[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3651-H3675]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me thank the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for bringing forward a bill
that I believe addresses many of the critical issues for the Department
of the Interior.
It is impossible not to note that this budget environment creates
genuinely tough challenges for the Department of the Interior. With
that said, I believe the subcommittee has done an excellent job in
crafting a bill that addresses those major problems.
Several years ago this committee provided funds for a new visitors
center at Chickasaw National Recreation Area in my district. The bids
came in high due to the rising cost of materials. Before the project
could be downsized the Department of the Interior had to reprogram
these funds for emergency wildfire suppression.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking that you consider restoring this project in
conference should funds become available.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
understand the gentleman's concerns and the unfortunate turn of events
which caused this project to be delayed, and I will give the request of
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) every possible consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), our distinguished chairman, for
offering to work with me and the committee to resolve this through the
conference process.
I believe that this is an important and critical step toward
addressing what has been a very real injustice. I thank the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill through page 128 line 12 be
[[Page H3652]]
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 79 line 7, through page 128 line 12 is
as follows:
capital improvement and maintenance
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $468,260,000, to remain available until
expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and
acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for
construction, reconstruction, repair, decommissioning, and
maintenance of forest roads and trails by the Forest Service
as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205:
Provided, That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein
for road maintenance shall be available for the
decommissioning of roads, including unauthorized roads not
part of the transportation system, which are no longer
needed: Provided further, That no funds shall be expended to
decommission any system road until notice and an opportunity
for public comment has been provided on each decommissioning
project.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses,
and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein,
in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the
Forest Service, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until
expended.
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts
For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.
acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges
For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities,
and for authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-
Federal parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts,
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.
range betterment fund
For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6
percent shall be available for administrative expenses
associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.
gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research
For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $64,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.
management of national forest lands for subsistence uses
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage
Federal lands inAlaska for subsistence uses under title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), $5,467,000, to remain available until
expended.
administrative provisions, forest service
Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of passenger motor
vehicles; acquisition of passenger motor vehicles from excess
sources, and hire of such vehicles; purchase, lease,
operation, maintenance, and acquisition of aircraft from
excess sources to maintain the operable fleet for use in
Forest Service wildland fire programs and other Forest
Service programs; notwithstanding other provisions of law,
existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with proceeds
derived or trade-in value used to offset the purchase price
for the replacement aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7
U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed $100,000 for employment under
5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) purchase, erection, and alteration of
buildings and other public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4)
acquisition of land, waters, and interests therein pursuant
to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers
in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and
558a note); (6) the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (7) for debt collection contracts in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
None of the funds made available under this Act shall be
obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close
any regional office for National Forest System administration
of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture without the
consent of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions upon notification of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and if and only if all
previously appropriated emergency contingent funds under the
heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' have been released by
the President and apportioned and all wildfire suppression
funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' are
obligated.
The first transfer of funds into the Wildland Fire
Management account shall include unobligated funds, if
available, from the Land Acquisition account and the Forest
Legacy program within the State and Private Forestry account.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b, however
in fiscal year 2006 the Forest Service may transfer funds to
the ``National Forest System'' account from other agency
accounts to enable the agency's law enforcement program to
pay full operating costs including overhead.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying
this Act.
Not more than $72,646,000 of the funds available to the
Forest Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital
Fund of the Department of Agriculture.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $2,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, $3,000,000
may be advanced in a lump sum to the National Forest
Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in
support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when
the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative expenses
or projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or
related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That of the
Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no more than
$250,000 shall be available for administrative expenses:
Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, by the
end of the period of Federal financial assistance, private
contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis funds
made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, That
the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-Federal
recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient
has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: Provided
further, That authorized investments of Federal funds held by
the Foundation may be made only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed
as to both principal and interest by the United States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244,
$2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall
be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a
lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without
regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting
National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service
programs: Provided, That such funds shall be matched on at
least a one-for-one basis by the Foundation or its
subrecipients.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law
enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural
resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such
amounts shall not exceed $500,000.
An eligible individual who is employed in any project
funded under title V of the Older American Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service
shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
Any funds appropriated to the Forest Service may be used to
meet the non-Federal share requirement in section 502(c) of
the Older American Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)).
For each fiscal year through 2009, funds available to the
Forest Service in this Act may be used for the purpose of
expenses associated with primary and secondary schooling for
dependents of agency personnel stationed in Puerto Rico prior
to the date of enactment of this Act, who are subject to
transfer
[[Page H3653]]
and reassignment to other locations in the United States, at
a cost not in excess of those authorized for the Department
of Defense for the same area, when it is determined by the
Chief of the Forest Service that public schools available in
the locality are unable to provide adequately for the
education of such dependents.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
indian health services
For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $2,732,298,000, together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That up to $18,000,000 shall
remain available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic
Health Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $507,021,000
for contract medical care shall remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2007: Provided further, That
of the funds provided, up to $27,000,000, to remain available
until expended, shall be used to carry out the loan repayment
program under section 108 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided in
this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants which
are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the total
obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds are
appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the
authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of
achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and
requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new
facilities): Provided further, That funding contained herein,
and in any earlier appropriations Acts for scholarship
programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal
organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and
available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations
until expended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, of the amounts provided herein, not
to exceed $268,683,000 shall be for payments to tribes and
tribal organizations for contract or grant support costs
associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts
or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health
Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to
or during fiscal year 2006, of which not to exceed $5,000,000
may be used for contract support costs associated with new or
expanded self-determination contracts, grants, self-
governance compacts or annual funding agreements: Provided
further, That funds available for the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out
activities typically funded under the Indian Health
Facilities account: Provided further, That of the amounts
provided to the Indian Health Service, $15,000,000 is
provided for alcohol control, enforcement, prevention,
treatment, sobriety and wellness, and education in Alaska:
Provided further, That none of the funds may be used for
tribal courts or tribal ordinance programs or any program
that is not directly related to alcohol control, enforcement,
prevention, treatment, or sobriety: Provided further, That no
more than 15 percent may be used by any entity receiving
funding for administrative overhead including indirect costs:
Provided further, That the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall
collect from the Indian Health Service and tribes and tribal
organizations operating health facilities pursuant to Public
Law 93-638 such individually identifiable health information
relating to disabled children as may be necessary for the
purpose of carrying out its functions under the Individuals
With Disability Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.
indian health facilities
For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $370,774,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to
construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities:
Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be used
by the Indian Health Service to purchase TRANSAM equipment
from the Department of Defense for distribution to the Indian
Health Service and tribal facilities: Provided further, That
none of the funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service
may be used for sanitation facilities construction for new
homes funded with grants by the housing programs of the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 from this
account and the ``Indian Health Services'' account shall be
used by the Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for
the Indian Health Service and tribal facilities in
conjunction with an existing interagency agreement between
the Indian Health Service and the General Services
Administration: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, funds appropriated for the planning,
design, and construction of the replacement health care
facility in Barrow, Alaska, may be used to purchase land up
to approximately 8 hectares for a site upon which to
construct the new health care facility: Provided further,
That not to exceed $500,000 shall be placed in a Demolition
Fund, available until expended, to be used by the Indian
Health Service for demolition of Federal buildings.
administrative provisions, indian health service
Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefor as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities.
In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health
care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service
facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with
funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the
facility providing the service and shall be available without
fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be
administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation
Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this
Act, except those used for administrative and program
direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations
directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used for any assessments or
charges by the Department of Health and Human Services unless
identified in the budget justification and provided in this
Act, or approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations through the reprogramming process. Personnel
ceilings may not be imposed on the Indian Health Service nor
may any action be taken to reduce the full time equivalent
level of the Indian Health Service below the level in fiscal
year 2002 adjusted upward for the staffing of new and
expanded facilities, funding provided for staffing at the
Lawton, Oklahoma hospital in fiscal years 2003 and 2004,
critical positions not filled in fiscal year 2002, and
staffing necessary to carry out the intent of Congress with
regard to program increases.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal
organization through a contract, grant, or agreement
authorized by title I or title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
determination contract under title I, or a self-governance
agreement under title V of such Act and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by
the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the
eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health
Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a
budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with
the proposed final rule, and such request has been included
in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health
Service to tribes or tribal
[[Page H3654]]
organizations, the Indian Health Service is authorized to
provide goods and services to those entities, on a
reimbursable basis, including payment in advance with
subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements received therefrom,
along with the funds received from those entities pursuant to
the Indian Self-Determination Act, may be credited to the
same or subsequent appropriation account which provided the
funding. Such amounts shall remain available until expended.
Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance.
The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service
may not be altered without advance notification to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
National Institutes of Health
national institute of environmental health sciences
For necessary expenses for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set
forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended, and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, $80,289,000.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
toxic substances and environmental public health
For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set
forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), as amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, $76,024,000, of which up to
$1,500,000, to remain available until expended, is for
Individual Learning Accounts for full-time equivalent
employees of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, in lieu of performing a health assessment under
section 104(i)(6) of CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may
conduct other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or
activities, including, without limitation, biomedical
testing, clinical evaluations, medical monitoring, and
referral to accredited health care providers: Provided
further, That in performing any such health assessment or
health study, evaluation, or activity, the Administrator of
ATSDR shall not be bound by the deadlines in section
104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided further, That none of the
funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for
ATSDR to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles
pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 2006,
and existing profiles may be updated as necessary.
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
Executive Office of the President
council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality
For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to
exceed $750 for official reception and representation
expenses, $2,717,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section
202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the
Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and
duties of the Council.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant
to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
including hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376, $9,200,000: Provided, That the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board (Board) shall have not more
than three career Senior Executive Service positions:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the individual appointed to the position of Inspector
General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall,
by virtue of such appointment, also hold the position of
Inspector General of the Board: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Inspector
General of the Board shall utilize personnel of the Office of
Inspector General of EPA in performing the duties of the
Inspector General of the Board, and shall not appoint any
individuals to positions within the Board.
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$8,601,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development
payment to the institute
For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A),
$6,300,000.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings,
facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five
replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for employees, $524,381,000, of which
not to exceed $10,992,000 for the instrumentation program,
collections acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the
National Museum of African American History and Culture, and
the repatriation of skeletal remains program shall remain
available until expended; and of which $9,086,000 for the
reopening of the Patent Office Building and for fellowships
and scholarly awards shall remain available until September
30, 2007; and including such funds as may be necessary to
support American overseas research centers and a total of
$125,000 for the Council of American Overseas Research
Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are
available for advance payments to independent contractors
performing research services or participating in official
Smithsonian presentations: Provided further, That the
Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal appropriations
designated in this Act for lease or rent payments for long
term and swing space, as rent payable to the Smithsonian
Institution, and such rent payments may be deposited into the
general trust funds of the Institution to the extent that
federally supported activities are housed in the 900 H
Street, N.W. building in the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That this use of Federal appropriations shall not be
construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee of, a transfer
of risk to, or an obligation of, the Federal Government:
Provided further, That no appropriated funds may be used to
service debt which is incurred to finance the costs of
acquiring the 900 H Street building or of planning,
designing, and constructing improvements to such building.
facilities capital
For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and
alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian
Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by
section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and
for construction, including necessary personnel, $90,900,000,
to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$10,000 is for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109:
Provided, That contracts awarded for environmental systems,
protection systems, and repair or restoration of facilities
of the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with
selected contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor
qualifications as well as price.
administrative provisions, smithsonian institution
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs
including closure of facilities, relocation of staff or
redirection of functions and programs without the advance
approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current
space or new facility without consultation with the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for
the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in
Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize
water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim
structural support.
None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be
reprogrammed without the
[[Page H3655]]
advance written approval of the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations in accordance with the reprogramming
procedures contained in the statement of the managers
accompanying this Act.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
purchase any additional buildings without prior consultation
with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
National Gallery of Art
salaries and expenses
For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $97,100,000,
of which not to exceed $3,157,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.
repair, restoration and renovation of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized, $16,200,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a single procurement for the Master Facilities Plan
renovation project at the National Gallery of Art may be
issued which includes the full scope of the Work Area #3
project: Provided further, That the solicitation and the
contract shall contain the clause ``availability of funds''
found at 48 CFR 52.232.18.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
operations and maintenance
For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $17,800,000.
construction
For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $9,085,000.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$121,264,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the
arts through assistance to organizations and individuals
pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, including
$14,922,000 for support of arts education and public outreach
activities through the Challenge America program, for program
support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the
Arts ``Matching Grants'' account and ``Challenge America''
account may be transferred to and merged with this account.
National Endowment for the Humanities
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$122,605,000, shall be available to the National Endowment
for the Humanities for support of activities in the
humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $15,449,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $10,000,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.
Administrative Provisions
None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may
be used as necessary for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That the
Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may
approve grants up to $10,000, if in the aggregate this amount
does not exceed 5 percent of the sums appropriated for grant-
making purposes per year: Provided further, That such small
grant actions are taken pursuant to the terms of an expressed
and direct delegation of authority from the National Council
on the Arts to the Chairperson.
Commission of Fine Arts
salaries and expenses
For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,893,000:
Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to
cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall
be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to
remain available until expended without further
appropriation.
national capital arts and cultural affairs
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000: Provided, That no
one organization shall receive a grant in excess of $400,000
in a single year.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $4,860,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for
compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher
positions.
National Capital Planning Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $8,177,000:
Provided, That one-quarter of 1 percent of the funds provided
under this heading may be used for official reception and
representational expenses to host international visitors
engaged in the planning and physical development of world
capitals.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
holocaust memorial museaum
For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as
authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310),
$41,880,000, of which $1,874,000 for the museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,246,000 for the museum's
exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.
Presidio Trust
presidio trust fund
For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $20,000,000
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended.
White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance
For necessary expenses of the White House Commission on the
National Moment of Remembrance, $250,000.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 402. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which Congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 403. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 404. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
[[Page H3656]]
Sec. 405. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are
presented to the Committees on Appropriations and are
approved by such committees.
Sec. 406. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 407. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for
the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with
the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 2006, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the
Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section
314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 408. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by
Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
277, 106-113, 106-291, 107-63, 108-7, 108-108, and 108-447
for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract
support costs associated with self-determination or self-
governance contracts, grants, compacts, or annual funding
agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian
Health Service as funded by such Acts, are the total amounts
available for fiscal years 1994 through 2005 for such
purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority
allocations for unmet contract support costs of ongoing
contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding
agreements.
Sec. 409. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment
for the Arts:
(1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be
used to make a grant to any other organization or individual
to conduct activity independent of the direct grant
recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments
made in exchange for goods and services.
(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs and/or projects.
Sec. 410. The National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to
solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the
United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other
property or services and to use such in furtherance of the
functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such
gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National
Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the
Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative
of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the
proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit
of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in
each case.
Sec. 411. (a) In providing services or awarding financial
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this
Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts
shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or
awarding financial assistance for projects, productions,
workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population
of individuals, including urban minorities, who have
historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities
programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income
below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
(2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson
of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that
priority is given to providing services or awarding financial
assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs
that will encourage public knowledge, education,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
(d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and
Humanities Act of 1965--
(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for
projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of
national impact or availability or are able to tour several
States;
(2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15
percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State,
excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually
and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each
grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to
improve and support community-based music performance and
education.
Sec. 412. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the
5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act.
Sec. 413. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
support Government-wide administrative functions unless such
functions are justified in the budget process and funding is
approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 414. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2005 in the
roads and trails fund provided for in the 14th paragraph
under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of March 4,
1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by the
Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in
which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or
to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health
conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in
the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally
high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing
risks to human safety and public health and property and
enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest
productivity, and biological integrity. The projects may be
completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not be
expended under this section to replace funds which would
otherwise appropriately be expended from the timber salvage
sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
exempt any project from any environmental law.
Sec. 415. Other than in emergency situations, none of the
funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering
machines during core business hours unless such answering
machines include an option that enables callers to reach
promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being
contacted.
Sec. 416. Prior to October 1, 2006, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of
subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A))
solely because more than 15 years have passed without
revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest
System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary from
any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or any other
law: Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting
expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding
available, to revise a plan for a unit of the National Forest
System, this section shall be void with respect to such plan
and a court of proper jurisdiction may order completion of
the plan on an accelerated basis.
Sec. 417. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to
conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under
either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)
within the boundaries of a National Monument established
pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where
such activities are allowed under the Presidential
proclamation establishing such monument.
Sec. 418. Extension of Forest Service Conveyances Pilot
Program.--Section 329 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (16
[[Page H3657]]
U.S.C. 580d note; Public Law 107-63) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``40'' and inserting
``60'';
(2) in subsection (c) by striking ``13'' and inserting
``25''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``2008'' and inserting
``2009''.
Sec. 419. In entering into agreements with foreign
countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior are authorized to enter into
reciprocal agreements in which the individuals furnished
under said agreements to provide wildfire services are
considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the
country receiving said services when the individuals are
engaged in fire suppression: Provided, That the Secretary of
Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior shall not enter
into any agreement under this provision unless the foreign
country (either directly or through its fire organization)
agrees to assume any and all liability for the acts or
omissions of American firefighters engaged in firefighting in
a foreign country: Provided further, That when an agreement
is reached for furnishing fire fighting services, the only
remedies for acts or omissions committed while fighting fires
shall be those provided under the laws of the host country,
and those remedies shall be the exclusive remedies for any
claim arising out of fighting fires in a foreign country:
Provided further, That neither the sending country nor any
legal organization associated with the firefighter shall be
subject to any legal action whatsoever pertaining to or
arising out of the firefighter's role in fire suppression.
Sec. 420. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any
other appropriations Act.
Sec. 421. In awarding a Federal contract with funds made
available by this Act, notwithstanding Federal government
procurement and contracting laws, the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (the
``Secretaries'') may, in evaluating bids and proposals, give
consideration to local contractors who are from, and who
provide employment and training for, dislocated and displaced
workers in an economically disadvantaged rural community,
including those historically timber-dependent areas that have
been affected by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands
and other forest-dependent rural communities isolated from
significant alternative employment opportunities: Provided,
That notwithstanding Federal Government procurement and
contracting laws the Secretaries may award contracts, grants
or cooperative agreements to local non-profit entities, Youth
Conservation Corps or related partnerships with State, local
or non-profit youth groups, or small or disadvantaged
business or micro-business: Provided further, That the
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is for forest
hazardous fuels reduction, watershed or water quality
monitoring or restoration, wildlife or fish population
monitoring, or habitat restoration or management: Provided
further, That the terms ``rural community'' and
``economically disadvantaged'' shall have the same meanings
as in section 2374 of Public Law 101-624: Provided further,
That the Secretaries shall develop guidance to implement this
section: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall
be construed as relieving the Secretaries of any duty under
applicable procurement laws, except as provided in this
section.
Sec. 422. No funds appropriated in this Act for the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands may be expended
for the filing of declarations of taking or complaints in
condemnation without the approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That this provision
shall not apply to funds appropriated to implement the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of
1989, or to funds appropriated for Federal assistance to the
State of Florida to acquire lands for Everglades restoration
purposes.
Sec. 423. (a) Limitation on Competitive Sourcing
Studies.--
(1) Of the funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Department of the Interior for fiscal year 2006, not more
than $3,450,000 may be used by the Secretary of the Interior
to initiate or continue competitive sourcing studies in
fiscal year 2006 for programs, projects, and activities for
which funds are appropriated by this Act and such funds shall
not be available until the Secretary submits a reprogramming
proposal to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, and such proposal has been
processed consistent with the reprogramming guidelines in
House Report 108-330.
(2) Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not more than
$2,500,000 may be used in fiscal year 2006 for competitive
sourcing studies and related activities by the Forest
Service.
(b) Competitive Sourcing Study Defined.--In this section,
the term ``competitive sourcing study'' means a study on
subjecting work performed by Federal Government employees or
private contractors to public-private competition or on
converting the Federal Government employees or the work
performed by such employees to private contractor performance
under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or
any other administrative regulation, directive, or policy.
(c) Competitive Sourcing Exemption for Forest Service
Studies Conducted Prior to Fiscal Year 2006.--Notwithstanding
requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
76, Attachment B, the Forest Service is hereby exempted from
implementing the Letter of Obligation and post-competition
accountability guidelines where a competitive sourcing study
involved 65 or fewer full-time equivalents, the performance
decision was made in favor of the agency provider; no net
savings was achieved by conducting the study, and the study
was completed prior to the date of this Act.
(d) In preparing any reports to the Committees on
Appropriations on competitive sourcing activities, agencies
funded in this Act shall include the incremental cost
directly attributable to conducting the competitive sourcing
competitions, including costs attributable to paying outside
consultants and contractors and, in accordance with full cost
accounting principles, all costs attributable to developing,
implementing, supporting, managing, monitoring, and reporting
on competitive sourcing, including personnel, consultant,
travel, and training costs associated with program
management.
Sec. 424. Estimated overhead charges, deductions, reserves
or holdbacks from programs, projects and activities to
support governmentwide, departmental, agency or bureau
administrative functions or headquarters, regional or central
office operations shall be presented in annual budget
justifications. Changes to such estimates shall be presented
to the Committees on Appropriations for approval.
Sec. 425. None of the funds in this Act or prior Acts
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies may be provided to the managing partners or
their agents for the SAFECOM or Disaster Management projects.
Sec. 426. (a) In General.--An entity that enters into a
contract with the United States to operate the National
Recreation Reservation Service (as solicited by the
solicitation numbered WO-04-06vm) shall not carry out any
duties under the contract using:
(1) a contact center located outside the United States; or
(2) a reservation agent who does not live in the United
States.
(b) No Waiver.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not waive
the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) Telecommuting.--A reservation agent who is carrying out
duties under the contract described in subsection (a) may not
telecommute from a location outside the United States.
(d) Limitations.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
apply to any employee of the entity who is not a reservation
agent carrying out the duties under the contract described in
subsection (a) or who provides managerial or support
services.
Sec. 427. Section 331, of Public Law 106-113, is amended--
(1) in part (a) by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2009''; and
(2) in part (b) by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2009''.
Sec. 428. Section 330 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-
291; 114 Stat. 996; 43 U.S.C. 1701 note), is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``2005'' and
inserting ``2008'';
(2) in the third sentence, by inserting ``, National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,'' after ``Bureau of Land
Management''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``To
facilitate the sharing of resources under the Service First
initiative, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
may make transfers of funds and reimbursement of funds on an
annual basis among the land management agencies referred to
in this section, except that this authority may not be used
to circumvent requirements and limitations imposed on the use
of funds.''.
Sec. 429. The Secretary of Agriculture may acquire, by
exchange or otherwise, a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, of the Inland Valley Development Agency
of San Bernardino, California, or its successors and assigns,
generally comprising Building No. 3 and Building No. 4 of the
former Defense Finance and Accounting Services complex
located at the southwest corner of Tippecanoe Avenue and Mill
Street in San Bernardino, California, adjacent to the former
Norton Air Force Base. As full consideration for the property
to be acquired, the Secretary of Agriculture may terminate
the leasehold rights of the United States received pursuant
to section 8121(a)(2) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 999).
The acquisition of the property shall be on such terms and
conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture considers
appropriate and may be carried out without appraisals,
environmental or administrative surveys, consultations,
analyses, or other considerations of the condition of the
property.
Sec. 430. The Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the
House Committee on Appropriations a report detailing the
Federal expenditures pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act (section 4(e)(3) of Public Law 105-263)
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Sec. 431. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
prepare or issue a permit or lease for oil or gas drilling in
the Finger Lakes National Forest, New York, during fiscal
year 2006.
[[Page H3658]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to pending
provisions of the bill?
Points of Order
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against section 413 of H.R. 2361, on the grounds that this provision
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, and
therefore is legislation included in a general appropriation bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point
of order?
The Chair finds that this section prescribes a legislative condition
on the availability of funds. The section therefore constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the
bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I raise a point of order against the
provision beginning with ``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 11,
through the comma on line 12, on the grounds that this provision
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and
therefore is legislation included in a general appropriation bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on this point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have three other points of
order. I will raise them individually.
I have a point of order against the provision beginning with
``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 22, through the word ``laws'' on
line 23, on the grounds that this provision also changes existing law
in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard? The Chair finds
that this provision explicitly supersedes existing law. The provision,
therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against the provision beginning with the word ``notwithstanding'' on
page 124, line 6 through line 7, on the grounds that this provision
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on this point of
order?
Hearing none, the Chair finds that this provision explicitly
supersedes existing law. The provision therefore constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against the provision on page 124, lines 15 through 25, on the grounds
that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of
House rule XXI, therefore it is legislation included in a general
appropriation bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on this point
print of order?
Hearing none, the Chair finds that this provision includes language
imparting direction to certain agencies. The provision, therefore,
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Amendment Offered No. 7 by Mr. Chabot
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Chabot:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the designing or construction of forest
development roads in the Tongass National Forest for the
purpose of harvesting timber by private entities or
individuals.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to a forest
development road for which construction is initiated before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment under rule XXI, clause 2.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of House of today, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt,
the Tongass is our Nation's largest forest, about the size of West
Virginia. Located along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often
referred to as America's rain forest and is home to abundant wildlife,
bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, and salmon, as well as old growth
trees such as the giant Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and yellow
cedar.
Mr. Chairman, each year the timber industry is subsidized by millions
of tax dollars, taxpayer, hard working funding tax dollars for logging
in the Tongass National Forest, approximately $850 million since 1982.
Each year more taxpayer subsidized logging roads are built to extract
the timber, and each year the road maintenance backlog gets more
expensive. It is about $100 million right now. There are already about
5,000 miles of roads in the Tongass.
That is enough road to drive from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles and
most of the way back. Even the Forest Service acknowledges that
existing roads are, quote, sufficient to satisfy local demand for road,
recreation, subsistence, and community connectivity needs, unquote.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would
stop the Forest Service from constructing new logging roads at taxpayer
expense. Let me repeat that, at taxpayer expense, in the Tongass.
{time} 1745
It does not prevent the timber industry from building their own
roads. It does no prohibit the forest service from constructing roads
needed for forest management, community connectivity, or for
recreation. I know there are some who would have my colleagues believe
differently, but this amendment has nothing to do with the roadless
rule. It has everything to do with good government and fiscal
responsibility.
This amendment is not an attempt to take away jobs in Alaska. In
fact, between 1998 and 2004, Tongass-related jobs fell from over 1,500
to less than 300. That means that taxpayers are subsidizing each
existing timber job to the tune of about $163,000 per job, about four
times the median U.S. household income. Despite massive taxpayer
subsidies, Alaskan timber continues to decline.
That said, this amendment does not stop timber companies from
continuing to log off the roads that the American taxpayers have
already built for them. In fact, the Forest Service has a 10-year
supply of timber remaining off current roads.
Between 1998 and 2004, half of Tongass timber contracts went unsold.
This means taxpayers spend millions of dollars for the Forest Service
to build roads and plan sales to access timber they often cannot even
sell; and those they do sell, they do so at below-market rates. In
fact, the Forest Service is offering to let logging companies cancel
contracts already sold because the companies do not want the timber.
Mr. Chairman, I support logging in our national forests when it makes
sense, when it is economically viable. I believe our forests should be
actively managed so that they may be as healthy as possible; but while
we need to be good stewards of our forests, we must also be good
stewards of the American people's money.
It is time to restore some common sense and fiscal discipline to the
Tongass timber program. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the
American taxpayers and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment.
The amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
Under the amendment, the limit on funds does not apply to roads under
construction on the date of enactment of this bill
[[Page H3659]]
Making this determination is far from simple. The Tongass National
Forest is 16 million acres and access is basically limited to boat and
plane. Compliance with this provision would require Forest Service
personnel field visits to numerous locations where road contracts are
in effect to determine if or when road construction has begun.
Therefore, determining the construction status of roads in the
Tongass would take considerable effort on the part of the Forest
Service. This new substantial duty makes this amendment legislative in
nature.
I ask the Chair to sustain my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). Does any Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is recognized.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the point of order be
rejected on grounds that the language my friend cites explicates and
explains a limitation. This is a limitation amendment, and the language
in the amendment simply establishes the scope of the limitation.
The test is not whether the limitation is difficult to figure out.
The test is whether it imposes a new obligation. This language does
not, and I would urge rejection of the point of order.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be heard very briefly.
I acknowledge, I recognize, I would agree with everything that the
gentleman from New Jersey just said. I also might bring to the
attention the fact that this is essentially the same amendment that was
offered and held in order in the last Congress.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point
of order? The Chair will rule momentarily.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) makes a point of order that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) proposes
to change existing law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, section 52, even
though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or
make judgments or determinations not otherwise required of them by law,
then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point
of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The proponent of a limitation carries the burden of establishing that
any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial or
are already required by law.
The Chair finds that limitation proposed in the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) does more than merely decline to
fund a certain activity. Instead, it requires the officials concerned
to discern or discover the dates on which various road-construction
projects were commenced within the periods in which they were
authorized to commence.
On these premises, the Chair concludes that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) proposes to change existing law.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment is
not in order.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair
stand as the judgment of the committee?
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
motion.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the appeal is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SALE OR SLAUGHTER OF
FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used
for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and
burros (as defined in Public Law 92-195).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sweeney), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. Chairman, America is blessed with a rich natural heritage. Part
of that heritage are the herds of wild horses, direct descendants of
animals that came here with early explorers and missionaries, which
still roam the ranges in parts of the American West.
In 1971, Congress formally protected these wild horses and mandated
that they could not be sold or processed into commercial products, in
effect, slaughtered.
Since that time, when the Bureau of Land Management has determined
that the wild horse population is excessive to the ability of the range
to support them, captured animals have been offered to the public
through adoption.
All of that changed as a result of a rider tucked away in the dead of
night in the massive omnibus appropriations bill enacted last December.
With no public notice or comment, this rider trashed 33 years of
national policy and lifted the prohibition on the commercial sale of
America's wild horses.
Today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and I, along with
our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), are offering this amendment
to restore that prohibition, to stop the slaughter.
There is an urgency here. So far this year, 41 wild horses that we
know of have been sent to one of the three foreign-owned
slaughterhouses in this country. Moreover, the BLM has estimated that
8,400 horses need to be sold to comply with the recent change in the
law.
To what end? To what end, I ask? So their meat can end up on menus in
France, Belgium and Japan where it is considered a delicacy.
Incredible, simply incredible. We do not allow the commercial sale of
horse flesh in this country for human consumption, but we are exporting
horse meat for that purpose abroad.
Since introducing the legislation which is the basis for this
amendment, I have received an impressive volume of heartfelt letters
and e-mails from across the Nation.
The very notion that wild American horses would be slaughtered as a
food source for foreign gourmets has struck a chord with the American
people.
They see in this issue the pioneering spirit and the ideals of
freedom, and the current policy has created disillusionment with many
over how their government works and what their elected leaders stand
for.
From Florida, Stacey wrote, ``Knowing that the horses won't be there
for my kids has made me feel sad, hurt and angry at our government.''
A former West Virginian named Valerie who now resides in Nevada
wrote, ``I, and our friends, have enjoyed going on to the desert to see
wild horses roaming free.''
Jeremy from Oregon wrote, ``Your support will help to restore the
public's confidence by assuring us that Congress operates under the
principles of for the people and by the people.''
We must restore the people's faith. We must stop the slaughter of
these American icons.
A week and a half ago, an annual rite of spring was held called the
Running of the Kentucky Derby, a uniquely American institution.
I am wearing on my lapel a pin here, a symbol which bears the
likeness of Ferdinand who won the 1986 Derby and the 1987 Breeders' Cup
Classic, notable achievements. Yet his reward was to end his life in a
Japanese slaughterhouse. Ferdinand was not a wild horse, true, from the
American plain, but the issue is one in the same.
As children, many of us recall reading the compelling story in the
book ``Misty of Chincoteague.'' What type of message would we be
sending today's
[[Page H3660]]
youth if Misty was rounded up and sent to be slaughtered.
For Misty's sake, for America's sake, vote for the Rahall-Whitfield
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield), a cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding me time very much; and as he so aptly stated, we would not be
here today except for the action of Senator Conrad Burns in the last
omnibus bill.
What this motion and amendment that we are proposing today is really
about, it is not so much about a few wild mustangs and burros, only
31,000 remaining in the wild western grazing lands. But what this is
really about, it is about the fact that we have 18,000 permits issued
by the Bureau of Land Management to ranchers in the West on 214 million
acres of land, of which these ranchers are paying less than six cents
per acre, per year. Now that is a good deal, and I can understand why
they would be excited about it. They are grazing over 8 or 9 million
cows on this land, and we are talking about 31,000 wild mustangs and
burros on this 214 million acres of land, and the ranchers do not want
any wild mustangs or burros on this land. That is really what this is
all about.
The question becomes, is it in the heritage of America to protect the
few remaining wild mustangs and burros? This amendment simply reverses
the Burns amendment and restores 37 years of public policy of
protecting wild mustangs and burros.
I can tell my colleagues I have a lot of cattle ranchers in my
district in Kentucky, and they are in Tennessee and Florida and Texas
and Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and all around this country,
and all of them pay a lot more than six cents per acre per year for
these permits and for land.
I might also add that these 18,000 permits of ranchers on these
grazing lands in the West provide only 2 percent of the cows
slaughtered in America, and we all like a good steak. We want to
continue slaughtering cows for steaks because they are raised for that
purpose; but we also have a responsibility to protect wild mustangs and
burros who are native to this country, who have been protected in this
country. They simply lost that protection because of a 4,000 page
omnibus bill, and none of us was aware that the Burns amendment was in
it.
{time} 1800
So that is what this amendment is about.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to get briefly to the point.
We can all have our differences as it relates to this issue, but as
my colleagues have pointed out so appropriately, surreptitiously last
year, snuck into the omnibus bill, is a piece of legislation that many
of us have disagreement over. We all agree in this appropriation
process that that is not the way Congress ought to go about doing its
business and, worse yet, that legislation overturned decades, indeed
generations of Congressional policy.
Now, we can argue the substance and the differences as to whether
this is economically feasible and right, and whether this is humane or
not, but the fact of the matter is it was surreptitiously snuck in, it
ought not to have happened, I believe it violates policy for more than
a generation and 30 to 40 years of Congressional intent. We ought not
to let that happen. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is about the proper management of wildlife
and public lands, and the Committee on Appropriations is in charge of
trying to adequately fund the United States agencies. If we want to get
into the question of whether or not the six cents is being paid for
grazing land or anything else, you need to go to the authorizing
committees and have a debate there and get it changed and so forth.
We in the Committee on Appropriations have a situation where wild
horses and burros cost the taxpayers $40 million annually. Now, this is
more than BLM spends on all wildlife management activities on public
lands. There are currently 24,000 wild horses and burros that are kept
in short-term, or long-term, either way, holding facilities. They are
not roaming free. They are being housed in these short-term facilities,
and that is costing $20 million, and they are living there until they
die.
BLM has the authority to sell the older or unadoptable animals. Now,
if they are 10 years or older, or if they have been offered three times
for sale and been turned down, then this would give BLM the authority
to sell these older, unadoptable animals and conserve the $40 million
that we are talking about. That is what we are asking, and we think
that is a prudent measure, so we urge our colleagues to defeat this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I come from the district that has by far and away more wild
horses in it than any district in the United States, bar none. Of the
30,000 horses we are talking about, 20,000 of them are in the Second
District of Nevada. This amendment, if it is passed, will be a rule of
unintended consequences on what happens to the management of these
horses.
My colleagues, in Nevada horses do not always look beautiful like the
horse that we see in Black Beauty. Sometimes they are misshapen.
Sometimes they are deformed. That is because we cannot manage 20,000
horses on land which does not look like Kentucky, does not look like
West Virginia. These horses get starved, they are weakened, they become
diseased and, of course, they are not as easily adopted as before.
If this amendment is passed, the unintended consequence will be to
prevent the Bureau of Land Management from properly managing. And today
this amendment is moot. The Bureau of Land Management today announced
strict new rules for the sale of wild horses. These changes will ensure
America's wild horses and burros go to good homes, and the new rules
will expressly prohibit the sale of these animals for slaughter.
Specifically, before horses are sold buyers must sign a contract that
will bind them to providing humane care for the horse or burro. Buyers
cannot sell or transfer ownership of any of the purchased horses or
burros to any person or organization that intend to process them for
commercial products. Anyone falsifying or concealing information in
that contract is subject to criminal penalties under U.S. law.
Additionally, the BLM is working to ensure that all three U.S. horse
processing plants make certain any BLM horses, which are easily
identified by a unique brand under its mane, are turned away and the
proper authorities are notified.
In sum, the new BLM rules will make it a crime to sell wild horses
for slaughter, yet will allow for the sale of these animals to buyers
seeking to provide them good caring homes.
I applaud the Bush administration and the Bureau of Land Management
for taking responsible action to assure America's wild horses and
burros are cared for, and I would like to thank the Ford Motor Company
and the Take Pride in America Program, which this amendment will stop
dead in its tracks, for supporting BLM in this effort and creating the
Save the Mustangs Fund.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment, and I certainly am one who is not in favor of the
slaughtering of wild horses, but I am also as a fiscal conservative who
is concerned about what happens along the way, because we are looking
at a price of somewhere on the
[[Page H3661]]
order of $20 million a year to take care of the horses that nobody
wants to adopt right now.
There are some 37,000 wild horses and burros roaming on BLM managed
lands in 10 western States. That is 9,000 more than the carrying
capacity of the land. In the few seconds I have left, I want to show my
colleagues this photo. This is from Nevada. This cage was put over this
grass, and this is what the wild horses have done all around it, in
terms of what happens in a fairly wet area. You get into the dry areas,
and they completely overrun the rangeland.
What we need to do is, if there is a problem with someone violating
the law, we need to put the criminal penalties back in so they can be
prosecuted, but the BLM have said they will not issue any contracts
that will allow for any slaughter. Taking away their ability to sell
the wild horses, however, will create a huge fiscal burden to the
Federal Government and the taxpayer and not allow us to properly manage
these herds.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this debate should be about one of public
lands and wildlife management and nothing more. And I will be the first
to say that I do not like to see these wild horses taken off the range,
but at the same time they have to be properly managed.
Over the years, we in Congress and those in State governments have
created a variety of methods to help control animal populations,
whether it is placing a species under the protection of the Endangered
Species Act when the numbers are dwindling or allowing increasing
hunting for various species when the numbers of the species are too
great. Wild horses should be no different.
We must remember that wild horses have virtually no natural predators
and the herd sizes can double every 5 years. If these herds are not
managed, wild horse numbers will increase at alarming rates. Left
unmanaged wild horses not only degrade our public lands but they also
create conditions where many times these horses would be unable to
survive on their own.
In order to be good stewards of our public lands, these animals must
be managed, and the only way to manage these herds is to take some of
these animals off the range. The primary method for controlling horse
populations has of course been adoption. But, unfortunately, adoptions
have not kept up with our expanding wild horse and burro herds.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment and support our
public lands.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership on this issue.
Our public lands are of multiple use and must be managed for a
variety of purposes, including hunting, grazing, fishing, recreating,
wildlife, and many other uses. The Horse and Wild Burros Act recognized
that horses and burros would have to coexist with these other uses and
have been managed thusly since 1960.
Unfortunately, horse populations have far exceeded the desirable
levels for years, causing serious resource damage. Serious-minded
conservation groups, such as the National Association of Conservation
Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
the Nature's Conservancy, and others have recognized the damage caused
by these horses.
Balanced management must be restored in the public lands where wild
horses roam. In an effort to achieve this balance, Congress gave the
BLM the authority to sell the excess. All this, Mr. Chairman, has been
said before, and I am not going to go into it again, except I will tell
you that without this authority the only feasible option is leaving
unadopted excess animals in contracted long-term holding facilities
that we are now doing to the cost of at least $9 million a year.
The loss of this new tool in selling would only mean that priority
funding will keep going to care for and feed unadoptable animals
instead of managing the number on the range and in balance with the
demands of our other resources.
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues would see the wisdom
in turning back this probably well-intended but misdirected amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I might add that BLM has already told us
that under the Burns language they have no criminal penalties available
to them. Even though they may put in a contract that a horse cannot be
taken to slaughter they have no recourse if someone does it.
I would remind people once again that these are public lands, 214
million acres of land. We are talking about 30,000 wild horses we need
to protect. We have companies like Ford Motor Company taking in horses
now, and we have over 214 entities out in the country doing it. I think
that there is plenty of money available.
Also, we would urge the BLM to euthanize horses rather than send them
to slaughter. That is an option also. But this is a well-intended
amendment and it would reintroduce the policy that has been the
accepted policy in the U.S. for 37 years.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky has just
touched upon a very important point, and that is that there are
alternatives available to the outright slaughter; adoption and
euthanization. These are alternatives rather than the slaughter of
these animals.
In regard to what the gentleman from Nevada said, that BLM has
recently done, what BLM has proposed in the last day or two in an
effort to head off the successful passage of this amendment is illegal
under the change in law that was made by the omnibus appropriation bill
last year.
And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in
defense of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself on the
authorizing committee, this change was made in an appropriation bill,
not in an authorization bill. Therefore, it is incumbent the change or
reversal be done in an appropriation measure.
So I would urge that my colleagues look at the humane side of this
amendment, look at what is only fair to these American icons and vote
for the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman
of Committee on Agriculture.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our
opponents are trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is
usually the case in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite
of what is being advocated.
So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of Interior's
authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather
than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of
ensuring their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption
efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old unadoptable horses will
stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities, or as the
gentleman from Kentucky suggested, euthanized. Oh, that makes a lot of
sense.
But this is what you get. This is what you get with this kind of
policy, horses that are starving to death on the range. The BLM has
conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program and
determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses from
the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production, and poor
health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005.
{time} 1815
In Cedar City, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed
from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation.
It is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2,000
horses
[[Page H3662]]
this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are
trying to repeal.
If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses
will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the
explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has
resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of
their lives in long-term facilities unsuitable for wild horses. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are
trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case
in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite of what is being
advocated.
So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of the Interior's
authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather
than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of
ensuring that their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption
efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old, unadoptable horses will
stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities. Horses on the
range will, most likely, starve to death.
BLM has conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program
and determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses
from the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production and poor
health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005.
In Cedar city, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed
from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation. It
is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2000 horses
this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are
trying to repeal.
If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses
will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the
explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has
resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of
their life in long term unsuitable for wild holding facilities.
Because of the overwhelming cost of these facilities at the expense
of the federal government, the number of horses on the range is still
well above the appropriate management levels called for in law.
furthermore, one-half of the entire wild horse and burro operating
budget is used to take care of ``unadoptable'' horses held in these
facilities. This amendment would only cause those costs to skyrocket at
the expense of the adoption program.
Last year, Congress enacted a law that allowed BLM to sell
unadoptable horses that are over 10 years old or have been offered
unsuccessfully for adoption three times, until the appropriate
management level is reached. These proceeds are then used by BLM to
help promote and finance their adoption program.
Currently there are 8400 horses in these long term facilities that
need to be moved on through the program in order to prevent
malnutrition and starvation that is associated with the overpopulation
of the range land herds. By denying the funds to implement the sale
program for wild horses and burros, this irresponsible amendment would
eliminate a far more efficient tool in the management of the program.
By not allowing BLM to keep the herd in manageable numbers, this
amendment endangers the welfare of the wild horses by exacerbating the
deplorable conditions these animals must try to survive in where their
only escape is death by starvation.
Vote for the welfare of the wild horses. Vote ``no'' on the Rahall-
Whitfield Amendment.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, today I will vote in support of the
amendment to the FY06 Interior Appropriations Bill, offered by Mr.
Rahall, that will prevent the Secretary of the Interior from expending
funds to conduct sales of wild horses for the next fiscal year. That
said, I am not categorically opposed to the sale of wild horses that
live on federal lands and will seek to work with my colleagues to find
a feasible solution to the federal land management challenges that
underlie this issue.
Initially, let me indicate that I believe the process by which Wild
Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act was amended, with language inserted in
an omnibus appropriations act without any public hearings or comment,
was extremely inappropriate and that fact alone is grounds for Congress
to revisit this issue.
I strongly believe that we must provide the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and all federal land management agencies the tools and the
resources they need to conserve our precious public resources.
Ultimately, this may mean granting horse-sale authority to the BLM. I
do not believe, however, that these wild horses should end up in
slaughterhouses. The fact that forty-one wild horses were recently
slaughtered at a foreign-owned processing facility, and an additional
fifty-two barely escaped the same fate, clearly demonstrates that the
current sale program is flawed, despite BLM efforts to implement
safeguards and pursue a measured approach in administering the sale
authority.
Humane alternatives to slaughter obviously exist, and federal
agencies already have the authority to carry out such humane actions as
adoption, sterilization, relocation, and placement with qualified
individuals and organizations. Federal land managers may simply lack
the resources they need to carry out these alternatives, but the
answers to such questions are currently unclear. I urge Chairman Pombo
of the House Committee on Resources to hold hearings on this matter so
that we can ascertain the status of the BLM's management authorities
and resources. I pledge to work with him to find solutions to this
issue. In the meantime, because I believe that a one-year moratorium on
BLM's sale authority for wild horses is needed to allow this debate, I
offer my support to the Rahall Amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the
amendment to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill being
offered by Mr. Rahall and Mr. Whitfield to help save a national
treasure--the wild horse. The wild horse is known throughout the world
as a symbol of the American west, and we should be doing everything we
can to protect it.
At the turn of the 20th century there were more than one million
horses roaming the vast lands of our west, however by 1971 that number
dropped to approximately 60,000 due to the actions of their main
predator--humans. Public outcry and the work of a group of citizens
lead by Wild Horse Annie forced Congress to find a solution and pass
the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Protection Act to protect the
wild horse. Throughout the years this law has been eroded, and
currently, there are only 35,000 wild horses living on our lands today.
Current law will only make this number decrease more rapidly.
I was saddened to learn about the provision in last year's omnibus
appropriations bill that would allow the sale of any wild horse that
has been rounded up and is more than ten years old. Because of this
provision, at least forty-one wild horses have needlessly been
slaughtered. If we do not pass this amendment to ensure that no tax
dollars are used for any sale of wild thousands more could lose their
lives.
There is no need for this senseless slaughter. There are other
options that we can explore rather than killing this majestic animal.
The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over one hundred herd
management areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size
of the herds manageable. There is simply no reason for these horses to
be slaughtered for use as meat in other countries.
The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved
literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of
adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our
history. William Shakespeare once stated that horses were, ``As full of
spirit as the month of May, and as gorgeous as the sun in Midsummer.''
I can say it no better and encourage all of my colleagues to join me
and support the Rahall-Whitfield amendment and help save the wild
horse.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Rahall
amendment. Although I appreciate the good intentions of this amendment,
I am deeply concerned about its potential for unintended consequences.
In restricting the ability of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
sell wild horses and burros under the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971,
we are also restricting opportunities for responsible owners or groups
to purchase horses that might have otherwise been sentenced to spend
their lives in holding facilities or to starve on our rangelands. I
disagree with the actions of individuals who purchased horses under the
Act and then sold them to a slaughter plant; however, I do not believe
that we should prohibit responsible people from purchasing wild horses
due to the actions of a few.
This morning, the BLM announced new regulations that will strictly
prohibit individuals who purchase wild horses from sending these
animals to slaughter. The BLM has also entered into a partnership with
Ford Motor Company to help protect these wild horses for future
generations. I applaud the BLM for their proactive stance on this
issue, and I am hopeful that their initiatives will be successful so
that other horses are sent to slaughter.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in Nevada, a state that is home
to more wild horses than all other states combined. Although I
[[Page H3663]]
agree that wild horses are a symbol of the American West, I also
believe that it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these
animals are managed, protected, and controlled in an effective manner.
It is a fact that the current number of wild horses in the nation
greatly exceeds the ability of the BLM or the land to handle these
animals. This explosive growth causes significant resource damage, as
well as damage to the animals themselves. The adoption authority
granted under the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 has historically
failed to keep up with the growth of the wild horse population. We must
work to maintain responsible and humane alternatives, such as sale
authority, in order to ensure that these animals are properly cared
for.
Our wild horses are already competing for scarce sources of food and
water on rangelands in arid states like Nevada, causing many of them to
waste into skin and bones. I believe that some of these horses should
be allowed to be sold to good homes, where they can receive proper
nourishment and veterinary care, as opposed to competing for little
food and water in the wild or being held in long-term holding pens.
This is why I am developing legislation that would offer an incentive
for responsible people who would like to adopt or purchase a horse
under the Wild Horse and Burro Act. This incentive will be dependent on
a number of requirements, one of which will be that these animals
cannot be sold to slaughter. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this issue.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Doolittle
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Doolittle:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Department of the Interior may be used to implement the
first proviso under the heading ``United States Fish and
Wildlife Service-land acquisition''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the provision in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations
bill that is the subject of this amendment would allow the Fish and
Wildlife Service to sell public lands in the Lower Klamath and Tule
Lake Wildlife Refuges, and use the profits from the land sales to buy
water rights.
None of the delegation, which, I might add, is represented by four of
us from the areas that represents this area, had approved this
provision; and the Department of the Interior failed to communicate
their desire to implement this program to the relevant Members of
Congress.
As Members of Congress whose constituents would be affected by a
provision such as this, we feel it is necessary to have time to review
the proposal in order to ensure that the proposed program best suits
the needs of the local communities in our districts. I might add that
this event represents a trend of continuous poor communication by the
Department of the Interior and therefore we must ask that our amendment
be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
bringing this to our attention, and we have no objection to the
gentleman's amendment at this time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the
amendment?
Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations) or to delay the
implementation of that Order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to H.R. 2361 that is of critical importance to the health and
well-being of minority and low-income communities throughout the United
States.
In an effort to cut down on the time constraints, let me just briefly
explain the amendment. It prohibits the EPA from using funds in this
bill to work in contravention of Executive Order 12898 and delay the
implementation of that order.
My amendment makes clear Congress's support for the executive order
and its original intention to achieve health and environmental equity
in minority and low-income communities.
Mr. Chairman, to seek out environmental justice is an effort to
achieve health and environmental equity across all community lines. In
adopting my amendment, Congress will call on EPA to move forward with
the identification of at-risk minority and low-income communities so
appropriate steps can be taken to improve their health and well-being.
Justice should never be reserved only for those who can afford to
help themselves. I ask for my colleagues' support to ensure EPA takes
the appropriate steps to protect minority and low-income communities
from continued environmental injustices.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires
EPA to comply with the executive order by the first President Bush
dealing with environmental justice. We have no objection to the
amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the
findings of the EPA Inspector General Report and those in support of
the amendment.
Evaluation Report: EPA Needs To Consistently Implement the Intent of
the Executive Order on Environmental Justice--Report No. 2004-P-00007--
March 1, 2004
Executive Summary
Purpose
In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898,
``Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-income Populations,'' to ensure such
populations are not subjected to a disproportionately high
level of environmental risk. The overall objective of this
evaluation was to determine how the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is integrating environmental justice
into its day-to-day operations. Specifically, we sought to
answer the following questions:
How has the Agency implemented Executive Order 12898 and
integrated its concepts into EPA's regional and program
offices?
How are environmental justice areas defined at the regional
levels and what is the impact?
Results in brief
EPA has not fully implemented Executive Order 12898 nor
consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-
to-day operations. EPA has not identified minority and low-
income, nor identified populations addressed in the Executive
Order, and has neither defined nor developed criteria for
determining disproportionately impacted. Moreover, in 2001,
the Agency restated its commitment to environmental justice
in a manner that does not emphasize minority and low-income
populations, the intent of the Executive Order.
[[Page H3664]]
Although the Agency has been actively involved in
implementing Executive Order 12898 for 10 years, it has not
developed a clear vision or a comprehensive strategic plan,
and has not established values, goals, expectations, and
performance measurements. We did note that the Agency made an
attempt to issue an environmental justice toolkit; endorsed
environmental justice training; and required that all
regional and programmatic offices submit ``Action Plans'' to
develop some accountability for environmental justice
integration.
In the absence of environmental justice definitions,
criteria, or standards from the Agency, many regional and
program offices have taken steps, individually, to implement
environmental justice policies. This has resulted in
inconsistent approaches by the regional offices. Thus, the
implementation of environmental justice actions is dependent
not only on minority and income status but on the EPA region
in which the person resides. Our comparison of how
environmental justice protocols used by three different
regions would apply to the same city showed a wide
disparity in protected populations.
We believe the Agency is bound by the requirements of
Executive Order 12898 and does not have the authority to
reinterpret the order. The Acting Deputy Administrator needs
to reaffirm that the Executive Order 12898 applies
specifically to minority and low-income populations that are
disproportionately impacted. After 10 years, there is an
urgent need for the Agency to standardize environmental
justice definitions, goals, and measurements for the
consistent implementation and integration of environmental
justice at EPA.
Recommendations
We recommended that the Acting Deputy Administrator issue a
memorandum reaffirming that Executive Order 12898 is an
Agency priority and that minority and low-income populations
disproportionately impacted will be the beneficiaries of this
Executive Order. Additionally, EPA should establish specific
time frames for the development of definitions, goals, and
measurements. Furthermore, we recommended that EPA develop
and articulate a clear vision on the Agency's approach to
environmental justice. We also recommended that EPA develop a
comprehensive strategic plan, ensure appropriate training is
provided, clearly define the mission of the Office of
Environmental Justice, determine if adequate resources are
being applied to environmental justice, and develop a
systematic approach to gathering information related to
environmental justice.
Agency comments and OIG evaluation
In the response to our draft report, the Agency disagreed
with the central premise that Executive Order 12898 requires
the Agency to identify and address the environmental effects
of its programs on minority and low-income populations. The
Agency believes the Executive Order ``instructs the Agency to
identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental, effects of it (sic) programs,
policies, and activities.'' The Agency does not take into
account the inclusion of the minority and low-income
populations, and indicated it is attempting to provide
environmental justice for everyone. While providing adequate
environmental justice to the entire population is
commendable, doing so had already been EPA's mission prior to
implementation of the Executive Order; we do not believe the
intent of the Executive Order was simply to reiterate that
mission. We believe the Executive Order was specifically
issued to provide environmental justice to minority and/or
low-income populations due to concerns that those populations
had been disproportionately impacted by environmental risk.
A summary of the Agency's response and our evaluation is
included at the end of each chapter. The Agency's complete
response and our evaluation of that response are included in
Appendices D and E, respectively.
____
May 19, 2005.
Re support the Hastings Environmental Justice Amendment
Dear Representative: On behalf of our organizations,
members, and supporters nationwide, we write to express our
support for Representative Alcee Hastings' (D-FL)
environmental justice amendment that will be offered to the
Interior-EPA Appropriations bill.
The Hastings amendment will ensure that funds spent at the
U.S. EPA cannot be spent in any way that conflicts with the
1994 Executive Order ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.'' EO 12898 directs each federal agency to
develop an environmental justice strategy ``that identifies
and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, or
activities on minority populations and low-income
populations'' with the goal of achieving equity in federally-
funded programs for those communities.
The Hastings amendment is needed to get EPA to take the
next steps that are needed to achieve the promise of fairness
and equal treatment for minority and low-income communities
in federal environmental programs.
Studies conducted by both government and non-government
panels, including the National Academy of Sciences and the
United Church of Christ have found that minority and low-
income communities experience greater and more frequent
exposures to unhealthy levels of environmental pollutants
than other communities.
This problem was first addressed at EPA in 1992 when
President George H.W. Bush created the Office of
Environmental Equity at EPA (now the Office of Environmental
Justice); it was addressed a second time by President
Clinton, when he issued the Executive Order in 1994. Yet the
EPA has so far failed to adopt needed measures to
meaningfully address and correct this unequal treatment under
environmental laws. The agency's failure to move forward on
the important issue of environmental justice has
been documented recently by the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, and the EPA's Office of the Inspector General.
The Hastings amendment does not place new requirements on
the EPA, but rather provides direction for the agency to
fulfill its longstanding obligation to ensure that minority
and low-income populations are not exposed to dangerous and
disproportionately high levels of air pollution, water
contamination, toxic hazards, or other environmental and
health threats in their communities.
We urge you to cast your vote in support of the Hastings
environmental justice amendment.
Sincerely,
Roger Rivera, President, National Hispanic Environmental
Council; Robert D. Bullard, Director, Environmental Justice
Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University (Atlanta, GA);
Ansje Miller, Director, Environmental Justice & Climate
Change Initiative (Oakland, CA); Beverly Wright, Director,
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, Dillard
University (New Orleans, LA); Craig Williams, Director,
Chemical Weapons Working Group (Berea, KY); Martin Hayden,
Legislative Director, Earthjustice; Michael Greene, Director,
Center for Environmental Health (Oakland, CA); and David
Christian, President, Serving Alabama's Future Environment
(Jacksonville, AL).
Hilary Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau, NAACP; Martina
Cartwright, Director, Environmental Law & Justice Center,
Texas Southern University (Houston, TX); Peggy Shepherd,
Executive Director, West Harlem Environmental Action (New
York City, NY); Henry Clark, Director, West County Toxics
Coalition (Richmond, CA); Tom Stephens, Director, National
Lawyers Guild, Sugar Law Center (Detroit, MI); Luke Cole,
Director, Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment (San
Francisco, CA); Rufus Kinney, President, Families Concerned
About Nerve Gas Incineration (Anniston, AL); and Reverend
N.Q. Reynolds, President, Calhoun County Chapter of the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Anniston, AL).
Robert O. Muller, President, Vietnam Veterans of America
Foundation; Evelyn Yates, President, Pine Bluff for Safe
Disposal (Pine Bluff, AR); John Nunn, President, Coalition
for Safe Disposal (Worton, MD); Karyn Jones, President, GASP
(Hermiston, OR); J. Daryl Byler, Director, Mennonite Central
Committee Washington Office; Vernice Miller-Travis, Miller-
Travis & Associates, (Washington, DC); Donele Wilkins,
Executive Director, Detroiters Working for Environmental
Justice; and Monique Harden, Co-Director, Nathalie Walker,
Co-Director, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights (New
Orleans, LA).
Jeanette Champion, President, Citizens for Environmental
Justice (Anniston, AL); Sara Morgan, President, Citizens
Against Incineration at Newport (Newport, IN); Jason
Groenwald, Director, Families Against Incinerator Risk (Salt
Lake City, UT); Peter Hille, President, Kentucky
Environmental Foundation (Berea, KY); Douglas Meiklejohn,
Executive Director, New Mexico Environmental Law Center
(Santa Fe, NM); Rev. Anthony Evans, Director, National Black
Church Initiative; and National Black Environmental Justice
Network.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act (other than
appropriations required to be made by a provision of law) are
hereby reduced by $261,591,250.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is identical to those I have offered to
appropriations bills for the past couple of
[[Page H3665]]
years. The amendment trims outlays for H.R. 2361 by 1 percent under the
Holman Rule, which means if the amendment passes, it will be up to the
administration to determine where the cuts will fall.
I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member. As always,
they have done a solid job of this. I understand the dynamics of
bringing a bill out of committee. They have done a good job. They are
below what would have been expected, but we are still not at a balanced
budget; and so I offer this amendment.
In fact, just the other day a Democratic colleague mentioned this
bill and said the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is ``as
tight as a snare drum,'' and I take that as an extreme compliment. That
said, I do not think the funding levels of this bill are reflective of
a country with a $340 billion deficit.
The amendment would trim a penny on the dollar across the agencies
funded by this bill. Despite the stripped-down character of the bill, I
think there are still some areas worthy of examination.
For example, the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts. Some years ago
as a member of the House Interior Committee, I heard testimony on de-
accessioning the Kennedy Center from the National Park Service. James
Wolfensohn, its director and later head of the World Bank, pleaded with
the subcommittee to cut the center loose. He said the center needed
millions of dollars in structural repairs, yet he could not move
forward on them because of the Park Service contracting requirements
and inflated costs. ``Let us raise our own funds and we will be able to
do this much more efficiently,'' he said. And so we did.
We got rid of the Kennedy Center, except that we did not really. The
only National Park Service cut loose in the past 20 years, supposedly,
and yet in this bill it includes $17.8 million for operation and
maintenance at the Kennedy Center and $10 million for construction.
Now, I know the Kennedy Center has serious structural problems, but
given the legislative history of this issue, I would like to know how
long we are going to continue to have this center that we have to fund.
That is just one example.
I question whether the various agencies really need all of the new
vehicles authorized in this bill. I estimate at least $5 million for
those. I question some of the administrative accounts.
The chairman has done a fine job in reining in costs, particularly in
the area of land acquisition; but at a time of a $300-plus million
deficit, we need to do more. This amendment would do that. Even in a
small way, I encourage support of this amendment.
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.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The
gentleman makes good points, and if he and I were the only two Members
of Congress, we could probably sit down and come up with a tighter
bill. There are 435 Members in the House, and we have 100 over in the
Senate. We have tried to put together a balanced bill. Because of that,
we have cut many things and had a very difficult time in doing it. I
would have to strongly object to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have fought over the last few years to reinsert
funding for the Park Service to take care of their uncontrollable
costs, and we had a hard time doing that. We find out that 1 percent,
when it is added up, is $261 million. That is a very significant hit on
these accounts in this important agency.
I would urge that Members support the chairman and we vote this
amendment down.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to finalize, issue, implement, or enforce the
proposed policy of the Environmental Protection Agency
entitled ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Requirements for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment During Wet Weather Conditions'', dated November 3,
2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 63042).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would stop the EPA from
moving forward with a dangerous proposal that would allow more
partially treated sewage into our waterways. This morning the EPA
issued a statement saying it will not finalize its current proposal.
The EPA has been mulling over this policy change for nearly 2 years.
I am pleased to see that the EPA has now recognized that this policy
proposal is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for
business. Now Congress needs to seal the deal by passing our amendment
to make sure this misguided proposal is gone for good.
Let me clarify something that has been misunderstood. Our amendment
will not cost a thing. It will not change a thing. It leaves things
just the way they are right now.
Currently, clean water rules say during major wet weather events,
sewage treatment plants are allowed to combine the filtered but
untreated human sewage with fully treated waste water before discharge,
in a process known as ``blending,'' when no other feasible alternative
exists.
The EPA's 2003 proposal would weaken current environmental standards
by allowing facilities to discharge largely untreated sewage virtually
anytime it rains. Our amendment simply stops the EPA from weakening
existing environmental standards and requires that sewage be
effectively treated to remove the viruses, parasites, and bacteria that
make people sick.
I know many of my colleagues are hearing that this amendment will
pose astronomical costs on local communities. That is simply not true.
This amendment will not cost communities a dime. Our amendment would
maintain the current policy. It would not prevent utilities from
blending under any of the current allowable legal circumstances. It
would merely support current safeguards which do not allow blending
when full treatment is feasible. Let me repeat that. Our amendment will
not ban blending.
We have a clear policy choice. Should we provide effective treatment
for sewage, remove pollutants that poison drinking water sources, close
beaches, contaminate shellfish, make people sick, and rob the water of
oxygen the fish need to breathe? Or should we allow routine discharges
of inadequately treated sewage virtually every time it rains? To ask
the question is to answer it. The choice is clear just as it has been
under the Clean Water Act for the past 30 years.
Congress needs to send a strong, clear message on behalf of our
constituents. We do not want human waste in the water we drink and swim
in. As a step in the right direction, vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan
Stupak/Shaw/Pallone/Miller amendment.
[[Page H3666]]
Groups Weighing in Against EPA's Sewage Proposal
American Littoral Society; American Public Health
Association; American Shore and Beach Preservation Assoc.;
American Rivers; Children's Environmental Health Network;
Citizens Campaign for the Environment; Clean Ocean Action;
Clean Water Action; Coast Alliance; East Coast Shellfish
Growers Association; Earthjustice; US Conference of Catholic
Bishops; Environmental Integrity Project; and Coalition on
the Environment and Jewish Life.
Lake Michigan Federation; League of Conservation Voters;
National Fisheries Management Institute; Natural Resources
Defense Council; New York Rivers United; Pacific Shellfish
Growers Association; Physicians for Social Responsibility;
Riverkeeper, Inc.; Sierra Club; Surfers' Environmental
Alliance; Surfrider Foundation; The Ocean Conservancy; US
PIRG; and US Conference on Catholic Bishops.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this concern and want
to clarify this issue for him.
The short answer is ``no.''
My amendment would not change the existing requirements for CSO
communities, which are outlined in the 1994 CSO Policy and were
incorporated in the CWA in 2000.
The CSO policy allows combined sewer systems to bypass secondary
treatment when it is not feasible to provide full treatment for sewage.
Bypassing is allowed under the CSO policy as part of a long-term plan
to minimize sewer overflows and maximize treatment.
EPA's proposed sewage dumping policy is inconsistent with the 1994
CSO policy because it would allow bypassing full treatment even when it
is feasible.
The proposed policy would undercut those communities investing in
long-term solutions that are protective of public health, the
environment, and downstream economies.
The proposed policy would also allow separate sanitary sewer systems
to bypass secondary treatment and discharge largely untreated sewage
even if full treatment would be feasible, as it should be under normal
operating conditions for most well operated and maintained separate
sanitary systems.
Given the heavy load of viruses, parasites, bacteria, toxic
chemicals, and other contaminants in sewage, it is critical that sewage
treatment plants strive to achieve full treatment, not just discharge
poorly treated sewage because it is cheaper to do so.
I also incorporated Mr. Meehan's statement relating blending policy
to this statement.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1830
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
First I all I would like to read a letter from the Assistant
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency:
``Dear Chairman Taylor:
``This is regarding the November 2003 Draft Blending Policy which
addresses the management of peak wet weather flows at municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. The draft policy received extensive
public comment and has been the subject of considerable ongoing
discussion and debate, including being the focus of a recent hearing
before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
``Based on our review of all of the information received, we have no
intention of finalizing the blending policy as proposed in November
2003. We continue to review policy and regulatory options to manage
this issue.''
I think this letter is self-explanatory.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), is a good man and a good friend of mine and I
think he is well intentioned, but I think my colleagues should know
that this amendment is opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the
National Rural Water Association, and 38 other national and State water
organizations whose job it is to protect the environment and provide
communities with clean water.
Let me tell you why these organizations oppose this amendment.
Communities all over the country have wastewater treatment plants that
are designed and permitted to allow blending during extreme wet weather
events. That is only a very small percentage of the time, usually maybe
2 or 3 percent.
These plant designs allow communities to prevent sewer overflows and
meet all Clean Water Act standards in a cost-effective way. If blending
is prohibited, then cities like Atlanta, Detroit, Cincinnati, Tacoma,
Portland, Oregon, Boston and many, many others would have to spend
billions of dollars to change their wastewater treatment plant designs,
all to deal with extreme wet weather events that occur only once or
twice a year. Some individual cities could have to spend as much as
$100 million on this or perhaps even more.
Blending has been mischaracterized as the discharge of raw sewage.
This is not true. Here are the facts. During normal dry weather
operation of a typical wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater
receives three stages of treatment: solids removal, biological
treatment, and disinfection. During extreme wet weather events,
wastewater flows can exceed the capacity of the biological treatment
unit. In those cases a plant then treats it twice. This blending does
not mean the discharge of raw sewage into any river or waterway. These
flows are recombined and blended with wastewater chemical treatments
and so forth and disinfection so that it meets all Clean Water Act
water quality and technology-based treatment standards.
This practice is not a bypass around treatment because it is part of
the plant's permitted treatment design.
We held a hearing on this. Let me just tell you a few quotes from
some of the experts.
One person from the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
said, ``In the case of the Ohio River, without our blending policy more
untreated overflows would occur and the water quality impacts of wet
weather would be more damaging.''
The head of an agency in California said, ``With blending, our member
communities can provide the maximum clean water treatment possible to
unpredictable, exceptionally heavy rains and snowmelt, while still
meeting permit limits which are set to protect public health and the
environment.''
A water executive from Little Rock, Arkansas, said, ``Blending
protects public utility infrastructure by preventing washout of
sensitive biological systems and protects public health and private
property.''
Another official said, ``A prohibition of blending will result in the
need for extremely expensive facility upgrades that will not result in
any meaningful improvement to water quality or protection of the public
health.''
If we prohibit blending, it will cause worse environmental trouble
than if we allow these experts and these utilities to proceed with it.
There is a lot of misunderstanding on this issue. What we should do is
we should work with the gentleman from Michigan because what he wants
to accomplish and what we want to accomplish is really the same thing.
We need to have more work on this before we leap into this very
complicated situation.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.
Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to offer this amendment along with my
colleagues because the EPA's proposed guidance would hurt water
treatment practices already in place in my home State of Florida.
Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection support this amendment. I am not here to impose any added
costs to treatment plants. There is a rumor, as has just been expressed
by my friend from Tennessee, that our amendment would cost upwards of
$200 billion in added costs to cities. This is just plain wrong. Our
amendment does not impose any new regulations. It simply allows cities
and States to maintain their current level of water treatment
practices. Florida has a higher level of treatment and should not be
forced to step back.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Stupak-Shaw-Pallone-
Miller amendment. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for safe, clean water.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), also a cosponsor of our amendment.
[[Page H3667]]
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of
this amendment.
Let me be very clear. This amendment would not ban all blending. In
fact, it would have no effect on any currently permitted uses of
blending. The Clean Water Act already says you can blend but only
during a serious rain event. The EPA's proposed policy change, however,
would let sewer operators bypass secondary treatment anytime it rains.
That is what really could add a lot more sewage to our waters.
I have been fighting this proposal every step of the way and the EPA
has finally said they are not going to do it. However, we must make
sure that they do not. I understand that the EPA is now saying they are
no longer going to finalize this proposed policy change, but they could
change their mind tomorrow.
It should be a very easy vote for Members. We are saying that this is
a bad idea. The EPA is now saying it is a bad idea. We are just making
sure that the EPA actually does what it says it will do, because, who
knows, tomorrow they may change their mind. But I do not want anybody
here to think that all blending is going to be banned. You can still do
it during a serious rain event, but you should not be allowed to do it
anytime you want because that is going to increase tremendously the
volume of material that does not have secondary treatment. And you will
not have secondary treatment if you allow this policy to go ahead. It
will be able to make an exemption anytime you please, and that is the
problem. Our waters will get dirty. It will affect our tourism, our
shellfish in coastal States around the country. Do not allow it to
happen.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Does the gentleman intend his amendment to have any impact on the
policies of the EPA regions and States that allow blending today and
have issued permits allowing blending?
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question, but
our amendment does not intend to have any impact on any of the existing
policies of EPA regions and States that allow blending or on any Clean
Water Act permit that allows blending. We are saying maintain the
status quo.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we
would accept the gentleman's amendment under that representation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller), also a coauthor of this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank my good friend for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, obviously we are here tonight to talk about just a
commonsense issue in regards to this blending issue. I, in fact, have
been involved in the construction of and the management of wastewater
treatment plants. Blending is used obviously in very high water times
and I think that that is an issue that we have heard raised tonight. We
are not in any way trying to stop the issue of blending during the
storm season, but the fact of the matter is, in 2003 there were more
than 18,000 closings or advisories around the United States and that
was 5,000 more than ever at any time before. These closings were due to
fecal coliform increases in bacterial levels outside of the norm.
The fact of the matter is it does not take a medical degree to
understand that this is a health issue for our families and our
children that are out there that are actually swimming sometimes in
this waste. In fact, we are looking at the blending of untreated solid
free waste with treated sewage. The Clean Water Act already allows for
that blending to take place.
As the gentleman from Michigan says, we are not trying to change the
last resort issue. What we are trying to do is to set up an issue where
we cannot have these wastewater treatment plants continue to dump more
less treated or smaller treated wastewater into our waterways.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
offered by my colleagues which will prevent the EPA from finalizing a
policy that may increase the risks of waterborne illness and harm our
Nation's waterways. Thirty-three years after the passage of the Clean
Water Act, the EPA should not be implementing policies which will allow
more sewage into our waterways. Such a policy could result in water
systems with more pathogens, viruses, bacteria and parasites that make
people sick, contaminate our drinking water supplies, harm fish and
other aquatic life.
I believe this is a misguided policy. The use of secondary biological
treatment to remove bacteria and pathogens from sewage has been in
place for decades in order to protect the public from waterborne
illnesses, and I believe we must preserve these longstanding standards.
Blending waste streams at times other than natural emergencies will
result in an unnecessary discharge of harmful contaminants into our
waters. We have a responsibility to fully treat all wastewater, and the
EPA's proposal to bypass the crucial second treatment step and allow
more bacteria into our local water sources is just plain wrong.
We should be focused more on strengthening the federal commitment to
water infrastructure, which we all know has been stagnant for many
years now.
I plan soon on reintroducing my bill, the Clean Water Infrastructure
Financing Act, which will authorize funding levels in the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund which better reflect the considerable depth of our
Nation's wastewater infrastructure needs.
I urge strong support for this amendment because we must invest in
effective sewage treatment to help ensure that our constituents are
protected from health hazards. Effective sewage treatment will reduce
the risk of waterborne illness and protect public health.
Again, I thank my colleagues Mr. Stupak, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Miller and Mr.
Pallone for offering this important amendment and urge strong support
from my colleagues.
I would also like to thank my colleagues Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dicks and
their staff for their hard work with the difficult task of putting this
bill together.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) who supports the
amendment.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from North Carolina for agreeing to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, water is one of the most precious resources Floridians
possess. Representing several of the State's largest water reserves,
protecting the quality and availability of our water has always been a
top priority.
Unfortunately, the EPA is proposing this dumping rule that would
damage the integrity of America's water. The proposed rule which they
now have said that they are not going to implement was not a very well
thought out one. The blended wastewater concept would then be
discharged into our waterways. The consequences of this strategy could
be very dire. Certainly in a State like Florida where we have more than
our share of heavy rains during rainy season, and you can be darn sure
we are going to have a lot of hurricanes again, it would be virtually
playing Russian roulette every time that citizens would be drinking tap
water.
I cannot in good conscience allow the rule to go forward and have
that communicated to the EPA. I am very delighted that today a letter
did come from them that they are not going forward with this. But
keeping it in the legislation is very wise policy.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who has been helping us on this
amendment.
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in
strong support of the Stupak amendment to the Interior appropriations
bill. This amendment will stop the EPA's ill-advised proposal to allow
treatment plants to dump untreated sewage into our Nation's waterways.
Mr. Chairman, the EPA's proposed change is just plain a bad idea. In
fact, just this morning as we have heard, the EPA recognized just how
bad an idea it was and announced that it was reconsidering its
proposal. It is a bad idea to permit our water to contain bacteria,
viruses, parasites and intestinal worms
[[Page H3668]]
capable of causing cholera, hepatitis, gastroenteritis and dysentery.
The EPA steps backward when it advocates for polluters to discharge
halfway-treated sewage into our Nation's waters. Notwithstanding
today's EPA decision to reconsider its proposed policy change, it
remains necessary to pass this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and ensure
that the EPA does not change its mind again and attempt to impose an
imprudent sewage blending policy on America at some point in the
future.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who has been very helpful on this
amendment.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I
want to really applaud the gentleman from Michigan for putting together
a truly bipartisan amendment that not only put together a broad
coalition of Members in this House, including the chairman of the
subcommittee, who has accepted the amendment, to stop this blending
regulation.
{time} 1845
We all saw when Milwaukee dumped over 4 billion gallons of sewage
into Lake Michigan just last year and an incredible rise in the number
of beach closings along the Illinois shoreline: Nine in Glencoe, 12 in
Wilmette, 34 in Winnetka, a rising tide of dirty water that would have
been increased with this.
But what this bipartisan amendment has done is it has backed down the
EPA. Thanks to his work and Members on both sides of this aisle, the
EPA has largely accepted what this amendment would have already laid
out and have stopped this regulation. It is going to listen to the
Congress on environmental protection, and I really want to thank my
subcommittee chairman for accepting this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The time of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Taylor) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Can the chairman clarify that the intent of our amendment is to
ensure that all EPA regions and all the permits that are written will
comply with the current Clean Water Act rules and safeguards? Is that
his intent also?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is
my understanding, but I would like to talk with the gentleman. This is
a new area, a new part of the committee, and I would like to work with
him as we go on with the bill toward conference. But that is my
understanding.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
with the understanding, and it is certainly our understanding, that all
EPA regions and all permits that are written must comply with the Clean
Water Act rules and safeguards, and that is the only thing we are
trying to do here. We are not trying to change anything. So with the
assurances from the chairman that he will make sure that that is what
we are going to do and we have some time to clarify this even further,
we will not ask for a recorded vote. We accept his courtesy that he
will accept our amendment and make it a part of the bill, and we look
forward to working with him on this and other related matters.
I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) also for
his work in this area, along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) and the Members on our side.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the gentleman's activity. We will work with him.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I had intended to offer an amendment to
the Stupak amendment because I am certainly in support of the content.
But given the agreement that has been reached between the two parties,
there is no need for me to offer that amendment.
I would simply observe, however, that I hope we do not kid ourselves.
It is very good that this amendment is being adopted, but it again
illustrates the need for, in fact, increasing, rather than reducing,
the amount of money that we put into the Clean Water Revolving Fund,
and I would hope that we would remember this as the bill goes through
the system because we can avoid controversies such as this. We can
avoid putting EPA into a position of even considering such an
outlandish regulation if we are providing much more by way of financial
help to the communities so that they will not be concerned about
stiffening EPA regulations to protect public health.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud my good friend, the
gentleman from Michigan, for his commitment to protecting public health
and the environment.
Over the last century, the nation's wastewater infrastructure has
resulted in enormous strides in improving public health.
I represent the Merrimack Valley region of Massachusetts.
The Merrimack River was once among the most polluted waterways in the
nation.
Moreover, the northeast is ridden with outmoded sewer infrastructure
that is designed to overflow into public waterways.
During heavy weather, these combined sewer systems steer raw,
untreated sewage into rivers like the Merrimack, and bays such as Casco
bay in Maine.
The challenge to control cso's has been both of technical and
financial feasibility.
Some treatment plants use a blending bypass during periods of heavy
weather so that cso's receive some treatment rather than none at all.
In economically-distressed communities such as Lawrence, Haverhill,
and Lowell that have combined sewer systems, it is not currently
possible to provide full treatment for all sewage during wet weather.
I seek assurance from the gentleman from Michigan that his amendment
would not prohibit cso communities from blending if it is authorized by
their permits in accordance with the Clean Water Act.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the
Stupak/Shaw anti-sewage dumping amendment. Each year, 850 billion
gallons of contaminated sewage poisons lakes, rivers, and oceans each
year. Discharging inadequately treated sewage into our waterways harms
the environment, our constituents' health, and even our economic
growth. By permitting ``blending'' during standard weather systems, we
are providing our citizens with a false sense of security that we are
furnishing them with safe conditions. When the secondary treatment of
sewage water is sidestepped, the citizens face exposure to viruses,
parasites, bacteria, and toxic chemicals that can cause Hepatitis A and
Giardia. Further, this puts small children, the elderly, and those
already vulnerable by other illnesses with additional life threatening
conditions. Not only is health at risk, but the economy. Many
industries work from lake and ocean commodities. Subsequently, blended
sewage in the water would destroy much of their viable product. In my
own district, in the heart of Chicago, routine blending will inhibit my
constituents' use of the lakefront beaches, harm our water industries,
and make the drinking water dangerous and even deadly.
These devastating and misguided decisions will damage not only the
current, and already failing situation, but also our long term
solutions. By allowing routine blending, it will only increase the
concentration of the contaminant in our environment. Other solutions
must be considered. For example, constructing additional facilities to
hold sewage until it is fully treated can transfer some of the overflow
problem. Therefore, I urge my fellow colleagues to prohibit these
policies from being changed. With our continued efforts, we can
continue to provide a healthy and productive environment for our
citizens.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much farther are we going to have to
roll back the clock before we realize the harm that we are doing to our
environment? Do we have to get to the point of rivers catching on fire
again?
The EPA, the agency that is supposed to be protecting our
environment, is attempting to turn back the clock by releasing a new
policy that will increase waterborne diseases and deaths.
This latest EPA policy to allow sewage treatment plants to routinely
divert untreated sewage into our rivers and oceans, where we get our
water and where we swim is not something that appeals to me.
Instead of turning back the clock and allowing sewage to flow freely
in our rivers, we must increase our investment in upgrading
[[Page H3669]]
wastewater treatment plants. Ironically, this bill actually decreases
the amount of federal funding for upgrading wastewater treatment
plants.
It is time that we started moving forward and not backward on
protecting our rivers and our oceans. I urge all of my colleagues to
join me in supporting this important amendment.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our communities are on the front lines in
their attempts to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are needed to meet real and pressing
needs, and the federal government is not paying its fair share.
As a former Mayor and lifelong resident of Paterson, NJ, I can
personally attest that our cities are struggling to make ends meet. The
money to make any wastewater upgrades must come from somewhere, and the
Congress needs to step up to plate.
The funding levels in this bill reflect almost a half billion dollars
in cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund over the past two
years. My state of New Jersey will have lost $20 million alone.
EPA's state and tribal assistance grant program is also slashed by
almost half a billion dollars.
Enacting these cuts and ignoring these needs undermines our ability
to treat sewage, particularly during wet weather events.
It is important that we have uniform clean water regulations across
our nation. I do believe that our communities need a thoughtful
blending policy.
However, the November 2003 policy the EPA has proposed is not the
right one at this time. If the Stupak Amendment comes to a vote, I will
support it.
The EPA can do better, and the Congress should demand better.
But all sides need to be pragmatic. It is imperative that common
ground can be found to develop a solution we can all live with.
A limiting amendment which stops work on the blending issue will not
benefit our environment and it will not benefit the public health.
It will certainly not benefit communities and public water utilities
trying to do the best they can with the limited resources they have
available.
I would like to thank my friend from Michigan for bringing this
amendment to the House floor. He is truly a champion in our quest for
clean water and should be commended for his work protecting the Great
Lakes.
I would also like to thank my Chairman of the Water Resources
Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan. He is also a champion for clean water, and a
leader in our quest to provide assistance to local communities for
their treatment systems.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan would prohibit
the Environmental Protection Agency from spending any of the funds
provided by this bill to finalize any new policy related to sewage
blending.
Mr. Chairman, when EPA proposed to issue a new policy document on
sewage blending, I was concerned that it could cause an increase in the
frequency of blending by those communities that current use the
practice, and an increase in the number of communities that use the
practice. That is why I thought the policy was flawed. I do not believe
that there currently is enough information available to EPA and state
permit writers to know that any increase in the use of blending is
protective of human health and the environment. That is why I believe
that issuing a policy that could increase the use of blending is wrong.
Sewage blending is the practice of taking partially treated
wastewater, mixing it with fully treated wastewater, and then relying
on the dilution to meet discharge limits. I do not believe that sewage
blending is what was intended when the secondary treatment requirements
for publicly owned treatment works were put in place by Congress in
1972.
Congress intended that all domestic sewage receive a minimum of
secondary treatment, and greater levels of treatment where water
quality demanded it. Since sewage blending is a process that is used
only during periods of high flows, then the question presents itself as
to whether blending complies with the secondary treatment requirements.
Even the proponents of blending acknowledge that blending is used only
in limited high flow circumstances--at all other times the sewage
otherwise receives full secondary treatment
The current, acknowledged limitations on the use of blending lead to
the question--if blending constitutes secondary treatment, then why is
it not acceptable all the time, or if it does not constitute secondary
treatment, why is it allowed at all?
Recently, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water acknowledged,
``the heart and soul of the Clean Water Act, is that dilution is not
the solution to pollution, that you need to treat the sewage. Blending
isn't the solution. It's a short-term fix. [EPA] want[s] to make sure
that it only occurs in the very limited, narrow circumstances and that
it meets all requirements in their Clean Water Act permit, and that
water quality standards downstream are also maintained.''
Mr. Chairman, increasing the use of blending is not an acceptable
long-term solution to meeting secondary treatment requirements. I
support the amendment to bring the expanded use of blending policy to a
halt.
Point of Order
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
We have an agreement. I do not think we can strike the last word when
we have a time agreement.
Would the chairman rule on that and inform me?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House of earlier today,
only the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies may offer a pro forma amendment to a pending
amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate regulations without outside auditing to
determine the authenticity of the scientific methods used to
develop such regulations.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order against the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last year our trade deficit surpassed $670 billion. Our Federal
budget deficit was more than $300 billion, and we saw too many high-
quality, good-paying jobs go overseas. It has become more and more
difficult to keep and create jobs and small businesses here in America.
And when we look around at what the world is doing, unless we change
the environment here in America we are going to become a third-rate
economy.
Over the last generation, starting in the 1960s, Congress has created
barriers to keeping and creating jobs. We must remove those barriers.
Mr. Chairman, one of those barriers created by Congress is
bureaucratic red tape. Others are rising health care costs, education
policy, research and development policy, energy policy, unenforceable
trade policy, tax policy, and lawsuit abuse. My amendment goes to the
heart of the problem centered around the unnecessary bureaucratic red
tape.
My amendment is designed to require an outside audit to determine
that science is used to develop regulations at the EPA that are
unbiased and well substantiated. At a minimum major rules by the EPA
should go through a Science Advisory Board and rules should then be
audited by a neutral third party to ensure that our environmental
regulations are based on scientific facts and not emotional theory.
There are reporting rules promulgated by the EPA that do nothing to
protect the environment or the health and well-being of the citizens
but cost American businesses hundreds of millions of dollars and
thousands of jobs.
One example of an unnecessary burden to the American small businesses
is the EPA's toxic release inventory lead rule. The rule requires that
businesses report annually on how much lead is used. Not how much lead
is emitted into the atmosphere, but how much lead the business uses. In
June, 2002, a small business owner from Baltimore, Maryland testified
before the Regulatory Reform and Oversight Subcommittee of the
Committee on Small Business on how this particular EPA reporting rule
causes harm to her business. We can see how ridiculous and wasteful
this EPA rule is to our economy without making our air any cleaner.
Nancy Klinefelter is president of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. Her
small business specializes in printing
[[Page H3670]]
small quantities of custom glass and ceramic ware for special
occasions. Some of Nancy's work can even be found in the House gift
shop and some is sold in the EPA's gift shop. When they print mugs or
glasses for customers, they sometimes use lead-bearing colors on the
outside surface. These colors are expensive, so they use a minimum
amount of paint, just that which is needed to color the surfaces and
they try to reduce waste. And the finishing process ensures that none
of the lead leaches out. So their products are safe for anyone who uses
them.
But because of the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory lead rule, Nancy's
business is forced to compile daily records on how much color is used
for the mugs because the color contains a very small amount of lead.
Each year her small business has to report to the EPA how much lead has
been used. It costs her about $7,000 annually and across the Nation
about $70 million every year. And what do the Americans get for the
millions that are spent? Cleaner air? No. Less lead being used? No.
Less exposure to lead by children? No. The answer is none of these. But
all the American people get from these thousands of reports are
estimates on how much lead is being consumed, but our air is not any
cleaner.
Mr. Chairman, with the hopes of working during the conference
committee report, I intend to withdraw this amendment because I know it
is subject to a point of order. I hope that we can work together with
the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) in the conference
report to try to remove some of these unnecessary regulations.
So, in conclusion, we must not move forward with our government to
implement regulatory burdens like this on the American public because
it drives jobs overseas, it increases the trade deficit, it reduces the
Federal revenue, and it moves us toward a third-rate economy.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Pombo
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Pombo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the
following new section:
Sec. __. The funds appropriated in this Act under the
following headings are available only to the extent provided
for in authorizing legislation enacted before the date of the
enactment of this Act or on or after such date:
(1) ``Bureau of Land Management--Range Improvements''.
(2) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Resource
Management''.
(3) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund''.
(4) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation''.
(5) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--
Multinational Species Conservation Fund''.
(6) ``National Park Service--Historic Preservation Fund''.
(7) ``United States Geological Survey--Surveys,
Investigations, and Research''.
(8) ``Bureau of Indian Affairs--Indian Land and Water Claim
Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians''.
(9) ``Indian Health Service--Indian Health Services''.
(10) ``Indian Health Service--Indian Health Facilities''.
(11) ``Executive Office of the President--Council on
Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality''.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Appropriations without authorizations or that exceed authorized
levels violate House rule XXI, clause 2. This amendment enforces this
rule by not allowing moneys to be spent for 10 specified programs
within the Committee on Resources' sole jurisdiction which are not
authorized to be funded in fiscal year 2006 until the Committee on
Resources authorizes them. The money remains in the bill but cannot be
obligated by the agencies until the authorizing committee authorizes
them to do so.
Because the Interior appropriations bill often combines both
authorized and unauthorized programs in a single number, such as
funding for survey activities of the U.S. Geological Survey, the
amendment assures that these programs which are authorized by fiscal
year 2006, their funding cannot continue.
For those programs which are authorized but the amount appropriated
exceeds the authorized level, such as in the case for the Council on
Environmental Quality, then the amendment restricts the funding to the
authorized level.
The purpose of this amendment is to give us the ability to go back
and authorize a number of these programs that have not been authorized
for years and in some cases in excess of a dozen years. One of the
major problems that we have is the Committee on Appropriations gets in
the position of having to continue to appropriate money on these
unauthorized programs because they are important programs. But in this
case what we are talking about is $5.3 billion that is being
appropriated. So this is a fiscal issue.
I believe that the taxpayer demands that we do our job in authorizing
these programs and make sure that the public is getting their money's
worth out of these different programs. Currently, I do not believe that
is the case. And it gives us the ability to go back and authorize those
programs.
I believe this is something that is extremely important. The
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) have worked with us on a number of different
things that are in this bill over the past year. But when it comes to
some of these major programs that we have not been able to get an
authorization on, I believe the time is now for us to move forward and
begin to fence off those moneys until we can get an authorization done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
amendment. I do it with great respect for the chairman, but I just
worry about what the consequences of his amendment would be to this
bill.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does any Member
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the gentleman is correct when
he talks about authorizing an appropriations bill and the effect that
my amendment would have. But I would urge the Chair to rule the
amendment in order because what I am trying to do is strip out and put
fencing around appropriations for unauthorized programs. It seems kind
of ironic that my amendment that goes after unauthorized programs would
be ruled out of order for the very reason that I have been going after
those programs.
I urge the chairman to rule the amendment in order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard, the Chair
is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment requires new duties. The
amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
{time} 1900
Amendment Offered by Ms. Solis
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Solis:
Add at the end of the bill (preceding the short title) the
following:
Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency--
[[Page H3671]]
(1) to accept, consider, or rely on third-party intentional
dosing human studies for pesticides; or
(2) to conduct intentional dosing human studies for
pesticides.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency
could not use funds in this legislation to accept, consider, or rely on
studies from outside parties that intentionally expose human beings to
pesticides. It would also ensure that the EPA could not spend any funds
conducting its own studies which intentionally expose humans to
pesticides.
According to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson back in 2001, EPA
``believes that we have a more than sufficient database, through use of
animal studies, to make licensing decisions that meet the standard, to
protect the health of the public, without using human studies.''
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if we withdraw any
objection to this amendment, is the gentlewoman envisioning a rollcall
vote or just a simple voice vote?
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, no rollcall vote.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any objection
to this amendment.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit the remainder of my statement for the
Record, and I would ask that Members of the House approve this
amendment. It is long overdue. I am very grateful to accept support
from the other side of the aisle.
Despite this statement, the EPA can devise and conduct studies where
humans--children and adults--are exposed to pesticides.
Current practices also allow the EPA to accept studies from the
pesticide industry and other outside sources so these studies can be
used to help develop regulations or approve pesticides.
Right now, the United States Environmental Protection Agency--the
agency in charge of protecting public health from environmental
toxins--is encouraging industry to use human beings as guinea pigs.
What may be the greatest offense yet, is that the EPA is conducting
and engaging in these studies with no binding safeguards to make sure
these tests protect public health.
The EPA has chosen to go against the recommendation of the National
Academy of Sciences and against the wishes of its own Science Advisory
Board and Science Advisory panel.
Not only are there no binding safeguards for EPA conducted studies,
but many of the outside studies which the EPA accepts fail to meet
minimum international standards established in the Nuremberg Code and
in the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association.
This behavior is deplorable, unethical, and wrong.
Our amendment is critical because, in the absence of binding
standards at EPA, the pesticides industry has increased its use of
human testing studies and putting more humans at risk for what are
frequently statistically invalid studies.
The trend of using humans--both children and adults--as guinea pigs
is a trend that needs to stop.
The EPA needs to have binding safeguards in place, and we need to
have information about how a better understanding of how dangerous and
toxic these pesticides are for our children.
Without these safeguards the EPA should not be conducting tests which
dangerously expose humans to pesticides nor should it be developing
policy based on third party studies which fail to meet even basic
internationally accepted standards.
My colleagues, the Solis-Bishop amendment is supported by
environmental and diverse religious organizations and among more than
80,000 others who have written to me saying they oppose the CHEERS
study and support a moratorium on this type of testing.
I urge you to support our amendment and prevent the unregulated and
unethical testing of pesticides on humans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman
from California for her leadership on this issue and for yielding me
this time, and I want to thank the chairman for accepting our
amendment.
I have a statement that I will submit for the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis),
for yielding and introducing this amendment, which I'm proud to
cosponsor.
Mr. Chairman, how do you make a bad idea worse? If you're EPA, offer
families $970 to videotape their children reacting to bug sprays,
carpet cleaners, and other household pesticides.
Then, invite the American Chemistry Council as a partner in this
study, knowing that in exchange for $2 million paid toward the study,
it wants looser regulations for the pesticide industry, which in turn
wants to use humans instead of animals so it can justify relaxed
exposure limits.
EPA's study is as poorly conceived as its acronym: CHEERS--which
stands for the Children's Health Environmental Exposure Research Study.
It's a trifecta of unethical, immoral, and unscientific research.
It violates the post World War II ``Nuremburg Code,'' which outlawed
medical testing, including pesticide testing on people.
It advances private rather than medical interests, putting industry
ahead of public health.
And despite EPA's own Science Advisory Board and Scientific Advisory
Panels recommendening strict safeguards for human testing, EPA failed
to adopt them.
Mr. Chairman, we all want to understand how common chemicals like
those found under the kitchen sink can hurt children, the elderly and
the most vulnerable to poisoning. But the way to collect that
information should not involve hurting the very people we want to
protect.
The government should not be asking families to turn their babies
into lab rats. We should be protecting children, not exposing them to
pesticides.
Although we passed this amendment by unanimous consent two years ago,
EPA resurrected the study when the fiscal year expired in October.
We need to pass the Solis-Bishop amendment to ensure EPA's research
is based on sound science with the highest ethical standards.
Our amendment is supported by a broad coalition of environmental
advocates, including the Alliance for Human Research Protection in my
home state of New York.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, again
thank the gentlewoman from California for her excellent work.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more
than 50 Federal employees at any single conference occurring
outside the United States.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The CHAIR recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
[[Page H3672]]
Mr. Chairman, the one question that I get when I go back to my
district is, what is it that the Federal Government and Congress spend
all their money on, and some of the things that we hear about sometimes
is excess of spending in various areas.
One of the things that raises the ire of a lot of people is when they
hear about trips by Members of the executive branch and others going
overseas for maybe notable and worthwhile causes, but in excess of the
number of people that we really need to send there. We have heard
examples in past Congresses, and we have raised this amendment in past
Congresses when we heard about 100, 150, 200 members of the executive
branch going over for various causes.
We present an answer to this problem by saying that whenever an
agency decides to send someone overseas for a trip, we should limit the
number of Federal employees that go. My amendment will do that very
simply. It will limit the number of Federal employees that are sent to
international conferences funded under this bill to 50.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman
for his concern about the excessive foreign travel. This subcommittee
has conducted extensive oversight using the Inspector General and the
Government Accountability Office on the use of foreign travel on large
conferences. I accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
accepting the 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 New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Costa
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Costa:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Department of the Interior may be used to enter into or
renew any concession contract except a concession contract
that includes a provision that requires that merchandise for
sale at units of the National Park System be made in any
State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In 2004, approximately 263 million Americans and people throughout
the world visited our Nation's 388 national parks, memorials, and
national monuments. This summer, we know, as we approach the Memorial
Day weekend, that additional hundreds of millions of Americans and
other visitors from throughout the world will continue to visit our
national parks.
Mr. Chairman, I think that when American families and those from
throughout the world visit our wonderful treasures across the United
States, that it would be nice if the souvenirs that they take home with
them were actually made in our country. I believe that it is patriotic
that our souvenirs that we bring home from our national treasures, in
fact, be made by American workers.
The amendment before us would require that all souvenir products sold
in America's national park system prospectively be made in America.
Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection at
this time to this amendment.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues accept the
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 California (Mr. Costa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that there are no other amendments
left to the bill, and I simply want to say that I think the chairman of
the subcommittee has been very fair and balanced in the way he has
approached the bill. I think the bill is not fair and balanced, not
because of anything the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) did,
but simply because it could not be under the budget adopted by the
majority party 2 weeks ago.
How any Member votes on this bill is, in my view, up to that Member.
I am not going to be asking any Member to vote any way on any
appropriation bill, but I will be voting ``no,'' and I would like to
briefly explain why.
I am simply not going to vote to gut the main program that we use to
help local communities to deal with a $300 billion-plus backlog of
decrepit sewer and water systems. I am not going to vote to leave 200
of our 544 wildlife refuges without a single staff person. I am not
going to vote to cripple EPA enforcement programs to the tune of $400
million.
This bill does all of those things, not because the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) wanted to, but simply because of what the
majority leader said 2 weeks ago when he said, ``This is the budget the
American people voted for when they voted for a Republican House, a
Republican Senate, and a Republican White House.'' I do not agree with
Mr. DeLay on much, but I agree with him in that assessment.
So I would simply say, if Members are comfortable with implementing
that kind of a budget that puts $140,000 tax cuts for millionaires
ahead of protecting American children from dirty drinking water, then
they ought to feel comfortable voting ``yes.'' I am not, and I will
vote ``no.''
Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall of West Virginia;
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Rahall
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249,
noes 159, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 196]
AYES--249
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
[[Page H3673]]
Gutierrez
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norwood
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--159
Abercrombie
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Beauprez
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Carter
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
DeLay
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Emerson
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--25
Barrow
Brown (OH)
Clay
Culberson
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Harman
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Lynch
Marchant
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Paul
Poe
Radanovich
Shays
Strickland
Tancredo
Young (AK)
{time} 1937
Messrs. BAKER, SCHWARZ of Michigan, CARDOZA, JENKINS and SULLIVAN
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. LoBIONDO, Mrs. MALONEY, and Messrs. CLEAVER, JOHNSON of Illinois,
ORTIZ, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Messrs. BACA, TURNER, BARTLETT of
Maryland, FORBES, WAMP, BOOZMAN, HOBSON, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mrs.
MYRICK, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 196, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 196, I was
delayed in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 196.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The pending
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 90,
noes 326, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 197]
AYES--90
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Chabot
Chocola
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Mack
Manzullo
McCotter
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--326
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
[[Page H3674]]
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Clay
Cox
Harman
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Radanovich
Shays
Strickland
Tancredo
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1946
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will read
the last two lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006''.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 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 directed him to report the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that
the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
2316, to the Committee on Appropriations to report the same
promptly with an amendment to provide an additional
$242,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and
$110,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will take only 1 minute. The budget
resolution passed earlier this year told the Congress to find a way to
meet the targets in that resolution, even if we had to gut the Clean
Water program and to cut the STAG grants.
What this motion says is that the committee ought to go back to the
drawing board and find a way to meet these targets without cutting
either the STAG grants or the Clean Water Revolving Fund. It would
simply ask the committee to provide an additional $242 million to the
Clean Water Revolving Fund and $110 million for State and Tribal
Assistance Grants, returning both programs to last year's level.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the motion to recommit, and I wish we did not have to have a rollcall
vote.
This motion to recommit kills the bill by adding $352 million, and I
oppose this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote on
the question of final passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 228, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 198]
AYES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--228
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
[[Page H3675]]
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Clay
Harman
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Radanovich
Shays
Strickland
Tancredo
Young (AK)
{time} 2008
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the passage of
the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 329,
nays 89, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 199]
YEAS--329
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--89
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Chandler
Conyers
Costello
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Eshoo
Etheridge
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kind
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rohrabacher
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--15
Clay
Harman
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Marchant
Millender-McDonald
Radanovich
Shays
Strickland
Tancredo
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 2018
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________