Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3595-H3632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2361.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentlewoman
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito assume the chair temporarily).

{time} 1213

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior,
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Capito (Acting Chairman) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as
having been read the first time.
Under the rule, 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).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, today we present for consideration by the House the
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies fiscal year 2006
Appropriations bill as approved by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
The bill provides a total of $26.2 billion in funding for programs
for the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency,
Forest Service, Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and
several other environmental and cultural agencies and commissions.

{time} 1215

The bill is $823 million below the fiscal year 2005 level, and $435
million above the administration budget request.
This is a balanced, bipartisan bill. It provides significant
increases for our national parks, Indian schools, hospitals and
clinics, wildfire programs; forest health is a high priority, and the
Healthy Forest Initiative is fully funded.
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program has a healthy increase of $30
million above the budget request, and more than $3 million above the
2005 level. Despite our very tight allocation, the Committee believes
it is important to provide this increased funding for PILT.
There is an increase of $64 million for operations of our National
Park System, including a $30 million increase specifically designed for
individual units of the National Park Service. This targeted park base
increase will benefit all of our parks.
The bill also restores critical funding for science programs,
historic preservation programs, National Forest Systems programs, and
Save America's Treasures grants. Finally, we have restored critical
environmental education, research and rural water programs in the
Environmental Protection Agency, and provided some limited increases
for initiatives proposed in the budget request, including Superfund,
homeland security, school bus retrofits, the Clean Diesel Program,
Methane to Markets Initiative, and the Brownfields Program.
The budget request for EPA, while substantially below last year's
level and proposed increases in that budget request, were funded by
elimination of many critical mission essential programs.
We heard from nearly every Member of the House asking that we provide
funding for EPA programs that were eliminated or reduced in the budget.
The program restoration and increases for the various programs and
agencies in this bill are offset by the decreases in land acquisition,
construction, and State grant programs, and by lowering the amount
provided for the increases proposed in the budget request.
This is a balanced bill. It is within the 302(b) allocation for
budget authority and outlays. It provides the needed funding to keep
the agencies in the bill operating at a reasonable level.
It does not provide a lot of funding for new initiatives. The choices
made by the Committee were tough and fair and responsible. I urge all
of my colleagues to support the bill.
At this point, I would like to ask that a table detailing the
accounts in the bill be inserted in the Record.

[[Page H3596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.018

[[Page H3597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.019

[[Page H3598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.020

[[Page H3599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.021

[[Page H3600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.022

[[Page H3601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.023

[[Page H3602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.024

[[Page H3603]]

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the staff of both the minority
and majority staff, and Mr. Dicks, and all of those who have worked
with the Committee in producing this. We have had outstanding
participation, and I thank all of them for their participation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Chairman Taylor) for his commendable work for putting together this
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill for next
year.
This bill is basically good, considering the budget allocation that
our subcommittee received. As always, the chairman and his staff have
included me in the process of putting together the bill, and for that I
am very appreciative. Such cooperation is a hallmark of the Interior
Subcommittee, and it is the chairman who sets the tone.
While the bill we are considering today represents hard work all
around, I must note that it falls short of properly funding many
programs. The reason for this failure is the inadequate budget
allocation we have. The shortfall compared to the 2005 Interior bill
adds up to more than $800 million.
As you know, this is the first year that the Interior Subcommittee
has funded the EPA, and what a challenge it is proving to be with the
President's budget proposing a cut of more than $500 million from last
year. These are very deep holes to fill.
Let me switch to a positive note by praising the decision by the
administration and the chairman to fully fund uncontrollable costs such
as pay COLAs and rent.
Now, this may sound like just a matter of fact, but it makes all of
the difference in the world in our national parks on whether they can
operate properly. Over the last few years the administration has been
proposing unrealistically low funding levels to pay for these
uncontrollable costs. This year the budget did include the funding to
meet these costs, and I applaud the chairman for including them in the
bill, and I hope that the administration will continue to propose full
coverage of uncontrollable costs in future budget submittals.
I also want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for the continued effort to increase funding
for the operation of our national parks. I think we have a great team
to make sure that the national parks, certainly the most beloved of our
Federal public lands, receive enough money to provide our constituents
the visit they expect and deserve.
The $30 million the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor)
has added to the $22 million increase contained in the budget will mean
a second consecutive year of very healthy increases in the Park Service
operations budget, and I want to pledge to continue to help my chairman
to make sure that the Park Service Partnership Program stays on track
towards better management.
The biggest concern that I have in this bill is the reduction in
spending for clean water activities. First, I must commend the chairman
for his decision 2 weeks ago to agree to add an extra $100 million to
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund from unobligated EPA funds from
previous years. But even with this additional funding, the Clean Water
Revolving Fund will be $240 million lower than this year.
If you compare the proposed funding in 2006 to the level in 2004,
there is a decrease of nearly $500 million in just 2 years. I know that
many of you are hearing from your State and local officials about the
effect this cut will have on plans to construct and improve water
treatment facilities.
The Federal Government should not be retreating in this fashion from
such an important responsibility. For that reason I am going to support
an amendment to increase funding for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund.
I must also register my disagreement with the decision to continue to
retreat from the commitment made in 2000 to increase funding for the
Conservation Trust Fund. If the Lands Legacy conservation agreement was
being followed, this bill would have $1.8 billion for the various
conservation activities under our jurisdiction. Instead the bill
contains only $750 million. I wish this bill did not contain the
President's proposal to eliminate funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Stateside grants program.
I also disagree with the decision to provide no money for land
acquisition within the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but I do
sympathize that those decisions were tough due to the situation our
allocation has caused. Core programs, such as agency operations, must
come before grant programs such as these.
Even though the awful fiscal situation we are faced with is the
direct cause of these decisions, I do hope that we can better meet the
obligations of the Lands Legacy agreement when we ultimately finish the
2006 Interior and Environment bill.
It is gratifying to note that we seem to have come to a consensus on
funding on the NEA and the NEH, in that this bill provides level
funding compared to this year. I again will be joining with what I
predict will be a majority of my colleagues in support of an amendment
to increase both of these endowments.
Last year the Interior Subcommittee made a wise decision to be better
prepared for the cost of firefighting. We provided $500 million for
both fiscal year 2004 and 2005 in emergency funding to prevent the
painful borrowing from other Interior and Forest Service programs that
has occurred in past years when more fires than were expected depleted
the annual firefighting budget.
Although neither the President's budget nor this bill contains such
contingency funding for 2006, there is an increase of $120 million over
the nonemergency spending level in fiscal year 2005. I hope this is
sufficient to meet the challenge of what could be a busy fire season
with estimates of higher than average threats in several areas of the
country, including Washington State and the Northwest.
I also agree with the decision to restore some of the cuts in the
budget to the Indian school and construction account. Even with this
added money, this bill contains a cut of $75 million to those important
programs, and it is important that we are freezing the funding level
for the Indian trust accounting program. I believe we should not spend
money at the expense of other Indian programs on a historical
accounting exercise that cannot produce the desired results.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman
Taylor) and his great staff, led by Debbie Weatherly for their hard
work on the 2006 Interior and Environment appropriations bill.
I also want to commend Mike Stephens on Mr. Obey's staff and Pete
Modaff of my staff for their part in helping to put together this bill.
I hoped we could do better, but this is a difficult situation that we
are in, and I appreciate the cooperation, the bipartisan spirit in
which this bill was created.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. Madam Chairman, the bill before us today is one that
required many tough choices. It required fiscal discipline. It also
required the committee to meet the environmental, land management,
cultural, science, resource and recreation needs of the Nation in a
responsible manner; tough choices were required and I believe the right
and most reasonable choices were made.
The bill helps meet our fiscal responsibilities by cutting $800
million in discretionary spending from the fiscal year 2005 level, but
it also allows us enough money that our Nation's priorities can be
carried out by the diverse departments and agencies funded in the bill.
There are many competing interests in this bill that had to be
balanced and addressed in a tight allocation. We may hear some Members
lament that greater funding was not provided for a particular program,
but I believe that Members would be hard pressed to name another
program that should be cut so the one they favor can be increased. One
thing is certain, the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor)
made a special effort to include both parties in the drafting of

[[Page H3604]]

the bill and conducted a fair and impartial hearing process.
The bill places priorities in the areas where they need to be.
Increases were provided for wildland firefighting, the operations of
the National Parks and National Forest Systems, Superfund hazardous
waste cleanup program, environmental science and technology, and Indian
health and education.
The bill contains necessary initiatives in forest health, in backlog
maintenance in the national parks, Everglades restoration, and the
national fire plan. This is a bill that makes tough but right choices
and puts priorities where they should be.
This bill is as good as it can be given the budget restrictions. It
deserves our support and I urge its passage.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking Democratic member of
the full Appropriations Committee, who has played a very constructive
role, along with the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), in
trying to help us move this bill forward today.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me simply say that I think the chairman has produced a fair
process. He has treated the minority fairly and I very much appreciate
that, but I believe the bill fails this country in many fundamental
ways, and that failure is a direct result of the Republican budget
resolution which requires this committee to cut $11.7 billion below the
amount needed to maintain current services for domestic discretionary
programs.
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, said 2
weeks ago, ``This is the budget that the American people voted for when
they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican
White House last November.'' I think that is true. This is exactly what
it means.
The Republicans in this House voted by a vote of 218 to 212 to adopt
that budget resolution. Not one single Democrat voted for that budget
resolution, because we recognized the damage that would be done by it.
Now, we are told by Members of the majority side we have limited
resources. We absolutely agree with that.
That is why this House should never have voted to eliminate all taxes
on estates of over $7 million. It should never have voted to give
persons who make more than a million dollars $140,000 tax cuts next
year and do it all with borrowed money because the result of that vote
has been a $400 million cut in EPA programs to improve the quality of
our air and our water.

{time} 1230

The result has been a 40 percent cut in the clean water revolving
fund. We have $388 billion worth of needs at the community level to fix
sewer and water systems; and yet this program is cut by 40 percent in
this bill.
The damage done by this bill cannot be fully understood unless we
take a look at it in a broader context. This is a great and growing
country. When I came to this Congress, there were 203 million people in
this country. Today, there are 282 million. That is a 34 percent
increase. We are going to have another 26 million increase between now
and 2010.
When I came, there were 108 million cars in America. Today, there are
231 million cars. That means more pollution. It means more congestion.
It means more pressure on our national parks. It means more pressure on
the part of real estate developers. It means more pressure on our sewer
and water programs.
In the face of that new pressure, what are we getting out of this
bill? We are getting a 34 percent reduction in the funding for the main
bill that will help us to clean up our sewer and water problem. I think
that is an incredibly myopic decision.
In the teeth of all of that pressure, we are crippling EPA.
We talk about how happy we are to see a slight increase in the
national parks budget; but in fact, there are still 720 positions in
the National Park Service that continue to remain unfunded. We have 200
of the 544 wildlife refuges that have no staff whatsoever.
In the teeth of all that expanded pressure, what do we get? Despite
this bill, we still have a $5 billion backlog in maintenance for the
Park Service, a $13 billion backlog for our national forests.
I would like to see, for instance, this bill enable us to buy
precious land at Pope's Creek on the property where George Washington
was born before a real estate developer can grab it and turn it into
condos; but we are not going to be able to do that because this bill,
for the first time in the 36 years I have been a Member of this House,
zero-funds land acquisition programs at both the State and the Federal
level. We ought not to do that.
For two generations, we have had a bipartisan consensus behind
certain minimal actions in the environmental area, especially in the
area of clean water. This bill unravels that consensus because it means
we can talk a good game in terms of cleaning up our water and our air,
but we are not going to put our dollars where our mouth is.
So I think, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says, ``This is
the budget that the American people voted for when they returned a
Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House
last November.'' If you are satisfied with the results of this bill
today, vote for it. I intend to vote against it. I think it is a
disaster for the environmental consensus that we have built up with
such hard work for so long.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time. I
very much appreciate his service on the bill that he has produced, and
I support this bill, and I appreciate his efforts and the efforts of
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, and the
staff on the committee.
However, there is a part of this bill that the country needs to be
aware about. All across America we are confronted with skyrocketing
energy prices, whether at the gasoline pump or our utilities at home or
the manufacturing sector or the feedstock to produce fertilizer (which,
therefore, affects agriculture).
What is the connection between that and this bill? This bill has
language in it that perpetuates more than 30 years of misguided policy.
It has provisions that continue a ban on drilling in most of the
outercontinental shelf, offshore drilling that could be occurring in
the United States of America. And 60 percent of America's oil reserves
are in that outercontinental shelf. Forty percent of our natural gas
reserves are in that outercontinental shelf. Yet, for more than 30
years this Congress, each year, has perpetuated a ban on drilling in
most of those areas.
What is the consequence of that? It is the high prices. The
consequence is the high prices we are experiencing. The result is that
each year America is spending $179 billion to buy foreign oil and bring
it to the United States of America. Rounded off, it is $180 billion,
that we could be using to produce energy safely, in an environmentally
friendly and clean fashion here in the United States. But because of
language that this Congress has put into this bill for over 30 years,
we are not doing that.
Right now, almost 60 percent of the oil and gas that we consume in
the United States is imported. We need to fix that. We will have
several amendments to address this that are offered on this bill.
We will probably hear from people saying, oh, my goodness, we cannot
do that; we have got to protect the environment. But we can do it by
protecting the environment.
The offshore drilling that does occur right now in the United States
produces a fourth of the oil and gas that we have in the U.S. What is
their environmental record? The amount of oil that is spilled is \1/
1,000\ of 1 percent. That is all--because we have made so many advances
in environmentally friendly methods to handle this drilling. That means
we are using methods that are 99.999 percent safe and friendly to the
environment.
We need to revisit those provisions that limit offshore drilling, and
I hope we will do that today.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a good supporter of this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's

[[Page H3605]]

courtesy in permitting me to speak on behalf of this bill.
The congressional consideration of the Interior appropriations bill
should be one of the highlights of this congressional session, as it
touches on things that are near and dear to people's hearts: clean
water, vast open spaces, environmental protection, even opportunities
to invest in the arts.
Sadly, what should be a positive expression of our values, our hopes,
and our opportunities is instead in this bill a pattern of broken
promises to our communities and to ourselves. Unfortunately, the bill
represents lost opportunities and is a symbol of the inability of this
Congress and this administration to match our priorities with those of
our constituents and, most importantly, with the future of this
country.
I agree that the dramatic underfunding in terms of the budget
allocation put the chairman and the ranking member and the staff in a
hole to begin with, and my heart goes out to them; but there is no
reason that we, as a Congress, cannot use the billions of dollars that
are set aside in a trust fund for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
that have not been tapped as these resources are set aside expressly
for this purpose of land conservation.
In the year 2000, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my
friend, mentioned, he was integral to fashioning an important
compromise that gave flexibility to the Committee on Appropriations. We
in Congress made a commitment to the public and an agreement amongst
ourselves to fund this responsibility. It was something that then-
Governor Bush sounded as one of his pledges when he was running for the
White House. The promises of candidate Bush, President Bush and of
Congress to our constituents and to ourselves is broken again by this
budget.
Now, there are specific proposals to try and make an inadequate bill
better. I will support and speak out strongly in support of working to
stop the diluting of our commitment to clean water with an amendment to
stop the administration's efforts to weaken water quality protections,
putting more sewage into our rivers and streams and drinking water.
As a former commissioner of public works, I was responsible for the
administration of sewage and water resource programs. I am not
insensitive to the needs of many communities to occasionally blend
water not completely treated. I recognize the need to do that in
extreme weather events, an important tool for communities; but it is
not something that we should be doing routinely. We should instead be
reducing our use of this tool wherever possible rather than increasing
it.
The EPA rule weakening the current policy would actually penalize
communities like mine and yours around the country that have worked to
upgrade and improve their systems.
In periods of extreme wet weather, blending will still often be
necessary. It is legal under the current law, and it is not going to be
changed with the amendment that will be offered. The anti-sewage
dumping amendment would not change these existing blending standards,
but they will prevent the EPA from lowering them to authorize routine
sewage dumping.
Now is not the time to move backwards. Water bodies around the
country are impaired. We need to make sure that we are not making it
harder to ultimately meet these water quality standards.
I urge joining me in supporting the amendment and working with the
members of this committee to try to craft this bill in a way that meets
the needs of America's communities.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Before I recognize the next speaker, I want to point out that it is
not, as I am hearing, that we are obliterating the clean water State
revolving fund or the arts funds. We are funding the arts and
humanities $259 million, the same as the 2005 year. We are funding the
State revolving fund $850 million, the same as we did in 2005.
Unfortunately, with the costs and the deficit we have now, we cannot
continue to put more and more in. We are trying to do the best we can
by consistently funding our needs in this area.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding
this time to have an opportunity to address an issue that is so
important to this country, and that issue is the energy that drives
this economy.
We all know that everything that we purchase in this country has got
an energy cost component in it; and so when we address the energy
issues, we know that when we can provide more supply of energy, whether
it comes from someplace else on the globe, whether it comes from the
northern hemisphere, whether it comes from the United States, whether
it is renewable energy or whether it is a consumable energy, that is at
least in theory not renewed, all of those things add to the overall
size of the energy pie.
It is our responsibility here in this Congress to be able to expand
the size of that pie so we have more energy available to the consumers;
and we know that due to the law of supply and demand, the more supply
there is, of course the less relative demand there will be. The
relative costs of energy will either be slowed in their increase or
actually diminished in some cases, and we can see reductions in the
price of energy.
It is critical to me, in the part of the State I come from. We are
very vulnerable to energy. We use gas and diesel fuel for the
production of agriculture, for example, and we also produce ethanol and
biodiesel. So we are a renewable energy export center, as well as a
consumer of energy.
I have watched this policy here in the United States, and we tend to
take sides a little bit. That taking sides falls into a few categories:
energy consumers who want all the energy they can get, as cheap as they
can get it; and environmentalist interests that want to be able to
preserve the pristine areas of America at whatever cost to the economy.
I would take the stand that natural gas in this country, for example,
we have a huge domestic supply of natural gas in the North American
Continent underneath nonnational park public lands. We have a
tremendous supply of natural gas offshore in the Outer Continental
Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and a lot of that is, as we stand here, off
limits to producers. That has driven up the cost of natural gas in my
district and all across this country and put an additional price on
virtually everything that we sell and purchase.
So, Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address this
House and the opportunity also to have some time yielded to me for this
important subject matter.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking
member of the Committee on Resources.

{time} 1245

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member
of the subcommittee for yielding me this time.
Madam Chairman, we all recognize that the Committee on Appropriations
must work within the constraints of a budget that is completely
inadequate to meet the Nation's needs. I acknowledge that. But the
fiscal year 2006 Interior and Environment appropriation bill also
reflects the kinds of choices made in recent years by this
administration and the majority in Congress, which made this clash of
growing needs and shrinking budgets unavoidable.
The effect is that the Department of the Interior and our other
departments and agencies are being put on a crazy fad diet that is
harmful to the health of the Nation. I am troubled, for example, by the
continued underfunding of maintenance needs to our national parks. The
committee has seen fit to provide $20 million over the President's
request for operations, an increase I support, but our national parks
should be safe places, where parents and children can roam and relax,
where they can picnic and hike and raft. Instead, our parks are falling
apart, and against a huge backlog of maintenance needs, this bill cuts
funds for park construction projects, a critical component of our park
maintenance efforts.
Forest Service programs that help to promote safety and job creation
in

[[Page H3606]]

rural America are also underfunded in this bill. Economic action
programs, which enable rural communities and businesses to become more
economically self-sufficient through the use of forest resources were
zeroed out.
The situation here goes well beyond trimming fat. We can talk all we
want about the need for a lean government, but this is not belt
tightening, as some would suggest. This is more like being shoved into
Scarlet O'Hara's corset.
The President eliminated statewide funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in his budget. Those monies are indispensable to
States across the Nation that rely on those matching monies for their
parks and recreation budgets. But while the President may have
conducted a tummy tuck, this bill calls for something close to an
amputation. Even the Federal share is axed.
I am especially troubled by the flat lining of the appropriation from
the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. There continues to exist a large
inventory of high priority human health and safety threatening sites in
our Nation's coalfields. The unspent balance in the fund is approaching
$2 billion, yet this money from a fee assessed on the coal industry is
not being adequately deployed to combat these threats to coalfield
citizens and their communities.
Madam Chairman, this bill is not a case of an overweight agency being
squeezed into a slimmer, trimmer budget. This is a case of a starving
agency trying to survive on the crumbs of a fiscal mess. I regret that
I cannot support this bill.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, 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. Madam Chairman, there are many important parts of this
bill, but I want to speak briefly to the House about our love for the
national parks. We have about a $600 million backlog, and it is
overwhelming to try to address this in an appropriation bill where
money is so tight.
We have a bill called the National Parks Centennial Act that tries to
address this. Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Alexander are leading the
fight in the Senate and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird),
myself, as well as key appropriators such as the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), and others here in the House. But
what is before us today is actually very important, because even in a
time of tight budgets the Committee on Appropriations has seen fit to
raise the President's request on national parks by $70 million over
last year's funding, and $20 million above the President's approval.
At a time when we are fighting on so many different fronts to figure
out how to balance our budget and move towards a balanced budget, where
every trade-off between immunizations and Medicaid and whether we
support our troops and veterans benefits and all this, it is important
to remember the legacy of America's national parks, America's gifts to
the world, and I appreciate it very much in this overall important bill
that they have increased the funding for the national parks.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I have come to the reluctant
conclusion that this bill does not deserve approval, and so I will not
vote for it.
This is not a criticism of Chairman Taylor, Congressman Dicks, and
the other members of the Appropriations Committee who had the
unenviable task of developing the bill. The budget authority allocated
to the Interior and Environment Subcommittee fell far short of the
amount needed to adequately fund the agencies and activities within
their jurisdiction. That in turn was the result of the unrealistic and
inadequate budget resolution that the Republican leadership pushed
through the Congress earlier this year. But while the shortcomings of
the bill are understandable, they are nonetheless so serious that I
cannot vote for it.
Among the worst are its severe reductions in funding for the
Environmental Protection Agency. It cuts EPA's Clean Water State
Revolving Fund by $242 million below the 2005 funding level. This will
mean that many communities in Colorado and elsewhere will be adversely
affected as projects that have already been approved by State water
authorities for future funding probably will be rejected, scaled back,
or substantially delayed.
The wrong-headedness of this is clear when we recall that just two
years ago EPA Administrator Whitman issued a formal report, entitled
the ``Water Gap Analysis,'' which estimated the twenty-year fiscal
shortfall between what we are currently spending and what is required
at $388 billion.
Further, the bill includes cuts beyond those required by the budget
resolution. Perhaps the most notable is the reduction of $190 million
of Land and Water Conservation Act funding, including funding for all
new Federal land acquisitions as well as all assistance to States.
This, too, is something that I cannot support.
In Colorado and across the county there is a need for wise
reinvestments of the funds coming into the treasury from oil and gas
development on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. The wise
principle of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act is that these
short-term gains should be used to provide long-term assets for the
American people. This bill turns its back on that principle.
Of course, there are some good things in this bill. I am particularly
glad that because of the adoption of an amendment I sponsored along
with Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Cannon it includes $242 million
for the payments in lieu of taxes--or PILT--program that is so
important to local governments in Colorado and across the country. This
is only about 80 percent of the amount authorized for PILT, but it is a
great improvement over the amount proposed by the administration--which
sought a cut of $26 million below last year's level.
Nonetheless, overall, the bill falls woefully short of what is needed
and I do not think it deserves to pass.
Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2361.
This legislation is irresponsible. It under-funds programs to preserve
open space. It endangers public health. And, it abdicates our
responsibility to protect the environment for future generations.
In this time of increased growth and urban sprawl, our green spaces
are more precious then ever. Instead, this bill eliminates funding for
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, designed to help local
communities preserve open space, protect wildlife and make recreation
opportunities available in urban areas.
In addition, this bill cuts funding for the environmental enforcement
activities of the EPA by $12 million. Republicans have consistently
sought to weaken environmental standards and this maneuver is the
latest in a series of attempts to undermine what have been successful
environmental protections and the behest of big business. Big business
should never be allowed a free pass to destroy the environment while
endangering the health of millions of Americans who will be exposed to
dirtier air and water.
I won't vote for this indefensible legislation that only serves to
harm the environment and put Americans' health at risk. We have a
responsibility to protect our citizens and our environment and this
legislation blatantly takes us in the opposite direction. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, unfortunately I did not get a chance to
offer an amendment with Mr. Reyes to provide an additional $10 million
for a critical program in the Interior-EPA Appropriations bill. The
funds would have been used for ``architectural, engineering, planning,
design, construction and related activities in connection with the
construction of high priority water and wastewater facilities in the
area of the United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the
appropriate border commission.''
This is the section of the EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grants
program that funds the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF).
The amendment would have transferred the $10 million out of the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) $974.5 million appropriation. The USGS
appropriation in this bill is currently $39 million more than the
FY2005 appropriation, and $41 million more than the president's
request. The border program, on the other hand, has been flat-funded at
$50 million for several years.
The record should reflect that we did not intend for the USGS's
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to be impacted by the
reduction in USGS's appropriation. NAWQA carries out very important
work collecting and analyzing data and information in more than 50
major river basins and aquifers across the Nation in order to develop
long-term information on streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems
in support of sound management and policy decisions. This critical
program would have been shielded from the $10 million cut in USGS
appropriations.
In Imperial County, California, the New River carries raw sewage from
Mexico through the town of Calexico, and air pollution from Mexicali
contributes to the worst childhood asthma rates in the state. A modest
increase in funding for the BEIF would begin to improve the situation.
The BEIF, which was established by the North American Development Bank
to

[[Page H3607]]

administer grant resources provided by the EPA, helps finance the
construction of water and wastewater projects in the U.S.-Mexico border
region.
The objective of the BEIF is to make environmental infrastructure
projects affordable for communities throughout the U.S.-Mexico border
region by combining grant funds with loans or other forms of financing.
It is designed to reduce project debt to a manageable level in cases
where users would otherwise face undue financial hardship.
We have seen what BEIF can accomplish when it has adequate funding.
BEIF grants have played an important role in the successful
construction of water conservation projects in the Cameron Irrigation
District in Texas; a wastewater project in Heber, California; a
wastewater collection and treatment project in Patagonia, Arizona; and
a sewer system and wastewater treatment plant in the Salem and Ogaz
communities in New Mexico.
All projects supported by the BEIF must have a health and/or
ecological benefit in communities on the U.S. side of the border. All
projects must also be certified in a rigorous vetting process
undertaken by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission.
There is strong support for increasing BEIF funding. The bipartisan
Border Governors' joint declaration last year called for a
``substantial increase'' in funding for the program.
While many important programs in the Interior-EPA Appropriations bill
have been shortchanged, the lack of funding for BEIF is particularly
troubling. The border region is in desperate need of assistance.
Communities in the border region struggle with some of the highest
poverty rates in the Nation as well as air and water pollution--often
originating in northern Mexico--that contributes to severe public
health problems. The region lacks basic infrastructure, such as water
and sewer service, that most of the rest of the country takes for
granted.
The neglect of these largely low-income and Hispanic communities,
along with the dirty air and water they are forced to endure, represent
a grave environmental injustice. According to the U.S.-Mexico Border
Health Commission, the border region includes three of the ten poorest
counties in the United States and twenty-one counties that have been
designated as economically distressed areas.
The Commission also reports that approximately 432,000 people live in
1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated, semi-
rural communities that are characterized by substandard housing and
unsafe public drinking water or wastewater systems. If the border
region were made the 51st state in the Union, it would rank last in
access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; last in
per capita income; and first in the numbers of school children living
in poverty, according to the Commission
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent U.S.
Presidential advisory committee that operates under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, recommends restoring BEIF to its mid-1990s
funding level of $100 million dollars.
There are currently 105 certified clean water projects in the
pipeline waiting for funding. Examples of the many certified projects
that could be carried out in disadvantaged communities if the BEIF had
an appropriate funding level include: Water/wastewater systems
improvements in Brawley, California; a wastewater project in Nogales,
Arizona; a solid waste project in Dona Ana County, New Mexico; and a
water conservation project in Brownsville, Texas.
Supporters of this amendment include the Border Trade Alliance, the
Border Counties Coalition, Clean Water Action, National Council of La
Raza and others.
I will continue fighting to increase appropriations for the Border
Environment Infrastructure fund and protect communities in the border
region.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to both the
Peterson Amendment and the Istook Amendment. If passed, these
amendments will trample on a longstanding bipartisan moratorium on
offshore oil and gas development that was initiated by former President
Bush, continued under President Clinton, and endorsed in President
Bush's FY 2006 budget. Given this legacy of strong bipartisan support,
I am simply amazed that the OCS moratorium is under such assault.
However, this is exactly what we face today with these amendments.
Mr. Peterson's amendment strikes liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the
moratorium while Mr. Istook's amendment calls for the entire moratorium
in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, on both oil and gas, to vanish--poof--
when the United States meets an arbitrary percentage of crude oil
imports, 66.7 percent.
Every year since 1982, Congress has included language in the Interior
and Environment Appropriations bill to prevent the Department of
Interior from using funds for leasing, pre-leasing, and related
activities in sensitive coastal waters. Mr. Speaker, some might wonder
why so many coastal areas stand firmly behind the OCS moratorium. I
answer with tourism, tourism, and more tourism. Tourism is not just a
major industry for coastal states or a mere staple of their coastal
economies. It is, along with recreation, the fastest growing sector of
the ocean economy according to the President's own U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy's Final Report. The money spent by tourists pay the bills
and put food on the table for the people living in these communities.
Offshore oil and gas drilling directly threatens this economic engine
and the people of these communities know it.
By removing LNG from the moratorium, Mr. Peterson's amendment ignores
the many concerns being raised about all phases of the LNG process--
from exploration all the way to arrival at our ports. These concerns
must be considered with more than a few minutes of discussion.
As for Mr. Istook's amendment, we had an opportunity one month ago
with H.R. 6 to set a strong and visionary national energy policy to
reduce our dependence on imported oil, and yet we did not take
advantage of that opportunity. And so today, his amendment attempts to
make coastal communities pay for that lack of vision.
Madam Chairman, I cannot accept these amendments because they are
short-sighted and fail to uphold decades of bipartisan agreement on
protecting our coastlines from oil and gas drilling. At their core,
they fail to honor our communities and our environment. In conclusion,
Madam Chairman, the Peterson and Istook Amendments should be defeated
and I urge a ``no'' vote on both of them.
Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the appropriations
bill for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. This measure is part of the first wave of appropriations
bills to be considered under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution,
and provides for the resource management needs for our Nation, clearly
a national priority. The bill, which is in compliance with H. Con. Res.
95, the concurrent resolution on the budget, provides appropriations
for most of the Department of the Interior, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, the
Smithsonian Institution, and the National Foundation for the Arts and
Humanities, among others.

interior, environment, and related agencies

For the first time, the House Appropriations subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies marked up a bill with their
new jurisdiction, reflecting additional responsibility for all
discretionary programs under the Environmental Protection Agency and
losing some Energy Department programs previously under their
jurisdiction. H.R. 2361 provides $26.1 billion in appropriations for
fiscal year 2006, which is $653 million, or 2.2 percent, below the
fiscal year 2005 level. The level is $432 million over the President's
request. The bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which
prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays
established in the budget resolution.
This measure, like government spending on the whole, has been drawn
up under a tighter-than-normal budget constraint. However, this does
not mean that needed services are cut in a meaningful way. Two examples
from the bill are useful in illustrating this point, one in
firefighting through the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior, and the other in water programs for the EPA.
Regarding firefighting, I would point out that the base we are using
for comparison, had higher-than-normal spending due to a one-time
appropriation of $500 million to be used as insurance in case regular
fire fighting appropriations become exhausted. Excluding this one-time
appropriation means that the measure before us is $153 million less
than the 2005 level rather that $653 million less than 2005. Moreover,
some of this one-time money is still available, and will remain
available for obligation next fiscal year too for its intended use if
regular funding becomes exhausted.
In the water program area, the committee looked for ways to secure
funding for EPA's Clean Water Program, a program mentioned even during
our own budget resolution proceedings. I understand that GAO found over
$100 million in expired EPA grants, contracts, and inter-agency
agreements, and that the bill rescinds this money in order to fund an
increase in the level of Clean Water Program funding to $850 million
from the President's request of $730 million. While it maybe the case
that the $100 million found in these accounts, some dating back to the
1980s, would never have been actually been spent, the savings
constitute legitimate efforts under the Budget Act. I also note that
because this account carries hundreds of millions of dollars in
unobligated balances from year to year, the impact from budget
reductions relative to the current fiscal year are not likely to result
in reductions in community investments next fiscal year.

[[Page H3608]]

H.R. 2361 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is
exempt from budget limits. The bill reduces a National Park Service
contract authority account by $30 million--an account not subject to
annual appropriations--thereby offsetting discretionary spending
through changes in a mandatory spending program. If this provision were
stricken (because it constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill)
the measure as reported would exceed its allocation under section
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman Lewis and our
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best in maintaining
their admirable pace of bringing bills to the floor.
In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2361.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, today are considering the
Interior Appropriations Bill, which provides Federal funding for our
national parks, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. I agree
with the assessment of our ranking member, Mr. Obey, that this
subcommittee has done good work with a difficult allocation. I would
have preferred more resources devoted to important environmental, land
management, and land conservation programs.
As this bill moves forward, I hope to work with the subcommittee to
provide EPA funding for a much-needed study on air toxics in east
Harris County, which lies in the district I represent. The Houston
Chronicle recently completed a five-part series titled ``In Harm's
Way'' that investigated air toxics in these ``fence-line'' communities
near industrial facilities.
In particular, the series noted that the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality found that folks residing in some of Houston's
East End neighborhoods experience higher levels of potentially
carcinogenic compounds than other areas.
For many years, residents have had concerns and questions about the
quality of the air in Houston's East End, the potential relationship to
local industry, and the potential health effects on families.
While it came to few conclusions about health impacts of air toxics
in Houston, the Chronicle series raised an alarm and confirmed that
there is a pressing need for a comprehensive Air Toxics Risk Assessment
to properly identify any adverse health effects and their possible
relationship to local industry.
With support from the EPA, the City of Houston plans to utilize
methods from the EPA's National Urban Toxics Program, which has proven
successful in other cities with air quality issues.
The City of Houston, partnering with the University of Texas School
of Public Health, is already working to characterize the science and
weigh the evidence on health effects. Federal funding would broaden the
scope of these efforts to ensure that we can include the full range of
risk assessment activities in our efforts to improve the air in
Houston.
The folks in fence-line communities are often the workers who produce
many of the essential energy and petrochemical products we all use
everyday, and they deserve accurate information about their
environment.
I look forward to working with the EPA on this effort and hope that
the Appropriations Committee will see it fit to include this critical
funding during conference negotiations on this legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my disappointment with
the Interior Appropriations bill that we are considering today. I am
concerned with the lack of funding for many important programs, and am
particularly concerned with the Appropriation Committee's decision to
zero out funding for a federal program that is important to my state
and the nation--the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in
assisting local and state government's preserve such vital open spaces
is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). This program was
established in 1965 to address rapid overdevelopment by increasing the
number of high quality recreation areas and facilities and by
increasing the local involvement in land preservation. To achieve this
goal, the fund was separated into two components, one portion of the
fund serves an account from which the federal government draws from to
acquire land and the other portion is distributed to states in a
matching grant program.
New Jersey has been active in seeking grants from this program and
has received funds from the LWCF that were used to preserve treasures
such as the Pinelands National Reserve and the Delaware National Scenic
River. In addition, LCWF has provided more that $111 million in state
and local grants to build softball fields, rehabilitate playgrounds and
to expand state parks.
Unfortunately, in recent years funding for the state side part of
this program has been insufficient. In fact, this program was zeroed
out in the mid-1990s. In 1999, I joined Representative McGovern in
restoring funding for this program. Since then funding for the program
has risen to 91 million in Fiscal Year 2005, I am dismayed that the
Interior Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006 has once again zeroed
out funding for the state grant portion of the program. I am fully
aware that we are working under a tight budget and that many programs
in this bill receive a significant reduction in funding, but I believe
that it is unnecessary and unwise to strip this program of all funding.
Urban and highly developed regions will suffer the most from the
elimination of the LWCF state grant program. The LCWF matching grant
program has proven to be a successful way to overcome the high cost of
living that makes land acquisition and renewal projects costly in these
regions. Elimination of this program will leave local leaders without
the financial capital necessary to enhance the quality of life in their
communities.
Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``The Nation behaves well if it treats
the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next
generation increased, and not impaired, in value.'' Although the
citizens of New Jersey and this nation have demonstrated their
enthusiasm for this program, this bill fails to meet their commitment
to our future.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I have some grave concerns about several
provisions of this bill. Among the most important concerns to
Marylanders is the fact that this bill cuts clean water funding by $241
million from last year's appropriated level--bringing our financial
commitment to clean water down to 1989 funding levels. This money--in
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund--pays for sewage system upgrades
across the country. We in Maryland know how incredibly important this
money is to protect the health of our people.
Fifty million gallons of waste will spew from Baltimore's crumbling
sewers in May. Nitrogen pollution is the most significant environmental
hazard facing the Chesapeake Bay. The so-called ``dead zones'' in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (in which there is too little oxygen
to support a healthy ecosystem) are a direct result of nutrient
pollution, principally nitrogen. In July of 2003, data from the EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program shows one of the largest areas of oxygen-
depleted water seen since the program began monitoring 20 years ago.
The Clean Water Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to
issue permits for all sewage treatment plants that will protect water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, yet the EPA
routinely fails to include restrictions on nitrogen pollution in these
permits. The EPA has not updated the standards on nitrogen pollution in
almost 20 years.
We need to commit more money--not less--to enforce the Clean Water
Act.
No issue united the people of Maryland and our region as well as the
effort to ``Save the Bay.'' Rather than fulfill the obligations of the
federal government to serve these people and protect the Bay, this bill
reduces the federal government's commitment to enforcing the Clean
Water Act.
We have an obligation to ensure that our estuaries nationwide are
there for future generations, and to do that we must restore funding to
enforce the Clean Water Act.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my deep concerns about
the FY06 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill.
This bill epitomizes the Republican plan; hand out lavish tax breaks
to the wealthy while slashing crucial domestic programs.
In this bill, there are painful cuts to a wide range of valuable
programs, from EPA enforcement to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Among them all, the cuts in clean water funding stand out as a prime
example of what's wrong with the Republican budget.
Nothing is more essential to human health than clean water. If we
follow down the path the Republicans are leading us, there will be
water, water everywhere, but not a drop of it to drink.
More than three decades ago, Americans rose up in outrage, appalled
by our filthy rivers and lakes. Congress responded to the clarion call
for clean water with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, which evolved into the modern Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act set the goals of zero discharge of pollutants,
and achieving water that is clean enough to be ``fishable'' and
``swimmable.''
When upstream communities fail to clean up their sewage or prevent
polluted runoff, downstream communities pay the price. Beaches must be
closed to protect swimmers from harmful bacteria and virus. Fish cannot
be eaten, and shellfish cannot be harvested. Water must be treated more
thoroughly before it can become drinking water.
We have made enormous progress since the infamous day the Cuyahoga
River caught fire in 1969. For three decades, the federal government
has been an essential partner, working with the states to pay for clean
water infrastructure.

[[Page H3609]]

The key federal program today is the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, which provides funding for wastewater collection and treatment,
correction of combined sewer overflows, and control of storm water and
non-point source pollution. These funds also create good jobs for
engineers, contractors, skilled laborers, and manufacturers.
But our work is not done. About 45 percent of water bodies in the
U.S. that have been assessed do not meet our water quality standards.
Our wastewater infrastructure is aging, and our population is
growing. The Environmental Protection Agency's estimates funding needs
range between $300 billion and $400 billion over the next 20 years.
This bill turns back the clock on clean water, slashing the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund for the second year in a row. Cuts for this
program total $500 million in this two-year period.
This is the wrong thing to do, and the public agrees. A recent poll
showed Americans want clean water to be a national priority--67 percent
say they prefer spending for clean and safe water over tax cuts.
Madam Chairman, I also wish to state my support for the Stupak
amendment on sewage blending. ``Sewage blending'' is a euphemism
referring to the practice of allowing some sewage to bypass the
secondary treatment phase, the phase in which toxic chemicals, viruses,
parasites, and other pathogens are removed.
The amendment would not block current practices needed to cope with
heavy rains or snowmelt, but it would prevent EPA from expanding the
use of sewage blending.
Furthermore, I intend to support the Andrews-Chabot amendment to stop
wasteful and destructive logging in the Tongass National Forest, and
the Hastings amendment to promote environmental justice. It is
unconscionable that minorities and low-income communities are subjected
to worse water and air pollution than other Americans.
Madam Chairman, clean water is precious and must be treated as such.
For the sake of our children, and our grandchildren, let us take care
of this most basic of needs: clean water.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have no further
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2361

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Management of lands and resources

For necessary expenses for protection, use, improvement,
development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification,
acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and
performance of other functions, including maintenance of
facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands
and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, including the general administration of the
Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands
pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)),
$845,783,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$1,000,000 is for high priority projects, to be carried out
by the Youth Conservation Corps; and of which $3,000,000
shall be available in fiscal year 2006 subject to a match by
at least an equal amount by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation for cost-shared projects supporting conservation
of Bureau lands; and such funds shall be advanced to the
Foundation as a lump sum grant without regard to when
expenses are incurred.
In addition, $32,696,000 is for Mining Law Administration
program operations, including the cost of administering the
mining claim fee program; to remain available until expended,
to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited
to this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to
result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than
$845,783,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until
expended, from communication site rental fees established by
the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site
activities.

wildland fire management

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression
operations, fire science and research, emergency
rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and rural fire
assistance by the Department of the Interior, $761,564,000,
to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$7,849,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of
fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available
for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts
from which funds were previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43
U.S.C. 1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without
cost from funds available from this appropriation: Provided
further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received
by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for
fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq.,
protection of United States property, may be credited to the
appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that
protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation:
Provided further, That using the amounts designated under
this title of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior may
enter into procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative
agreements, for hazardous fuels reduction activities, and for
training and monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels
reduction activities, on Federal land, or on adjacent non-
Federal land for activities that benefit resources on Federal
land: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any
cooperative agreement between the Federal Government and any
non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by
the affected parties: Provided further, That notwithstanding
requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, the
Secretary, for purposes of hazardous fuels reduction
activities, may obtain maximum practicable competition among:
(1) local private, nonprofit, or cooperative entities; (2)
Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships with
State, local, or non-profit youth groups; (3) small or micro-
businesses; or (4) other entities that will hire or train
locally a significant percentage, defined as 50 percent or
more, of the project workforce to complete such contracts:
Provided further, That in implementing this section, the
Secretary shall develop written guidance to field units to
ensure accountability and consistent application of the
authorities provided herein: Provided further, That funds
appropriated under this head may be used to reimburse the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service for the costs of carrying out their
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to consult and conference, as required
by section 7 of such Act, in connection with wildland fire
management activities: Provided further, That the Secretary
of the Interior may use wildland fire appropriations to enter
into non-competitive sole source leases of real property with
local governments, at or below fair market value, to
construct capitalized improvements for fire facilities on
such leased properties, including but not limited to fire
guard stations, retardant stations, and other initial attack
and fire support facilities, and to make advance payments for
any such lease or for construction activity associated with
the lease: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the
transfer of funds appropriated for wildland fire management,
in an aggregate amount not to exceed $9,000,000, between the
Departments when such transfers would facilitate and expedite
jointly funded wildland fire management programs and
projects: Provided further, That funds provided for wildfire
suppression shall be available for support of Federal
emergency response actions.

construction

For construction of buildings, recreation facilities,
roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $11,476,000, to
remain available until expended.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and
318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative
expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests
therein, $3,817,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended.

oregon and california grant lands

For expenses necessary for management, protection, and
development of resources and for construction, operation, and
maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other
improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad
grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and
California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent
rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein,
including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such
grant lands; $110,070,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all
receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested
Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a
charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and
shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in
accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of
title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

[[Page H3610]]

forest ecosystem health and recovery fund

(revolving fund, special account)

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

range improvements

For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands
and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands
pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any
other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received
during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the
Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount
designated for range improvements from grazing fees and
mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands
transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to
law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses.

service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

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

miscellaneous trust funds

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

administrative provisions

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

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

resource management

For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, as authorized by law, and for scientific
and economic studies, maintenance of the herd of long-horned
cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general
administration, and for the performance of other authorized
functions related to such resources by direct expenditure,
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable
agreements with public and private entities, $1,005,225,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2007, except as
otherwise provided herein: Provided, That $2,000,000 is for
high priority projects, which shall be carried out by the
Youth Conservation Corps: Provided further, That not to
exceed $18,130,000 shall be used for implementing subsections
(a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended, for species that are indigenous to the
United States (except for processing petitions, developing
and issuing proposed and final regulations, and taking any
other steps to implement actions described in subsection
(c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)), of which not to
exceed $12,852,000 shall be used for any activity regarding
the designation of critical habitat, pursuant to subsection
(a)(3), excluding litigation support, for species listed
pursuant to subsection (a)(1) prior to October 1, 2005:
Provided further, That of the amount available for law
enforcement, up to $400,000, to remain available until
expended, may, at the discretion of the Secretary, be used
for payment for information, rewards, or evidence concerning
violations of laws administered by the Service, and
miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement activity,
authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be accounted
for solely on her certificate: Provided further, That of the
amount provided for environmental contaminants, up to
$1,000,000 may remain available until expended for
contaminant sample analyses.

construction

For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of
buildings and other facilities required in the conservation,
management, investigation, protection, and utilization of
fishery and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands
and interests therein; $41,206,000, to remain available until
expended.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, $14,937,000 to be derived
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain
available until expended: Provided, That land and non-water
interests acquired from willing sellers incidental to water
rights acquired for the transfer and use at Lower Klamath and
Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges under this heading shall
be resold and the revenues therefrom shall be credited to
this account and shall be available without further
appropriation for the acquisition of water rights, including
acquisition of interests in lands incidental to such water
rights, for the two refuges: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated for specific land acquisition projects
can be used to pay for any administrative overhead, planning
or other management costs.

landowner incentive program

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
private conservation efforts to be carried out on private
lands, $23,700,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount provided herein is for a Landowner
Incentive Program established by the Secretary that provides
matching, competitively awarded grants to States, the
District of Columbia, federally recognized Indian tribes,
Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, to establish or
supplement existing landowner incentive programs that provide
technical and financial assistance, including habitat
protection and restoration, to private landowners for the
protection and management of habitat to benefit federally
listed, proposed, candidate, or other at-risk species on
private lands.

private stewardship grants

cooperative endangered species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as
amended, $84,400,000, of which $20,161,000 is to be derived
from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund and
$64,239,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended.

national wildlife refuge fund

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17,
1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $14,414,000.

north american wetlands conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233,
as amended, $40,000,000 to remain available until expended.

[[Page H3611]]

neotropical migratory bird conservation

For financial assistance for projects to promote the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds in accordance
with the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Public
Law 106-247 (16 U.S.C. 6101-6109), $4,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

multinational species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225,
4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of
1997 (Public Law 105-96; 16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), the Rhinoceros
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), the
Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6301), and, the
Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-266;
16 U.S.C. 6601), $5,900,000, to remain available until
expended.

state and tribal wildlife grants

For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States
Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa,
and federally recognized Indian tribes under the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and
implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and
their habitat, including species that are not hunted or
fished, $65,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the amount provided herein, $6,000,000 is
for a competitive grant program for Indian tribes not subject
to the remaining provisions of this appropriation: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall, after deducting said
$6,000,000 and administrative expenses, apportion the amount
provided herein in the following manner: (1) to the District
of Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each a
sum equal to not more than one-half of 1 percent thereof; and
(2) to Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin
Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, each a sum equal to not more than one-fourth of 1
percent thereof: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
apportion the remaining amount in the following manner: (1)
one-third of which is based on the ratio to which the land
area of such State bears to the total land area of all such
States; and (2) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to
which the population of such State bears to the total
population of all such States: Provided further, That the
amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be adjusted
equitably so that no State shall be apportioned a sum which
is less than 1 percent of the amount available for
apportionment under this paragraph for any fiscal year or
more than 5 percent of such amount: Provided further, That
the Federal share of planning grants shall not exceed 75
percent of the total costs of such projects and the Federal
share of implementation grants shall not exceed 50 percent of
the total costs of such projects: Provided further, That the
non-Federal share of such projects may not be derived from
Federal grant programs: Provided further, That no State,
territory, or other jurisdiction shall receive a grant unless
it has developed, by October 1, 2005, a comprehensive
wildlife conservation plan, consistent with criteria
established by the Secretary of the Interior, that considers
the broad range of the State, territory, or other
jurisdiction's wildlife and associated habitats, with
appropriate priority placed on those species with the
greatest conservation need and taking into consideration the
relative level of funding available for the conservation of
those species: Provided further, That no State, territory, or
other jurisdiction shall receive a grant if its comprehensive
wildlife conservation plan is disapproved and such funds that
would have been distributed to such State, territory, or
other jurisdiction shall be distributed equitably to States,
territories, and other jurisdictions with approved plans:
Provided further, That any amount apportioned in 2006 to any
State, territory, or other jurisdiction that remains
unobligated as of September 30, 2007, shall be reapportioned,
together with funds appropriated in 2008, in the manner
provided herein: Provided further, That balances from amounts
previously appropriated under the heading ``State Wildlife
Grants'' shall be transferred to and merged with this
appropriation and shall remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

Appropriations and funds available to the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of
passenger motor vehicles; repair of damage to public roads
within and adjacent to reservation areas caused by operations
of the Service; options for the purchase of land at not to
exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident to such public
recreational uses on conservation areas as are consistent
with their primary purpose; and the maintenance and
improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities under
the jurisdiction of the Service and to which the United
States has title, and which are used pursuant to law in
connection with management, and investigation of fish and
wildlife resources: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C.
501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and
partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure printing
services from cooperators in connection with jointly produced
publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the
Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting
accepted quality standards: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Service may
use up to $2,000,000 from funds provided for contracts for
employment-related legal services: Provided further, That the
Service may accept donated aircraft as replacements for
existing aircraft: Provided further, That, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may
not spend any of the funds appropriated in this Act for the
purchase of lands or interests in lands to be used in the
establishment of any new unit of the National Wildlife Refuge
System unless the purchase is approved in advance by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance
with the reprogramming procedures contained in House Report
108-330.

National Park Service

operation of the national park system

For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and
maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the
National Park Service (including special road maintenance
service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and
for the general administration of the National Park Service,
$1,754,199,000, of which $30,000,000 is provided above the
budget request to be distributed to all park areas on a pro-
rate basis and to remain in the park base; of which
$9,892,000 is for planning and interagency coordination in
support of Everglades restoration and shall remain available
until expended; of which $97,600,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2007, is for maintenance, repair or
rehabilitation projects for constructed assets, operation of
the National Park Service automated facility management
software system, and comprehensive facility condition
assessments; of which $1,937,000 is for the Youth
Conservation Corps for high priority projects: Provided, That
the only funds in this account which may be made available to
support United States Park Police are those funds approved
for emergency law and order incidents pursuant to established
National Park Service procedures, those funds needed to
maintain and repair United States Park Police administrative
facilities, and those funds necessary to reimburse the United
States Park Police account for the unbudgeted overtime and
travel costs associated with special events for an amount not
to exceed $10,000 per event subject to the review and
concurrence of the Washington headquarters office.

united states park police

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs of the
United States Park Police, $82,411,000.

national recreation and preservation

For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs,
natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership
programs, environmental compliance and review, international
park affairs, and grant administration, not otherwise
provided for, $48,997,000: Provided, That none of the funds
in this Act for the River, Trails and Conservation Assistance
program may be used for cash agreements, or for cooperative
agreements that are inconsistent with the program's final
strategic plan.

historic preservation fund

For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-333), $72,705,000, to be derived from the Historic
Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30,
2007, of which $30,000,000 shall be for Save America's
Treasures for preservation of nationally significant sites,
structures, and artifacts: Provided, That any individual Save
America's Treasures grant shall be matched by non-Federal
funds: Provided further, That individual projects shall only
be eligible for one grant: Provided further, That all
projects to be funded shall be approved by the Secretary of
the Interior in consultation with the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and the President's Committee on
the Arts and Humanities prior to the commitment of Save
America's Treasures grant funds: Provided further, That Save
America's Treasures funds allocated for Federal projects,
following approval, shall be available by transfer to
appropriate accounts of individual agencies: Provided
further, That hereinafter and notwithstanding 20 U.S.C. 951
et seq. the National Endowment for the Arts may award Save
America's Treasures grants based upon the recommendations of
the Save America's Treasures grant selection panel convened
by the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities
and the National Park Service.

construction

For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of
physical facilities, including the modifications authorized
by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act of 1989, $308,230,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $17,000,000 for modified water
deliveries to Everglades National Park shall be derived by
transfer from unobligated balances in the ``Land Acquisition
and State Assistance'' account for Everglades National Park
land acquisitions: Provided, That none of the funds available
to the National Park Service may be used to plan, design, or
construct any

[[Page H3612]]

partnership project with a total value in excess of
$5,000,000, without advance approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National Park
Service may not accept donations or services associated with
the planning, design, or construction of such new facilities
without advance approval of the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds provided
under this heading for implementation of modified water
deliveries to Everglades National Park shall be expended
consistent with the requirements of the fifth proviso under
this heading in Public Law 108-108: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided in this or any other Act may be
used for planning, design, or construction of any underground
security screening or visitor contact facility at the
Washington Monument until such facility has been approved in
writing by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

land and water conservation fund

(rescission)

The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2006 by 16
U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.

land acquisition and state assistance

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with the statutory authority applicable to the
National Park Service, $9,421,000, to be derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain available
until expended, of which $1,587,000 is for the administration
of the State assistance program.

administrative provisions

Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be
available for the purchase of not to exceed 245 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 199 shall be for replacement only,
including not to exceed 193 for police-type use, 10 buses,
and 8 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to
process any grant or contract documents which do not include
the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be
used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the
southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been
submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior
to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day
in which either House of Congress is not in session because
of adjournment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certain)
from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and
comprehensive report on the development of the southern end
of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied
upon in support of the proposed project: Provided further,
That in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, appropriations
available to the National Park Service may be used to
maintain the following areas in Washington, District of
Columbia: Jackson Place, Madison Place, and Pennsylvania
Avenue between 15th and 17th Streets, Northwest.
None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National
Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the
United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
The National Park Service may distribute to operating units
based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs
designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to
encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits
pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
return to appropriate positions for which they are medically
able.
If the Secretary of the Interior considers the decision of
any value determination proceeding conducted under a National
Park Service concession contract issued prior to November 13,
1998, to misinterpret or misapply relevant contractual
requirements or their underlying legal authority, the
Secretary may seek, within 180 days of any such decision, the
de novo review of the value determination by the United
States Court of Federal Claims, and that court may make an
order affirming, vacating, modifying or correcting the
determination.
In addition to other uses set forth in section 407(d) of
Public Law 105-391, franchise fees credited to a sub-account
shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary, without
further appropriation, for use at any unit within the
National Park System to extinguish or reduce liability for
Possessory Interest or leasehold surrender interest. Such
funds may only be used for this purpose to the extent that
the benefiting unit anticipated franchise fee receipts over
the term of the contract at that unit exceed the amount of
funds used to extinguish or reduce liability. Franchise fees
at the benefiting unit shall be credited to the sub-account
of the originating unit over a period not to exceed the term
of a single contract at the benefiting unit, in the amount of
funds so expended to extinguish or reduce liability.

United States Geological Survey

surveys, investigations, and research

For expenses necessary for the United States Geological
Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research
covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the
mineral and water resources of the United States, its
territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by
43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their
mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to
power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30
U.S.C. 641); publish and disseminate data relative to the
foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the
economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing
industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and
related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and
disseminate data; $974,586,000, of which $63,770,000 shall be
available only for cooperation with States or municipalities
for water resources investigations; of which $8,000,000 shall
remain available until expended for satellite operations; of
which $23,320,000 shall be available until September 30,
2007, for the operation and maintenance of facilities and
deferred maintenance; of which $1,600,000 shall be available
until expended for deferred maintenance and capital
improvement projects that exceed $100,000 in cost; and of
which $174,765,000 shall be available until September 30,
2007, for the biological research activity and the operation
of the Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of the
funds provided for the biological research activity shall be
used to conduct new surveys on private property, unless
specifically authorized in writing by the property owner:
Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be
used to pay more than one-half the cost of topographic
mapping or water resources data collection and investigations
carried on in cooperation with States and municipalities.

administrative provisions

The amount appropriated for the United States Geological
Survey shall be available for the purchase and replacement of
passenger motor vehicles; reimbursement to the General
Services Administration for security guard services;
contracting for the furnishing of topographic maps and for
the making of geophysical or other specialized surveys when
it is administratively determined that such procedures are in
the public interest; construction and maintenance of
necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities; acquisition
of lands for gauging stations and observation wells; expenses
of the United States National Committee on Geology; and
payment of compensation and expenses of persons on the rolls
of the Survey duly appointed to represent the United States
in the negotiation and administration of interstate compacts:
Provided, That activities funded by appropriations herein
made may be accomplished through the use of contracts,
grants, or cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C.
6302 et seq.: Provided further, That the United States
Geological Survey may enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements directly with individuals or indirectly with
institutions or nonprofit organizations, without regard to 41
U.S.C. 5, for the temporary or intermittent services of
students or recent graduates, who shall be considered
employees for the purpose of chapters 57 and 81 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to compensation for travel and
work injuries, and chapter 171 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to tort claims, but shall not be considered to
be Federal employees for any other purposes.

Minerals Management Service

royalty and offshore minerals management

For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and
environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and
collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing
laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other
minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts;
and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including
the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles
for replacement only, $152,676,000, of which $77,529,000
shall be available for royalty management activities; and an
amount not to exceed $122,730,000, to be credited to this
appropriation and to remain available until expended, from
additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in
effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee
collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative
activities performed by the Minerals Management Service (MMS)
over and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and
from additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf
administrative activities established after September 30,
1993: Provided, That to the extent $122,730,000 in additions
to receipts are not realized from the sources of receipts
stated above, the amount needed to reach $122,730,000 shall
be credited to this appropriation from receipts resulting
from rental rates for Outer Continental Shelf leases in
effect before August 5, 1993: Provided further, That
$3,000,000 for computer acquisitions shall remain available
until September 30, 2007: Provided further, That not to
exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses
related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup
activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be
available for refunds of overpayments in connection with
certain Indian leases in which the Director of MMS concurred
with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts owed to Indian
allottees or tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable
erroneous payments: Provided further, That in fiscal year
2006 and thereafter, the MMS may under the royalty-in-kind
program, or under its authority to transfer oil to the
Strategic

[[Page H3613]]

Petroleum Reserve, use a portion of the revenues from
royalty-in-kind sales, without regard to fiscal year
limitation, to pay for transportation to wholesale market
centers or upstream pooling points, to process or otherwise
dispose of royalty production taken in kind, and to recover
MMS transportation costs, salaries, and other administrative
costs directly related to the royalty-in-kind program:
Provided further, That MMS shall analyze and document the
expected return in advance of any royalty-in-kind sales to
assure to the maximum extent practicable that royalty income
under the program is equal to or greater than royalty income
recognized under a comparable royalty-in-value program.

oil spill research

For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016,
title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII,
section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $7,006,000,
which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, to remain available until expended.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

regulation and technology

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public
Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to
exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only;
$110,435,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior,
pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants
to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2006 for civil
penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to
reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices
after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for
the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal
personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement sponsored training.

abandoned mine reclamation fund

For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87,
as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $188,014,000,
to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to
$10,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of
the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the
reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage
from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants
to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in
fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That pursuant to Public
Law 97-365, the Department of the Interior is authorized to
use up to 20 percent from the recovery of the delinquent debt
owed to the United States Government to pay for contracts to
collect these debts: Provided further, That funds made
available under title IV of Public Law 95-87 may be used for
any required non-Federal share of the cost of projects funded
by the Federal Government for the purpose of environmental
restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid mine
drainage from abandoned mines: Provided further, That such
projects must be consistent with the purposes and priorities
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided
further, That amounts allocated under section 402(g)(2) of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1232(g)(2)) as of September 30, 2005, but not
appropriated as of that date, are reallocated to the
allocation established in section 402(g)(3) of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.
1232(g)(3)): Provided further, That amounts provided under
this heading may be used for the travel and per diem expenses
of State and tribal personnel attending Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement sponsored training.

administrative provisions

With funds available for the Technical Innovation and
Professional Services program in this Act, the Secretary may
transfer title for computer hardware, software and other
technical equipment to State and Tribal regulatory and
reclamation programs.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

operation of indian programs

For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian
programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of
November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978
(25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended,
$1,992,737,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007
except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed
$86,462,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not
limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as
amended, not to exceed $134,609,000 shall be available for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract
support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the
Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2006, as authorized by
such Act, of which $129,609,000 shall be available for
indirect contract support costs and $5,000,000 shall be
available for direct contract support costs, except that
tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority
allocations for unmet contract support costs of ongoing
contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding agreements
and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and of which not to
exceed $478,085,000 for school operations costs of Bureau-
funded schools and other education programs shall become
available on July 1, 2006, and shall remain available until
September 30, 2007; and of which not to exceed $61,267,000
shall remain available until expended for housing
improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation
support, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, land records
improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination
Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed
$44,718,000 within and only from such amounts made available
for school operations shall be available to tribes and tribal
organizations for administrative cost grants associated with
ongoing grants entered into with the Bureau prior to or
during fiscal year 2005 for the operation of Bureau-funded
schools, and up to $500,000 within and only from such amounts
made available for school operations shall be available for
the transitional costs of initial administrative cost grants
to tribes and tribal organizations that enter into grants for
the operation on or after July 1, 2005, of Bureau-operated
schools: Provided further, That any forestry funds allocated
to a tribe which remain unobligated as of September 30, 2007,
may be transferred during fiscal year 2008 to an Indian
forest land assistance account established for the benefit of
such tribe within the tribe's trust fund account: Provided
further, That any such unobligated balances not so
transferred shall expire on September 30, 2008.

construction

For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of
irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other
facilities, including architectural and engineering services
by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands;
and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of
the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law
87-483, $284,137,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the
construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be
transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further,
That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway
Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management
costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds
provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2006, in implementing
new construction or facilities improvement and repair project
grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally
controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as
amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the
Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for
Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the
regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants
shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the
Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a
schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided
further, That in considering applications, the Secretary
shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal
organization would be deficient in assuring that the
construction projects conform to applicable building
standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and
safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(b), with
respect to organizational and financial management
capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary
declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the
requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2504(f): Provided
further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any
grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes
provision in 25 U.S.C. 2507(e): Provided further, That in
order to ensure timely completion of replacement school
construction projects, the Secretary may assume control of a
project and all funds related to the project, if, within
eighteen months of the date of enactment of this Act, any
tribe or tribal organization receiving funds appropriated in
this Act or in any prior Act, has not completed the planning
and design phase of the project and commenced construction of
the replacement school: Provided further, That this
Appropriation may be reimbursed from the Office of the
Special Trustee for American Indians Appropriation for the
appropriate share of construction costs for space expansion
needed in agency offices to meet trust reform implementation.

indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
indians

For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals
and for necessary administrative expenses, $34,754,000, to
remain available until expended, for implementation of Indian
land and water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 99-
264, 100-580, 101-618, 106-554, 107-331, and 108-34, and for
implementation of other land and water rights settlements, of
which $10,000,000 shall be

[[Page H3614]]

available for payment to the Quinault Indian Nation pursuant
to the terms of the North Boundary Settlement Agreement dated
July 14, 2000, providing for the acquisition of perpetual
conservation easements from the Nation.

indian guaranteed loan program account

For the cost of guaranteed and insured loans, $6,348,000,
of which $701,000 is for administrative expenses, as
authorized by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal,
any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed
$118,884,000.

administrative provisions

The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of
Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative
agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in
cooperation with States and other organizations.
Notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 15, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
may contract for services in support of the management,
operation, and maintenance of the Power Division of the San
Carlos Irrigation Project.
Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the
revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and
insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and
purchase and replacement of passenger motor vehicles.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office
operations or pooled overhead general administration (except
facilities operations and maintenance) shall be available for
tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the
Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal Self-Governance
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
In the event any tribe returns appropriations made
available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish
the Federal Government's trust responsibility to that tribe,
or the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to
access future appropriations.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided
herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452
et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any
elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for
schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the
schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996.
No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support
expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade
structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the
Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of
October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not
be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded
school (as that term is defined in section 1146 of the
Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a
charter school that is in existence on the date of the
enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to
operate during that period, but only if the charter school
pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reimburse the
Bureau for the use of the real and personal property
(including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school
are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau
does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of
the State in which the school is located if the charter
school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools
sharing a campus with a charter school and performing
functions related to the charter school's operation and
employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal
employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United
States Code.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including
section 113 of title I of appendix C of Public Law 106-113,
if a tribe or tribal organization in fiscal year 2003 or 2004
received indirect and administrative costs pursuant to a
distribution formula based on section 5(f) of Public Law 101-
301, the Secretary shall continue to distribute indirect and
administrative cost funds to such tribe or tribal
organization using the section 5(f) distribution formula.

Departmental Offices

Insular Affairs

assistance to territories

For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior,
$76,563,000, of which: (1) $69,182,000 shall be available
until expended for technical assistance, including
maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular
management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and
brown tree snake control and research; grants to the
judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as
authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the
Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local
revenues, for construction and support of governmental
functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as
authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as
authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the
Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $7,381,000 shall be available for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs:
Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial
and local governments herein provided for, including such
transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established
or used by such governments, may be audited by the Government
Accountability Office, at its discretion, in accordance with
chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further,
That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be
provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the
Special Representatives on Future United States Financial
Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by
Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for technical assistance, sufficient funds shall be
made available for a grant to the Pacific Basin Development
Council: Provided further, That of the amounts provided for
technical assistance, sufficient funding shall be made
available for a grant to the Close Up Foundation: Provided
further, That the funds for the program of operations and
maintenance improvement are appropriated to institutionalize
routine operations and maintenance improvement of capital
infrastructure with territorial participation and cost
sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on the
grantee's commitment to timely maintenance of its capital
assets: Provided further, That any appropriation for disaster
assistance under this heading in this Act or previous
appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal matching funds
for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants provided pursuant
to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).

compact of free association

For grants and necessary expenses, $5,362,000, to remain
available until expended, as provided for in sections
221(a)(2), 221(b), and 233 of the Compact of Free Association
for the Republic of Palau; and section 221(a)(2) of the
Compacts of Free Association for the Government of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Government of the
United States and the Federated States of Micronesia, as
authorized by Public Law 99-658 and Public Law 108-188.

Departmental Management

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for management of the Department of
the Interior, $118,755,000; of which $23,555,000 shall remain
available until expended for a departmental financial and
business management system; of which not to exceed $8,500 may
be for official reception and representation expenses; and of
which up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers
compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments
associated with the orderly closure of the United States
Bureau of Mines: Provided, That none of the funds in this or
previous appropriations Acts may be used to establish any
additional reserves in the Working Capital Fund account other
than the two authorized reserves without prior approval of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Amendments Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I offer several amendments, and I ask
unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendments offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Beginning on page 44, line 25, strike ``; of which
$23,555,000 shall remain available until expended for a
departmental financial and business management system;'' and
insert ``(reduced by $8,000,000);''.
Page 75, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $7,000,000)'' after
the dollar amount.
Page 106, line 9, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 106, line 13, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 106, line 25, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.

{time} 1300

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited
to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and myself, the opponent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter) for 10 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will redress a
grievous act that was perpetrated, without our knowledge, on a majority
of this great body.
Last year, with a resounding vote of 241 Members, the House voted an
increase for our Federal arts agency that

[[Page H3615]]

we knew would pay us back many times over, both in hard dollars and in
ways that are simply incalculable for the people we represent.
The actual amounts were small, an increase of $10 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts and $3.5 million for the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
But the loss was great. After conferees met for the omnibus funding
bill, NEA, incredibly, received just several hundred thousand dollars,
and NEH received less than $3 million.
Not only was the will of this great body thwarted, but also the
creative activities of our artistic constituents in every congressional
district in this country were stifled.
Grants were not made and those grants were not matched. Works were
not created. Performances did not happen. Audiences did not gather.
Minds were not enlightened, souls were not fed; and the small
businesses that depend on the nonprofit arts community did not profit.
Finally, the funds that should have been returned to the Federal
Treasury in the form of tax receipts, many times over the original
amounts, never arrived. It was a lose-lose situation for everyone
involved: the artists, the audiences, our communities, and our small
businesses, as well as our local, State, and Federal treasuries.
By all rights, I should be standing here asking my colleagues not
just to restore the moneys that we voted for last year, but to double
them. If our Federal deficit were not so huge and our budgets so tight,
believe me, I would be doing just that.
Instead, I ask you simply to put these Federal art agencies back in
business where we funded them last year, with an increase of $10
million for NEA and $5 million for NEH.
The President's own budget request for NEA was telling. In it, even
as he suggested level funding for the agency, he asked that American
Masterpieces, a majestic program that emphasizes the best of American
art, should be increased by $6.5 million.
President Bush was rightfully enthusiastic about that program. It is
an increase that I personally applaud. But unless we provide an overall
increase for NEA, the money is slated to come from Challenge America, a
highly popular program that supported artists in more than 99 percent
of our congressional districts last year.
That is not a good idea. Challenge America grants go to the towns and
hamlets of this sprawling country, where big touring companies will
rarely go, and major actors, actresses, writers and artists may never
appear in person. For example, last year Challenge American grants went
to Aliceville, Alabama and to Bainbridge Island, Washington; to Red
Wing, Minnesota and Lucas, Kansas. They energized audiences in
Texarkana, Texas and Locust Grove, Arkansas, and spellbound art-hungry
folks in Albany, Georgia and Billings, Montana.
We can and should do both: increase American Masterpieces as the
President wishes, and continue to challenge the artists and their
audiences in our congressional districts by funding Challenge America.
Madam Chairman, $10 million will ensure that the program will prosper
and grow, with Chairman Gioia using up to 10 percent of the money to
ensure effective administration of this fine program. And $5 million
will enhance NEH's We the People, which promotes the teaching and
understanding of American history.
But let me remind my colleagues, even with these increases, we are
far from providing the agencies with the funds they received in the
mid-1990s. As you see from the first chart, NEA is currently funded at
$121 million, but received $176 million in 1992. And NEH is funded at
$138 million, while it received $175.5 million in 1994.
Why is it so important to rebuild the funding for these agencies?
Well, every year I stand here and remind you what an economic
powerhouse the nonprofit arts industry has become in American. As this
second chart proves, it produces over $134 billion annually. I do not
know of any other investment we make that does that. Please note it
returns $10.5 billion to the Federal Treasury.
In these difficult financial times for so many of our districts, as
our local leaders strive to balance their budgets by cutting services,
we would be irresponsible not to invest in the arts. While other
industries have suffered, the nonprofit arts world continues to build
in strength while it encourages the growth of innumerable small
businesses on its periphery, thereby creating more jobs.
This third chart may surprise Members. It demonstrates the financial
muscle of the arts industry, which has produced far more jobs than all
of America's farmers, programmers, doctors, lawyers, or accountants.
This is an amazing chart.
In fact, while the national economy has grown at a rate of 3.8
percent, the arts have far out-distanced that number by expanding at a
rate of 5.5 percent.
And all of that said, I also stand before you at this time, every
year, to remind us all of the stunning gifts American artists make to
our daily lives. Their creative force not only helps our children learn
but also makes them smarter. It brightens the life of each one of us,
bringing us joy and comfort, enlightenment and understanding, in ways
impossible to find otherwise.
The arts and artists of America are our national treasure, which this
great Nation needs, deserves, and must support as other nations do.
For these reasons, I urge Members to vote for the Slaughter/Shays/
Dicks/Leach/Price amendment, and thank my colleagues who have joined me
today.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman is obviously speaking seriously about
the arts and humanities. Certainly we support both and have done so
generously in this bill. The American public supports arts now by over
$9 billion. The government's support is a very minimal part of that $9
billion. In fact, this increase would be an even smaller part of that
$9 billion, and so it would be hardly noticeable inside the total
support of the arts.
What we are having to sacrifice, though, is to reduce funding for the
administration of the Department of the Interior by $8 million and
administration of the Forest Service by $7 million. This will cost some
200 staff positions in the Department of the Interior and Forest
Service. They are responsible for 634 acres in the United States. This
is a primary obligation we have. It is not supported by $9 billion of
public support. It is primarily supported with the funding that this
Committee has the duty to appropriate.
That is why we are trying to do our primary job by maintaining the
levels that we did and to find a balance to show our support for the
arts and do the mandated portion that we must do for the Department of
the Interior and the Forest Service.
Members can count on us to continue to support the arts, to watch the
oversight of our Committees, and this bill strikes a fair balance
between the needs of the arts and our responsibility to land management
and Indian programs. I ask Members to join me in opposition to this
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise to urge support for the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and myself to
increase the funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and
Humanities. The amendment would provide an additional $15 million for
the endowments--$10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts,
and $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The
increase would be offset by reductions in various accounts.
My colleagues may recall that a similar amendment passed the House
last year during consideration of the 2005 Department of the Interior
bill by a vote of 241 to 185. The amendment provided an additional $10
million for the NEA and $3.5 million for the NEH.
Once again the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I are
asking for support for this amendment, and perhaps we can obtain a
greater margin than last year.
I have sensed over the last few years that the battle over this
amendment has cooled and we can move on knowing that a healthy majority
in the

[[Page H3616]]

House agrees that these two important programs deserve our strong
financial support.
This debate presents a good opportunity to make sure our new
colleagues understand the importance of this modest Federal support and
how it has such a tremendous impact on every one of our congressional
districts. Each of the NEA and NEH grants is modest in size, but it is
vitally important to the communities they reach. The Federal money
serves as a catalyst to draw in private contributions. In fact, we now
know that higher levels of Federal money will leverage even greater
private support.
Unfortunately, since 1996, the endowments have been underfunded. The
endowments are still being funded below their level of 10 years ago. In
1996, Congress reduced the NEA by 39 percent and NEH by 36 percent. Our
amendment does not restore those funding levels of a decade ago, but it
does provide an opportunity for the Members of the House to show their
strong support for the endowments by approving this modest amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of
the Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/Leach/Price amendment for increased funding
for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National
Endowment for the Arts.
As co-chair of the newly established Congressional Humanities Caucus,
I am pleased to support this amendment which will in particular
increase funding for NEH's We the People program by $5 million.
We the People is an agency-wide program focused on examining and
understanding significant events and themes in our Nation's history. An
additional $5 million will enable We the People to support teacher
seminars and institutes with new content focusing on American history
and civics, media projects focusing on key people and events in
American history, and preservation projects that preserve and provide
access to important historical documents and artifacts that are central
to America's historical and cultural heritage.
We ought to do more, but this modest funding increase will help. It
will aid NEH's efforts to conserve and nurture America's heritage,
bring humanities to communities across this country, and educate the
next generation of Americans. I encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Shays/
Dicks/Leach/Price amendment.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter-
Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price Amendment to provide much needed funds for the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
This is a long overdue and a modest funding increase to build
programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural
life to enhance communities in every State and every county around
America. The additional funds provided through this amendment would
keep intact the very successful Challenge America program, which brings
the arts to rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods whose
limited resources don't always allow for community arts programs.
In 2004, the Challenge America program provided grants to towns and
cities in 99% of congressional districts for jazz and blues festivals,
showcases for regional musicians and artists, and public-private
partnerships that bring the arts into local schools. Dozens of studies
have demonstrated the significant positive effect of arts education on
students' academic performance, self esteem, and behavior, and the
Challenge America grants are an excellent mechanism to bring the arts
to students who can greatly benefit from that exposure.
Similarly, the NEH serves to advance the Nation's scholarly and
cultural life. The additional funding contained in this amendment would
enable NEH to improve the quality of humanities education to America's
school children and college students, offer lifelong learning
opportunities through a range of public programs, and support new
projects that encourage Americans to discover their storied and
inspiring national heritage.
It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities is
among the best investments that we, as a society, can make. They help
our children learn. They give the elderly sustenance. They power
economic development in regions that are down and out. They tie our
diverse society and country together.
Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding
help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country
more worth defending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/Leach/Price amendment.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/
Leach amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts, NEA, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH.
The arts are crucial for the flourishing and development of
societies. As our economy continues to grow it is important that the
arts remain a priority in our communities. As former President Kennedy
stated, ``I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over
our cities, we, too, will be remembered not for our victories or
defeats in battles or in politics, but for our contribution to the
human spirit.''
Though some would consider our economy hard pressed for such funding
as this, I implore my colleagues to consider the profound influence of
arts-centric businesses.
While some of the country's concerns only affect a minority of
people, the involvement in the arts spans all walks of life. Indeed, it
weaves together all communities and crosses racial, gender, and
religious boundaries.
In my district, the arts create a sense of nationalism for the State
and the rest of the country. For, what would Chicago be without the
architecture of the Sears Tower, the flourishing talent in Second City,
or the abundant museums? Indeed, the beating pulse of America lives and
thrives through the arts.
Not only do the arts enrich societies, but the arts is also an
industry. In my district there are 2,989 art related businesses and
44,709 people that make their daily living working in the arts. It is
obvious that support of arts, also is support of the economy. Arts-
Centric businesses supply 578,000 businesses in the United States and
employ 2.97 million people. Even more, it is a growing institution,
exceeding the total United States business growth rate by 1.7 percent.
Not only do the arts help sustain the economy by supplying jobs and
generating revenue, it helps to fuel future creative industries and
workers.
These future creative workers come in the form of our children. The
arts help in a child's brain development and their creative skills. A
country without a full expression of the arts would truly create a void
in a child's development. They too deserve the right to blossom and
flourish their imagination from the various artistic resources.
We cannot disregard the contributions and growing trends of the arts.
The arts and humanities support our culture, it supports our economy,
and most importantly it supports our future. In my district there is a
wealth of diversity. This diversity is preserved through the arts. The
arts promote respect for diversity, and appreciation of other cultures.
It seems to me, that these elements are necessary for building stable
healthy communities.
Madam Chairman, if we minimize these possibilities in the arts, we
will be limiting the liberty of our imagination. I request my
colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I also would stand in
support of the Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/Leach/Price amendment.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter
Shays-Dicks-Price-Leach Amendment to increase funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts and for the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
In my district in New Mexico, arts and humanities are a significant
part of daily life--the

[[Page H3617]]

name ``Sante Fe'' conjures up images of Georgia O'Keefe's beautiful
flowers and Ansel Adams' breathtaking photographs. But arts and
humanities programs are also a major employer. New Mexico's third
congressional district has over 1,700 arts-related businesses that
employ over 5,300 people. This includes the famed Santa Fe Opera, the
budding film industry, numerous respected museums, hundreds of art
galleries, mariachi bands, arts schools, and more.
Many of these artists make use of grants through the NEA and NEH.
Unfortunately, NEA and NEH programs remain seriously underfunded due to
past budget cuts. This modest amendment seeks to increase funding for
the National Endowment for the Humanities' ``We the People,''
initiative by $5 million, and the National Endowment for the Arts'
``Challenge America'' program by $10 million. In congressional terms,
these amounts are a blip on the budget screen. But in terms of what
they mean to these programs and the constituents who benefit from them,
such increases are incredibly helpful, and can mean the survival of
numerous arts and humanities programs around the country.
I often hear from New Mexicans who attest to the effectiveness of the
We the People initiative in strengthening youth understanding and
appreciation of American history and culture. We the People helps all
of us become more aware of our past, our values, and our institutions.
I believe this effort is crucial for the progress of our country.
In addition to economic benefits of the arts, recent studies have
shown the significant impact that arts education can have on at-risk
youth. The YouthARTS Development Project recently conducted a study
showing that students who are exposed to arts education show an
increased ability to express emotions appropriately, communicate
effectively with adults and peers, and to work cooperatively with
others. They also show decreased frequency of delinquent behavior,
improvement in attitudes toward school, higher self-esteem, and much
lower dropout rates. These programs are working, and we must make sure
we continue to fund them.
I thank my colleagues for offering this amendment and I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Shays/
Dicks/Leach/Price amendment.

{time} 1315

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
to increase funding for the NEA and the NEH. Without this amendment,
the continued flat funding the President requested this year will
really amount to another cut. I wish we could return to the days of the
first President Bush when the arts were funded at $175 million. The
amount we are asking for today amounts to little more than a comma in
the budget, a rounding error when compared to Federal spending in other
areas such as defense.
Whether it is the educational value, the cultural enrichment, or the
substantial economic windfall the arts and humanities create, the NEA
and the NEH are two of the best investments this Nation makes. When we
shortchange the NEA, we ignore the $134 billion in business that the
arts generate, the 4.8 million jobs, the $89.4 billion in household
income, and the $25 billion in tax revenues. A recent RAND study noted
the importance of the intrinsic benefit of the arts for individuals and
communities.
This modest amount asks only to restore the funding level the House
supported last year, but that was stripped during conference. It is the
very least we should do today. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and to vote against any attempts to slash funding from the
arts and humanities that may be offered in other amendments.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support
of this amendment. Certainly if we do not do a better job of educating
our children in the arts, we will be a Nation of poor spirit and little
understanding. It is really through the arts that we understand how
destructive is greed.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I
commend Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Shays for all of their
hard work supporting the arts and humanities through the Congressional
Arts Caucus.
Mr. Chairman, this a very modest amendment. Indeed, I would support
significantly greater increases for both the National, Endowment for
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The reason is
quite simple--these agencies are good for the Third District of
Massachusetts and for every community across the country.
Nationwide, nonprofit arts industries generate $134 billion annually
in economic activity, support 4.85 million fulltime equivalent jobs,
and return $10.5 billion to the Federal Government in taxes. Measured
against $1.4 billion in direct Federal cultural spending that is a
return of nearly eight to one. Frankly, there aren't many industries
that I can think of with those kinds of returns.
The mid-90s brought drastic funding cuts to Federal arts and
humanities programs, and it is now more important than ever to keep
funding stable. By adding $10 million for NEA and $5 million for NEH,
arts businesses will be able to reinvest into their creative
enterprises and back into the community. Between 2004 and 2005, growth
in the number of arts businesses outpaced total business growth by 5.5
percent vs. 3.8 percent. During this time, when the total number of
U.S. jobs shrank 1.9 percent, the drop off of arts employment was less
than half that rate.
In my district, there are 1,234 arts-related businesses that employ
over 7,000 people. These businesses range from non-profit museums and
symphonies to for-profit films and advertising companies. The arts
business community serves as a cornerstone for cultural enrichment and
the tourist economy. Studies show tourists spend 7 percent more than
their local counterparts on arts events. How can we deny that is good
for the community's economic, social, and creative well-being.
I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Slaughter
Amendment for minor increases in NEA and NEH funding.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today in strong support
of Slaughter amendment to the FY06 Interior Appropriations Act that
will increase funding for the National Endowment of the Arts by $10
million and for the National Endowment for the Humanities by $5
million. Even with these increases, the funding level for the NEA will
still be $40 million below the FY 1994 level, and the funding level for
the NEH will be $30 million below the FY 1994 level.
This amendment is needed to continue the critical work of the NEA and
the NEH in providing Americans with access to the arts, and an
understanding of American culture, legacy, history, and civics. By
funding the arts and humanities in every congressional district and
giving priority to rural and underserved communities, the NEA and the
NEH ensure that Americans across the country can discover and share
these treasures while instilling a sense of historical and cultural
heritage in their children. These funding increases will help ensure
that future generations continue to have the opportunity to explore the
creative worlds of arts and humanities.
In addition to providing important cultural experiences nationwide,
the NEA and the NEH also support economic growth and tourism
nationwide. The non-profit arts industry generates $134 billion in
economic activity, supporting $4.85 million full time equivalent
positions. In my district there are 1,801 arts related businesses which
employ 5,370 employees. Many of these businesses receive grants from
the NEA and play crucial roles in increasing tourism in my district.
Events like the Monterey Jazz festival and the Cabrillo Music Festival
bring tourists to my district to enjoy these cultural experiences, and
our local businesses directly benefit from this influx.
I urge all of my colleagues to support increases in funding for the
NEA and the NEH and to oppose any proposal to cut these valuable
programs.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, let me share with you two
recent experiences that confirm why we should support the Slaughter-
Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment to increase funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts.
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of joining NEA chairman Dana
Gioa at the Folger Theater to help judge young high school students in
a poetry recitation contest. As one of the judges, I had to pick a
winner, but I can tell you there were no losers. It was plainly evident
all were winners. Each student provided a masterful performance, had
presence and demonstrated a clear and impassioned understanding of the
work he or she presented from some of the English language's best
poets.

[[Page H3618]]

It was a memorable evening. But as much as I enjoyed it, I know it
left an even stronger impression on the student and the families and
friends who joined them. That evening at the Folger Theater brought us
all to a common point of a shared experience where barriers and
pretenses were cast aside and humanity and understanding prevailed.
Last week I had a conversation with a retired school teacher who
volunteers as a docent providing school tours at the National Gallery
of Art. She was upset because of a decision by the gallery to suspend
the volunteer-led tours for a year while a new program is developed. It
didn't make sense to me and I agreed to help.
During our talk, she mentioned how art at the gallery had touched a
young student she had led. He was a recent immigrant who had come from
a very troubled land. His English was limited and broken but he was
able to say to her that the tour had helped calm his inner turmoil and
as he put it, ``helped make some of the hurt go away.''
Art touches people in ways words cannot describe. The dividend this
Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts far exceeds the
investment we make with the limited Federal funds.
In Virginia, the Wolf Trap Performing Arts Center has received NEA
grants for their nationally recognized artistic and education programs.
In addition to year-round performances, Wolf Trap offers a variety of
education programs both locally and nationwide. Its primary education
program, the Wolf Trap Institute for Early Learning Through the Arts,
places professional performing artists in preschool classrooms
nationwide. In classroom residencies, these artists use drama, music
and movement to teach basic skills and encourage active participation
and self-esteem in the earliest stages of learning. Wolf Trap Institute
Artists also conducts workshops and presentations throughout the
country to demonstrate to teachers and parents how the arts can bring
new life to learning and literature.
As we fight for education funding and standards, how can we look past
the significant contribution that performing arts organizations like
Wolf Trap are making across the country? This is a time when we must
embrace this type of unique programming.
A modest increase in funding for the arts and humanities can make a
difference creating new opportunities for hundreds of arts and
humanities organizations and bringing the organizations out into the
communities.
When the NEA budget has been cut, we have seen its dramatic effect on
the national arts community and specifically on arts education programs
developing at community centers and in our schools. Now is the time
when we must invest in the cultural lives of our citizens and in our
children's futures.
I cannot fathom how a Nation as rich and prosperous as ours could not
find it in its heart to provide a $15 million increase, $10 million for
the National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the National
Endowment for the Humanities. We could eliminate all funding for the
endowments tomorrow, and the arts and humanities would survive.
That's not the issue.
The grants NEA provides don't make or break most theater productions,
studio exhibitions or symphonic performances. What NEA does with its
grants is to ensure that these performances, exhibits and productions
are introduced to a greater share of America.
Support the arts, support the NEA and the NEH, support the Slaugher-
Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment.
Ms. HERSETH. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that the amendment offered
by my esteemed colleagues Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Shays, Mr. Dicks, Mr.
Leach, and Mr. Price, passed today by a voice vote. The amendment
offered on behalf of the Arts Caucus, will increase funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities by $10 million and $5 million respectively. I am a strong
supporter of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, and I
enjoy a strong working relationship with South Dakota's arts community.
As a member of the Arts Caucus, I am proud to support our amendment,
which represents an important step towards providing these agencies
with the funding they need to continue providing critical support for
literary, design, performing arts, and cultural projects in South
Dakota and across the country.
Another agency that receives funding under this bill is the U.S.
Forest Service, which has the vital responsibility to fight fires on
our public lands. I recognize the need for wildland fire protection and
I strongly believe that Congress must provide Federal land management
agencies with the resources they need to protect our public resources
from fire, as well as the lives and property of those who live in and
near national forests. It was for this reason that I voted in favor of
the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Beauprez of Colorado, to
increase funding for wildland fire protection.
Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with the source of funding that
Mr. Beauprez chose to utilize, the National Endowment for the Arts, in
order to fund this wildland fire prevention increase. This amendment
was soundly defeated on the House floor. I believe this was a function
of the offset that the amendment sought to use, and not a lack of
support in the House for forest fire prevention. It also is an
indication that we must look for other ways to increase funding for
wildland fire prevention. I offer to work with my colleagues in the
House of Representatives in the coming years to identify ways to fund
increased wildland fire funding without raiding the important funds of
the NEA to accomplish that goal.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price Amendment, which would provide a much
needed increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and
the National Endowment for the Humanities.
This additional $10 million for the NEA and $5 million for the NEH
would help expose our children to American art, history and culture. In
addition to the enjoyment and life-enrichment that each participant in
the arts experiences, the involvement of children in the arts has been
shown to improve reading and language development, mathematics skills,
fundamental cognitive skills, motivation to learn, and social behavior.
The Arts and Humanities not only enhance the lives of our children--
they also keep our economy strong. Each year, the nonprofit arts
industry creates $134 billion dollars in economic activity, generating
$24.4 billion dollars in tax revenue for our local, state and federal
governments, and supporting nearly 5 million full-time jobs all across
our country.
In my district alone, nearly 120,000 people are employed by the
museums, theaters, art galleries and other arts organizations that I am
proud to represent. In fact, with over 8,000 arts-related
organizations, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of
Modern Art, and the American Ballet theater, my district has the third
highest number of arts-related business in the country. For my
constituents, and for all Americans, the arts mean business.
Because such a modest increase in funding would bring the arts and
jobs to so many people, I strongly support the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-
Leach amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the amendments
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairman, I do not want to rain on anybody's parade, but in a
sense I do. What we have just witnessed here is our annual Kabuki dance
on the question of the arts.
In the first years that the Republicans were in control, they wound
up making a very large cut in the arts program. I offered an amendment
in the Appropriations Committee to restore a portion of that cut and
that amendment was adopted. But the majority exercised its power in the
Rules Committee and when this bill went to the Rules Committee, the
Rules Committee arbitrarily, unilaterally eliminated my amendment which
had been adopted by the full committee. But then they proceeded to make
the exact same amendment in order with one difference: that amendment
was to be offered by a Republican, because the majority party wanted to
have the issue both ways. They wanted to be able to tell their right-
wing supporters that they had cut the devil out of the arts, yet they
wanted to tell what few remaining moderates were left in their caucus
that they could go home with a rollcall in their pocket bragging about
the fact that a Republican had partially restored some of that funding.
That maneuver was enough to give insincerity and hypocrisy a bad name.
And now what we have seen here today is, I hope, not a repetition of
what we saw last year. Because last year, as was pointed out, we had an
arts funding level which was $49 million below where it was at its high
water mark, $100 million in real terms after adjusting for inflation
below where it had been just a few years earlier.
An amendment was offered, $10 million. Liberals and progressives
argued for it. Conservatives argued against it. The amendment was
passed, added $10 million, everybody got to put out their press
releases; and, guess what, when we wound up in conference with the

[[Page H3619]]

Senate, 80 percent of the money was stripped out of the bill. So the
bill was left with a token $2 million increase.
I just have one observation. I would hope that if the House wants to
demonstrate the slightest bit of sincerity on this issue, that having
adopted this amendment, it will stick to it in conference so that
something other than a phony Kabuki dance has taken place on the floor
this year. I know that is quite a bit to expect given the hypocrisy
that often accompanies conferences and given the penchant for so many
Members of either body to try to pose for political holy pictures on
some of these issues; but nonetheless I would like to express the vain
hope that on occasion some sincerity will be displayed on this issue
and that if the House adopts an amendment, it really means it.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I had planned to offer an amendment on this subject, but I will
settle for a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.
Before I start, let me just note for the record, I am glad to state
to my constituents, I would have voted to cut the National Endowment
for the Arts funding and, believe me, want that part of the record.
Madam Chairman, the problem we have in the West is in terms of
Federal land. Looking at my own State of Arizona, 48.1 percent Federal
ownership. The State of Nevada, 84.5 percent. Utah, 57.4 percent. It is
going up. The problem is, it is going up. You try to run a school
system in a county where the Federal Government owns 80, sometimes 90
percent, of the land in that county, it is tough to have enough taxable
land to do so.
The Federal Government has tried to make up for that by what is
called PILT, or payment in lieu of taxes, where they compensate
counties with a high incidence of Federal land, but there is less of
that than there is Federal land certainly. I would argue here and have
argued throughout this appropriation process that we need to cut
Federal land acquisition funding. We have successfully done that. The
chairman of the subcommittee has been cooperative. We have seen a cut
there. The problem is as soon as we get to the Senate, it is negotiated
upward once again, so that PILT funding is not nearly what was
authorized, and Federal land acquisition, we always get more than what
we ask for.
I would just respectfully ask the chairman if he will work within the
conference to keep the number for Federal land acquisition as low as
possible. I understand that the $43.1 million, I believe, in the bill
now is for land sales that are already in the works. That is
understandable. But if we could please insist that that not go up any
higher. As we go up and acquire more Federal land, we simply make the
problem worse. We exacerbate the problem of PILT funding that is too
low and Federal land acquisition, which is too high.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
I certainly agree that PILT is a necessary funding item. We have
added $30 million to it. I agree with the gentleman that we will make
every effort to do so as we move to conference with the Senate. As the
gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a moment ago, when you go to the
Senate, you cannot always control what happens. We will certainly stand
by our statements to decrease the spending on land if we can manage
that, and we will count on the House to support us in that area.
But I do thank the gentleman for calling this to our attention, and
we certainly support what he is thinking about.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. There will be an amendment coming
up, the Cubin amendment, which will seek to restore a better balance to
Federal land acquisition as opposed to PILT funding.
Let me just point on this map again, people point to the red State/
blue State issue. The red in this case indicates the percentage of
Federal land ownership, or the incidence of Federal land ownership. As
my colleagues can see, there is a lot of red out there. We do not need
as much red. The more red you have, the more red ink that local
governments have. We need to restore this imbalance.
Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Interior
subcommittee in a colloquy dealing with some language in the committee
report requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to fund a national
Academy of Sciences study concerning the Hudson River. The language was
added to the report unfortunately without the knowledge of those of us
who represent the Hudson River area in New York State.
More than a decade has already been spent studying cleanup
alternatives for the Hudson River. Therefore, the request for this new
study raises concerns. Those of us who live in the region would like
clarification as to what the impact of this new study would be. From
what I understand, the report language in no way is intended to delay,
stop, or otherwise disrupt either phase I or phase II of the PCB
cleanup planned for the Hudson River which is slated to begin in the
summer of 2006.
Is that the gentleman's understanding as well?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman is correct. In no way
should this study delay or disrupt either phase I or II of the planned
cleanup of the Hudson River or any other ongoing Superfund project. I
will work with the gentleman to consider modifications to clarify this
in the conference agreement.
Mr. HINCHEY. I very much thank the gentleman for his leadership in
the committee, and I thank him for his response. There is widespread
support for the Hudson River cleanup project, and I know the people I
represent will be relieved to hear the chairman clarify that this
report will in no way delay phase I or phase II of the Hudson River PCB
cleanup. I would suggest that if the study does proceed, it should be
focused on new developments and should address the National Academy of
Sciences' recommendations.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from New York for
his good work on the Hudson River program and for bringing the need for
clarification of the intent of the study to my attention.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Madam Chairman, as someone who enjoys recreational activities like
fishing, boating and hunting and represents thousands of Minnesotans
who do as well, I share a special responsibility to make sure that
these opportunities are available for generations to come. Today, many
of those activities are threatened by the spread of aquatic invasive
species. We have seen a rapid growth of invasive species in recent
years, from the Great Lakes, to our coastal waters, to local lakes and
streams throughout the country.
In my home State of Minnesota, we have increasingly been challenged
to find ways to prevent and control disruptive species like European
and Asian carp. In many areas, invasive European carp have found their
way into Minnesota's wetlands and lakes, while Asian carp has found its
way into the Mississippi River as far north as Iowa. If not properly
addressed, both of these species threaten to disrupt the ecosystem that
many Minnesotans enjoy for fishing and boating.
One of the few ways in which Federal, State and local governments
collectively combat the threat of aquatic invasive species is through
the State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management plans. These plans
identify activities to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public
health and safety risks associated with aquatic invasive species. These
activities are implemented by States through feasible, cost-effective
management policies undertaken in an environmentally sound manner.
These plans are available to both individual States and affected multi-
State regions. In fact, currently 14 States have approved plans, and at
least 11 other States have plans under development.
Unfortunately, the resources available to effectively implement these

[[Page H3620]]

plans fall well short of the mark. This is the third year in a row
plans to attack invasive species are funded at slightly over $1
million. I very much appreciate the work of the chairman and the
committee to try to address this very important issue but would suggest
that these limited funds are not enough to counteract the billions of
dollars in costs associated with invasive species habitat destruction
and lost recreational opportunities.

{time} 1330

Simply put, we must invest more in these plans if we hope to control
the spread of these aquatic pests.
I appreciate the chairman's offering to work with me.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding to me.
I agree with the gentleman that invasive species pose a threat to the
marine environment, and we do provide funds in the bill reported by the
Committee to address the Invasive Species Act. We have also provided
other invasive species funds to stop that in areas of timber and things
coming in from imports. For instance, the hemlock wooly adelgid is one
of the invasive species that are threatening one of our species and may
wipe it out in plant area.
But the gentleman is right, and I will work with him to see if we can
increase funding in this area in the conference report. I note there
are some small increases included in the bill for invasive species
efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service also. So we will try to work
with him to increase his request.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
like to thank the chairman for his commitment and look forward to
working with him to have more resources for this vitally important need
in the conference report.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the arts amendment,
however, in strong opposition to this bill's environmental
shortcomings.
First, I want to applaud the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who are the
co-chairs of our Arts Caucus, and their staffs for their leadership on
this issue.
Providing for adequate resources to the National Endowment for the
Humanities, which is the largest single funder of humanities programs
in our country, and to the National Endowment for the Arts, the
infrastructure for private nonprofit and federal arts initiatives, this
should really be a very high priority for this body.
Mr. Chairman, my district, the Ninth Congressional District of
California, ranks 24th in the country in the number of arts businesses
and 46th in the country in the number of arts employees. Since we
debated this amendment last year, there are 113 more arts-related
businesses in my district, and that translates into more jobs for my
constituents. Across the country there are more than 578,000 arts-
centered businesses. This is really not a marginal group. The arts and
humanities do constitute the pulse of our Nation.
Supporting this amendment is critical and should be noncontroversial.
We already know that the economic downturn and our budget crisis are
crippling arts initiatives all over this country. Many who are eager to
restrict funding for the NEA and NEH forget that organizations which
receive grants for these institutions include the museums, performing
and visual arts, film, radio, television, design, publishing, and
educational facilities in all of our districts.
In Oakland, one of the cities in my district, most arts education
programs continue to face extinction, and the students in these
communities are the ones who stand to benefit the most from arts
education initiatives.
Performance and visual arts offer people of all ages, ethnic and
social and economic backgrounds opportunities for new experiences and
constructive retreats. For example, the Berkeley-based California
Shakespeare Theater, an arts education grants recipient, will offer
student matinees and Arts Integration programs this year, which support
student achievement and creativity and teacher professional development
for some of the most underserved communities in my district.
Clearly, a vote against this amendment, which is endorsed by our
bipartisan Arts Caucus, is really a vote against the vital thread which
sustains the pulse of our country. The long-term economic and social
impact of a minute $10 million increase for the NEA and a $5 million
increase for the NEH will be felt for generations. It is the very least
we can do to promote and preserve American culture and heritage. It
should not be controversial. The facts speak for themselves. If we cut
arts funding, we cut jobs and opportunities for all. We all need to
support the Arts Caucus bipartisan amendment.
I am appalled, however, by what this bill proposes to do to America's
environment. Once more we are forced to vote on an Interior
appropriations bill that is nothing less than an environmental
disaster. This bill cuts funding for the EPA by $318 million. This bill
cuts $241 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is a
37 percent reduction for California. This bill eliminates $190 million
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And this bill fails to make
critical infrastructure investments in our National Parks System.
Overall, this bill represents a 3 percent cut in funding for our
environmental programs and once again points to the misplaced
priorities of this administration.
We need a bill that makes a strong commitment to protect the
environment, our children's health, and our future. Unfortunately, this
bill does not make that commitment.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Cubin

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

Amendment offered by Mrs. Cubin:
Page 44, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $13,000,000)''.
Page 45, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.

Mrs. CUBIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, as the Members know, the Payments in Lieu
of Taxes program, or PILT as it is called, compensates units of general
government for property taxes that they otherwise lose due to Federal
ownership of the land within that locality. Our local counties then use
these dollars to help fund essential services such as law enforcement,
health care, education, firefighting, and search and rescue.
Unfortunately, despite the local benefits to this program in all 50
States, a large majority of the congressional districts' full funding
of PILT, as is authorized by law, is simply not a commitment that this
Congress has been willing to meet in the past years. My home State of
Wyoming has been denied over $75 million in PILT funding over the past
10 years that would have been used to make our communities safer,
healthier, and cleaner.
I truly appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from North Carolina
(Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks),
ranking member, to restore the PILT funding that the administration
tried to cut. They even went a step further to show their support of
PILT and added an additional $3 million over last year's level.
However, this level funding still falls far short of the authorized
level and it simply is not enough for these communities.
The Cubin-Rahall-Cannon-Udall amendment would add $12 million to PILT
by redirecting funds from the Department of Interior's management,
salaries, and expenses at the higher levels. Our amendment still does
not bring PILT to full funding, but it would reflect a renewed
commitment of Congress to do so by providing approximately 80 percent
of the authorized level for this year's funding.
It is also important to emphasize that this amendment still allows
the

[[Page H3621]]

Department of Interior to spend $10 million more for administrative
costs than they did in 2005. We are not cutting salaries. We are simply
reducing the $23 million increase that they would receive under this
bill and instead directing a portion of those funds back to local
counties where every dollar will make a real difference on the ground
where people live and where they work.
So I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) for co-sponsoring this amendment, as well as the
National Association of Counties, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake), and other members of the Western Caucus for the leadership that
they have shown on this issue. It is very important to every single
State in the country. Shortchanging local communities by underfunding
PILT is simply bad policy, and I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly sympathize with the gentlewoman and other
Members who have already spoken. I support PILT. In fact, we increased
it some $30 million in our bill. And as we indicated with the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) a few minutes ago, we will certainly do more
and we appreciate their bringing it to our attention.
But the Department of Interior is responsible for one-fifth of the
land in the United States and manages programs that affect over 4
million Native Americans. This amendment would eliminate 110 staff
positions and drastically impact the management of numerous important
programs, including the management of PILT, the very program that this
amendment is intended to help. The PILT program is managed using staff
from the Department Management account.
The Interior bill is a balanced bill. In developing this bill, The
Committee made a number of difficult choices. If we had additional
resources, I believe PILT would be a deserving program and I certainly
would try to increase it. But I urge my colleagues to defeat this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate on this
amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise with my colleague from
Wyoming and a number of other colleagues from the West and from the
East in support of this bipartisan amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
The amendment would increase funding for the Payments in Lieu of
Taxes, or PILT program, by $12 million. The result would be to bring
the bill total for PILT to about 80 percent of the authorized amount.
That would not be enough, in my opinion, but it would be a definite
improvement.
PILT payments go to every State except Rhode Island, as well as to
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as
we see on the map here. So PILT is a nationwide program, this amendment
is important for local governments across the country. But it is
particularly important for Western States because we have the largest
amounts of public lands, again as we can see on the map. PILT payments
help local governments pay for vital services like firefighting and
police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search
and rescue operations. So it should be something local governments can
count on without becoming hostage to debates over the management of
Federal lands.
But as things stand now, PILT is neither stable nor dependable
because the amount of each year's payments is decided by annual
appropriations. We were reminded about that when the President's budget
proposed a $26 million cut in PILT. This would have been devastating
for Colorado. So I am glad the Committee on Appropriations rejected
this idea, and I applaud them for including $230 million in the bill
for PILT. However, that is still less than the full authorized amount.
That is why I support this amendment and that is why I urge the House
to adopt it to bring us closer to full funding.
If I can conclude, the gentlewoman of Wyoming mentioned that it is
unnecessary to continue debating PILT every year as a part of the
appropriations process. She has a bill that would phase in full funding
for PILT over 3 years. I have also introduced a bill with the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) that would provide permanent automatic
funding, and I hope the Committee on Resources will take this up in the
near future.
But in the meantime we should pass this very bipartisan amendment,
which will help counties all over our great country.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for
yielding me this time.
I would also like to begin by thanking the people who have worked so
hard on this bill, especially the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor), who has been very thoughtful about the Payments in Lieu of
Taxes issue and has worked well with us in the past. We are committed
to getting full funding for PILT because the counties in rural America
and areas where they are dominated by the Federal Government need that
kind of support.
I have a map beside me here which is similar to the map the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Udall) had just a moment ago, although we did it in
red because we want to represent the statement, so we can see the
meaning of a statement that was made by President Ronald Reagan in
1988. He said: ``I have a map. I wish everyone could see it. It's a map
of the United States. And land owned by the government is in red, and
the rest of the map is white. West of the Mississippi River, your first
glance at the map, you would think the whole thing is red the
government owns so much property.''

{time} 1345

The government owns so much property. I do not know any place other
than the Soviet Union where the government owns more land than ours
does.
We have a problem. The Federal Government owns the bulk of the West.
Half of California is owned by the Federal Government. Two-thirds of
most of the other States in the West are owned by the Federal
Government. That means we do not tax those lands, and that means that
in the western United States, we pay less per child per education, but
we tax our people more per family, because we are supporting the
Federal Government in this environment. It is only fair that we pay a
reasonable amount in lieu of taxes to cover that shortfall.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to add a modest sum
to the PILT, but a sum that is very, very important to the American
people, those who live in these public land areas, and those who enjoy
them from the rest of the country.
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 rise in reluctant opposition to this
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While I agree that our counties would wisely use increased PILT
payments, I think that this bill provides the proper funding for PILT,
considering the very tight allocation the subcommittee was given. Like
many of my colleagues who represent districts with large amounts of
Federal lands not part of the tax base, I understand the difficulties
our communities face. That is why I have always strongly supported
PILT. But I believe that the $3 million increase that PILT receives in
this bill compared to 2005 should be defended, considering the many
other programs facing cuts.
In a healthier budget climate, I would gladly support funding PILT at
an amount higher than the $230 million

[[Page H3622]]

contained in this bill. Unfortunately, we are facing a much bleaker
budget reality.
Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending amendment, and I
commend the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her leadership on this issue,
as well as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon). It is always a pleasure for me to team up with
these distinguished colleagues, and especially my friend from Wyoming
(Mrs. Cubin), on natural resource issues of importance to both of our
States. It is true that we are sometimes at odds with each other, that
is never a pleasant experience, but when we do see eye to eye, we can
make some inroads.
Today I find myself the token easterner on the bipartisan Cubin-
Rahall-Cannon-Udall amendment to restore a portion of authorized
funding for the PILT program. I chose to sponsor this amendment to make
a point. PILT is as important in the east as it is to the west.
West Virginia, for instance, is heavily forested and 919,000 acres
are federally owned with the Monongahela National Forest. PILT payments
are extremely important to the forest counties, helping them to provide
essential services to the public.
This amendment is about keeping faith with our units of local
government who are already being strained to the limit.
Under the PILT program, the deal is that the Federal Government will
compensate these localities for the loss of local tax revenues from
Federal lands.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mrs. CUBIN. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs.
Cubin) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just read this statement. It seems
the Washington Post has some sympathy for this: ``The Federal
Government is the largest landowner in Washington. Since the land
cannot be taxed, the Federal Government is the principal contributor to
the district's chronic fiscal imbalance.''
Now, if the Federal Government owns a lot of land in the District of
Columbia, believe me, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado, we
ought to really be hurting, because the incidence of Federal land is so
much higher there.
The President had initially more than $200 million for Federal land
acquisition. It has been cut by the chairman down to $43 million. It is
still too much, and particularly when PILT is underfunded.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the
Cubin-Rahall-Cannon-Udall Amendment. In 1976, Congress passed the
Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act in an effort to compensate counties for
the loss of property tax revenue that comes with having large tracts of
Federal lands within their jurisdiction. These important funds help
local governments meet the needs for schools, road construction and
other infrastructure projects for their residents.
In my district alone, there are over 17 million acres of land
eligible for PILT payments; accounting for $11 million in Fiscal Year
2004. In the recent past, Congress has failed to fund PILT to its
authorized level, leaving local governments with the burden of
answering painful budget decisions. We have seen a great discrepancy
between authorized funding levels and the appropriated amounts. In FY
2004, PILT was funded to only 67 percent of its authorized level;
falling over $100 million dollars short of what the Bureau of Land
Management found to be the authorized level.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will get us closer to reaching the goal
of 100 percent PILT appropriation. If adopted, this Congress will fund
PILT to its highest level in a decade. The bipartisan PILT Amendment
would add $12 million to PILT by redirecting funds from Interior
Department overhead. This will help local governments by providing
approximately 80 percent of the authorized level for PILT while still
allowing the Interior Department to spend $10 million more for
administrative costs than in fiscal year 2005. We will provide small
rural counties with the resources necessary to provide basic services
to their residents.
This Congress owes it to Rural America to fully fund PILT. I ask my
colleagues to support the Cubin-Rahall-Cannon-Udall Amendment to the
Interior Appropriations bill.

SUMMARY BY COUNTY OF PILT PAYMENTS--COLORADO'S 3RD CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT
[Fiscal Year 2004]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payment
County (dollars) Total Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa County........................ $103,015.00 77,592
Archuleta County...................... 522,307.00 440,797
Conejos County........................ 556,046.00 498,778
Costilla County....................... 1,219.00 887
Custer County......................... 224,555.00 174,173
Delta County.......................... 166,250.00 405,624
Dolores County........................ 80,946.00 422,281
Garfield County....................... 1,170,205.00 1,188,113
Gunnison County....................... 311,753.00 1,636,328
Hinsdale County....................... 72,758.00 676,515
Huerfano County....................... 180,690.00 214,966
Jackson County........................ 97,816.00 515,761
La Plata County....................... 536,066.00 434,015
Las Animas County..................... 409,384.00 316,559
Mesa County........................... 1,606,962.00 1,563,639
Mineral County........................ 80,427.00 524,299
Moffat County......................... 317,051.00 1,671,738
Montezuma County...................... 413,306.00 471,828
Montrose County....................... 1,248,681.00 974,793
Otero County.......................... 240,480.00 181,265
Ouray County.......................... 206,790.00 157,387
Pitkin County......................... 581,980.00 562,074
Pueblo County......................... 86,047.00 63,174
Rio Blanco County..................... 284,122.00 1,498.114
Rio Grande County..................... 410,184.00 334,630
Routt County.......................... 462,772.00 665,854
Saguache County....................... 362,613.00 1,292.699
San Juan County....................... 40,653.00 214,353
San Miguel County..................... 297,888.00 485,909
District Total.................... 11,072,966.00 17,664,145
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
bipartisan amendment, which would benefit counties and local
governments in 49 States.
The Federal Government makes PILT payments to counties that have
Federal lands to make up for the revenue local governments lose because
they cannot collect property taxes on the Federal lands within their
borders. Congress has chosen to underfund these PILT payments--leaving
local governments in nearly every State with less funding for
education, law enforcement, firefighting, search-and-rescue, and other
services. In my congressional district alone, localities have lost over
48 million dollars in PILT funding because of inadequate appropriations
by Congress over the last ten years.
The bipartisan amendment we are discussing today would bring the
Federal Government's payments for PILT a bit closer to the authorized
funding level, helping local governments in 49 States.
I encourage you to vote for this bipartisan amendment, which is a key
step toward meeting Congress' commitment to our local governments.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the required word.
One of the greatest responsibilities of representing Idaho in
Congress is convincing Members who represent other States--particularly
those east of the Mississippi River--why some issues matter to us so
much.
High among those issues is our unique relationship with our biggest
landlord. Almost two-thirds of Idaho is federally owned, and therefore
exempt from local property taxes that pay for everything from our
children's schools to police and fire protection.
Picking up our Uncle Sam's slack means in the West we each pay higher
property taxes and our counties are forced to make tough choices about
essential public services. Counties in Idaho were shorted $75.5 million
from 1995 through 2004 alone. That burden is heaviest where it can
least be borne, in more rural counties with relatively small tax bases.
Since almost all the land in the East is private, States there have
no such concerns. Many Members of Congress from the East, care little
about how tax-exempt Federal land hurts folks in Idaho. They just don't
get it.
I am extremely disappointed at the Administration's FY 06 PILT
request of $200 million--a $26.8 million reduction from the FY 05
payment. PILT was funded at $200 million back in 2001 and is clearly a
step backward in a commitment to compensate counties for financial
burdens imposed on them through an overwhelming Federal presence.
There's no getting around the need for some of the basic services
that property taxes provide on the local level, but there's no excuse
for having to pay extra for the `honor' of having so much nontaxable
Federal land in our counties. The Federal Government has been a
deadbeat landlord long enough.
I am very concerned that over the past ten years, the PILT program
has been funded at an annual average of $155 million, while over the
same time period, Federal land acquisition funding has averaged more
than $347 million. Why are we buying more land when we can't make good
on the commitments for the land we already have?
I applaud Chairman Taylor for trying to address this problem and
recognize the constraints he has to work within. Mr. Taylor I commend
you for recognizing the importance of this program and for increasing
PILT up to $230 million while at the same time reducing land
acquisitions to roughly $40 million.

[[Page H3623]]

However, I think we need to go further and zero out all land
acquisitions until PILT is fully funded and the Federal Government can
actually manage the land under its ownership. I would encourage
everyone to vote for the Cubin, Rahall, Udall, Cannon amendment and
give what is due to our rural communities.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Cubin-Rahall-Udall
amendment that seeks to increase funding to the Payment in Lieu of
Taxes (PILT) program by $12 million. This would increase PILT payments
to local government by redirecting funds from Interior Department
administrative and overhead accounts. This amendment would bring the
Federal Government's payments for PILT closer to the authorized funding
level, helping local governments in 49 States, while still allowing the
Interior Department to spend $10 million more for administrative costs
than in fiscal year 2005. Had the House of Representatives held a
recorded vote on this amendment, I would have voted to support it. As
it is, the propriety of this amendment was so clear to my colleagues
and me that no Member of the House of Representatives sought a recorded
vote on this issue and it passed by voice vote.
Along with Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Taylor of
North Carolina, I oppose the amendment by Mr. Hefley of Colorado that
pertains to PILT funding. As I mentioned above, I strongly support
increased PILT funding, but I am opposed to the offset that Mr. Hefley
would use to pay for his amendment. He would pay for those increased
PILT funds by reducing the allocation for the National Endowment for
the Arts by $15 million. The Cubin-Rahall-Cannon-Udall uses a much
preferable offset and that is why I voted to oppose the Hefley
Amendment and why I voice my strong support for the Cubin-Rahall-
Cannon-Udall Amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) still
has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

payments in lieu of taxes

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20,
1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $230,000,000, of
which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for
administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be
made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the
computed amount of the payment is less than $100.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
Page 45, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $4,800,000)''.
Page 106, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited
to 10 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
myself, the opponent.
The Acting 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.
This amendment cuts $15 million from the account of the National
Endowment for the Arts and applies $4.8 million to the payments in lieu
of taxes account. What I wanted to do is make that equal; but it was
subject to a point of order, so this is what we came up with. It would
reduce the NEA account to about the level at which it had been funded
for about a decade, while bringing PILT just a little bit closer to its
$340 million authorization level.
Now, I want my colleagues to know that this is not an NEA-bashing
amendment. The NEA I think has considerably cleaned up its act since
the days of Mappelthorpe and Serrano, and the Challenge America grants
program has helped return the NEA to educational outreach, the thing
that it did with some success at its founding.
No, this amendment is an acknowledgment, and we have been hearing a
lot about it this afternoon, but this is an acknowledgment of the need
for the PILT program.
People have often said to me, you are so lucky to live in the West
with all of the open space and all the public land, and I do consider
myself lucky because of that. But people who do not live in the public
land States do not realize sometimes that these public lands and all
that open space comes at a cost. My colleagues saw the gentleman from
Utah's (Mr. Cannon) map up here with the red and so forth showing the
public lands. East of the Mississippi, there are a few red spots
scattered around. West of the Mississippi, it is almost solid red. The
West is essentially owned by the government.
For every acre under public ownership, western counties and
municipalities lose part of their tax base. In Colorado, this amounts
to almost 30 percent of the State's acreage. Of course, we heard
earlier, this pales to the about 85 percent of the States' acreage in
Nevada that is under Federal control. We have one county in Colorado,
Hinsdale County, that is close to 98 percent public land. You have Lake
City, the county seat, you have a mountain, and then you have the rest
of Hinsdale County; and almost all of it is owned by the government. So
services, as you can imagine, are limited.
Services mean fire and police and schools and health care and all
kinds of things.
There are other more direct costs too. Due to Federal underfunding of
its own land, local municipalities are often asked to bear the cost of
road maintenance and police coverage for those areas. All of this,
while operating under the diminished tax base that I mentioned earlier.
So I have always supported full funding of PILT, and I know we cannot
get there this year. I do appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for what
they have done for PILT in this bill. They have moved it forward
somewhat. But since we have all this land, I think we should give us
the funds we need to help take care of it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time
in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor)
is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment, recognizing the very serious problems that its
proponent seeks to address. But it would be very unwise to cut the
budget of the NEA, especially after we succeeded in adding a little
money back to it, because the NEA is simply doing a fantastic job now
of strengthening public arts education, of strengthening arts
institutions, and of helping arts institutions to market themselves and
strengthen the economies of not only our inner cities, but small, rural
communities. So in Connecticut, the NEA, in conjunction with the
Connecticut Commission on the Arts, has really helped us develop the
itineraries that we needed to attract tourism to the small towns with
arts institutions or performing groups where the agricultural economy
is failing.
In our schools, the HOT schools, (the Higher Order of Thinking
schools), have been supported by the NEA, and have helped children
understand that not only thinking is a powerful process, but original
thinking is an extraordinary process children can possess and use to
grow in mind and spirit, as well as technical capability.
In 139 of Connecticut's schools, they are using the NEA's Shakespeare
in American Communities, a free educational kit that really helps kids
grasp the power of Shakespeare. Who better can teach children about the
horrendous power of greed to do evil and the tremendous opportunity of
love to do good.
So the arts are extremely important to the spiritual strength of this
Nation, the strength of its economy, and the health and well-being of
our children, for the arts provide the power to aspire to new heights
of greatness in each of us.
So I must oppose this amendment, because it drains resources from the
National Endowment for the Arts.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H3624]]

I think it is interesting that the gentlewoman is from Connecticut.
If my colleagues remember that map, public lands are insignificant in
Connecticut by comparison with States in the west where we have up to
85 or 90 percent of the land owned by the government.
I said at the outset that this is not an NEA-bashing amendment. The
NEA does many good things; but we only have so much money, and the
committee knows that is the case. They are the ones that had to
struggle with the allocation they got and they had to make tough, tough
choices. When you have to make choices, I think you need to ask
yourself the question, NEA, as good as it is in some areas, is it
better than having the funds to educate your children in many of those
western States? Is it better than having the funds to provide fire
protection, to provide police protection, to take care of those public
lands that are out there? Which is better? We have to weigh it and
balance it.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said a while ago that he
thought they had a pretty good balance. I think that if you are making
these choices, the balance needs to lean a little bit more to the PILT.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
The amendment increases payments in lieu of taxes $4.8 million and
reduces the National Endowment for the Arts by $15 million. This
Interior bill is a balanced bill. In developing this bill, the
committee made a number of difficult choices. If we had additional
resources, I believe PILT would be a deserving program, as we have said
over and over again here today. But to unbalance this bill at this
time, I must rise in opposition. I encourage my colleagues to do the
same thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just encourage an ``aye'' vote on
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.

{time} 1400

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Interior
Subcommittee in a colloquy dealing with some language in the committee
report requiring the EPA to fund a National Academy of Science study.
Mr. Chairman, we have already heard that there is language requiring
such a study to determine the effectiveness and cost of a large
dredging operation of hazardous waste sites, many of which are
contaminated with PCBs.
I would point out that our colleague, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey), who engaged in a colloquy a little earlier, stated that
there was strong support for this project. Well, this is a project that
has been debated for 20 years. In some ways that is an overstatement of
that support.
I represent the affected area, and in fact it has been an extremely
difficult process for my constituents. However, we all agree that
further delay of the project is in no one's best interest. As you have
already clarified, the report language, Mr. Chairman, in no way is
intended to delay, stop or otherwise disrupt the cleanup planned for
the Hudson River slated to begin in the summer of 12006.
Further, the EPA has reviewed the language and found no provision
that would require them to disrupt the Hudson River project in any way.
Is that your understanding, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman is correct. In no way
should this study delay or disrupt either phase 1 or 2 of the planned
cleanup of the Hudson River, any other ongoing Superfund site, And I
know of no party involved that wishes that delay.
I will work with the gentleman to consider whether modifications to
the language are needed to further clarify this point.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that kind offer and
clarification. Let me just say that it has long been my position that
we should not debate past decisions no the Hudson River but look to the
future in the region and focus on protecting those communities most
directly affected by the cleanup project.
What has been consistently overlooked is the fact that dredging will
have a heavy impact on people's everyday lives. This is especially true
for the residents of Fort Edward, New York, who will be hosting the
dewatering site in their community.
As the representative of that area, I want to continue to strive to
uphold their interests and remind others that we are talking about real
people and real neighborhoods, and not just political points for some
special interest groups.
For that reason, I want to thank you for a separate report language
provision which was inserted at my request to address the burden the
Hudson River cleanup project is placing on the people of Fort Edwards
and reiterate my concern that the EPA do all it can to provide
assistance to the town.
It is my hope that we can jointly work towards that end and meet that
important goal as the appropriation process continues.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sweeney) for his good work on the Hudson River cleanup and for
bringing the need for clarification of the intent of the study to my
attention. I like forward to working with the gentleman and learning
more about Port Edwards' needs.
Mr FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy, if you
will, on the subject of the proposed USGS laboratory in Santa Cruz,
California.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to
discuss this matter with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware, I have raised
concerns about the plans to build a new USGS laboratory in Santa Cruz.
Actually I am thrilled to have USGS moving into my district, but the
USGS will benefit greatly from the synergy of other local marine
science facilities in the area, including the University of
California's Long Marine Lab and the United States Government's
National Marine Fisheries Service Lab.
With USGS collocated near these other facilities, I believe the
United States will have the best marine science information anywhere.
But in the development of the plans for the lab, we run into
contradictory budget numbers and laboratory configurations that have
dogged final approval for getting this project off the ground, and it
has really been a problem. And I appreciate your consideration of being
willing to work with me to facilitate the meeting of the principals
involved in this project and resolve some of these questions once and
for all.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I understand the gentleman's concern
over this issue, and appreciate his desire to see the facility built. I
would be pleased to assist in a meeting with the gentleman and agency
officials on this matter.
I thank the gentleman for his commitment to this issue.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last work for the
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) regarding urgent construction and
maintenance needs for the War in the Pacific National Historically Park
in Guam.
Mr. Chairman, my district, Guam, is home to a unique national park.
The War in the Pacific National Historical Park was established by an
act of Congress in 1978. It is the only site in the National Park
System that honors the bravery and sacrifices of all of those who
participated in the Pacific theater of World War II.
Among the seven units of park and its features is a memorial wall at
the

[[Page H3625]]

Asan Bay Overlook as that preserves and honors for perpetuity the 1,642
names of Chamorro and American casualties who suffered or died during
the war in Guam.
The memorial wall was authorized by an act of Congress in 1993 and
today is in dire need of repair and restoration. Mr. Chairman, my home
island of Guam, as many of my colleagues know, is vulnerable to
tropical intense weather conditions.
In December of 2003, one of the most powerful typhoons to ever strike
hit Guam with over 200-mile per hour wind gusts. Many elements of the
park were casualties of this storm. In the aftermath of Supertyhpoon
Pongsona, the service was forced to close the Park Visitors Center,
which had been leased for several years and which has not yet been
reopened or replaced. The memorial wall, in particular, has suffered
since it was originally constructed and has deteriorated to
unacceptable conditions.
We are now commemorating the 60th anniversary of the War in the
Pacific, and the need to repair and restore this memorial wall deserves
the support of the service and this Congress. Of a more long term but
just as deserving a need is the construction of an appropriate contact
facility for the park to provide for the visitor experience and the
interpretation of the war.
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely disappointed that the service's budget
request failed again this year to adequately take into account these
needs. It is my hope that these projects, particularly the memorial
wall, will receive greater attention and higher priority from the
service as they allocate discretionary funds in fiscal year 2006 as
they prepare the fiscal year 2007 and future budget requests.
I would appreciate the help of the gentleman from North Carolina
(Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in
ensuring that the service budgets appropriately for the needs of the
War in the Pacific National Historic Park.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms.
Bordallo) for raising the budget issues. The committee recognizes the
uniqueness and development needs of the War in the Pacific National
Historical Park in Guam.
We will work with the National Park Service to remedy this situation.
I thank the gentlelady for her efforts and look forward to continuing
to work with her on this matter in the future.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his commitment
to the National Park Service and for his comments and concerns
regarding the War in the Pacific National Historical Park in Guam. I
look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to
address this serious situation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

central hazardous materials fund

For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial
action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste
substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
$9,855,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or
paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for
remedial action or response activities conducted by the
Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act,
shall be credited to this account, to be available until
expended without further appropriation: Provided further,
That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not
limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or
other personal or real property, which may be retained,
liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and
which shall be credited to this account.

Office of the Solicitor

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor,
$55,340,000.

Office of Inspector General

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$39,566,000.

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

federal trust programs

For the operation of trust programs for Indians by direct
expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and
grants, $191,593,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not to exceed $58,000,000 from this or any other Act,
shall be available for historical accounting: Provided, That
funds for trust management improvements and litigation
support may, as needed, be transferred to or merged with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, ``Operation of Indian Programs''
account; the Office of the Solicitor, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' account; and the Departmental Management,
``Salaries and Expenses'' account: Provided further, That
funds made available to Tribes and Tribal organizations
through contracts or grants obligated during fiscal year
2006, as authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act of
1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall remain available until
expended by the contractor or grantee: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the statute
of limitations shall not commence to run on any claim,
including any claim in litigation pending on the date of the
enactment of this Act, concerning losses to or mismanagement
of trust funds, until the affected tribe or individual Indian
has been furnished with an accounting of such funds from
which the beneficiary can determine whether there has been a
loss: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary shall not be required to
provide a quarterly statement of performance for any Indian
trust account that has not had activity for at least 18
months and has a balance of $1.00 or less: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall issue an annual account statement
and maintain a record of any such accounts and shall permit
the balance in each such account to be withdrawn upon the
express written request of the account holder: Provided
further, That not to exceed $50,000 is available for the
Secretary to make payments to correct administrative errors
of either disbursements from or deposits to Individual Indian
Money or Tribal accounts after September 30, 2002: Provided
further, That erroneous payments that are recovered shall be
credited to and remain available in this account for this
purpose.

indian land consolidation

For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands
and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing
escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary
expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of
1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative
agreement, $34,514,000, to remain available until expended,
and which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and Departmental Management accounts: Provided, That funds
provided under this heading may be expended pursuant to the
authorities contained in the provisos under the heading
``Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, Indian Land
Consolidation'' of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-291).

Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration

natural resource damage assessment fund

To conduct natural resource damage assessment and
restoration activities by the Department of the Interior
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.), and Public Law 101-337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et
seq.), $6,106,000, to remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available
resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of
which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by
donation, purchase or through available excess surplus
property: Provided, That existing aircraft being replaced may
be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to
offset the purchase price for the replacement aircraft:
Provided further, That no programs funded with appropriated
funds in the ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the
Solicitor'', and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be
augmented through the Working Capital Fund: Provided further,
That the annual budget justification for Departmental
Management shall describe estimated Working Capital Fund
charges to bureaus and offices, including the methodology on
which charges are based: Provided further, That departures
from the Working Capital Fund estimates contained in the
Departmental Management budget justification shall be
presented to the Committees on Appropriations for approval:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide a semi-
annual report to the Committees on Appropriations on
reimbursable support agreements between the Office of the
Secretary and the National Business Center and the bureaus
and offices of the Department, including the amounts billed
pursuant to such agreements.

General Provisions, Department of The Interior

Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or
office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the
emergency

[[Page H3626]]

reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft,
buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment
damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other
unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made
available under this authority until funds specifically made
available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies
shall have been exhausted, and must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible.
Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or
transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in
addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of
the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency
prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the
emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its
jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or
actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other
unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to
actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage
assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the
prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential
grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in
section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for
emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public
Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds
available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit
assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy
State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the
Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in
this title for wildland fire operations shall be available
for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding
fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies
for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in
connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such
reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently
available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further,
That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made
available under this authority until the Secretary determines
that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations''
shall be exhausted within 30 days, and must be replenished by
a supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible: Provided further, That such
replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata
basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
Sec. 103. Appropriations made to the Department of the
Interior in this title shall be available for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the
Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment
of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library
membership in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members.
Sec. 104. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
preleasing, leasing and related activities placed under
restriction in the President's moratorium statement of June
12, 1998, in the areas of northern, central, and southern
California; the North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and
the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude
and east of 86 degrees west longitude.

Amendments Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I
ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
Page 53, line 12, insert ``oil'' after ``offshore''.
Page 53, line 20, strike ``and natural gas'' .
Page 54, line 3, strike ``and natural gas''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of the
amendments en bloc?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited
to 20 minutes, 10 minutes to the proponent and 10 minutes to an
opponent, myself.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remove the words ``natural gas'' from
the moratorium that has been in every Interior bill, I am told, for 20
some years, unbeknownst to many Members of this Congress, that
prohibits the Department of Interior from leasing or subleasing lands
on the Outer Continental Shelf, our greatest reserve for natural gas.
The number one economic challenge facing America was not addressed in
our energy bill, in my view and the view of many, because we did not
adequately deal with the clean fuel, the fuel that has no
NOX, no SOX, the least CO2, the clean-
burning fuel, natural gas, that can be our bridge to the future.
It is threatening home ownership, folks. 76 percent increase in oil
prices, 176 percent increase in natural gas prices. Here is what one of
our leading employer group says: America has a new energy crisis. This
time it is the runaway price of natural gas.
Congress must act now to ease the natural gas crisis of this Nation's
fragile economic recovery, or it will return to recession. Every
recession since World War II has been preceded by a run-up in energy
prices and none of the run-up in prices have equaled the run-up in
natural gas prices.
It is threatening small business. It is the fastest increase in the
cost of education. It is the fastest increase in the cost of our
hospital health care. It is the greatest threat to our farm community
with exploding fertilizer costs. And because fertilizer factories use
so much natural gas, 21 of them have quit making fertilizer in America,
and all of them are looking offshore to produce fertilizer. Ninety
thousand chemical jobs, some of the best paying jobs in the industrial
sector we have left. Polymers and plastics are all looking to move
offshore.
The production of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf is not
looked at as an environmental threat by Canada, they sell us gas that
they produce, the UK, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, all countries
with environmental records. Eighty-five percent of our gas reserves are
locked up by moratorium.

{time} 1415

Why? It is the clean fuel. As I said before, no docks, CO2
one-fourth as much. It is the bridge to hydrogen. It could be bridging
us in the transportation field like school buses, transportation
systems, taxicabs, delivery trucks, easily changeable to natural gas if
it was affordable and we had adequate supply.
Natural gas is 25 percent of our energy use today. If we had an
adequate supply, it could be the friendly bridge, the environmentally
friendly bridge, to lead us to hydrogen, give us time for stronger
conservation measures, growing use of renewables and less dependence on
oil today.
A gas well is not an environmental threat. It is a 6-inch hole that
is cemented at the top and cemented at the bottom with a steel casing,
and it lets gas out. Canada produces in our Great Lakes and sells the
gas to us with no environmental impact.
When we look at this map, and this is my concluding comment, the
natural gas and oil, when we buy $50 oil, the whole world buys $50 oil;
but in natural gas we are at $7. Europe is at $5-something. Japan and
China are 4-something, and then we look at a dollar, 90 cents in
Russia. Where are industries going to grow? They are not going to grow
here.
This is the most important amendment we will consider, in my view, in
this part of Congress. Natural gas is a tragedy happening, and we can
stop it by lifting the moratorium.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield my 10 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ask unanimous consent that
he control the 10 minutes of time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some time on this side,
if we could have 5 minutes of the 10 minutes, if we could work that
out.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman in opposition to
this amendment?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, I am in opposition.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that. We have only

[[Page H3627]]

a total of 10 minutes to state our opposition. So how about 4 minutes?
Mr. DICKS. Four minutes would be fine.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the purposes of control.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) will control 4 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes, and
despite the eloquence of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson), my friend, who makes this amendment sound really attractive,
I must rise and express the objection of the Committee on
Appropriations to this amendment.
This amendment is no better than the amendment offered in full
committee which would have taken $50 million from very important
environmental protection issues and transfer it to this fund to create
an inventory of gas and oil. The fact of the matter is, we cannot
afford to remove the environmental protection in this bill, and we do
not need the inventory that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson) talks about. This amendment opens all coasts to new drilling.
The oil companies, the energy companies, the gas companies themselves
already have this inventory, as does the Minerals Management Service at
the Department of the Interior. We already know about this.
The truth of the matter is, this would just be a raid on the
environmental issues to fund something that does not need to be done.
The committee is opposed to this. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce have debated this in the past, have rejected similar
amendments; and I hope that we will do the same thing today, that we
will reject this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment.
This amendment guts the long-standing bipartisan moratorium that
currently protects the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine
areas, areas including California, Florida, the eastern Gulf of Mexico,
the Pacific Northwest, New England, and the entire Atlantic coast. It
is completely unnecessary.
Proponents say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to the
high energy prices. The only problem with this argument is that the
moratoria are not where the resources are.
MMS released its latest OCS resources survey just last year. Eighty-
one percent of the undiscovered, uneconomically recoverable natural gas
in the OCS is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico where
drilling is currently allowed and under way.
This amendment means drilling in the coastal areas of the United
States where there is not a whole lot of gas and oil, where tens of
millions of our citizens have made it clear they do not want any more
gas drilling, and it means gutting the Presidential-congressional
moratoria that had been in for decades, reaffirmed by Presidents George
H.W. Bush, Clinton, George Bush, every Congress since 1982. State
officials have also endorsed the moratoria, including Governor Bush,
Governor Schwarzenegger.
This House has voted three times in recent years to stop the oil
drilling in waters off Florida, California, and the entire OCS. I urge
my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment.
This amendment would gut the longstanding, bipartisan moratorium that
currently protects some of the Nation's most sensitive coastal and
marine areas. These moratoria areas include California, Florida and the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Oregon, Washington, New England, and the entire
Atlantic Coast. This amendment is an attack on the moratorium, and an
attack on the rights of coastal States and local governments to raise
legitimate objections to offshore development that affects their
coastlines.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a bad idea for a number of reasons,
not least because it is completely unnecessary. Proponents of the
amendment say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to high
energy prices. The only problem with this argument is the moratoria
areas aren't where the resources are. The Minerals Management Service
conducts a resources survey every five years. The latest comprehensive
analysis assessment was finished in 2003. This assessment includes
estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas that is conventionally
and economically recoverable.
We already know, for instance, that 81 percent of the Nation's
undiscovered, economically recoverable natural gas on the OCS is
located in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico--where drilling is
currently allowed and underway.
The amendment would mean drilling in coastal areas of the United
States where there isn't a whole lot of oil and gas and where tens of
millions of our citizens have made it clear that they don't want any
more drilling.
Mr. Chairman, a little history might be in order here. In 1990,
President George H.W. Bush announced an executive moratorium ending new
drilling off California, Oregon, Washington, Florida and the entire
East Coast. President Clinton extended it to 2012. Both actions were
met with widespread acclaim by a public that knows how valuable--
environmentally and economically--our coastlines are. And, of course,
Congress has supported these actions for the last 20 years by
restricting MMS from spending funds to support any new drilling or pre-
drilling activities in these areas.
In addition, President George W. Bush endorsed both moratoria in his
FY 06 budget. State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush and
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger--have endorsed the moratoria.
And, the House of Representatives has voted three times in recent years
to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida, California and the
entire Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment is bad policy and
reflects the misguided attempt to try and drill our way out of energy
problems.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has 3 percent of the known resources
but we account for 25 percent of demand. Despoiling all of our coastal
areas in the fruitless search for ``energy independence'' isn't going
to work. Coastal communities continue to speak--in strong bipartisan
voices--to protect their State's sensitive coastal resources and
productive coastal economies. They are too economically valuable to
risk with more drilling. It takes only one accident or spill to
devastate the local marine environment and economy.
Mr. Peterson suggests that his amendment would be limited to
exploration for natural gas only, and that this approach would somehow
avoid the risks of offshore oil drilling. There are serious flaws with
this theory. There is virtually no way to explore only for natural gas
without exploring for oil.
Moreover, natural gas development also has substantial and long-
lasting impacts, including noise, water and air pollution. And it
impacts the tourism and fishing industries.
Mr. Chairman, last Congress, 56 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted
to protect the OCS Moratorium. In that vote, the House demonstrated its
commitment to protecting our vital coastal communities. A vote against
this amendment is the same thing--a vote to protect coastal areas from
new drilling. We need to reject these attempts to weaken existing
protections for our coastal waters.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas
Resources of the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2003 Update

Using a play-based assessment methodology, the Minerals
Management Service estimated a mean of 76.0 billion barrels
of undiscovered recoverable oil and a mean of 406.1 trillion
cubic feet of undiscovered recoverable natural gas in the
Federal Outer Continental Shelf of the United States.

introduction

This assessment represents an update of selected basins of
the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Assessments of the
entire OCS were made by the Minerals Management Service (MMS)
in 1995 and 2000 (MMS, 1996 and MMS, 2001). The next MMS
assessment of the entire OCS is scheduled for completion in
mid 2005. Areas selected for this update included those where
significant new discoveries were made, such as parts of the
Gulf of Mexico, and areas where new geological concepts have
been developed, such as the Atlantic OCS margin and the North
Aleutian Basin of Alaska. Results from this selective update
were combined with the year 2000 assessment results from
other areas to yield the regional totals presented here.
The MMS utilizes a probabilistic play-based approach to
estimate the undiscovered technically recoverable resources
(UTRR) of oil and gas for individual plays. This methodology
is suitable for both conceptual plays where there is little
or no specific information available, and for developed plays
where

[[Page H3628]]

there are discovered oil and gas fields and considerable
information is available. After estimation, individual play
results are aggregated to larger areas such as basins and
regions.
This assessment is limited to technically recoverable
undiscovered resources of oil and gas. Unlike MMS's 1995 and
2000 assessments, it does not contain economic analyses of
what portion of these technically recoverable resources are
commercially viable.

resource summary

The MMS estimated that 76.0 billion barrels of oil and
406.1 trillion of cubic feet of gas are technically
recoverable from the U.S. Federal OCS. These results are
presented by area in table 1, which lists mean values as
wells as the 95th and 5th percentile values representing high
and low probability cases, respectively. Greater range
between the high and low values indicated higher uncertainty
in the estimates.
These values represent a 1 percent increase in oil
resources and a 12.1 percent increase in gas resources when
compared with MMS's 2000 assessment. The increases are due to
changes in the assessments of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
OCS areas. Both the Alaska and Pacific OCS area resource
estimates are essentially unchanged from 2000. The increases
also account for the approximately 2 Bbbl oil and 8 Tcfg that
were discovered and moved to the reserves category during
this time period.

TABLE 1.--UNDISCOVERED TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE RESOURCES OF THE OCS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscovered technically recoverable resources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTRR oil (Bbbl) UTRR gas (Tcf) UTRR BOE (Bbbl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F95 Mean F5 F95 Mean F5 F95 Mean F5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska OCS......................... 16.6 25.1 35.9 54.6 122.1 226.2 28.0 46.9 72.1
Atlantic OCS....................... 1.9 3.5 5.3 19.8 33.3 50.6 5.4 9.4 14.3
Gulf of Mexico OCS................. 31.5 36.9 44.0 208.9 232.5 267.6 68.7 78.3 91.6
Pacific OCS........................ 4.4 10.5 21.8 7.4 18.2 38.2 5.7 13.7 28.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total OCS...................... 62.1 76.0 93.0 326.2 406.1 520.0 122.0 148.3 180.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Bbbl, billion barrels of oil, Tcf, trillion cubic of gas. F95 indicates a 95 percent chance of at least the amount listed, F5 indicates a 5 percent
chance of at least the amount listed. Only mean values are additive.)

In the Atlantic OCS area significant new knowledge and
information was gained as a result of recent drilling in the
Scotian basin offshore Canada. Applying this new information
led to adjustments to risks applied to previous defined
plays, and to the definition of new plays resulting in
increased estimates for oil and gas UTRR of 52 percent and 19
percent respectively over MMS's 2000 study. Gulf of Mexico
OCS oil resources have remained flat while gas resources have
increased by over 20 percent relative to MMS's 2000 study.
This increase is attributed primarily to plays in the deep
shelf areas of the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, and to
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Results of new drilling and
discoveries led to revisions of plays and their associated
risks that significantly increased gas resources. This is
especially true for conceptual plays where valuable insights
into the presence of source rock, maturation, migration,
trapping, and reservoir facies were gained.

References

Minerals Management Service (MMS), 1996: An Assessment of
the Undiscovered Hydrocarbon Potential of the Nation's Outer
Continental Shelf, OCS Report MMS 96-0034.
--, 2001: Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Assessment,
2000, OCS Report MMS 2001-036, 12 p.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my comments
with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The proponents of this say that it is oil and gas. We are not talking
oil. If you want to poke a hole in the ground in Oklahoma or you want
to do it in land or even in ANWR, where they have the technology not to
cause the spills, that is fine. I will support you, or clean coal, I
will support you.
I understand the plight the farmers have with the cost of natural gas
and the fertilizer problem that they have. I will work with the
gentleman on that as well.
They say, well, let us do it in the Gulf of Mexico, so we are going
to do to Mexicans what we want to do for us? If you poke a hole in the
Earth, you are going to get oil up. I do not know if you have ever come
to Long Beach, you better bring kerosene with you if you go on our
beaches. Because you take your dog or you walk along those beaches, the
bottom of your feet are solid oil. You go poking holes in that, the
economy of California is critical to tourism.
We have the best beaches, better than Washington State. We have the
best weather, and we invite you to come spend your money in California,
but you are not going to come if we start poking holes in the bottom of
the Pacific along the coast as the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) says.
I know the heart and the effort of the gentleman that is offering
this amendment, and I know why he is doing it and I empathize with him,
but it would destroy the California economy and environment as well as
our beaches.
We have got beautiful lagoons. We have got the most beautiful lagoons
in the world, and wetlands. I am not an extreme environmentalist, but
those are, no kidding, true wetlands; and the National Academy of
Science says whether you are drilling for oil or gas off the California
coast, you are going to, not maybe, you are going to hurt the wildlife,
you are going to destroy those lagoons, and then we are going to end up
like Long Beach with oil all over our beaches and hurt our economy.
So I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) who also cares deeply about this issue.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, actually, it sounds like the author of
this amendment does not quite understand the need to preserve our
beautiful coastline.
The coast of Marin and Sonoma counties, my district, is one of the
most biologically productive regions in the world. While it comprises
only 1 percent of the ocean, it is home to 20 percent of the world's
fish.
The coastal estuaries are important passages for endangered salmon,
steelhead, essential haulouts for seals and sea lions, and prolific
nurseries for hundreds of aquatic species.
The coastal communities in my district rely on tourism and the
fishing industry that could be severely hurt if offshore oil drilling
and gas drilling were permitted off our coasts.
The people who live in my district do not and will not support
offshore drilling. They realize that we need an energy policy that
focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources, not oil rigs, not an endless depletion of our natural
resources.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. For some reason, the Majority Party
feels that if we just keep drilling for more gas then our emergency
crisis will be over. Unfortunately, they aren't looking for a solution
to our energy crisis and rising gas prices, instead, they are looking
to line the pockets of big oil companies by supporting offshore oil
drillings.
Let's not forget the irrevocable damage to our environment that
offshore drilling causes. This devastation can be seen in the Gulf of
Mexico where OCS pipelines crossing coastal wetlands are estimated to
have destroyed more coastal sale marsh than can be found in the stretch
of coastal land running from New Jersey through Maine.
It sounds like the author of this amendment doesn't understand the
need to preserve our beautiful coastlines.
But, the people that I am so fortunate to represent in Marin and
Sonoma counties do understand. They get it.
The coast of Marin and Sonoma County in my district is one of the
most biologically productive regions in the world.
While it compromises only one percent of the ocean, it is home to 20
percent of the world's fish. The coastal estuaries are important
passages for endangered salmon and steelhead, essential haulouts for
seals and sea lions, and prolific nurseries for hundreds of aquatic
species.
The coastal communities in my District rely on tourism and fishing--
industries that could be severely hurt if offshore drilling was
permitted off of our coast. If you were to visit this

[[Page H3629]]

beautiful stretch of coast, you would understand why the people who
live in my district don't and won't support offshore drilling. They
realize that we need an energy policy that focuses on investments in
energy efficiency and renewable energy source, not oilrigs and the
endless depletion of our natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the
Peterson amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am here to support the long overdue
Peterson amendment.
I come from Florida. We will not hear a lot of folks talk about this.
It is a hot political issue. All of us are equally concerned about
preserving the environment.
Since my days in the legislature, I have always supported the safe
and environmentally sound development and exploration of natural gas
off the coast of Florida. I helped participate in the development of
the section 181 prohibitions. I oppose oil drilling. We can safely
extract natural gas.
For all of the 1990s, and many of my colleagues were here, our policy
was to convert coal and oil-generating plants to natural gas, and we
have done that in over 30 of our plants in Florida, and we have got
more coming online.
My colleagues saw that we pay just about double the price. This not-
in-my-backyard does not cut it. We can keep it offshore, but we can
still do it soundly and safely.
I support the amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair give us a breakdown of the
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks)
has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson)
has 5 minutes remaining before yielding, and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) has 3 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) is recognized.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of this.
I have spent 15 years here trying to develop alternative sources of
energy so we are not victimized by oil. We have a safe extractive
method here with natural gas. We have encouraged it. We want to get to
alternative energies. This is one of the alternative energies, and it
has a direct effect on the working people of this country.
I will tell my colleagues, I think this is a jobs issue. This is a
blue collar issue. This is a family issue in terms of bringing down
prices and getting a safe supply of fuel for this country. If we do not
get into this kind of alternative, we are going to be struck forever in
rhetoric and not being able to produce for our people, not just fuel
but produce it in a way that is truly alternative and within the bounds
of people's budgets.
That is why we need to support this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I stand in vigorous opposition to this amendment or any
amendment similar to this.
The point has been made that you can drill for gas safely. When you
start drilling, you do not know what you are going to get. You do not
know whether you are going to get gas or oil, and the environmental
problems here are immense.
Thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), we have had this
moratorium in place since 1983. We need to leave it in place. The
environmental studies and testimony that would be required in order to
negate any chance of pollution must be gone through before this House
ever considers such a bill.
So I would urge all the Members to vote against lifting this
moratorium. It is reckless. It is reckless to the environment of
Florida. It is a bad environmental vote, and I recommend its defeat.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
It seems like there is quite a bit of discrepancy here in our
information. Many of us believe that natural gas can be extracted
without endangering the environment. I happen to be on that side of the
issue.
We have continually increased our emphasis and our dependence on
natural gas, and yet our supply has remained stagnant. We have tried to
put in the pipeline from Alaska. That has been stalled.
Currently, we are paying 600 percent more for natural gas than many
other nations in the world. Those living on fixed incomes are being
eaten up by these costs.
In the area of agriculture, we find that pumping fuel is 20 percent
higher this year. We are going to need 10 to 12 cents more per bushel
of grain in order to offset the increasing cost of gas and fertilizer.
This is the margin that most farmers rely on. That puts them into an
unprofitable situation.
So I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it can be done in
an environmentally safe and sensitive way, and it does make sense.

{time} 1430

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, hard-working American families are paying
a high price at the gas pump today because of our Nation's dependence
upon foreign energy. Every day high gasoline prices are hurting good,
decent hard-working families who are having to cut back on their
purchases of food, medicine, and clothes. High natural gas prices are
hurting our Nation's businesses, who are laying off families and
breadwinners.
This is simply about supporting an amendment that will provide
environmentally safe and sound production of natural gas off the
eastern Gulf Coast, something we are already doing off the Texas and
the Louisiana coast. And to my friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham), I have walked on Texas beaches since I was 2 years
old and have yet to end up with black-bottom feet because of oil on our
beaches.
Mr. Chairman, this can be done in a positive way. But most
importantly we need to send a message to the OPEC nations that we are
tired of a handful of OPEC oil ministers putting their hands around the
necks of family budgets and businesses here in America.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
We hear a lot of conversation today here on the floor about national
security and not depending upon foreign sources of oil and gas. Let me
just say that this particular issue is in fact a national security
issue.
Most of the focus we hear, obviously, is on the potential
environmental impacts and impacts on tourism and all of the
environmental things we enjoy along our coasts in Florida and in
California. But let me just say that the biggest impact that could
happen with oil and natural gas, drilling or exploration in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico is a potential to harm our ability to test and evaluate
all of the Air Force weaponry that is used around the globe.
In fact, let me read a quote to you. ``Wilbert Patterson, Brigadier
General, United States Air Force, June of 2000. We are deeply concerned
over the construction of any oil or gas structures that could impact on
our critical test programs performed by the Air Armament Center at
Eglin Air Force Base.''
This is an issue of national security. We have to be able to test in
the Gulf ranges and this drilling will harm that testing.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis), who is deeply concerned about this issue, as well
as his colleagues from California.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. The argument that has been made in support of the amendment
is that the price of natural gas is increased to the consumer. And we
should address this as a Congress. But one of the points that has been
overlooked here today is that this Congress passed an energy bill that
provided initial financial incentives to drill in the central and

[[Page H3630]]

western gulf, and that is a valid attempt by this Congress to address
this issue.
But to open up the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be a terrible
mistake. There is a very small proportion available, and what is
available is right off the coast of Florida. It has been suggested
Florida should follow the standards of Texas with respect to our
beaches. The beaches in Florida are a pristine treasure not to be
experimented with.
The truth of the matter is nobody here on the floor of the House
knows what the risk is if you drill. This amendment may say gas, but it
is about gas and oil. Because once you start drilling, you get what you
get when you drill. So we should not sacrifice or risk the Florida
beaches or the California beaches to get a small proportion of gas that
can be more easily achieved, and which this Congress is promoting
through deepwater drilling in the central and western coast.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, opening up the Offshore
Continental Shelf will save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20
years for our consumers and manufacturers. It is not just for
businesses, but to heat and cool our homes we use natural gas. If we do
not explore and produce off our potential, whether it be California,
the eastern Gulf of Mexico, or anywhere else, we are going to continue
to be held up by the world price. Our consumers will pay for it.
Mr. Chairman, I like the beaches in Texas, I like them in Florida and
California, but I also know we need to use our natural resources.
Supply and demand for energy is out of whack and our Nation needs
more energy. The Federal Government tried to mandate demand reduction
in the last energy crisis and it contributed to a nationwide recession
we do not want to repeat.
A recent Gallup poll found that half of family budgets have been
seriously affected by the recent rise in energy prices.
Opening the OCS could save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20
years, for consumers and manufacturers. High natural gas costs are
sending manufacturing jobs overseas, following the cheap gas.
Environmentally conscious nations like Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan
and the UK are safely and successfully producing natural gas from their
coastal waters.
No nation can produce energy more responsibly than ours. I have been
on oil and gas rigs and they have such few discharges into the ocean, a
medium sized fishing boat will leak more in a year.
This amendment is a major opportunity for us to respond to today's
energy crisis with a national solution. I feel justified in supporting
this amendment because I am from a coastal district. My constituents
feel the same way as I do on this issue.
Chemical production and oil and gas exploration, processing, and
refining are Texas top coastal industries. My colleagues from Florida
and California think only they have beaches, but coastal tourism is
Texas's second largest coastal industry.
That fact alone shows the argument that oil and gas production and
coastal tourism are mutually exclusive is just plain wrong. They are
acting like Chicken Little, and cannot point to one beach in Texas that
has been ruined by oil or natural gas production.
There will be less need for LNG facilities and LNG tankers when we
tap our own offshore resources so we can use the safest mode of
transportation in the world--pipelines.
To address the needs of American families, we need a 3 pronged
strategy. First, we need more production and infrastructure to meet our
needs of today and tomorrow.
Second, we need more conservation to keep our economy going as
resources become more competitive globally.
Third, we need more research to transition our economy to future
sources of energy, for a time when petrochemicals are only used for
materials, and not as an everyday fuel.
Supporting only long-term solutions and conservation is just not
enough. It might be easier if it was, but we need to do more for
today's energy problems. We will need continued American energy
production for some time.
My point is not that we can drill our way to cheap oil or drill our
way to energy independence. If we allow domestic production to die out,
conservation and research will not save us, and we will have to pay a
terrible economic price.
I urge my colleagues to support oil and gas production in the Outer
Continental Shelf.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to my good friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), but I have always supported
the oil and gas exploration. Our economy demands it, and I believe this
can be done safely. It is a jobs issue, it is about lowering the price
of energy, and I strongly urge support for the Peterson amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I would point out that Iowa and the Corn Belt are held hostage to the
price of natural gas in two ways. It is our input cost for nitrogen
fertilizer. Ninety percent of the cost is the cost of natural gas. The
other side is that we use it to dry grain.
We have to have a full energy picture. I congratulate the gentleman
for bringing this amendment, fully support it, and I urge adoption of
it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
First of all, we had no hearings in the committee about this. I
believe that on a subject of this importance, if we are going to take
back this protection that we have had on the books almost for the last
25 years, we have to have hearings. We have to bring in the parties and
give people good information about what this is all about. That was not
done. This amendment came up for the first time in the full committee.
So I believe just on process this amendment should be defeated, and I
would tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that we should take a look
at this. The committee should have some oversight hearings. But to come
here now without having those hearings, the benefit of those hearings,
and to present this and reverse 25 years of Presidential and
Congressional cooperation would be a serious mistake. So I oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume to ask the gentleman if we had hearings before it was
put in this bill 20 years ago and every year in a row? No.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce).
(Mr. PEARCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. I made my
living in the oil and gas business. And to correct an earlier
statement, you can determine what you are going to drill for. You can
determine that you are going to put oil at the surface or you are going
to put gas at the surface. That is to correct the record.
We are in a world economy, and we are losing our jobs. These jobs are
100,000 a year-plus jobs when we lose them out of the chemical industry
and the fertilizer industry. I was in the industry when the price went
from $2 to $50. We will drill this gas. We will simply do it before or
after we lose our jobs. We will do it before or after people have to
give up their homes to heat them.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what is the status of the
remaining time?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) holds the remaining time of 1 minute.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Again, I represent the strong position of the committee in opposition
to this amendment. The committee has considered this many, many times
before and determined that this moratorium should stay in place. It
started in 1983. There have been attempts to change it since then
unsuccessfully.
We cannot solve the energy problems of America and the world in an
appropriation bill. Those issues should be

[[Page H3631]]

settled in an energy bill, and the energy bill that was before us did
not include this amendment because it just does not work.
So, representing the committee, and the minority has indicated, as
indicated by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), we are opposed
strongly to this amendment and hope that the Members will reject it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of the Peterson Amendment to end the 20 year moratoria on
natural gas production from the outer continental shelf and Gulf of
Mexico.
High natural gas prices have not only affected the 61 percent of U.S.
households that use natural gas for heating and cooking, but America's
small businesses, including agriculture. The agricultural industry
depends on natural gas for crop drying, irrigation, heating, farm
buildings, food processing and nitrogen fertilizer production.
Undoubtedly, the most demanding use of natural gas by the farm sector
is in the production of nitrogen fertilizer. It accounts for 90 percent
of total costs of producing fertilizer. The surge in natural gas prices
over the last four years has been a key reason why nitrogen fertilizer
costs have jumped by nearly 50 percent at the farm level. This problem
is not going away on its own, a recent report by Iowa State University
estimates that farmers can expect to pay 20 percent more for fertilizer
this year than they did last year.
Nitrogen fertilizer is an essential component in today's high-
yielding agriculture and accounts for more than 40 percent of the total
energy input per acre of corn harvested. The importance of nitrogen to
crop production can be illustrated by the fact that it is applied to 96
percent of all corn acres, 86 percent of all wheat acres and 80 percent
of all cotton acres. According to data from the University of Illinois,
without nitrogen fertilizers, corn yields would reduce by one-third to
one-half.
This 20 year moratorium has created a supply squeeze for natural gas.
On one hand, electric utilities and other industries have been
influenced to move away from using our plentiful supplies of coal and
towards the use of natural gas. Natural gas has been the fuel of choice
for more than 90 percent of the new electric generation to come online
in the last decade. At the same time, access to natural gas is limited
due to environmental policies. Clearly we can't have it both ways.
Our family farmers are already efficient. Since 1980, they have
increased efficiency by 35 percent while still boosting corn yields by
40 percent. But they need Congress to produce the kind of policies that
enable them to access the resources they need at a reasonable price.
American agriculture is being held hostage to high natural gas
prices, yet we have a plentiful supply right here in the United States.
A vote in favor of the Peterson Amendment will be a vote for
agriculture.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendments offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Wu

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Wu:
Immediately after Sec. 104 insert the following:
None of the funds in this or any other Act shall be used to
permit class III gaming activities under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act on non-reservation Indian land.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member,
but I am deeply concerned about a possible Indian gambling casino in
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. I have had these
concerns for at least 7 years, and I am extremely disappointed in
recent developments. The Governor of Oregon signed a compact with this
tribe on April 6 and it was presented to the Department of the Interior
on April 8.
I have been consistent in my position and I have privately informed
the Confederate Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and Governor
Kulongoski and his predecessor Governor Kitzaber throughout my
congressional career that I specifically do not support a casino in the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and that generally I oppose
off-reservation gaming casinos.
I have persisted in suggesting to the Warm Springs Tribe that they
consider a new location on reservation land along a highly traveled
route, namely Highway 26, between Portland, Oregon, and Bend, Oregon.
This particular proposal came to the Federal Government on April 8, and
it is necessary that I weigh in now. I am asking Secretary Norton to
disapprove the Tribal-State compact, because this casino will hurt the
Columbia River Gorge, other tribes and all Oregonians.
I understand the Secretary intends to approve this compact, but that
only starts the process. I am here to tell the Secretary and the Tribe
that Congress will not be silent while the crown jewel of Oregon's
natural heritage gets trashed. I have been a supporter of preserving
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and I will continue to do
so.
A casino of this magnitude will bring over 3 million non-Gorge-
related visitors per year, a million cars per year to the area, and
exacerbate traffic, pollution, and risks to endangered species in the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. I am pro-Gorge, and I am
troubled that there is a possibility of disturbing this crown jewel of
Oregon's natural heritage. I will actively oppose this proposal and do
everything I can to protect the Gorge.
State and Federal agencies have already determined that air quality
in the Columbia River Gorge is significantly degraded and that
visibility is impaired 95 percent of the time within this national
scenic area. Also, according to the United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, this
area suffers acid rain and fog as severe as what falls in industrial
cities such as Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and New York.
Mr. Chairman, States such as Oregon, Nevada, Louisiana, Rhode Island,
and South Dakota derive State taxes from casinos, slot machines, and
lotteries for more than 10 percent of their overall State revenues.
Oregon must not become further dependent on gambling. In all the States
I listed, budgetary problems persist and gambling does not solve their
problems. We should not sacrifice our national treasures, our
communities, or our souls upon the alter of Indian casino gambling.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

{time} 1445

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to having an opportunity to
work with my colleagues from Oregon and California in the near future
in order to address the expansion of casino gambling to off-reservation
sites.
I thank the gentleman for allowing me to address this issue of
concern to my district. In my Pennsylvania district, the Delaware
tribes of Oklahoma have filed suit in order to acquire the right to
establish a casino. Their claim is based on a conveyance that allegedly
occurred in 1737 before our Nation's independence. The land that they
claim is home to at least 25 local families, and also contains the
Binney and Smith manufacturing plant, the maker of Crayola crayons.
These tribes, who are based out of State, are only interested in seeing
working and senior Pennsylvanians gamble away their hard-earned
dollars. They are not concerned about the valuable manufacturing jobs
jeopardized as a result of the displacement caused by this casino, or
the fact that Binney and Smith/Crayola makes a useful product loved by
children all over the world.
I am concerned about this kind of reservation shopping, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues from California and Oregon and
Michigan and elsewhere in order to limit these tribes' ability to build
new casinos on properties not contiguous to existing reservations or on
those lands where ownership is based solely on a conveyance that
predates the existence of our Nation.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this discussion about
casinos. I want to relate a similar problem that we have in my area in
Michigan, not directly in my district, but it impinges on my district.

[[Page H3632]]

I believe it is high time that the Congress address this particular
problem. The difficulty my area is a case of a tribe which does not
live in the area in which it is seeking to have land placed in trust
for it in a community that welcomes it because they think that there
will be economic development. But, in fact, it is going to have serious
impact on areas in my district and on surrounding communities.
Obviously, it is going to be a high-traffic area, with a need for new
roads, and of course the casinos do not pay any tax. There will be no
tax on the land, and this results in a good deal of problems that the
local communities and state will not have the funds to take care of.
I believe it is very important to put a limitation on off-reservation
gambling and on cases where a tribe moves into an area which is nowhere
near its home and claims that to be an area where they can have land
placed in trust, and they then build casinos and other facilities.
It creates particular problems, for example, for merchants who may be
running a supermarket or a gas station, and suddenly there is somebody
new in town who is offering the same services, but does not have to pay
taxes. This is a totally unfair proposition for the local businesses
that are there. In that sense, I support the effort to put some
regulation on this.
I am not rising in support of the amendment. I have been involved in
discussions with the previous speakers, and they have much the same
problems we do, but I have also discussed it with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) who chairs the Committee on Resources, and he
has assured me and the rest of us that he has a bill that will deal
with this problem and that will provide free and open debate on the
House floor.
Rather than deal with it in an appropriations bill, it is my
preference that we not consider these amendments at this point, but
defer to the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and await the
chairman's bill which he has said that he will attempt to get out of
committee and onto the floor before the August recess.
We have to recognize this is a serious problem for many communities
across the country. I have only addressed one aspect of it, but there
are many other aspects that have to be addressed and understood. When
the Pombo bill comes up, we will have time for a full debate and
discussion of all of the other tangential issues as well, including
what ability the States have to regulate the location of these
facilities, and what ability the States have to negotiate compacts so
that the actual costs to the State and local communities are met by
these facilities that are moved into an area where the sponsoring
individuals have never lived.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment proposed by my
colleague from Oregon. I only wish I had known in advance the gentleman
was going to offer this amendment because it is specifically targeted
toward my district, a tribe in my district, that is seeking to gain
approval of a compact and take land into trust.
Warm Springs Tribe is not a family of five that has gone out shopping
somewhere in some other State for land. There are 4,400 tribal members
who are suffering on the reservation. They have worked diligently with
the communities involved. They have land in the Scenic Columbia River
Gorge that is in trust and was in trust prior to the passage of IGRA,
and it is on a hillside where they have plans where they could build,
and they could do that today.
But that land would scar the beauty of the Scenic Columbia River
Gorge, which is my home and has been my home all of my life. This
tribe, instead, looked to another area, and my colleague from Oregon
suggests that the area they looked at is the crown jewel of the gorge.
Mr. Chairman, this is port property zoned for industrial use, leveled
out with dredge tailings from the construction of the second lock at
Bonneville Dam, all right, as opposed to an area up on a side hill that
is timbered and beautiful where they already have land. So they worked
with the local community which supports them locating there. They
reached a compact with the Democratic Governor in a long and protracted
discussion. That compact is now before the Secretary.
My colleague has on more than one occasion mentioned an acid rain
study. We have looked at that, and he should know because we know it
was done over a 4-month period one with readings at a little town in
Wishram, Washington, during the winter when it is foggy in the gorge.
So there is much more to that story that I will not get into today, but
I suggest the gentleman take another look at that study.
I grew up in the gorge. We are the wind-surfing, kite-boarding
capital of the world. And in the summer, if you want to come and find
where the wind blows, come to the gorge and enjoy the great
recreational opportunities, and it blows from the west. The west is
where the great urban center of our wonderful State is, where there are
traffic problems and industrial problems; and I tell Members that
because if there is a problem with pollution in the gorge, it is not
coming from the east, it is coming from the west.
So I urge Members to oppose this amendment. I think the chairman of
our Committee on Resources has a much more prudent approach, to look at
this issue on a broader scale, to see what is the best policy for this
Nation to follow when it comes to dealing with these issues of tribal
casinos on or off reservation.
But to move an amendment like this with very little notice, if any,
on an appropriations bill, I would dare say, is not appropriate.

Point of Order

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if
changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). Does any Member wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman as to whether
the chairman would permit the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and me
to engage in a discussion of the merits of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. At this point debate is on the point of order.
The gentleman from Oregon may not yield to another for discussion on
the point of order. The Chair will hear each Member on his own time in
debate on the point of order.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WU. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WU. What is the scope of discussion permitted in this segment of
the debate?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Argument relevant to the point of order raised
against the amendment.
Mr. WU. I concede the point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
The amendment is out of order.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Acting 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. 2361)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________