber
companies will pick the trees they want with no veto from the forest
service and a complete change from what we have had before.''
My other colleague, another Senator from California, has been heard
to say about this same proposal, speaking on the Senate floor and
saying, ``This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify
it, I think, falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be
cleared out, and it would also provide the first statutory protection
for old growth stands and large trees ever in the history of this
Nation. I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation,
and it seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests
and restore their healthy condition.''
Two contrasting points of view that are difficult for me to
understand from two Senators from the same State, but they make the
point that unless we are able to recognize that there are very serious
challenges here and recognize that this bill attempts to begin to deal
with some of those challenges, we will never overcome the kind of
tragedy that we are now experiencing in the West.
There are some 18 people who have died in southern California. Over
2,600 homes have been burned. Three-quarters of a million acres have
been burned. At this very moment in regions in my District, literally
thousands of families are trying to figure out what to do with the rest
of their life because I think we have not in the past been able to give
the kind of broadly-based support that we need to give to this
subcommittee.
I think the report we have before us tonight is a reflection of very
fine work between the ranking member and the chairman of our
subcommittee. I very much appreciate their effort, but I want them to
know from this Member's perspective, tonight's work is just another
down payment. We will be making a down payment as it relates to the
supplemental later. Indeed this down payment is very, very significant,
and I want my colleagues to know that I appreciate the work they have
done.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I wanted to say something to the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Defense. The gentleman served as a chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, and FEMA was under my
colleague's jurisdiction. When FEMA has an expenditure it gets
reimbursed.
{time} 1930
In our situation, with the Forest Service and the BLM, they take
money from all of the accounts of the agency, go spend it fighting the
fires, and then we do not reimburse it completely. It is not automatic.
It has to be appropriated, and we do not do it as completely as we
should. I think the FEMA example is a better way to go.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would like to respond that in the recent reorganization, we shifted
FEMA from VA-HUD to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. So there has
been that change. And we have appropriated additional money there
because in the middle of last year FEMA was running out of money. They
were at least talking about the shortage. Suddenly we are going to add
some money to that pool that they can draw from, and certainly that is
a reflection of the challenges throughout the West.
Colorado, just today, has another new problem. But before another 6
months goes by, even FEMA is going to be stretched to the wall again,
and that is why what the gentleman did last night was very important,
and I appreciate my colleague's support.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a very valued member of the Committee on
Resources and one of the strongest fighters for Native Americans in
this body.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion that
will be made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to recommit,
because of the provision that keeps the Department of the Interior from
performing its legal responsibility and
[[Page H10198]]
further delays justice to a half million account holders who have been
waiting for an accounting of the individual Indian trust for more than
100 years.
This so-called time-out provision is objectionable because it would
require that the 1994 American Indian Trust Management Reform Act not
be interpreted to require the Department of the Interior to conduct a
full historical accounting. This is a way to avoid an order by a
Federal judge in the Cobell v. Norton case, who just last month ordered
the Department of the Interior to perform a complete accounting of the
individual Indian trust.
This provision provides zero incentive for the Department of the
Interior to mediate or negotiate a settlement of the Cobell case; and
it sends a terrible message to the Indians that when they finally get
their day in court, Congress will pull the rug out from under them.
Mr. Speaker, just last year this House overwhelmingly voted to strike
a similar provision from the 2003 interior appropriation bill.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this provision violates the House rule
against legislating on appropriation bills. It also violates the House
scope rule because it was not included in either the House or the
Senate fiscal year 2004 interior appropriation bill.
The authorizing committee has started an important dialogue about the
options to settle the Cobell case. It is critical that the committee of
jurisdiction, the Committee on Resources, be permitted to continue its
work without interruption. I urge my colleagues to support the motion
to recommit; and if that fails, to vote against the conference report.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend
the chairman and the staff on both sides for working on what I think is
a good bill and one that I think meets the needs of firefighting, an
issue that has not always been treated appropriately.
I guess what a lot of people do not realize is that when we have
these fires and do not fund them, the money is taken from all the other
accounts. Now, think of running your business and the money for the new
building you are halfway through building, money for other forest
projects you are on, is suddenly snatched away from you and you just
have to stop until the money comes back when it is restored. I do not
think anybody realizes how we have had the bureaus managing our land
working with these forest issues that have been hitting us year after
year after year. So I am pleased that there has been a major effort
this year, $3.2 billion, in different ways; some repayment of funds
used, but money to prevent fires, money to fight fires, and money to
replenish accounts.
I am also pleased to see some progress on PILT. But I want to
challenge the body. Payment in lieu of taxes has been an undervalued
account here. When we take millions of acres, we own a third of the
country and we only spent $227 million. It is still a pittance
nationwide for our payment of taxes. Because when we take all of this
acreage out of the economy, it does not pay taxes. But those people
living in those regions have to have roads and schools and services,
and we need to continue to improve there.
I was pleased that we had a $61 million increase for national parks,
$24 million for the National Wildlife Refuge, $30 million for
geological survey, $29 million for the national forests, and $6 million
for weatherization.
And I was really pleased to see that that fossil energy research was
increased by $60 million. Now, there has been a lot of money here, not
wanting to put money into fossil research, because we all want to use
renewables. I want to use renewables. But the renewables have not taken
the place of fossil fuels.
One final statement I would like to make. When we add up the energy
used in the world today, geothermal, wind and solar are .56 of 1
percent. My colleagues, we have to have fossil fuel research.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who is cochair of the Native
American Caucus.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Virginia
for yielding me this time. At the outset, let me say my affection and
admiration for my colleague from North Carolina, the chairman of this
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, knows no
bounds. There is much to praise in this bill; and yet as this
legislation came together in conference, an indignity has been thrust
upon this body and the legislative branch of government.
What we witness tonight, my colleagues, is the triumph of the
unelected, where legislative staffers, along with staffers from the
executive branch, presume to know more than the duly elected officials
of this body. And so in a closed conference, in 15 minutes' time, a
provision is added to this bill which passed neither the House nor the
other body and is thrust upon us at the last nanoseconds of the 11th
hour in a cynical attempt to say, Come on, we dare you. There is needed
firefighting money in here. We dare you to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, there may be some who interpret this as a turf battle.
That would be a serious mistake. This is not a turf battle. This cuts
to the core of our legislative branch and our system of coequal and
separate branches of government.
We cannot allow the First Americans to remain the Forgotten
Americans. This House has taken action time and again to reaffirm the
rights of Native Americans on the trust fund accounts. I will grant
every Member of this body it is a difficult issue. But, Mr. Speaker,
the fact remains those of us on the Committee on Resources that have
the jurisdiction, many of us will meet in my home State of Arizona
Monday as I will chair a field hearing on this very topic. And now what
we are seeing happen, if passage of this legislation takes place
tonight, it renders those hearings a moot point. It silences the First
Americans. It assures they remain the Forgotten Americans.
Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is the wrong thing to do.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman's time has
expired.
If we are to keep on time, the Chair requests that Members stay
within their allotted times.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this
conference report on the interior appropriation bill. It is a
reasonable and responsible measure to meet the natural resources,
recreational, energy, and cultural needs of our citizens.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), chairman of this
subcommittee, has done an excellent job in working with the Senate to
provide a balanced conference report that sets the right priorities, is
fiscally responsible, and reflects the values of the majority in the
House. One of these priorities, of course, is more money and resources
to combat and control wildfires. The bill includes $2.5 billion for the
national fire plan, as well as an additional $400 million to repay
wildfire suppression expenses from last year.
In addition to providing these historic levels for firefighting, the
bill recognizes that we must do more than fight fires once they have
started. It takes an integrated fire plan approach which funds wildfire
suppression and preparedness, hazardous fuels reduction, and forest
health and rehabilitation activities.
I am very pleased that it includes money for new forest pest
management in the initiatives, including funds for the wooly hemlock
adelgids in the East and the Southern pine beetle and Western mountain
bark beetles.
I think we need to address the Indian issue. No one wants, more than
the members of this committee, to address this issue. But it does not
make any common sense to spend between $9 billion and $12 billion over
a 3-year period without a single dime going to the Indians. This gives
us a cooling-off period that we can get this thing done, because if we
spend $9 billion to $12 billion for an accounting system that gets us
no result, there will not be money for wildland fire funding, Indian
education and health care, national parks, PILT, and so on.
[[Page H10199]]
This bill should be passed. I commend Chairman Taylor and the ranking
minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for the
outstanding job they did under tight budget constraints in meeting the
stewardship responsibilities of the Congress. I urge adoption of the
conference report.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), another valued member of our
Committee on Resources and truly a strong fighter for Native Americans
in this body.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) 30 seconds.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for centuries, American Indians were forced
to give up their ancestral lands by this country's early settlers. It
was one of the most shameful episodes in American history.
The U.S. Government subsequently placed the Indian lands in trust.
But the Department of the Interior has not met its trust responsibility
and American Indians were forced to sue in court to protect their
rights. Now, the court has made a decision in favor of the American
Indians, and this conference report would essentially delay or reverse
that court's decision.
I think it is wrong for this Congress to deny justice to over 500,000
of America's first citizens. Mr. Speaker, instead, we should reaffirm
our commitment to Native Americans. That process begins here and now
with this vote. By voting to recommit the interior appropriation bill,
the antitrust reform language has a chance to be removed from the bill
and a proper solution can be reached involving the Indian tribes.
Keep in mind, the tribes were not consulted in this process. This is
something that is coming from the Department of the Interior to reverse
a court decision. There is no input from the Indian nations.
Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. Let us begin to
rebuild the trust relationship with American Indians so that we can put
this ugly stain on American history behind us. We cannot do that by
unilaterally doing this in the interior appropriation bill conference
report. The only way it can be done is through the hearings that the
Committee on Resources is now having. They are having them around the
country, and they are allowing the Indian tribes to be involved in
whatever solution we come up with.
Now, I know that the authors here are well intentioned with this
provision, but the bottom line is it delays or reverses the court's
decision. What kind of signal does that send to Indian country? The
wrong decision. Vote to recommit. And then if it does not pass, vote to
turn this bill down. Vote against the bill.
{time} 1945
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise with reluctance to oppose this bill.
I have not opposed an appropriations bill for many years. I appreciate
the difficulty the subcommittee chairman and the gentleman from Florida
have with the Senate, with the budget, and with all of the demands from
Members, but I stand with the chairman of the Committee on Resources. I
believe the administration committed an egregious process, a mistake,
in going around the authorizing committee at the last minute without
even telling the authorizing committee, and we cannot do business that
way.
I have a second problem with the bill, but it would not have caused
me to vote against the bill. I believe the provision by the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) on the National Park Service should
have been left in the bill. It is the most successful outsourcing
organization in the country, and instead of attacking the most
successful and highly-rated government organization in the country,
even with the guidelines of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) which are very well written, basically guarantee that this
money will be wasted.
This is the type of thing that when President Bush has made national
parks a centerpiece, his staff did him a disservice by having this in
the bill that is aggressively focused at the park service when they are
already over a majority, one of the only organizations in the
government that is over a majority already outsourced, it is not only
wrong, wasteful, but it is politically stupid. I hope we can get this
fixed with the administration as we work through. I know the committee
understands my concerns, and we will continue to work with them, but we
have to have some kind of process where the authorizing committees are
respected, and I stand with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
It is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose this appropriations
bill. I rarely vote against appropriations bills because I know how
hard it is to reach the compromises necessary to pass these bills.
I rise partly in opposition to the imposed language, with no
participation from the authorizing committee on the Tribal funds issue.
We have clear conference guidelines to protect against this very thing
and this was a blatant violation that threatens the committee system.
Secondly, I deeply believe that the provisions on outsourcing in the
National Park Service is a terrible policy mistake. I have been a
consistent supporter of competitive bidding, outsourcing and/or
privatization. But the way OMB is approaching this issue endangers the
process as a whole.
Employee work in our national parks is already under 50 percent. It
is a serious story. Some outsourcing has been pulled back because, for
example, private contractors found that it was hard to remove waste
from remote mountain ranges. Or they only wanted to do it when economic
times were hard. In other cases, bids were sought and none arrived.
In other words, the National Park Service is a success model. But if
OMB won't distinguish between success and failure, if money must be
wasted in a never-ending hunt, not only will organizations like the
National Park Service become demoralized, there will be no voluntary
efforts, even more resistance and bitterness, and eventually a revolt
against all outsourcing.
Relatively mindless ``cookie-cutter'' approaches are an abdication of
responsible government. The National Park Service rangers have among
the highest, if not the highest, public approval ratings of any
government or private sector employee. Even if the Park Service wasn't
already 50 percent contracted out, why fix something that is not
broken? We have enough problem areas on which to focus.
Furthermore, President George W. Bush fully understands the
importance of our national parks, to our nation, and from his personal
comments, to his family.
While the President favors outsourcing, as I do, it is poor staff
work to further attack the National Park Service and waste more funds
on outsourcing. Instead, the funds should be used to help eliminate the
national parks maintenance backlog. Or it could be used to reduce the
$30 million this bill is overbudget. Instead of staff attacking the
National Park Service, the President should be told of its successes,
and bragging about it.
The original House language exempted the National Park Service. By
friends and colleagues, Congressman Tom Davis and Pete Sessions were
going to introduce an amendment to remove the provision. After
discussions, during which it was apparent the amendment would likely
overwhelmingly lose, they withdrew their amendment. Later in the bill,
Congressman Bereuter offered a specific exclusion amendment for the
archaeological centers. He won overwhelmingly. Repeatedly this House
has made it clear that the National Park Service is not like other
agencies.
I do want to thank the Committee for definitive language forcing
detailed guidelines on such studies. It means that, most likely, most
of the outsourcing dollars being spent will be wasted money but at
least it will be reasonably fair. As chairman of a subcommittee with
National Parks oversight and as a member of the Resources full
committee and National Parks subcommittee, I will be closely monitoring
every threat to dangering our Park Service.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report
on H.R. 2691. I am generally supportive of the bill's thrust and
appreciate the good work of both the Committee on Appropriations
chairman and subcommittee chairman. However, the provision inserted
into this legislation relating to the Indian trust issue makes it
personally unacceptable for a variety of reasons.
[[Page H10200]]
It is unacceptable, first, because it amounts to legislating in an
appropriation bill, and I find that unfortunate.
Second, it was not included in either the original House or Senate
bill, and consequently did not receive the scrutiny and debate that it
deserved.
Finally, it is an effort, I think, inappropriately, to derail a
judicial process that is already in progress. It is unfortunate that we
are at this particular moment, and I regret having to vote against this
bill. But I think had we operated through the Committee on Resources,
let the processes in place work out, we could have arrived at a
solution to the problem that was fair and equitable and trusted by all
sides. It is with great reluctance that I rise in opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report on
H.R. 2691, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. I am supportive of the general
thrust of this bill, particularly the emergency funds to help fight the
wildfires in the West. Moreover, I recognize the need to finish
appropriation bills on a timely basis.
I respect the Appropriations Committee chairman and subcommittee
chairman who laid out the broad framework for this generally laudable
appropriations measure. I want to be clear that my criticisms of the
substance of one part of this bill in no way are intended to reflect on
the fine work and integrity of the chairman and the members of the
committee.
However, I feel compelled to vote against H.R. 2691 because of one
provision in the bill concerning the Indian Trust issue. This provision
was inserted in language funding the Office of the Special Trustee for
American Indians and would dictate the manner in which the Department
of the Interior undertakes a complete historical accounting of
individual Indian Trust accounts. It is clearly the first step in a
process designed to impose rather than negotiate a settlement of Indian
Trust account claims and to do so for as little money as possible
regardless of the merits of individual cases or the historical
culpability of the Federal Government in the mismanagement and theft of
Native American assets held in trust.
This provision clearly violates the House Rule against legislating in
an appropriations bill. Moreover, it undermines the excellent work of
the Resources Committee, which has held two hearings on the Indian
Trust issue and has been in the process of building a bipartisan
framework to settle the Indian Trust issue in wake of the questions
arising out of the so-called Corbel litigation. If this conference
report is approved in its present form it will hinder the efforts of
the Resources Committee to resolve this issue fairly and honorably for
all concerned.
In addition to being legislatively and procedurally unsound, the
provision in question is clearly designed to limit the ability of
Native Americans to pursue their legitimate claims in court. Frankly, I
predict that this effort will fail. However, it will cost the litigants
and the Federal Government more rather than less money in the long run.
Moreover, it will further poison the historically poor relations
between Indian tribes and the Federal Government.
Frankly, I am appalled that this language was included in the
conference report on H.R. 2691 since it was not part of either the
original House of Senate Interior appropriation bills. It was added in
the dead of night in order to avoid legislative scrutiny and open
debate. This is a clear violation of the spirit if not the letter of
the normal rules that govern the legislative process. It discredits the
legislative process and should embarrass and disappoint every member of
this body regardless of their position on the issue.
In my opinion, this language delays justice for half a million
individual Indian Trust beneficiaries who have waited over 100 years
for a full and fair accounting of the property which the Federal
Government holds in trust for them. This is both reprehensible and
unacceptable. I intend to work within the framework of this institution
to see that the mischief done in this appropriations bill is ultimately
undone.
Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that this provision was added to this
otherwise praiseworthy and essential piece of legislation. Its
inclusion makes it impossible for me or any other member who cares
about the rights of Native Americans to support this bill. However, I
take comfort in the fact that this issue will be dealt with again, both
in the courts and in the halls of the Congress of this great republic.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources who
I have had the pleasure to work with, and who is very capable and fair.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
It is with regret and a certain reluctance that I come to the floor
tonight in opposition to the Interior appropriations bill. I think that
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) have done an excellent job with this bill, and
it is probably one of the best Interior appropriation bills that I have
seen during my time in Congress.
But having said that, the addition of language dealing with the
Indian trust issue, the Cobell v. Norton decision has forced me to rise
in opposition to the bill. I will say to my friends, my colleagues,
this is the wrong thing to do. It is wrong to put this into an Interior
appropriations bill. When the Interior appropriations was moving
through the House of Representatives, there was a provision that dealt
with Cobell. It was a different provision, very different than what is
in this bill, and I want to make that clear. However, that provision
was struck and part of the debate, part of the discussion that went on
on this floor was that the authorizing committee would have the
opportunity to sit down and work our way through a hundred year old
problem, and we are doing it.
We have held a number of hearings in our committee. We have held a
number of field hearings. As the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
said, he is holding a hearing on Monday dealing with this issue. The
only way we are going to solve this problem is if we have the
opportunity to sit down, to consult, to negotiate, and to ultimately
reach a settlement. We are not going to do it by some rider put on in
an appropriations bill. The only way we are going to solve this problem
is if the authorizing committee, if the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall), myself, the members of my committee, have the opportunity
to sit down with those that are impacted by this and do what is the
best thing possible for the American taxpayer and for the Native
American community in this country. That is how we are going to solve
this problem.
We are not going to do it on a rider. This is the wrong way to settle
this problem. I appreciate that this is only good for a year and it is
a cooling-off period as some of my colleagues have said. I am sorry, we
do not do it on an appropriations bill, and I do not care who wants it.
The only way we can solve this problem is to sit down and consult,
negotiate, and ultimately lead to a settlement. That is what we are in
the middle of doing, and I will pledge along with the ranking member,
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), that we will continue to
work on that and we will get it done. But, Mr. Speaker, do not do it on
an appropriations bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to a member
of the Cherokee Indian Nation, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Carson).
(Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am here to voice my strong
objections to the language included in the fiscal year 2004 Interior
appropriations bill. This language, as has been discussed, delays
justice to over 500,000 individual Indian money account holders.
I represent a district with the most heavily Native American
population in the entire country. And as a member of the Committee on
Resources, the committee with jurisdiction over this important matter,
I had no opportunity nor ability to participate in discussion on this
language's effect on my constituents.
For this reason, although I am a strong supporter of a number of
provisions in this bill, I cannot in good conscience vote for it. I
respectfully request that my colleagues vote yes on the motion to
recommit and no on final passage.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and I also want to express
my respect for the work the gentleman has done on this bill and the way
it has been done. But unfortunately, for reasons that are largely
beyond his control, there are serious defects and deficiencies in this
bill, so at the appropriate time I intend to offer a motion to
recommit.
[[Page H10201]]
This conference report breaks the promise to maintain the fully
funded Interior portion of the Conservation Trust Fund, and that would
be at $1.56 billion. The Conservation Trust Fund was groundbreaking,
bipartisan conservation legislation designed to protect the Nation's
threatened natural resources. To abandon it after only a few years
violates a commitment that this House and this Congress made to the
American people. Instead of the promised $1.56 billion, the bill
contains just over $1 billion, $447 million below the authorized level
and $87 million even below that appropriated last year.
This funding level is an assault on the ability of the Nation to
conserve lands and protect sensitive forests and parks. This funding is
important because the American people value the programs in the
Conservation Trust Fund for protecting open space and historic sites,
conserving wildlife and wildlands, and creating opportunities for
recreation for both body and soul. Because of these cuts, some
threatened lands that would have otherwise been protected will now be
lost forever.
Within the Conservation Trust Fund, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund which funds land acquisition is especially hard hit with deep
cuts. Land acquisition is funded at only $176 million, that is $137
million below last year. It is a 60 percent cut below 2002. So this
conference report willfully walks away from our responsibilities to
protect and conserve our precious land. And if we approve it, I predict
next year we will be fighting even deeper cuts than we are experiencing
this year.
And then there are a series of antienvironmental riders. This
conference report includes damaging riders. Some of them, for example,
would strike at the heart of the protection of the coastal lands. One
Senate rider, for example, removes Alaska's Bristol Bay from
protection, even though the House bill and the President's budget
renewed the moratorium that put that protection in place.
Mr. Speaker, it could be our coastline next. Another Senate rider
sets a dangerous precedent for interfering with the independence of the
Federal judiciary by severely limiting the amount of time that the
public has to challenge harmful logging projects in the Tongass
National Forest in Alaska, and limiting the amount of time a Federal
district court has to rule on those cases. People will be denied their
time in court. There are a host of our damaging antienvironmental
riders in this bill, and for those and other reasons, I will offer a
motion to recommit.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to end the debate on our side by saying I strongly support the
conference agreement, and I hope Members will vote for the conference
agreement. I appreciate the comments made here tonight. We are going to
work hard to resolve the problems on the trust account issues. We will
work with the authorizers. The chairman and Mr. Rahall are acting in
very good faith. I know there has been a hearing, and they are going to
have another hearing.
We need a solution to this problem, and I pledge tonight to my
constituents back in the State of Washington that I will work
tirelessly for a solution to this problem, so we can do justice to the
holders of these accounts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise first to support this
conference report, but I also want to address another issue, especially
to my fiscally conservative friends. They received in their offices
today a publication that would appear to be coming from the Committee
on Appropriations because it says Appropriations Update in the big
headline. The actual author of the paper is shown in small print, which
indicates that the author is the Committee on the Budget. It says that
this bill exceeds by $30 million the 302(b) suballocation issued by the
Committee on Appropriations.
The problem is, at least I guess what it is, the Committee on the
Budget has one budget resolution to pass in the House, then that
resolution goes to Senate, and then the House and Senate go to
conference on that one resolution. Then they bring a conference
agreement back, and we barely pass the budget resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations has 13 regular fiscal year bills and,
this year, three supplementals. So when we start to go to conference
with the other body on all these bills, we have got to have the ability
to negotiate the 302(b) allocations with the other body so we end up
with the same 302(b)s in the House and in the Senate for each bill.
In fact, if Members are concerned about this publication that was
distributed today, let me say there should be no confusion. The
Interior conference report is within the 302(b) allocation that was
agreed to by myself and Senator Stevens. We provided this 302(b)
allocation for the conference.
{time} 2000
So, in fact, this bill is within the 302(b) allocations set for the
conference, and, in fact, is below last year's level. For those who
might be misled by this publication, understand our process of 302(b)
allocations as we go to conference, and understand that we are within
the bill's 302(b) allocation. We are not over it, despite what this
report says.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I share the frustration of many of those who have spoken on the
Indian trust issue. I represent the eastern band of the Cherokee
Indians. I have been taught and seen it over and over again, the old
adage that government will mess up a one-car funeral.
The committee spent $20 million of the taxpayers' money to do a
transaction-by-transaction accounting of five named plaintiffs in the
Cobell v. Norton litigation and found that one check for $60 went to
the wrong person; $20 million to find a $60 error. Can anyone argue
that this is a good use of the American taxpayers' money? A Federal
court ruling on September 25, 2003, in the class action lawsuit ordered
an expanded transaction-by-transaction historical accounting from 1887
to the present. Initial estimates indicate that the accounting ordered
by the court would cost between $9 billion and $12 billion. Nobody ever
envisioned that we would be spending $12 billion on an accounting that
does not provide one dollar to Indian country. We have included
language that limits funds available to the Department of the Interior
for historical accounting to those activities that need to be
accomplished and can be accomplished in the short term. Beyond the
funding limitation, language has been included protecting the
Department from further court action during this 1-year time-out
period. This gives the authorizing committees time to address the
issue. The appropriations committee is not addressing this. We are
putting this with the authorizing committee.
Without this language in our bill, the court would likely hold the
Secretary in contempt and find for the plaintiffs' accounting that the
government owes $176 billion in this matter without any further
negotiation or findings. For the past 3 fiscal years, the Committee on
Appropriations has stated that it will not appropriate hundreds of
millions of dollars, now billions of dollars, for a historical
accounting. There was no other option but to include the time-out
provision in this bill. There is only one source of money available to
the committee; and an accounting of this magnitude, $12 billion, would
require that vast sums be diverted away from other programs in the
bill. Without the time-out language, we would have to divert vast
amounts of money from Indian education, health care, the National Park
Service, as well as critical fire fighting funding; and that is just to
name a few. There will be further court proceedings in this case based
upon the government's appeal of this court ruling. We should not expend
hundreds of millions of dollars while this case is under appeal.
We fully agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that
the authorizing committees should address this issue, and we are not
trying to do that. All the interior bill does is provide for a 1-year
time-out, basically the remaining term of this Congress, to allow the
Congress to provide, hopefully, a comprehensive solution to the Indian
trust issue, or at least address
[[Page H10202]]
the scope of the historical accounting so the Congress will not be put
in the position of cutting programs in this bill to fund a $12 billion
accounting. If the language is struck from the bill without providing
full funding for the court-mandated accounting, some $3 billion in
2004, the court will likely hold the Secretary of the Interior in
contempt and find summary judgment for the plaintiffs' accounting which
purports to show that the government owes $176 billion.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out that we were $400
million short in this bill. If we have to pay $3 billion just for an
accounting next year or we are asked to pay $176 billion in the next
year, or $12 billion maybe in a short period of time, imagine what will
happen to this bill and the Department of the Interior, Forest Service,
Energy and the critical funds that we provide for Indian health,
education and other needs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this conference report.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on the FY 2004
Interior appropriations bill. I wish to thank the House Appropriations
Committee for providing the much needed increases in funding for the
fire-fighting and fire prevention accounts within the Department of
Interior. As my constituents and the constituents of my other
colleagues representing the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Ventura have discovered first hand over the last
week, it is imperative that Congress fund the necessary resources
needed to prevent fires and fight fires.
Though I do plan on voting in support of this bill because of this
funding and the funding of other important programs, I am concerned
about the inclusion of a provision in this bill to halt a historical
accounting of errors in the Indian trust fund accounts. While I
recognize the need to address this issue quickly, the Interior
appropriations bill is not the appropriate vehicle. An issue of this
magnitude is better addressed through the normal legislative process.
The House Resources Committee, chaired by Representative Richard Pombo,
has already held numerous hearings on this issue, developing the
necessary legislative history. Mr. Pombo is committed in working
towards a more complete solution. I strongly disagree with the decision
to include language in this bill that preempts the Resources
Committee's thoughtful work on the trust fund issue.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for
this conference report.
The annual appropriations bill for the Interior Department and
related agencies is important for the whole country, but particularly
for Colorado and other states that include extensive tracts of Federal
lands.
It benefits all Coloradans for the Interior Department and the Forest
Service to have the funding they need to do their jobs. I also support
many other things that are funded in this bill, such as energy
conservation programs of the Department of Energy, the Smithsonian
Institution, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the
Humanities.
However, when the House first considered this bill, I found it so
flawed that I could not support it. I voted against it in hopes that
after the Senate acted and the bill came back to the House from
conference it would be improved enough so that I could vote to send it
to the President for signing into law.
To a degree, that hope has been realized. The conference report does
include some definite improvements on the House-passed bill.
Perhaps most importantly, the bill would provide $400 million to
repay the accounts from which the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and other agencies had to take funds in order to fight
forest fires. This is a very great improvement over the House-passed
bill, as is the fact that the conference report restores $70 million
for Forest Service wildfire preparedness to keep firefighter readiness
at the 2003 level, and also would provide $2.5 billion for the National
Fire Plan--$1.8 billion for the Forest Service and $694 million for the
Department of the Interior--which is $126 million above the President's
request and includes an increase of $289 million for wildfire
suppression, $11 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and $9 million
for State and community fire assistance.
Those are good provisions that deserve support. And, in addition the
conference report also includes some items of special value to
Colorado.
For example, I am particularly glad that the conference report--
unlike the House-passed bill--includes $2.5 million to enable the
Forest Service to continue its acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook
watershed, in Clear Creek County, now owned by the city of Golden.
Together with others in the Colorado delegation, I have been working to
complete this multi-year project, and am pleased that the conference
report would enable it to go forward.
Similarly, the conference report improves on the House-passed bill by
providing $9 million for the acquisition of lands in the San Luis
Valley--$7 million for the portion of the lands that will become a new
National Wildlife Refuge and $2 million to round out the Great Sand
Dunes National Park.
I strongly support this, as I also do the provisions of the
conference report that would provide the Forest Service with $1 million
for acquiring lands in an elk corridor in the White River
National Forest and the same amount of needed work on the Continental
Divide Trail, the National Park Service with funds for planning for a
new curatorial facility at Mesa Verde cultural center, and the Bureau
of Land Management with money for acquisitions in the Canyon of the
Ancients National Monument.
But in other respects the conference report not only fails to improve
on the House-passed bill, but actually is even more flawed--so flawed
that I think it deserves to be rejected.
Two aspects of the conference report are particularly bad, in my
opinion--one involving language that is included, and one involving a
provision of the House bill that has been dropped.
The conference report includes a remarkable legislative rider that
says--
nothing in the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act of
1994, Public Law 103-412, or in any other statute, and no
principle of common law, shall be construed or applied to
require the Department of Interior to commence or continue
historical accounting activities with respect to the
individual Indian Money Trust until the earlier of the
following shall have occurred:
(a) Congress shall have amended the American Indian Trust
Management Reform Act of 1994 to delineate the specific
historical accounting obligations of the Department of the
Interior with respect to the Individual Indian Money Trust;
or
(b) December 31, 2004.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems clear that this provision is intended
to at least temporarily allow the Department of the Interior to refuse
to comply with a recent decision in the pending Cobell v. Norton
litigation dealing with the management of Indian trust accounts.
Whatever might be said in its favor, it is not the kind of thing that
should be included in an appropriations bill. In fact, it would be
subject to a point of order under the rules of the House except for the
decision of the Republican leadership to waive the normal rules.
The subject matter of this provision is squarely within the
jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. As a member of that committee,
I share the view of Chairman Pombo that the inclusion of this
language--which was not in either the House or Senate bill--in the
conference report is ``an affront'' to our committee. I also share the
Chairman's view that its enactment could make it even harder for our
committee to play a constructive role in trying to resolve a situation
that is a serious problem for both Native Americans and the Interior
Department as well.
And at the same time this was being put into the conference report,
section 337 of the House-passed bill was being deleted. That section
was added when the House adopted a revised version of an amendment I
had offered to protect not just Federal lands but also private property
and the public interest.
It would have done that by preventing the Interior Department from
going ahead with secret negotiations leading to back-room land deals
under which the Interior Department would issue ``disclaimers of
interest'' that would give away the government's claim to an interest
in land.
For decades, the Interior Department issued such disclaimers to
people who were on record as owning the lands involved. It was a legal
technicality--important for the people involved but not a tool for
changing the management of sensitive Federal lands or creating problems
for private land owners. But that has changed because the Interior
Department has changed its regulations. It has adopted new rules to
claim broad authority to issue ``disclaimers'' to parties that wouldn't
have been eligible under the old rules--and it has announced it is
ready to give those `'disclaimers'' to parties seeking them in order to
clear the way for building roads.
This involves the lingering ghost of the Mining Law of 1866. That was
one of the 19th-century laws to promote settlement and development in
the West. Among other things, it granted rights-of-way ``for the
construction of highways'' on Federal lands. That provision later
became section 2477 of the Revised Statutes--or RS 2477.
In 1976, RS 2477 was repealed. But the repealing law did not affect
existing rights under RS 2477, and did not set a deadline for claiming
those rights. So, there is no way of telling how many claims might be
made or exactly what lands are affected.
But we do know that RS 2477 claims can involve not just Federal
lands--lands that currently belong to the American people--but also
lands that once were Federal but that now belong to other owners. That
includes the
[[Page H10203]]
lands that were homesteaded, as well as patented mining claims and the
lands that the Federal government gave to the states, the railroad
companies, and other entities during the 19th and 20th Centuries.
Millions of acres of those lands now are ranches or farms, or
residential subdivisions, or single-family homes, or private cabins in
the mountains like ones owned by some of my constituents. And millions
of acres of those lands now belong to the Native Corporations
established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Also at risk are millions of acres that are still owned by the
American people--including National Parks, National Forests, National
Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well
as wilderness areas and areas that deserve protection as wilderness
areas. This problem is not new, but it is very serious. It needs to be
resolved--but not the way the Interior Department wants to resolve it.
What the Interior Department wants is to negotiate in secret and then
issue ``disclaimers.'' They have already started that process with the
State of Utah. And other parties--including the current state
Administration in Colorado--are starting to ask for deals of their own.
These backroom talks need to stop. Instead of making deals, the Bush
administration needs to come to Congress for new legislation.
That was what Congress told the Clinton administration when Secretary
Bruce Babbitt moved to change the Interior Department's RS 2477
regulations. To make sure that Secretary Babbitt got the message,
Congress passed a law that says any new RS 2477 rules must be
authorized by Congress. That law is still on the books. But the Bush
administration says that is irrelevant because the new ``disclaimer''
regulations are not covered, even though they intend to use their new
rules for RS 2477 claims. It's an interesting argument--but, frankly,
it reminds me of the argument about defining the meaning of the word
``is.'' In other words, it may be clever, but it fails the test of
common sense.
Of course, the administration also says they will only make deals
that are in the public interest, so Congress doesn't need to get
involved. But the best way to promote the public interest is to involve
the public--not to make secret deals. And the best way to resolve this
issue is by enacting new legislation, after public hearings and open
debate. That's why I have introduced a bill--H.R. 1639--to do just
that. My bill would set a deadline--four more years--for filing RS 2477
claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative process for
handling those claims and would set another deadline for any lawsuit
challenging the result of that administrative process. Maybe my bill
could be improved, and some of our colleagues may want to propose their
own ideas--that is the legislative process. And that is how this issue
should be resolved, not by backroom deals or clever maneuvers to try to
side-step Congress.
That is why I offered my amendment--to block the administration from
trying to circumvent Congress. And while my original amendment was not
adopted, the House did adopt a narrower version proposed by Chairman
Taylor himself.
That part of the House bill would have barred implementation of the
new ``disclaimer'' regulations with regard to any lands within a
designated National Monument, Wilderness Study Area, National Park
System unit, National Wildlife Refuge System unit, or lands within the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
This did not go nearly far enough, in my opinion. It did not address
and would not protect all lands that could be affected by the new
regulations. However, it would have protected some of the most
sensitive parts of America's public lands.
That was why last week more than 100 of our colleagues joined the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and me in sending a letter urging
the conferees to at least include the House language in the conference
report. We thought that was a very reasonable request, especially since
that part of the House bill had been written by the chairman of the
relevant appropriations subcommittee and that the administration had
not expressed any opposition to it during the debate on the House
floor.
However, our request was not granted, and the House's provision on
this subject was omitted from the conference report. As a result,
nothing in the conference report will restrain the Interior Department
from implementing its new ``disclaimer'' regulations in ways that could
have serious consequences for the National Parks, National Monuments,
National Wildlife Refuges, or the wilderness and wilderness-study
areas.
Of course, I hope that won't happen. I hope that the administration
will recognize that proceeding in that way will yield only unnecessary
controversy and protracted litigation. I do have hope--but, frankly, I
have little confidence. The administration seems determined to press
ahead, and I expect that they are headed straight for the courts.
There are other things I dislike about this conference report--for
example, the fact that it includes a provision to extend the recreation
fee demonstration program for 15 months, which is another instance of a
violation of the House's rule against including legislation in an
appropriations measure. Even so, if the Indian trust provisions had
been omitted and the House-passed restrictions on the new
``disclaimer'' rules had been included, I might still have been able to
support it. However, I have concluded that I cannot vote for the
conference report as it now stands.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment is one of the most
important jobs I have as a Congressman. Unfortunately, the conference
report before us today weakens several significant land and water
protections.
Language in this conference report will roll back our moratorium on
offshore drilling by allowing new oil and gas drilling in Bristol Bay.
It will reduce judicial review on Tongass timber sales by placing a 30-
day statute of limitations on challenging those sales in court. It will
remove language included in the House bill that would have reduced the
scope of an environmentally-destructive rights-of-way rule published by
the Department of the Interior in January.
In addition, the conference report waives National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review for expiring grazing permits, which will
further discourage agencies from complying with environmental laws and
could lead to continued degradation of sensitive public lands.
Finally, H.R. 2691 reduces funding for valuable Land and Water
Conservation Fund acquisition programs by $142 million.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Congress can and
must do a better job protecting our environment. We simply will not
have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, Ranking Member Dicks, I would like to draw
the managers' attention to the Detroit River International Wildlife
Refuge.
In Fiscal year 2003, the Committee appropriated $3.5 million for land
acquisition in the Detroit Rive Refuge. For this I was grateful.
Mr. Speaker, the Trust for Public Land, recently acquired an
ecologically significant tract of land known as Humbug Marsh and
Island. This is a tract I have been working to acquire for many years.
This funding in FY 03 made this acquisition possible. And this year I
was seeking addition funds to complete this acquisition. The Humbug
project is wired and ready to go.
Unfortunately, the conference report includes language, inserted by
the other body, indicating that further appropriations for the Refuge
have been delayed because additional funds could not be obligated in
2004. It also states that there are outstanding issues related to
contaminants. In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, neither of these
statements has any basis in fact.
I would ask, at this time, for unanimous consent to insert into the
Record a letter from Mr. Eric Alvarez, Chief of the Reality Division of
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Alverez writes to me, ``With
adequate funding and no unforeseen problems...we anticipate a February
or March 2004 closing date `for the Humbug property.''
I would also note to the Chairman and the committee that Secretary of
the Interior Gale Norton was at the Detroit River Refuge for a
centennial celbration event in September. I would like unanimous
consent to insert into the Record a letter I have just received from
Secretary Norton demonstrating her commitment to the conservation
values of the Detroit River Rufuge.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can work together to address this
issue as the process moves forward.
Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Dingell: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Division
of Realty has been working on the Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge since December 2001. Since that time we have
been evaluating a number of properties for inclusion into the
refuge while developing our land protection plan. Recently, a
key tract, known as the Humbug Marsh tract, was acquired by
the Trust for Public Lands. Until this acquisition the
Service did not have many viable tracts where the existing
funds would have been obligated.
Preliminary information indicates that the tract may be
worth around $4.9 million. The Service is currently working
on the contaminant survey and the appraisal that will
indicate the actual purchase price.
The contaminant survey has yet to be completed, therefore
we do not want to speculate on the presence or absence of
contaminants. conversations with TPL representatives indicate
that they believe that there
[[Page H10204]]
should not be significant contaminant issues.
An appraisal will indicate the purchase price and the
service has $3.4 million available for the acquisition. The
difference between the remaining amount and the original
appropriation ($3.5 million) has been used to pay for the
contaminant survey and the appraisal.
With adequate funding and no unforeseen problems, with
title or contaminants issues, we would anticipate a February
or March, 2004 closing date.
Please feel free to contact me at 703-358-1713 if you or
your staff require more information.
Sincerely,
Eric Alvarez,
Chief, Division of Realty.
____
Hon. John Dingell,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Dingell: Thank you very much for including me in
the celebration of the Detroit River International Wildlife
Refuge. It was a pleasure to be on hand with you to celebrate
the Refuge System Centennial.
I also appreciated the opportunity to hear more about the
spirit of cooperation and partnerships that made the Detroit
River Refuge possible. An unprecedented partnership between
Federal, State, Canadian, county and local governments,
private industry, conservation groups, and local citizens
resulted in a unique home for waterfowl, fish, and migratory
birds. This refuge is truly something of which you can be
very proud.
Again, many thanks for your kind and generous hospitality.
Please pass on my best to Debbie. I had a wonderful time with
the two of you at lunch afterwards.
Sincerely,
Gale A. Norton.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. HINCHEY. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hinchey moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill H.R. 2691 to the committee of conference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that this vote will be
followed by votes on the adoption of the conference report and on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Concurrent Resolution
302. Both of those votes will be 5-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190,
nays 229, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 594]
YEAS--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--229
Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Blumenauer
Bradley (NH)
Case
Emerson
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gutierrez
McCollum
McCotter
Miller (NC)
Pearce
Sanchez, Linda T.
Smith (TX)
Stupak
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.
{time} 2028
Mr. BOOZMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5 minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 205, not voting 13, as follows:
[[Page H10205]]
[Roll No. 595]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Everett
Fattah
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Regula
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Serrano
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Spratt
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Cole
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kline
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moore
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Akin
Blumenauer
Bradley (NH)
Case
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gutierrez
McCollum
McCotter
Miller (NC)
Pearce
Sanchez, Linda T.
Stupak
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2037
Mr. GALLEGLY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________