[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

       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, $7,386,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount provided herein is for the Private 
     Stewardship Grants Program established by the Secretary to 
     provide grants and other assistance to individuals and groups 
     engaged in private conservation efforts that benefit 
     federally listed, proposed, candidate, or other at-risk 
     species.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 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.

                          ____________________