[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2765-H2773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5386, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 818 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 818
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page
73, lines 3 through 8; section 425; and title V. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a
recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 376,
and until a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2007 has been adopted by the Congress, the provisions of
House Concurrent Resolution 376 and its accompanying report
shall have force and effect in the House for all purposes of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as though adopted by the
Congress.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to engage rule
XXVII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 5386,
the Interior Appropriations Act for 2007. It provides for 1 hour of
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, except for certain legislative provisions which are specified
under the text of the rule.
For purposes of the amendment, the rule provides for priority
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to stand and introduce this
rule as well as the underlying legislation. I appreciate the hard work
and the hard choices that have been done by the subcommittee members,
specifically Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks, as well as the
full committee under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and many others
who have played a essential role in putting this budget together, which
actually comes in at $145 million less than last year's enacted levels.
This important measure provides funding for the entire Department of
Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, for the U.S. Forest
Service within the Department of Agriculture, for the Indian Health
Service within the Health and Human Services Department, the
Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other programs.
At the same time, this measure provides for a moderate increase over
the President's proposed budget for the Forest Service, for the
National Park Service, EPA, Environmental programs and management.
This budget provides for $5.9 billion to programs for Native
Americans, including three new health centers in underfunded and
depressed areas. It provides for a fully-funded National Fire Plan,
eliminating duplications, which will result in the stopping of
wildfires from getting out of control and becoming more expensive and
damaging to both people, as well as wildlife and the environment.
There is land acquisition, which has been reduced to $60 million for
in-holding, which is significant and important to do, but it is
significant that it does not add inventory to our public land policies
that are above and beyond what we can already afford.
There is one particular note of significance to me I wish to address,
that this bill provides $228 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Program at the Department of Interior. This figure is $30 million above
what the President requested, and I appreciate the efforts of Chairman
Taylor, ranking member Dicks and the entire committee in providing the
restoration of funds. However, it is still below the $332 million that
was provided for in last year's budget, and significantly below the
authorized level of $350 million, which would be there today.
If one were to draw a line from Montana through New Mexico on the
map, everything west of that line has 57 percent ownership by the
Federal Government. Everything east of the line is 4 percent ownership
by the Federal Government.
When the western States, which I live in one, entered this country
under their enabling acts, there were legal commitments that were made,
that in the 1950s the Federal Government unilaterally changed and since
that time have been repeatedly changing. In fact, there are several
amendments that have been threatened to be only the floor today which
would increase that change in commitment.
No one who does not live in that area understands the significance of
Federal ownership of that particular land. Chairman Taylor though,
having a significant amount of Forest Service land in his district, is
one of those that is empathetic to this situation, and we are
appreciative of all his efforts in this particular area. I wish the
administration were the same. In dealing at one time with an
administrative official, he asked me why I was so concerned about all
this Federal land; it was simply useless land and no one lived there
anyway.
It has to be realized that half of the West is essentially tied up in
Federal lands and is controlled by it. Payment in lieu of taxes is not
charity, it is simply rent on land that is due to compensate for
economic problems created by the Federal Government, created by Federal
Government actions, and in contradiction to the deals that were made
when these States originally came into the Union.
The Department of Interior took the concept of payment in lieu of
taxes from the BLM as an effort, in their words, ``to ensure
appropriate emphasis,'' and that it would be a benefit accrued to both
Congress, the Department, BLM and to the counties of the West as well.
Since that time, that has not been the case. In fact, in each of the
last 2 years, the administration and the OMB have actually cut this
particular program, only to have it restored by Congress, which once
again I thank Chairman Taylor, his committee and his staff for their
efforts in that area.
In like contrast though, it is unusual that even though the overall
funding for the Interior Department has been
[[Page H2766]]
around 7 percent over the past 5 years, if my math is correct, the
Department of Interior's administrative budget has increased 100
percent in that same time, from $64 million to $118 million today.
While I may disagree with this portion of the bill, we will be
joining with other western Congressmen later on today to try to present
an amendment through regular order that will address this one
particular issue.
I am appreciative once again to Chairman Taylor and the ranking
member from the State of Washington who have been understanding of this
situation, empathetic of this situation, and very helpful to us, as we
move forward to try and find some kind of redress with this particular
situation.
Mr. Speaker, while I have a few disagreements obviously that I have
just stated, overall that is only one aspect of this important
underlying bill that will be presented by this rule. We will be trying
to address that agreement at some other time.
Still, the overwhelming majority of this bill is very positive and it
does move us forward, and it was a responsible result of a lot of
bipartisan work done on the part of this particular subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend Mr. Bishop,
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of
what it allows, but rather because of what it blocks. I am also
inclined to oppose the underlying legislation, not because of the
process, but rather because of the lack of progress which we have made
in the last year in our efforts to protect and improve our environment.
Nearly 1 year ago to the day, I stood on this floor also with the
gentleman from Utah when the House considered the fiscal year 2006
Interior, Environment and related agencies appropriations bill. Under
that bill, $240 million had been cut from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund. Conservation funding was approximately $750 million
below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the
Conservation and Restoration Act of 2000, and, overall, EPA's budget
had been cut by $300 million.
Today, the House is being asked to consider an Interior
appropriations bill that is even worse. Indeed, this is not by any
fault of the Appropriations Committee, but it is the fault of the
majority in this body, which has tied our hands in a knot of fiscal
irresponsibility.
If this rule passes, the House will be forced to consider an Interior
appropriations bill that not only includes the massive cuts from last
year, but actually cuts these programs even more, so that my friends in
the majority can pay for their massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest
2 percent of Americans.
The underlying legislation cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
by another $199 million, to a level that is more than $660 million less
than it was in 2001. The bill cuts funding for the Land Water
Conservation Fund by $28 million, to a level that is $90 million less
than it was in 2001. Overall funding for Federal land acquisition aimed
at helping States preserve open spaces is cut in this bill by $98
million, a level that is more than $400 million less than 2001. This is
an 86 percent cut in funding, Mr. Speaker; 86 percent.
Certainly it just can't be true that only Democrats care about
preserving our lands so that future generations will enjoy them. Yet
where is the outrage from the majority Members of the other side of the
aisle?
Yesterday evening, the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations
Committee submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that restored
$800 million in funding cuts to these and other critically needed
environmental programs. Mr. Obey's amendment, most importantly, was
revenue neutral and would have required not one penny of additional
cuts in this or any other bill. During the hearing, however, Rules
Committee Republicans, along a straight party line vote, blocked
Representative Obey from offering his amendment.
I am also troubled by language in the bill which overrules
longstanding Presidential and Congressional moratoria for drilling for
natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. This provision will permit
drilling to occur as close as 3 miles to the shores of coastal States,
including my home State of Florida. In doing so, the health of
Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our
State, will be in direct danger.
Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: Drilling for natural
gas on the Outer Continental Shelf will have zero impact at the gas
pumps. It will not under any circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon
of gasoline.
{time} 1045
I say if supporters of lifting those moratoria are serious about
reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies then they should
join me and others in calling for increased fuel conservation and
investment in mass transit and alternative energy sources.
Mr. Speaker, while I cannot speak on behalf of every Member of
Florida's delegation, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of
us in Florida and our citizens and our Governor do not want offshore
oil drilling in Florida, and we intend to do whatever is necessary to
strip this provision from the bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I am
extremely grateful that under this bill Congress furthers its
commitment to restoring Florida's Everglades. This is a project that is
absolutely crucial to the environment and to the potable fresh water
supply of many south Florida and Treasure Coast communities in my
district.
My constituents and I deeply appreciate Chairman Taylor and
Representative Dicks' continued efforts in this area. Equally. I was
also very pleased to learn that the committee has restored the
President's proposed budget cut for the Office of Environmental Justice
at EPA and included the limitation language that I offered last year
ensuring that EPA respects the needs of the environmental justice
community.
Yet despite these positive provisions, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an
overall disappointment. I firmly believe that the appropriators did the
best they could do with what we gave them to work with.
Nevertheless, I find it offensive that the majority of this body is
more concerned today about protecting $114,000 tax cuts for people
making more than $1 million than fully funding programs which ensure
that all Americans have access to clean air and drinking water.
Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration.
Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing her or
his own share. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay
just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to
breathe and safe water to drink? If given the chance, who would not be
willing to pool her resources with others in her neighborhood to
collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no
child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by
dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins?
If the budget is about priorities, Mr. Speaker, then appropriations
bills are about fiscal reality. The fiscal reality of this bill and the
appropriations bill that will soon follow are that America is in
trouble with the majority at the helm. Their fiscal mismanagement has
placed the wishes of wealthy individuals, and I question that. I do not
know whether wealthy people have made these requests. Most wealthy
people I know are willing to share their resources for the collective
needs of their respective communities.
Is there something in the DNA here in the majority that allows them
to decide that wealthy people ought be prioritized over the collective
needs of a community? The underlying legislation is, unfortunately,
only the first of 11 installments this year of the grim reality of
which Democrats have warned for the last 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to understand that before we
finish this appropriations process all of us will understand those grim
realities, for the chickens are coming home to roost.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2767]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Utah for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and I rise to support the
underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to speak to at
this point is in the underlying bill there is a provision which states
that this body, that there is a sense of Congress that we should
recognize that there is an ongoing problem with the amount of carbon
dioxide, CO2 that is being emitted as a result of burning
fossil fuel and that the United States should take steps to reduce that
emission of CO2.
Now, carbon dioxide makes up a fraction of less than 1 percent of the
atmosphere, and yet that one element in the atmosphere, less than 1
percent, a fraction of 1 percent, pretty much determines the heat
balance or the climate of the planet.
CO2 is increasing, especially over the last 100 years, as
a result of burning fossil fuels. We are having a dramatic impact on
the heat balance of the planet. Let us just look at some simple
scientific observations.
This is data that is conclusive among the scientific community.
10,000 years ago we were at the end of the last ice age, and we can
measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 10,000 years
ago. It was 180 parts per million. 180 parts per million of
CO2 in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago.
Now, let us fast forward almost 10,000 years. It was 280 parts per
million 100 years ago. So almost 10,000 years it took to increase
CO2 into the atmosphere from natural processes 100 points,
from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million 100 years ago.
Now, let us fast forward 100 years to today. It is 380 parts per
million. So what took 10,000 years to increase in the last 100 years,
we have done that that fast, from 280 parts per million to 380 parts
per million in just 100 years.
What we are saying is that dramatic increase is attributed to human
activity burning fossil fuel. That dramatic increase has resulted in
glaciers receding traumatically around the planet, the warmest 10 years
on record from the 1990s. Hurricanes are getting stronger and more
fierce, and all we have to do is take a look at what happened in New
Orleans, lower Louisiana, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Florida, et cetera, et
cetera, because the atmosphere is warming as a result of an increase in
CO2.
The seas, the oceans are warming as a result of increasing
CO2 into the atmosphere that is directly attributed to
fossil fuel burning by human activity. The polar ice cap is melting. In
the last 20, 25 years it has decreased in volume by 40 percent. Twenty
years ago, the amount of water running off the ice caps of Greenland
was 20 cubic miles a year. Now it is 53 cubic miles a year flowing off
Greenland.
If Greenland's ice cap melts, that is a 23-feet sea level rise, try
to imagine that, depending on where you live. Human activity, the
burning of fossil fuel, is increasing CO2, and so the idea
that we should have a sense of Congress that this is an observable
problem and we should take a look at it is only reasonable.
The U.S. is losing competitiveness, economic opportunities for
advanced technologies unless we move forward with this. I support the
underlying rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good
friend and fellow member on the Rules Committee, the gentlemen from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Maryland who just
spoke that I agree with almost everything he just said, except when he
said that he was going to vote for the underlying rule, because the
rule specifically does not protect the global warming language.
So I do not know how the gentlemen can feel on the one hand very
passionately about doing something about global warming and having us
look into the issue, and on the other hand go ahead and vote for a rule
that will allow anybody on this floor to strike it.
Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a year since we considered the
Interior appropriation, the last Interior appropriations bill. One year
ago I joined with my colleagues in voicing my outrage at the inadequate
funding levels for critical environmental and conservation programs,
and last year, like this year, we were told that because of the budget
allocation this was the best that we could do, we will try to do better
next year.
So here we are today in the wake of having the Republican leadership
ram through a martial law rule in order to take up a budget resolution
that just like last year's version slashes programs in areas of
education, job training, conservation, public health and medical
research and social services.
Another year has gone by, but it is still the same old story. And so
I rise today, sadly, in opposition to the fiscal year 2007 Interior
appropriations bill. This bill is an assault against our environment
and it should be defeated.
Once again, it significantly cuts funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and completely eliminates the Stateside Grant
Program. That is right, zero dollars for the Stateside Land and Water
Conservation Program. I am simply not interested in hearing the same
old argument that this is simply the best we can do given the budget
allocation.
The budget allocation does not just fall from the sky, this Congress
voted on the budget yesterday. The Republican majority chose to slash
environmental programs. The Republican majority chose to eliminate the
State grants for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Republican
majority chose to pass a budget that requires a completely inadequate
allocation for the Department of Interior and environmental programs.
Mr. Speaker, we have the results of those choices before us today. We
could have done better. We could have chosen to move away from the
deliberate policy of putting the privileges of millionaires ahead of
the needs of our communities and families.
Since 1964, LWCF funding has been used to support the acquisition and
maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and public
domain lands, and the stateside program has helped to preserve open
space, slow urban sprawl and given our children safe places to play.
This program has broad bipartisan support, and success stories can be
found in every single State and every single community throughout this
country. In fact, this year I joined with my colleagues from New York
(Mr. King) and New Jersey (Mr. Holt) in urging the committee to restore
funding to the Stateside Grant Program. One hundred fifty Members
shared this concern and signed on to a bipartisan letter.
Mr. Speaker, it is all about priorities: Tax breaks for the wealthy
few or open space and environmental protections for the majority of
Americans. I commend Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dicks for the good in this
bill, but the good is not enough to outweigh the bad.
The Republican majority in this House have made their choices. It is
the wrong choice. I urge my colleagues to hold true to their promise to
the American people and reject this bill. We must do better.
Congress of the United States.
Washington, DC, March 14, 2006.
Hon. Charles Taylor.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, RHOB,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Norm Dicks,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations,
LHOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge the Subcommittee
to restore funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) state and local grant program to $100 million for FY
2007.
The LWCF state assistance program provides matching federal
grants to states and local communities to develop outdoor
recreation facilities and resources. This competitive grant
program provides funds to the states that choose local
projects based on need and quality of the project.
Unfortunately, the FY 2007 budget eliminates funding for the
state assistance program. An inadequate funding level for
this program has had detrimental effects on communities
across America, a number of which have been unable to begin
certain new projects or to complete recreational projects
already begun. This lack of funding would also mean that
youth sports teams trying to access more facilities to
relieve the stress of over-crowded fields and resources won't
be able to find such fields, or community service
organizations needing public recreation resources won't have
them.
[[Page H2768]]
The recently revised USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines call for
30 minutes of regular physical activity to promote health,
psychological well-being, and a healthy body weight. Every
American needs to take this call to heart, and for most
Americans, local public parks and recreation areas are the
place they would most like to do their daily physical
activity. Our communities need funding for this program,
which will increase opportunities for adults and children to
have better access to close to home health promotion and
disease prevention resources.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance
program has aided local recreation projects in over 98% of
all U.S. counties, and the federal investment has been
matched many times over with local funds in 40,000 sports
fields, community recreation facilities, and natural parks.
We believe that this program is vital to assisting
communities that are trying to provide close to home places
for all Americans to get active and stay healthy.
The LWCF matching grants especially help those communities
that are facing the problems associated with exploding growth
such as a critical lack of sports fields and lack of
necessary community planning. These grants also assist many
small communities to build possibly their only public
recreation facility, a facility or park that would not exist
with out the federal funds that match their local funds and
make the investment possible.
Given the national obesity crisis and the need for all
Americans to have access to public places and spaces to have
a place to get active and stay healthy, we strongly urge you
to support an appropriation of $100 million in FY 2007 for
the LWCF state assistance program.
Sincerely,
James McGovern, Peter King, Rush Holt, Neil Abercrombie,
Gary Ackerman, Thomas Allen, Robert Andrews, Brian Baird,
Tammy Baldwin, Melissa Bean, Xavier Becerra, Shelley Berkley,
Timothy Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Sherwood Boehlert, Leonard
Boswell, Rick Boucher, Jeb Bradly, Henry Brown, Sherrod
Brown, Dave Camp, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Benjamin
Cardin, Dennis Cardoza, Russ Carnahan, Julia Carson, Ed Case,
Ben Chandler, Donna Christensen.
Wm. Lacy Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, John
Conyers, Jerry Costello, Joseph Crowley, Henry Cuellar,
Elijah Cummings, Jo Ann Davis, Susan Davis, Tom Davis, Peter
DeFazio, Diana DeGette, William Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, John
Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Michael Doyle, Rahm Emanuel, Eliot
Engel, Anna Eshoo, Lane Evans, Mike Ferguson, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Harold Ford, Jeff Fortenberry, Vito Fossella,
Barney Frank, Wayne Gilchrest, Charles Gonzalez.
Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Raul Grijalva, Luis Guitierrez,
Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings, Brian Higgins, Tim Holden,
Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, William Jefferson,
Tim Johnson, Sue Kelly, Dale Kildee, Ron Kind, Dennis
Kucinich, John Kuhl, James Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick Larsen,
John Larson, Barbara Lee, Sander Levin, John Lewis, Daniel
Lipinski, Frank LoBiondo, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn McCarthy,
Betty McCollum.
Thaddeus McCotter, Jim McDermott, Mike McIntyre, Cynthia
McKinney, Michael McNulty, Carolyn Malone, Ed Markey, Jim
Marshall, Jim Matheson, Doris Matsui, Mike Michaud,
Juanita Millender-McDonald, George Miller, Dennis Moore,
Jerrold Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal, James
Oberstar, Solomon Ortiz, Tom Osborne, Frank Pallone Jr.,
Donald Payne, David Price, Nick Rahall II, Silvestre
Reyes, Tom Reynolds, Mike Ross, Tim Ryan, John Salazar,
Bernie Sanders.
Jim Saxton, Janice Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Allyson
Schwartz, John J. H. Schwarz, David Scott, Robert Scott,
Christopher Shays, Brad Sherman, Rob Simmons, Ike Skelton,
Louise Slaughter, Adam Smith, Vic Snyder, Mark Souder, John
Spratt, Pete Stark, Ted Strickland, Bart Stupak, Ellen
Tauscher, Lee Terry, John Tierney, Edolphus Towns, Stephanie
Tubbs-Jones, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Chris Van Hollen, James
Walsh, Diane Watson, Melvin Watt, Henry Waxman, Jerry Weller,
Lynn Woolsey.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend, the ranking
member of the relevant subcommittee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for the consideration
of H.R. 5386, the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Environmental
appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that this is an open rule, I am
deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee did not protect a
provision for which I specifically asked for such protection. I also
strongly oppose the self-enacting clause which puts into place the cuts
contained in the budget resolution passed on a strictly partisan basis
last night.
Mr. Speaker, the provision I sought for, section 425 of the bill,
results from an amendment I successfully offered in the Appropriations
Committee that simply expresses the sense of the Congress that global
climate change is in part due to human activity. I think that is pretty
self-evident.
{time} 1100
The provision also stated that this reality of climate change may
result in a comprehensive and mandatory program to reduce the impact of
human activity on global warming.
Let me repeat. The provision was nonbinding. The provision would have
resulted in no change in spending by the agencies funded by the
Interior and Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee. This provision
authorizes nothing. In fact, it was the same language that the other
body adopted last year during consideration of the energy bill that was
dropped during conference.
I still think it is important that the House go on record as
acknowledging that we are in part responsible for the recent increases
in global air and ocean temperatures. And I want to associate myself
with the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland. Although the amendment
I offered and the Appropriations Committee accepted would not lead
directly to any actions by the Federal Government, it remains an
important first step. At least the House Appropriations Committee is on
record as facing the truth on climate change. I see that as a victory.
But we still have the responsibility to go beyond a sense of the
Congress resolution and launch the necessary comprehensive program the
United States must take to lead the world in reversing the threat of
global warming.
I am also let down that the Rules Committee chose not to protect the
provision accepted by the Appropriations Committee that seeks to
correct an undue windfall being reaped by the oil and gas industry due
to erroneously written contracts by the Mineral Management Service.
These faulty contracts could cost the Federal Government $7 billion in
royalties between now and 2011. Because of these shortcomings in the
rule and the self-enacting clause, I will have to vote ``no'' on its
passage.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to
the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, my
very good friend, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, 4 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives enters the land of
make believe. Since April, the majority party has been trying to pass
its misbegotten budget resolution, and they have had a very difficult
time doing that because their more moderate Republican brethren in the
Senate have regarded the budget pushed by the majority party as being
extreme, and it is something that they don't want to take home to their
constituents.
Last night, in a very interesting kabuki dance, the majority party
managed to finally find the votes some more than a month late to pass
their budget resolution in this House. But it still has not been passed
by the Senate, and I think objective observers feel it is not likely to
ever pass the Senate.
So now we have a problem. The appropriations bills are not supposed
to move forward until we have a budget resolution passed by both
chambers in place. So what do our friends on the majority side of the
aisle decide to do? They use this rule to deem as passed the budget
resolution which they have not been able to pass. In other words, the
rule says ``Let us pretend that in spite of the fact that the Congress
hasn't passed its budget, it has.'' That is what we are doing.
And so I think that is reason enough to vote against this bill and
this rule. Unless, of course, you think it is right to provide $40
billion in tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year, while at
the same time we are cutting needed domestic programs such as
education, health care, science, and environmental protection by $13
billion below the current service level. Unless you think, of course,
that it is perfectly justifiable to cut the clean water revolving fund
by 50 percent, as this bill will do, at the same time that you are
giving the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country who make over
$400,000 a year $64 billion in tax cuts. The average person making over
$1
[[Page H2769]]
million a year will get a tax cut well over $100,000.
If you make $42,000 a year, the tax break that you are going to get
in the bill that the majority passed last week is about 80 cents a
week; but if you make over $1 million, your tax cut is going to be as
large as the entire salary of that person who made $42,000. I don't
think that is the kind of budget that I want to take home to my
constituents.
So I would say the underlying bill itself is bad enough with what it
does to the clean water revolving fund, the way it shreds land
acquisition programs, the way it hems in EPA's ability to enforce the
law against polluters, it is bad enough to vote against as is. But when
you add to it this ``Let's Pretend'' fiction that the House has passed
a budget which it hasn't passed, it therefore becomes an endorsement of
that budget. I don't think the American people want that budget. I
certainly don't want that budget. I intend to vote ``no.''
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield to my good friend from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 3 minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I want to address
that portion of the pending appropriations bill concerning the Office
of Surface Mining, and specifically the Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund.
In regard to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, there exists an
unexpended balance in the AML trust fund approaching $2 billion, and it
is my hope that in conference this particular appropriation will be
increased.
With respect to the Office of Surface Mining, I would observe that
just yesterday news emerged that the President intends to nominate John
R. Correll to serve as the agency's director. I have not met the
gentleman, and I look forward to doing so. But what immediately catches
the eye is that, since 2002, Mr. Correll served as the deputy assistant
secretary of labor and was responsible, according to the
administration's press release yesterday, of all aspects of the mine's
safety health administration.
Now, it is no secret that 26 coal miners have perished this year, a
rate that this Nation has not witnessed in recent memory. It is also no
secret that many of these fatalities could have been avoided if MSHA
had been doing its job. Mr. Correll had been part of the leadership of
MSHA during the time when the policy floor fell out. Under his
leadership, the philosophy at MSHA changed from one of oversight and
compliance to one of partnership and complicity. Rule-makings were
abandoned, opportunities to improve coal mining safety were closeted
away, and Mr. Correll and others within the Bush Labor Department
advocated partnering with industry to address safety concerns rather
than to enforce the law. In fact, in 1998 Mr. Correll testified before
the House Committee on Education and Workforce, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protection, advocating fewer inspections, incentives over
penalties, and cooperation over regulation.
While other nations have soared ahead in mine safety, incorporating
new technologies to ensure and improve protections for their most
precious mining resource, their workers, this Nation through a cultural
shift at MSHA remained at the dust. It has been a shameful record that
I would be loathe to see carried over to OSM.
The health and safety of the residents in our mining communities
should not be gambled on in the way that the health and safety of our
mine workers has been. It is time that concern and compassion and
correctness for our miners take precedent over loyalty to industry and
loyalty to this administration.
So it is passing strange, to say the least, that the Bush
administration would nominate as OSM director a person who presided
over MSHA during the worst rash of coal miner fatalities in recent
times. One must wonder if this person will bring the same philosophy to
overseeing the environmental protection of coalfield citizens.
I urge opposition to this rule for many other reasons that have been
stated by my colleagues.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve one more time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota, my classmate and
friend, Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it has only been a few hours since we resolved the vote
on the budget. To the disappointment of many of us, the budget was
passed, and the fifth debt limit increase, the second since March of
this year alone, has now been authorized.
But there are other features in this budget passed last night that
many of us found objectionable, including those steep, steep cuts in
nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for those tax cuts
disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest people in this country.
Those who need the help the least get the most help in terms of huge
tax cuts, and vital programs to this country get savaged under the
spending cuts moved forward.
I want to elaborate on the earlier debate carried by our ranking
member, Dave Obey, in the Appropriations Committee, because in this
rule there is language which incorporates the spending limits of the
House-passed budget last night. I want to make this point very clear,
because there were 12 Members of the majority that voted against that
budget. There was another group that got nonbinding language saying
some of the money may somehow, somewhere, possibly be put back. Well,
now we know that nonbinding language means nothing at all. The rule
carries forward enforcement of these cuts.
And so if you are a moderate Republican or a member of the minority
that believes going down this path is unwise and sells out priorities
of the American people, then you should not vote for this rule today.
Anyone voting against that budget with concerns about these devastating
cuts in nondefense discretionary spending should vote against this
rule. It imposes the cuts on the appropriations process.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to try to correct an
inaccuracy that was stated a little bit earlier.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I rise to support the rule. I would like to commend the committee and
staff for good work in tough times.
Mr. Speaker, I think this House better get used to tough budgets if
we are going to get a handle on the Federal deficit. We are not going
to have a lot of surpluses, we are going to have to pass budgets and
appropriations bills that leave us all a little painful because it is
important that we get a handle on the fiscal affairs of this country.
In this bill there is a provision that was mentioned by the gentleman
from Florida that removes the congressional moratorium for producing
energy on the outer continental shelf. Now, why would I propose that in
the committee? I am pleased to tell you why.
The industries of this country that provide the very best jobs we
have left in America are being made noncompetitive and have been
noncompetitive for several years because of high natural gas prices.
Five years ago, the price of natural gas in America averaged $2. Last
year, the average price was $9.50. You don't have to be very good in
math to know that was a huge, huge increase. If it was gasoline at the
pump, it would be $7 gasoline to fill our cars.
This is preventing Americans from being warm in their homes, it is
preventing Americans from being warm in their businesses. I was at a
lot of businesses where it was 60 degrees and they were wearing jackets
running their retail businesses. America cannot afford to be warm with
energy prices increasing that fast.
Businesses, the petro-chemical industry, 55 percent of their cost is
natural gas both as an ingredient and a fuel. Fertilizer, as high as 70
percent to make nitrogen fertilizer, the cost of natural gas. The steel
industry, the aluminum industry, the glass industry, the brick industry
will not remain in America unless we provide affordable natural gas.
Now, here is the tragedy. What people don't realize, when we pay $75
for oil, the whole world does. When we paid
[[Page H2770]]
$9.50 for gas last year and for 4 months it was $14 and $15, Europe was
at $6, China and Taiwan was at $3.50, South America at $1.80, Russia
and North Africa at 90 cents.
Folks, we are driving the best blue collar working people jobs out of
this country because they cannot afford to stay here. We have lost
between three and five paper mills since the first of the year because
of energy costs, and some of them put in new units within the last 1\1/
2\ years.
{time} 1115
Energy can make a company noncompetitive overnight because of the use
of energy. This government is the reason we are in trouble. We expanded
the use of natural gas 10 or 12 years ago before I got here to make
electricity.
Now a huge amount of our natural gas makes electricity, close to 20
percent. We did not open up supply. We are the only country in the
world that has locked up the Outer Continental Shelf. I had a visitor
from the U.K. yesterday. He said, Why do you people not produce in the
OCS? Everybody does. Canada does right off the coast of Maine, right
off the coast of Washington. Canada has been drilling for gas in Lake
Erie since 1913 and selling the gas to us currently because we buy 17
percent of our gas this year from Canada.
Natural gas we are rich with. We have chosen to lock it up, and
caused our homeowners to pay double and triple heating costs, our small
businesses to become nonprofitable, and our large corporations to
literally move away. We have lost several million jobs already because
of energy costs, and we are going to lose millions more.
What I am going to tell you is it will not be the America we grew up
in with lots of opportunity. The America we are going to leave is an
America that decided to starve itself on the cleanest fuel known to
man, the cleanest fossil fuel. Natural gas is the least polluting fuel,
and those who today were talking about CO2 and global
warming, it produces much less CO2 than all the other fossil
fuels.
So, if we had the price down, it can become a major player in our
transportation system. Not 5 years down the road, tomorrow. Every
gasoline engine can run on natural gas. Our buses, our short-haul
trucks, our construction vehicles could all be on natural gas with a
modest change.
Natural gas can be the bridge to all the alternatives that are slowly
moving forward. It can quadruple the savings that we can do with CAFE,
and I am probably going to support that this time, but it is an
immediate thing. Natural gas is what can keep America competitive until
we get a handle on the other energies that can replace oil.
I urge you to not remove the moratorium. It does not threaten our
coastline. We still have a presidential moratorium. We still have a 5-
year plan that takes 2 years to implement and it is not the end of
that. It is the first step in saying we are going to deal with natural
gas and energy in this country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to understand that
tourism is the major industry in Florida, and offshore gas drilling is
nothing but the nose under the tent. There is no such thing as just gas
drilling, and I do not have enough time, if you could get some time
from Mr. Bishop, I would be happy to engage you ad nauseam on this
subject, but when Mr. Peterson says that it is not going to be
environmentally harmful, offshore gas drilling routinely dumps into the
ocean spent drilling muds containing vast quantities of mercury and
other toxins, contaminated produced waters that often contain radium
and other dangerous substances, and additional harmful marine
discharges that include benzene, toluene, lead, cadmium, and zinc.
Maybe Pennsylvania does not have the tourist industry that we do
because that is right, you do not have an offshore. We do in Florida,
and we are going to protect it.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my good friend.
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, certainly I am very grateful to my dear
friend from the State of Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which does not
protect the language added in committee regarding global climate
change.
Global climate change is one of the most serious environmental
threats of our time. Yet, this House has failed repeatedly to act on
this issue or even acknowledge the bleak outlook voiced by many
scientists.
Global temperatures are rising. This fact is indisputable. As we
speak, sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, and polar bears are
drowning in the Arctic. There is a growing scientific consensus that
human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have
contributed to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.
The effects of global warming are devastating. Approximately 160,000
people die each year from the side effects of global warming, which
range from malaria to malnutrition to heat exhaustion in our seniors.
If temperatures continue to rise, coastal flooding and drought could
occur, and the intensity of hurricanes could increase.
In my neighborhood alone in Indianapolis, Indiana, we have finally
got the EPA to look at the fact that it is the environment that is
snapping away people's lives prematurely.
We have seen that voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions simply
do not work. This bill currently includes language that recognizes our
responsibility to establish a national program of mandatory, market-
based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases.
Mandating reductions in carbon emissions will spur innovation and
help slow this moving trend. We have a moral imperative, Mr. Speaker,
to future generations to address this threat because the cost of
inaction is too high. We cannot let our legacy be one of destruction.
Thank you very much for your attention and your consideration. Vote
against the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney),
my very good friend.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his outstanding work on this issue and so many others.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule. In this rule, the Rules
Committee failed to report out important amendments that were approved
by the Appropriations Committee, including the important Dicks-Obey
language expressing the need to address global climate change. Why in
the world can you not include that important issue in this bill?
This bill is woefully underfunded at $800 million below the level
needed to maintain current services, and I must say that a very
important amendment that would save taxpayers money, the Hinchey
amendment, was not included, although the committee supported it. His
amendment would suspend the royalty relief program and authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate existing leases.
This would save taxpayers dollars. It would save dollars in our
Treasury. Right now, in New York and L.A. and across this country, a
gallon of gas costs more than $3, while the oil and gas companies
continue to make record profits. All of this is happening while the
taxpayers are losing out in billions of dollars in royalty payments
from oil and gas taken from land owned by the American people.
Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that the Federal
Government will lose at least $7 billion over the next 5 years in
undercollected royalty payments. Why in the world will the majority not
correct this program that would put money into the budget for student
loans, to help the disadvantaged, to help our seniors? Yet, they would
not include it and the underpayment continues, and that money
rightfully belongs to the American people.
We are talking about oil and gas extracted from land owned by the
American people with rip-off leases to the oil and gas companies where
they are reporting record profits. What is wrong with having those
leases negotiated to express fair market value so that the taxpayers
and the Federal Government can have that money for the services that
the people need?
[[Page H2771]]
It is a really terrible rule. They did not even include amendments
that were passed out by the Appropriations Committee. Please vote
``no.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule
so we can consider Mr. Obey's amendment to restore vital funding to the
Interior appropriations bill, the amendment that was rejected in the
Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations
bill is currently funded at $145 million below the fiscal year 2006
level and $800 million below the level that is needed just to maintain
current services. These shortfalls will negatively impact our national
parks and forests, critical environment and conservation programs,
clean water programs, and services for Native Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would restore $800 million to the
bill to ensure that these vital programs and services are able to
continue at current levels, and that amendment is fully paid for by
reducing the tax break given to those fortunate individuals among us
with incomes more than $1 million annually. Their generous tax savings,
which average $114,000, would be reduced by $2,000, certainly a small
sacrifice to maintain these essential programs and services.
I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us
from considering the Interior appropriations bill under an open rule,
but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on Representative Obey's
amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this
amendment to restore severe funding shortfalls in this bill.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I find these opportunities exhilarating to say the least. There are a
couple of things that I would like to point out.
We have spent a great deal of time talking about one of the
provisions that is in this bill that deals with the drilling of natural
gas, which is far different than the drilling of oil would be. It seems
in Congress sometimes that we talk so much about the problem of heating
in winter. We appropriate billions of dollars for the LIHEAP program so
that Federal money can go directly through an individual over to the
utility companies, when it would seem logical or at least rational to
try to explore in some way a way of increasing the availability so that
all people have to pay less for heat for their homes in the winter, and
that instead of trying to subsidize the poor, we try to solve the
problem at its root.
It is difficult to sometimes be here and have people criticize the
lack of natural energy, wanting to consume more without producing more,
at the same time being critical of any efforts to actually increase
that consumption possibility. Not only is this an issue that hits
individuals in trying to heat their homes, but it also hits businesses,
much of which runs on natural gas.
I have farmers in my constituency that cannot fertilize this year
because there is not enough fertilizer being produced and because
natural gas becomes a critical element in its production and its
distribution form. Industries are not being able to operate because of
that.
I do, though, want to thank Mr. Hastings for the very end talking
about increasing fund because this is, after all, a funding bill. I do
want to also talk about two issues that were raised in defense of the
bill and defense of the position of the Rules Committee.
Section 2 of the resolution says that it is essential to allow the
House to have the so-called deeming resolution, which means we deemed
the budget resolution which was passed by the House last night as
having force and effect until we can get a conference report. It is
essential to move that forward if there is to be any kind of parameters
and discussion over the debate. If we do reject this rule and
subsequent rules on appropriations items which do that, we simply have
the net effect of this body of postponing any rational discussion in a
logical and determined way of any of the appropriations items.
{time} 1130
We might as well just dust off the old omnibus bill, because that
will be the end result of not moving forward in a rational and logical
approach on each and every one of these budget areas. I don't think
that is the appropriate tact that we as a body wish to take.
Secondly, I want to talk also about a couple of other provisions that
have been criticized. In section 2 clause b it says: ``A provision
changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriations
bill.'' Over in rule 4 it says, ``A bill or joint resolution carrying
an appropriations may not be reported by a committee not having
jurisdiction to report the appropriations.''
What it basically means is that appropriation bills are supposed to
be appropriating, authorizing bills should be for authorizing, and the
function of the Rules Committee is to try and make sure those
distinctions are clear. To be honest, we sometimes will fudge on that
and put authorization language in an appropriation bill if the
authorizing committee agrees and does not object. In this particular
situation, the Rules Committee did what it was supposed to do and
simply said, where an authorizer objects to a provision in an
appropriation bill they will have the opportunity to come forward and
do just that.
One of the speakers said we pulled out certain amendments, or that we
did not allow certain amendments to be in the bill. No, they are still
in the bill. We did allow an authorizer to come in and exercise his
right under the rules to protest that authorization language in an
appropriation bill, and then we will deal with that issue when the time
comes.
I am telling you that what I think the Rules Committee has done here
with this open rule, so that any amendment that actually deals with the
appropriation side is legitimate, is to protect the process as written
in our rules. And if appropriators wish to be authorizers and
authorizers wish to be appropriators, maybe they should look at trying
to rearrange their committee schedules to accommodate that process.
This rule is a good rule because it follows the rules, it defends the
process that we have, and it moves us forward in the debate. I feel
comfortable with that. I feel comfortable with much of the actual
appropriations in this particular bill.
I did have times when I was given a kind of start. As an old teacher,
every time they said the word education my ears perked up, because I
was wondering where education fits into this bill. And then I realized
we are debating a whole lot of other issues not necessarily related to
this appropriations process.
I do want to say something that is extremely personal to me as it
deals with potential taxes. The last time my party did not control the
House and the Senate and the Presidency, the solution to our budget
situation was the largest tax increase in the history of this country,
and it started out with the concept of taxing the rich. I was a school
teacher. My taxes increased at a greater percentage and with a greater
dollar amount than ever in my lifetime. My wife had just taken a part-
time job that year. Everything she made in that part-time job went to
pay for the tax increase, supposedly on the rich.
I guess I should be grateful to the Congress that at that time, as a
schoolteacher, I was labeled as one of the rich in this country. But
that was the reality. And if indeed we never go back to those days
again, I will be grateful and I will be happy.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. This is a good bill. It will be
talked about at length today, and I am sure will be amended in
appropriate ways as time goes on, but it is still a good bill and I
urge the adoption of the rule.
[[Page H2772]]
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 818--Rule for H.R. 5386 the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2007
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of
Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. __, as Reported
(Interior and Environment Appropriations, 2007)
Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ENHANCED APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSERVATION, RECREATION, THE
ENVIRONMENT, AND NATIVE AMERICANS
Sec. 601. In addition to the amounts otherwise made
available by this Act, the following sums, to remain
available until expended, are appropriated:
(1) $300,000,000 for clean air and water programs
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency as
follows:
(A) $250,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
as authorized by title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
(B) $50,000,000 for clean diesel and homeland security
programs, as requested in the President's budget.
(2) $300,000,000 for protection of Federal lands
administered by the Department of the Interior and the United
States Forest Service as follows:
(A) $100,000,000 to address maintenance backlogs within the
national parks, refuges, forests, and other lands of the
United States.
(B) 150,000,000 for acquisition and preservation of
priority lands within the national parks, refuges, and
forests when such lands are threatened by development
activities that could restrict access to such lands in the
future by the American people.
(C) $50,000,000 to address staffing shortages for visitor
services at national parks and national wildlife refuges.
(3) $30,000,000 for grants to States administered by the
National Park Service for support of conservation and
recreation programs within the States.
(4) $20,000,000 for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
program administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
(5) $50,000,000 for ``Payments in Lieu of Taxes'' as
administered by the Secretary of the Interior and as
authorized by sections 6901 through 6907 of title 31, United
States Code.
(6) $50,000,000 for ``Indian Health Services'' for support
of expanded clinical health services to Native Americans.
(7) $50,000,000 for ``Bureau of Indian Affairs--Operation
of Indian Programs'' for support of educational services to
Native Americans.
Sec. 602. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for calendar year 2007 the amount of tax
reduction resulting from the enactment of Public Laws 107-16,
108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 1.94 percent.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and, with gratitude that we are done at this point, I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adoption of H. Res. 818, if ordered; and motion to suspend the rules on
H. Res. 795.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 191, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 160]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
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
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
[[Page H2773]]
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--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
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murtha
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
Strickland
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
NOT VOTING--23
Bachus
Brady (TX)
Cardin
Cummings
Davis, Tom
Evans
Fattah
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hayworth
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Kennedy (RI)
Kolbe
Larson (CT)
Leach
Moran (VA)
Reynolds
Shadegg
Stupak
Weldon (PA)
Wolf
Wynn
{time} 1158
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. DeGETTE, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. BALDWIN and
Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi, HOLT, and JACKSON of Illinois changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 160, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 192, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 161]
AYES--218
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)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
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
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
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)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--192
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
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murtha
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
Strickland
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
NOT VOTING--22
Brady (TX)
Cardin
Cummings
Davis, Tom
Evans
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hayworth
Hoyer
Kennedy (RI)
Kolbe
Larson (CT)
Leach
McCaul (TX)
McKinney
Moran (VA)
Reynolds
Shadegg
Stupak
Wolf
Wynn
{time} 1207
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________