[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2785-H2817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago, I stood at this 
very microphone at this very desk and offered the amendment that 
initiated the first Outer Continental Shelf moratorium dealing with 
drilling for oil and gas. Over the years, that 25-year period, working 
with industry, working with the Federal Government, working with the 
State government and working with the Congress, we have evolved a 
program that has worked. During that time we have opened up some of the 
areas for exploration and for drilling. During that time we have also 
bought back some of the leases that were environmentally threatening.
  This amendment that was added in the appropriations committee, the 
so-called Peterson amendment, happened without any hearings on the part 
of the subcommittee, no hearings on the part of the appropriations 
committee, and now we are trying to do something about that, at least 
give us time to work with our own House committee that has been working 
diligently for the last 6 to 8 months on trying to come up with a 
proper type of moratorium.
  We should not allow this language, the so-called Peterson amendment, 
to stay in this bill today. We should continue the work with the House 
committee that is already working on it and try to maintain the 
environmental protection that is so important to so many areas of the 
waters in and around the United States of America.
  As I said, this moratorium has been here for 25 years. It has evolved 
during that time. It has worked extremely well. I believe that we 
should be very careful in changes that we might make and we shouldn't 
make them wholesale without definite thought and consideration.

                              {time}  1300

  I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida who has been 
a leader on this issue. We all know the sincerity of Congressman 
Peterson on this issue. It is a very important issue. But I want to 
say, I agree with you. I think to do it in an appropriations bill, and 
especially when it is part of the President's budget and the plan, to 
me this isn't the right way to proceed. I realize that there is some 
history here but it is 25 years since this was done and I think this 
has worked very effectively. Let's try to work together to maintain 
this provision.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his thoughts.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

[[Page H2786]]

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was really going to wait and 
discuss this on the Peterson amendment or at least on the Putnam-Capps 
amendment to strike the Peterson language that is in the bill, but 
listening to all the Members, I thought maybe we ought to at least have 
a voice that is on the other side.
  I can't near entertain as much as my colleague from Hawaii, who I 
agree with on this, and I am not going to call environmentalists 
Taliban, but I know we have considered this amendment for over a year 
and this issue has been debated on this floor many times, including the 
energy bill last year.
  Supply and demand for energy is out of whack and our Nation needs 
more energy. The Federal Government tried to mandate demand reduction 
in the last energy crisis and it contributed to a nationwide recession 
we do not want to repeat. Opening the Outer Continental Shelf could 
save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20 years for consumers and 
manufacturers. High natural gas costs are sending manufacturing jobs 
overseas, following the cheap gas. Environmentally conscious nations 
like Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom are safely 
and successfully producing natural gas from their coastal waters. 
Canada uses natural gas only wells in Lake Erie, but right across the 
line the U.S. is not allowed to do the same.
  No nation can produce energy more responsibly than ours. I have been 
on oil and gas rigs and they have such few discharges into the ocean, a 
medium sized fishing boat will leak more in a year.
  The Peterson language is a major opportunity for us to respond to 
today's energy crisis with a national solution. I feel justified in 
supporting the amendment because I come from a coastal district. My 
constituents feel the same way. Chemical production and oil and gas 
exploration, processing and refining are Texas' top coastal industries.
  My colleagues from California and Florida think only they have 
beaches. We have coastal tourism and it is our second biggest income 
producer. That fact alone shows that the argument that oil and gas 
production and coastal tourism is mutually exclusive is just plain 
wrong.
  I would close by saying if you're acting like Chicken Little and 
cannot point to one beach in Texas that has been ruined by oil and 
natural gas, then you should oppose the Putnam, Capps, et al. 
amendment.
  There will be less need for LNG facilities and LNG tankers when we 
tap our own offshore resources so we can use the safest mode of 
transportation in the world--pipelines.
  To address the needs of American families, we need a 3 pronged 
strategy. First, we need more production and infrastructure to meet our 
needs of today and tomorrow.
  Second, we need more conservation to keep our economy going as 
resources become more competitive globally.
  Third we need more research to transition our economy to future 
sources of energy, for a time when petrochemicals are only used for 
materials, and not as an everyday fuel.
  Suppprting only long-term solutions and conservation is just not 
enough. It might be easier if it was, but we need to do more for 
today's energy problems. We will need continued American energy 
production for some time.
  If we allow domestic production to die out, conservation and research 
will not save us, and we will have to pay a terrible economic price.
  I urge my colleagues to support oil and gas production in the Outer 
Continental Shelf, and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the Interior and Environmental 
appropriations bill we have before us today is a responsible, balanced 
piece of legislation that very much deserves our support. It might not 
be a perfect bill, but it is the best possible product given the tight 
budget restraints that we have had trying to control Federal spending. 
Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks deserve our respect and 
gratitude for drafting a bill which funds a variety of Federal 
responsibilities, including our national parks, our Federal forests, 
abandoned mine reclamation, fish and wildlife resources, EPA, Indian 
programs, museums and arts agencies.
  This is a bipartisan bill, and it is the product of fair and 
impartial hearings.
  I think it is fitting that this first appropriations bill of the 
season shows that it is funded at $211 million below the current fiscal 
year. We are on a track here to some fiscal sanity.
  Tough choices had to be made. The chairman made the right choices.
  Also important, it includes a very important amendment offered in 
full committee by Mr. Peterson which modifies the current congressional 
moratorium to allow for safe and efficient production of natural gas 
along our Outer Continental Shelf. This is a rational step to take in a 
time when we need to be increasing domestic production to meet our 
Nation's energy needs. Any effort to take this out would be the wrong 
thing to do right now. This is in this bill because that is where the 
rule is.
  I believe that this bill provides the environmental, energy, 
resource, cultural and recreational needs of our Nation while still 
playing a significant role in controlling Federal spending.
  Again, I commend the chairman and Mr. Dicks for their hard work in 
bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the bill and to support the Peterson amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), my friend and colleague.
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear what is going on here. 
This is an election year. Everybody in this House is up for election.
  The Governor of California and the President of the United States, 
who is the former Governor of Texas, have not supported the idea that 
we ought to open up oil and gas drilling under the guise of just doing 
gas drilling off the coast. Why? Because they represent States and a 
Nation that knows that one of the biggest industries in this Nation is 
tourism, and tourism is jobs. I can assure you, the people do not go 
visit the coasts of Florida, the coasts of California to watch oil 
wells. That is not what draws tourism to the coast. It is not what 
makes those coastlines the biggest economic engines in the United 
States.
  This is not about trying to respond to the high gas prices. This is a 
giveaway. The oil companies tell you they are not interested in 
offshore drilling because there is a lot of expense that goes into it 
and it takes years and years. So just be mindful, what is this? This is 
a play to the oil companies.
  Let me just tell you what the Governor of California says, the 
biggest gas guzzling State in the Nation, ``The current movement to 
lift the ban is nothing more than a weak attempt to cater to oil 
interests in the face of high gasoline prices. I encourage you to move 
your focus instead to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and 
supporting the development of alternative fuels such as ethanol in 
order to diversify our energy portfolio.''
  Let us be creative about how we diversify the energy portfolio. Let 
us not use the dinosaur effect that we are just going to go after oil 
and gas wherever it was. These same people will tell you if there is 
oil right under this Capitol, drill for it. My God, can we not in the 
leadership of the United States Congress respect the fact that it is 
just not about oil and gas, it is about a lot of other values in this 
country?
  The provision in the bill is a bad one, and I strongly support the 
amendment to take it out.


                                                State Capitol,

                                     Sacramento, CA, May 10, 2006.
     California Congressional Delegation,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear California Congressional Delegation: I strongly oppose 
     any efforts to end or weaken the federal moratorium on oil 
     and gas leasing off the coast of California and I will fight 
     any effort to expand offshore drilling as long as I am 
     Governor. This current movement to lift the ban is nothing 
     more than a weak attempt to cater to oil interests in the 
     face of high gasoline prices. I encourage you to move your 
     focus instead to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and 
     supporting development of alternative fuels such as ethanol 
     in order to diversify our energy portfolio.
       The moratorium has been in place for twenty-five years and 
     enjoys widespread support from the people of California, 
     including bipartisan support from elected leaders. It has 
     been widely recognized by an overwhelming majority of 
     Californians that there are better ways to address our energy

[[Page H2787]]

     needs without populating our waters with oil platforms and 
     adding additional scars to our beautiful coastline.
       The actions taken today by the House Appropriations 
     Committee is extremely disappointing. As a result, the 
     federal FY07 Interior Appropriations bill that you will be 
     asked to vote on as early as next week ends the twenty-five 
     year bipartisan Congressional moratorium and the protection 
     it guarantees California's coast. Moreover, the bill's 
     provisions would allow drilling to begin just three miles 
     from our coast. Rather than watching the sun set on the 
     western horizon each day, millions of Californians and 
     visitors will now see grotesque oil platforms in plain sight. 
     I urge the Delegation to oppose these provisions and work to 
     defeat them during the House debate. California's beautiful 
     coastline is an integral part of our culture, our heritage 
     and our economy. Putting it at risk would be an absolute 
     travesty.
       The price of gasoline has risen dramatically in California, 
     but reducing our use of fossil fuels and diversifying our 
     energy supply would have a much greater and more direct 
     impact on prices than drilling off shore. California has gone 
     to great lengths to do just this. We have dedicated $6.5 
     million to the Hydrogen Highway initiative to build hydrogen 
     fueling stations and expand research for cleaner, reliable 
     fuels; we have implemented new car standards that will reduce 
     emissions by thirty percent in the next ten years, cutting 
     ozone-forming pollutions by five tons per day by 2020; we 
     have invested $165 million to get gross polluters off of 
     California's streets; and finally, we have created incentives 
     to reduce gasoline consumption by making more people eligible 
     to receive $1,000 when they turn in gross-polluting, 
     inefficient vehicles. California leads the nation on these 
     initiatives.
       Ending or weakening the current moratorium on offshore oil 
     and gas leasing will not result in reduced prices for 
     consumers nor is it the foundation for a sustainable energy 
     policy. I urge your support for renewing the OCS moratorium 
     and your continued support for California's economy and 
     coastal environment.
           Sincerely,
                                             Arnold Shwarzenegger,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).
  (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, later today, we will debate a natural gas 
exploration provision in this bill over which I have grave concerns. 
Thus, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Putnam-Capps 
amendment.
  We are all acutely aware of the financial strain that higher gas 
prices place on average Americans. We imperil our national and economic 
security if we do not identify alternative energy sources to meet our 
Nation's ever increasing demand for energy.
  The answer, however, is not in this provision. It will end the 25-
year bipartisan Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, moratorium that Chairman 
Young spoke earlier about and, thus, allow construction of these gas 
wells as close as 3 miles from every coastal State.
  From an economic perspective, this provision will jeopardize coastal 
economies that rely on healthy tourism industries for continued 
prosperity. Setting up natural gas wells visibly 3 miles from the shore 
would have a crippling effect on these coastal communities and the 
residents whose livelihoods they support.
  Additionally, opening up our most sensitive coastlines to offshore 
natural gas drilling within these 3 miles could adversely impact the 
coastal waters, the fisheries and the marine ecosystems.
  If the Putnam-Capps amendment is not adopted, States would be shut 
out from offshore oil drilling decisions. Coastal Governors and the 
State legislatures would be denied a meaningful role in decisions about 
where and when drilling might occur. They would be silent, yet subject 
to a Federal mandate.
  Finally, the Secretary of Defense has indicated that areas east of 
the military mission line are vital to military operations and 
training. Specifically, Secretary Rumsfeld has indicated that language 
akin to what is currently in this bill would be incompatible with 
military operations and that it could be crucial to our Nation's 
security.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan 
Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  It is sad that as we stand on the cusp of the most profound change in 
our environment the civilized world has ever seen, the actions of a few 
in Congress can stop desperately overdue action.
  The science is clear. This is not a problem of the future. It is 
happening now. The United Nations has declared that at least 5 million 
cases of illness and more than 150,000 deaths every year are attributed 
to global warming. The 2003 European heat wave killed over 20,000 
people. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 
years. Two consecutive record-breaking hurricane seasons. The problem 
will not fix itself.
  And yet we will not allow a provision in this bill that has no 
timeline, no specific targets and no commitment. The committee inserted 
text that merely expressed the sense that we should take action on 
global warming, but the Rules Committee chose to leave it open to 
challenge by anyone, and I understand that challenge will be coming on 
a technicality. So we cannot even say we should be doing something 
about this.
  Just how bad does it have to get?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Putnam 
amendment that will be given later here this evening.
  We have heard a lot today about drilling off the coast of Florida. 
Let me make a parallel here and something every Member should think 
about. Would we allow oil rigs on the edge of the Grand Canyon, on the 
rim? How about at the foot of Old Faithful?
  The Florida beaches are really tremendously important. When you start 
to think about how far that this bill, as it is presently written, 
would bring these oil wells and gas wells into proximity to our 
beaches, we are talking about 3 miles. The line of sight is over 7 
miles.
  This bill just goes way too far in really imposing mass destruction 
on our beaches and on our tourism. Florida beaches are really the most 
important thing that we have for our economy. It is the lifeblood of 
our economy, and the very thought that with the tremendous opposition 
that Florida has to this particular amendment that this body would do 
anything except strike it.
  I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, this is a bad 
provision. Adam Putnam is going to be putting an amendment in this 
evening that would strip it out of this particular bill, and I think as 
Mr. Young said earlier, that if we are going to be doing this, you need 
discussion and you need to talk about it.
  It was said that we have talked about it. I cannot remember one time 
that we have ever talked about bringing them within 3 miles of the 
coastal State of Florida.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote with the Florida delegation. Kill 
this amendment to the appropriations bill that was put in inside the 
committee and support the Putnam amendment that would strip it out.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussion about the amendment 
that has been put forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson). There are some technical problems with this amendment that I 
think have not been adequately addressed in the context of this debate 
thus far.

                              {time}  1315

  One of those technical amendments has to do with the fact that the 
experts on this issue, both within Interior and Energy, believe that it 
may not be possible to give leases for the extraction of natural gas 
alone. All the leases that we have currently are for natural gas and 
oil. And the reason for that is, if you drill for natural gas, the 
likelihood is that you are going to hit oil. And if you hit oil, and 
you are not capable or prepared to deal with that, then you are going 
to encounter some very serious problems.
  So the amendment that Mr. Peterson is going to bring before the House 
sometime later this afternoon or this evening has within it this very 
serious technical problem, and for that reason alone it ought to be 
rejected.
  The gentleman from Florida, the former chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, was up here just a few minutes ago talking about the serious 
damage that this amendment, if it is

[[Page H2788]]

passed and put into action, might have on the tourist industry in 
Florida and on the general situation of the coastal region in Florida 
and California and in parts of the gulf.
  So when you are thinking about this particular amendment, keep in 
mind that if you think you are going to drill just for natural gas, the 
likelihood is if you hit natural gas you are going to hit oil too. And 
if you are not prepared for it, you are going to have some very serious 
problems. We ought to address this issue, but address it in a much more 
comprehensive way.
  As has been pointed out, again by the gentleman from Florida on the 
other side of the aisle just a few minutes ago, we have not had 
adequate hearings on this. This is an issue that has not gone through 
the appropriate authorizing committee. We are attempting to 
inappropriately put it into the context of this appropriations bill, 
and for that reason also that amendment ought to be rejected.
  Furthermore, we need to be conserving our natural resources, 
particularly our energy resources. Anything that you find anyplace in 
the world on energy resources, natural gas and oil, these materials are 
fungible. They go out anywhere. If we are smart about our natural 
resources, we ought to be doing everything we can to conserve them, 
keep them where they are because the value of those natural resources 
is going to dramatically increase over time. If we exploit them now, 
extract them now, exhaust them now, we are going to be very sorry for 
it later on.
  In addition to that, we have another circumstance with regard to this 
amendment and the ideas behind it, and that has to do with the fact 
that we are not now receiving adequate royalties from the natural 
resources, particularly petroleum and natural gas, that are being 
extracted by oil companies from public lands, whether those public 
lands are dry or under water. And there will be an amendment coming up 
later this evening, in all likelihood towards the end of this bill, 
which will deal with the need to get those royalties.
  So for those reasons I think that this amendment ought to be 
rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HINCHEY. The entire time for the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The entire time for general debate has expired. The 
gentleman from North Carolina remains the only person with time, and he 
has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
appropriations chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
chairman yielding me this time, and I want to express my deep 
appreciation to him for his work, as well as for Norm Dicks of 
Washington. This is a fabulous bill, in my view. It is the first step 
in the passage of 11 of our bills between now and the 4th of July 
break, all of them off the House floor.
  This bill reflects exactly the approach and style we are attempting 
to take within our committee this year and in the years ahead. The 
total spending on this bill provides $19.5 billion in total 
discretionary spending. That is a $145 million decrease from the 
previous year.
  The chairman and the ranking member are attempting to help us balance 
the importance of preserving our resources, our environment, and, 
indeed, our country as we move towards energy independence. And one of 
the pieces of preserving our independence is to make certain that our 
appropriations process is spending less money, not more money, in the 
years ahead.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding me time. 
Opponents of the Putnam-Capps amendment say that the underlying 
language does nothing to hurt the readiness of our military here in the 
United States, and I can say that that is 100 percent wrong.
  This map is the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida. This 
is a joint test range that extends from the panhandle of Florida all 
the way to Key West. Let me tell you, the Air Force uses this for live 
fire. Live fire. And the Navy uses the gulf ranges to predeploy 
certification and to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles from submarines.
  Now, I want to read you a list, if I can, which is just a sampling of 
some of the future and current missions conducted in the eastern Gulf 
of Mexico: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial training and live 
fire; the F-22 pilot upgrade training, including the AMRAAM live fire; 
Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submerged vessels; testing of 
Small Diameter Bomb program against man-made targets in the Gulf of 
Mexico; F-16 weapons system testing and evaluation; air dominance 
munitions; unmanned combat air vehicles; directed energy weapons and 
classified programs.
  Now, the former commander of the Air Armament Center, Major General 
Robert W. Chedister, said last August: ``Clearly, structures associated 
with oil and gas production are totally incompatible with, and would 
have a significant impact on, the mission activity in the eastern Gulf 
of Mexico.''
  The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote: ``Areas 
east of 86/41, which is the military mission line, commonly known as 
the mission line, are critical to DOD.'' He went on to say: ``In these 
areas east of the military mission line, drilling structures and 
associated development would be incompatible with military activities, 
such as missile flights, low-flying drone aircraft, and weapons testing 
and training.''
  Now, let me show you where that military mission line is. The 
underlying language in this bill would open the door to drilling in the 
entire Joint Gulf Range and is completely incompatible with the 
military mission of our Air Force and our Navy. We cannot allow this 
area to be impacted.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a little colloquy 
with you.
  As you know, the administration proposed $49.5 million for the 
National Clean Diesel Initiative, which was authorized at $200 million 
in the Energy Policy Act. We were only able to fund that at $26 
million. I am concerned the demand will far exceed the amount the 
committee was able to provide.
  For example, Pennsylvania's 13 school districts have filed 
applications with EPA for funding to retrofit diesel engines, and we 
are going to have a lot more of this.
  I would like to yield to my friend from New York (Mr. Kuhl).
  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my colleague 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) on his efforts on this particular 
important matter. And while he addresses the issues dealing 
particularly with his district in Pennsylvania, which I think is 
laudable, we should know that actually diesel engines play a very 
important role in our Nation's economy. They are, however, responsible 
for a substantial portion of particulate matter emissions and there are 
11 million vehicles that need to be retrofitted, nearly 500,000 of 
which are school buses, which my colleague has addressed.
  So I compliment again my colleague, Mr. Sherwood, for approaching 
this problem, and certainly I compliment the chairman for what he has 
been able to do. Hopefully, he will be able to supplement what has been 
appropriated in this bill by substantial increases in the 
appropriation.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Sherwood, I agree that the demand 
for funding for retrofitting diesel vehicles has exceeded the funding 
made available to date. However, it is important to note that in fiscal 
year 2006, funding for programs under the National Clean Diesel 
Initiative was less than $12 million, and the $26 million recommended 
by the committee for fiscal 2007 represents an increase in funding of 
nearly 120 percent.
  I have been personally involved in programs to promote the use of 
diesel retrofits back in my district, and I believe the generous amount 
provided by the committee will make significant strides in addressing 
the clean diesel program's objectives. Having said that,

[[Page H2789]]

I would be happy to work with my colleagues to see if we might be able 
to increase the funding for this program should additional funds be 
made available when we go to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman. We are beginning 
the most important debate this country has had on energy in a long 
time, and I am glad to see we have finally moved forward.
  My good friend, Bill Young, 25 years ago started the moratorium. Back 
then, the cost of natural gas was a dollar something a thousand. Oil 
was less than $10. It didn't matter that we locked up our resources. 
Last year, the average price of natural gas was $9.50. At times it was 
14 and 15, and the rest of the world was a fraction of that. We are 
putting our industries and businesses out of business in this country.
  We have witnessed today serious fear from coastline people, and I 
respect that. This is not ``us against you.'' This is about America. 
Fear is only in our hearts when we don't have the facts, and I feel 
convinced in my heart that when we have the facts, and we debate this 
issue, we will do the right thing and we will figure out how to produce 
natural gas off our shorelines at the right distance so that we have 
wonderful tourism, we have affordable energy, our people can stay in 
their homes in the north and keep warm, and our businesses can stay in 
this country and prosper and build our economy.
  Now, this bill, if it passes, only removes the legislative 
moratorium. The Presidential moratorium still remains. I could not 
remove that because that is legislating on an appropriations bill. We 
still have the 5-year plan, which is a 2- or 3-year process that we all 
react to before any drilling is done anywhere. We have to change 
language that we can have gas-only leases. You all know that I have a 
bill that gives 20 miles of shoreline protection and gives the States 
control over that and only allows for natural gas production.
  Folks, States like Florida, that use 235 times more gas than they 
produce, could be self-sufficient and could bring in a lot of money to 
the State of Florida. California likewise, huge energy users, could 
bring in huge amounts of money and could produce natural gas only.
  And those who say we can't produce natural gas only just don't 
understand how you drill. I grew up in this. I have never been in the 
oil business, but I grew up around it. You drill through the layers of 
the surface. You drill through oil sands, coal sands, and gas sands; 
and you put a steel casing down, you cement the top and the bottom, and 
you go back and open that casing up where you want to produce. It 
doesn't all just come gushing out.
  We have been drilling for oil for hundreds of years. It is a sound 
science today. I am not promoting oil, but the last major oil spill was 
Santa Barbara in 1969. How long do they have to do it right? There has 
never been a gas well that has polluted a beach and made it a place we 
wouldn't want to be.
  I have spent dozens of vacations on Florida beaches. I just spent a 
week at Duck. Do you think I don't appreciate the value of that, folks? 
But I also want my kids and my grandchildren to have a job and to have 
economies, and polymers, plastics, petrochemicals, bricks, and all of 
the industries, steel and aluminum, which use huge amounts of natural 
gas.
  The President of U.S. Steel told me his cost went up $600 million; 
and if we don't get gas below $8 consistently, he cannot compete in 
America. Every glass company will be in South America where gas is 
$1.87, and every brick company. We won't even make bricks in America. 
We will bring them in from South America. The petrochemical business 
has 120 plants being built, with one in America. The rest will move 
jobs out of this country when they are completed, folks.
  We don't have a lot of time. We need to provide affordable energy.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to express my strong 
opposition to language in the bill that earmarks $13 million in funding 
to continue operations at an existing U.S. Geological Survey mapping 
facility in Rolla, Missouri. This facility is planned to be closed 
based on a careful and thorough analysis of the 21st-century role of 
the USGS mapping. The amendment also prohibits the planned 
consolidation of the mapping functions at the USGS, which is estimated 
to save the American taxpayers millions of dollars.

                              {time}  1330

  Two formal investigations, including one by the Department of the 
Interior's Inspector General, have assessed the process used to select 
the consolidated site and have supported the decision.
  I would like to yield back to the chairman and engage him in a 
colloquy and suggest to him that we have an obligation here in Congress 
to be prudent stewards of the taxes that our constituents back home pay 
and give them value for the dollars with improved service.
  I believe this earmark fails both standards of accountability, and I 
would ask and hope that the chairman can correct that error in 
conference.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I say to my friend and colleague that I 
share his concern and will work with him in the conference to do what 
we can.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. I thank the chairman.
  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, the northern portion of my district in 
Washington State is contiguous with the United States border with 
Canada. One of the Indian tribes in my district, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation, has for the last several months 
been experiencing an epidemic of crossborder drug smuggling activity 
from Canada onto its reservation. I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because 
since 1990 Congress has funded a very important program that as of late 
has had a direct impact in fighting this smuggling activity, and I am 
hopeful that the Congress can again restore the funds in this bill.
  This program, identified as Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement 
funds in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, enables both the Colville 
Tribe and the Spokane Tribe to employ law enforcement officers to 
patrol Lake Roosevelt and its shoreline to enforce Federal laws and 
tribal health and safety laws. Lake Roosevelt is the 151-mile reservoir 
of the Grand Coulee Dam, the largest hydroelectric power plant in the 
United States and the third largest in the world. A portion of the dam 
lies within the boundaries of the Colville Reservation.
  Currently, the Colville Tribe's law enforcement officials are under 
increasing strain due to crossborder smuggling activity that is on the 
rise. In recent months, numerous sightings of unmarked fixed-winged 
aircraft capable of landing on water have been reported on the lakes 
and waterways within and near the Colville Reservation.
  Most significantly, on March 15 of this year, Colville tribal law 
enforcement officers funded with the Lake Roosevelt Management/
Enforcement funds seized an unmarked float plane from Canada that was 
attempting to smuggle illegal drugs into the United States through the 
Colville Reservation. After being alerted to the plane and after a long 
chase, the tribe's officers captured and detained the pilot and handed 
over to Federal law enforcement authorities an estimated $2 million in 
illegal drugs that had been dropped by the plane on the bank of 
Columbia River near the Grand Coulee Dam. Last month the U.S. Border 
Patrol honored the Colville Tribal officers that participated in this 
seizure.
  In addition to this incident, other incidents involving float planes 
from Canada smuggling drugs through the lakes and waterways on the 
Colville Reservation have also resulted in arrests in recent months and 
have also involved the Colville Tribe's law enforcement personnel. I 
understand from the Colville Tribe that its law enforcement personnel 
register two to three reports of float plane sightings per week and 
that the tribe's police department has reason to believe that up to 25 
aircraft may be involved in cross-border drug smuggling activities 
using the lakes and waters on the Colville Reservation.
  The apparent ease with which these small planes fly back and forth 
across the northern border is truly cause for alarm. In commenting on 
these recent smuggling incidents, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern 
District of Washington was recently quoted by a northwest newspaper as 
saying that ``a person that will smuggle drugs, guns, meth, Ecstasy and 
cash will also be the kind of person who would smuggle a special-
interest alien or a terrorist.'' As disturbing as this prospect is, I 
believe that it is equally important for all of our law enforcement 
agencies on the northern border to have the resources available to 
combat these incursions, including the Colville Tribe.
  Congress has in past years funded this program at the $630,000 level 
and our colleagues

[[Page H2790]]

should know that both the Colville Tribe and the Spokane Tribe 
contribute significant funds of their own and secure matching funds 
from various sources to keep these patrols running. Given the critical 
importance of this program to both border security and homeland 
security, and given the relatively modest request, I very much hope the 
chairman can support this request in conference, with an eye toward 
inclusion in the conference report.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot vote for 
this appropriations bill.
  Colorado has a special stake in the bill because it provides funds 
for Federal agencies that are particularly important for our State, 
including most of the Interior Department, the Forest Service, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  And of course the bill is important for the entire country, because 
it provides much of the funding necessary for the Federal Government to 
meet its responsibilities regarding protection of the environment and 
the conservation of our natural, historic, and cultural resources.
  If the bill dealt adequately with those matters, I would gladly 
support it. Unfortunately, however, it falls so far short of the mark 
that I do not think it should be approved.
  Responsibility for the bill's shortcomings lies with the Republican 
leadership and the misguided budget resolution that they forced through 
the House in the very early hours of this morning. Their budget plan 
provides $9.4 billion less for domestic programs than the amount 
necessary just to maintain current service levels.
  That is why the funds available for this bill are $145 million below 
this year's level and about $800 million below what would be required 
to maintain current services. That is why the bill includes only about 
70 percent of increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other 
fixed costs for the Federal agencies covered by the bill. And that is 
why despite maintenance backlogs of some $12 billion in our parks, 
refuges and forests, funding for construction projects throughout the 
bill are cut by $216 million below last year and there is no funding at 
all for new schools on Indian reservations.
  And that is why there are similar cuts in the Clean Water Revolving 
Fund, wildlife grants, and the North American Wetlands program while 
funding for Federal land acquisitions--already reduced by more than 80 
percent over the last 4 years--is cut by $98 million.
  These cuts are particularly bad for Colorado because our growing 
population puts increasing pressure on our open spaces and wildlife as 
well as the water-related infrastructure of our rural communities.
  If the bill now before the House were to be enacted as it stands, the 
result would be dirtier water and air, reduced care for our natural 
landscapes and historic structures, and declining levels of services 
for the visitors to the national parks, wildlife refuges, and national 
forests in Colorado and across the country. I cannot support such 
results and cannot support the bill.
  Of course, today's vote is not the end of the story for this 
legislation. Once the Senate has acted on the bill, differences between 
its version and the House-passed bill will have to be resolved and a 
final version considered. I hope that the result of that process will 
be a version that deserves to be supported and enacted into law.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to express my support for 
H.R. 5386, the fiscal year 2007 Interior-Environment appropriations 
bill and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  I would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 
their outstanding work in bringing this bill to the Floor.
  I recognize that extremely tight budgetary constraints this year made 
the job of the subcommittee much more difficult. Therefore, I believe 
the subcommittee should be commended for its diligence in creating this 
fiscally responsible measure.
  In light of these fiscal constraints, I am very pleased that the bill 
includes $1 million for a sanitary sewer crossing between Nebraska and 
Iowa. This new crossing is a very immediate need for the community of 
South Sioux City, NE. The existing crossing is more than 40 years old 
and 3 years ago, the pipe carrying sewage between South Sioux City to 
the treatment plant in Sioux City, IA, broke. For several weeks, about 
1.6 million gallons of raw sewage each day was dumped into the Missouri 
River. The pipe was eventually replaced, but the incident highlighted 
the need for a second crossing. The new crossing that is proposed, to 
be located south of the city, would provide a more direct link to the 
regional treatment plant in Sioux City.
  Since the original sewer pipe was installed in the early 1960s, South 
Sioux City's population has increased more than 60 percent. Also, the 
community's economic base continues to grow, which places an additional 
burden on the sewer system. In an effort to meet the growing needs for 
an improved sewer system, the city's residents have seen significant 
rate increases over the past several years. However, it is now clear 
that Federal assistance is necessary.
  Again Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee's inclusion of $1 
million for the South Sioux City sanitary sewer crossing project. I 
support passage of H.R. 5386 and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Department 
of Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2007. Today we are considering a bill that funds the majority of our 
Nation's environmental programs. However, the funding levels that this 
bill allows are inadequate to meet the needs of our country. By passing 
this bill today we are turning our back on programs that conserve our 
public lands, protect our wildlife, and protect our environment.
  I am disappointed with a variety of programs that are losing funding 
in this appropriations bill but I want to talk specifically about the 
cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund LWCF. As many of my 
colleagues know, for the last 40 years, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund program has helped State and local government preserve open space 
and develop recreational facilities. By providing Federal matching 
grants, LWCF has helped create a national legacy of public parks and 
outdoor leisure areas.
  This bill would provide for LWCF a mere $60.3 million in funding, the 
lowest in more than 30 years. This funding level is more than $80 
million below last year's funding level. LWCF's State and local 
matching grant program that helps States acquire open space and 
recreational land has been completely eliminated in this bill.
  My good friend and colleague, Representative Jim McGovern, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, and I have worked together to try to 
restore ``State side'' funding for LWCF. I was pleased that over 150 of 
my colleagues joined a letter that Representative McGovern, 
Representative Peter King and I sent to the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee to restore state side LWCF funding. Mr. McGovern, Mr. King 
and I all represent densely populated States that are combating 
overdevelopment, and programs like the matching grant program help our 
local communities establish the recreational and open space areas that 
are so vitally important to our children's health, appreciation for the 
environment and community development. In the past 40 years, roughly 
40,000 grants to States and local governments have been funded through 
the LWCF State side program.
  According to the National Park Service ``Today, there is clear 
evidence that the grant program has been successful in encouraging 
States to take greater responsibility for the protection and 
development of recreation resources at every level.'' Now is not the 
time to cut funding for conservation programs that help our local 
communities.
  Protecting open space is not an abstract environmental matter--it is 
a quality of life issue. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule 
and the underlying bill and demand real attention to our Nation's 
environmental needs.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take time to highlight a 
watershed-related project at Storm Lake, IA, in my district. As 
background, Storm Lake's depth and water quality have been 
deteriorating since the last dredging in the early 1960s. Storm Lake is 
among 156 water bodies to make the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agencies list of ``imperiled'' streams and lakes because of siltation. 
Removing silt and radically improving water quality will prevent 
massive fish kills. Storm Lake is well known for being a conducive 
environment to Walleye breeding. The Department of Natural Resources 
has come to depend on this Walleye population to assist in feeding 
other lakes and tributaries within the State of Iowa.
  The Storm Lake community has implemented practices by both business 
and residents in an effort to ensure that the current dredging of Storm 
Lake will last for several generations to come. Finally, local 
agricultural land owners on or near the Storm Lake watershed have 
incorporated farming practices that help curb or reduce the amount of 
runoff into the Storm Lake Watershed. I believe this comprehensive 
approach to water resource management by the Storm Lake community is to 
be commended.
  Funds will be used to dredge 700,000 cubic yards of spoil from the 
lake. Through decades of ground erosion and silt freely entering Storm 
Lake the lake levels have diminished. In order to remove the silt and 
prevent the continued inflow of silt, a Lake Restoration Program was 
needed to dredge a large portion of the lake and to develop watershed 
protection practices. Therefore the Iowa Department of Natural 
Resources believes this dredging and

[[Page H2791]]

watershed work plays a vital role in the water quality and restoration 
of the lake. Buena Vista County, the city of Storm Lake, and the city 
of Lakeside view the dredging project as an essential component in the 
overall economic development of the area. Dredging will create positive 
environmental effects while increasing the natural habitat for native 
fish and marine organisms.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with Chairman Taylor for the 
inclusion of funding in the final conference report.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5386.
  Rural America is hurting economically. Our families are faced with 
the highest fuel prices in history. And this bill cuts $142 million 
from last year's funding level for essential services like 
environmental protection.
  These cuts come from state grants that help fund rural water, sewer, 
and infrastructure projects. They come from state wildlife 
preservations grants and wetland preservation funds. This bill even 
cuts funding to EPA programs like the clean air diesel program; all 
while rolling back the mandatory pollution control standards for power 
plants for the first time ever.
  This bill would also allow drilling off of our pristine coastlines, 
and it would provide for the exploration and development of drilling in 
the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area that is currently 
off limits for drilling, at a cost of $113 million.
  The priorities of this Congress are wrong for the American people. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Interior 
Appropriations bill.
  Given their commitment to ``conservative values,'' I would think that 
Republicans would be more committed to actual conservation. Instead, 
this bill shortchanges our environment, attacks our natural heritage, 
and recklessly endangers public health.
  This bill slashes funding for environmental programs by $145 million 
and provides about $800 million less than is necessary to maintain 
current environmental protection services. Specifically, this 
legislation cuts Land and Water Conservation programs, which provide 
funding for the acquisition of land for national parks, wildlife 
refuges, forests and monuments, to their lowest funding levels in 30 
years. At the same time, this bill cuts the Forest Legacy Program by 
more than $43 million, the Fish and Wildlife Service by $55 million and 
the National Park Service by $100 million.
  We have an obligation to ensure that future generations can enjoy the 
beauty of our national parks and public lands. With this bill, however, 
the ``Moral Majority'' has abandoned their social and ethical 
responsibility to protect our environment and invest in America's 
future.
  This indefensible legislation not only harms our environment but 
places Americans' health at risk by cutting the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund to its lowest funding level in a decade. According to 
the EPA, close to $20 billion--nearly 30 times the appropriated 
amount--is necessary to maintain our current water quality. I am not 
willing to endanger the health of millions of Americans by exposing 
them to dirtier water.
  I don't believe something as important as our natural resources 
should be left in the hands of Republican members of the flat-earth 
society who don't even believe in global warming. There is scientific 
consensus that the earth is warming because of manmade greenhouse gases 
and the threat posed by global warming is real and immediate. Recent 
polls show that 85 percent of Americans believe that global warming is 
probably happening and 76 percent, including 63 percent of 
conservatives, think the Federal government is not doing enough to 
address the problem. Yet Republicans are so reluctant to acknowledge 
global warming, they won't even allow the House to consider the issue.
  If Republicans want to preach conservative values, perhaps they 
should start with actually conserving our most precious resources. I 
simply cannot vote for this mockery of environmental legislation and I 
encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, the state of Arizona has a rich history, 
much of it left to us by Native Americans from centuries past. One way 
in which the great tribal traditions and cultural stories of our native 
predecessors are passed down is in the form of petroglyphs. These 
scenes, pictures and designs carved into rock formations tell the 
stories of the first Americans, and it is important that we give 
special attention to the preservation of these artifacts.
  One of Arizona's largest collections of petroglyphs is housed at the 
Deer Valley Rock Art Center in Phoenix. Conceptualized with the intent 
to both preserve and educate, the center is operated and maintained by 
Arizona State University and the 47 acre facility is home to over 1,500 
petroglyphs.
  I would like to encourage the Bureau of Land Management to engage in 
conversations with the Deer Valley Rock Art Center in order to see 
where the agency might be able to provide assistance to the center. It 
is my hope that strengthening the relationship between the agency and 
the center will make it possible for Arizona's historical treasures to 
continue to be preserved, allowing the center to remain a valuable 
educational tool for generations to come.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, in 1991, the Texas legislature authorized 
the establishment of the Texas Institute of Applied Environmental 
Research (TIAER) at Tarleton State University. Congress quickly 
recognized the merits of the effort and since 1992 has provided an 
average of $500,000 a year and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has 
added $4.5 million dollars. These dollars have been effectively 
leveraged, and when added to state and private funds, total funding has 
exceeded $45 million. This project is an excellent example of how 
critical federal support can effectively trigger matching funds to help 
meet the needs of this country.
  The mandate for the organization has been to:
  Conduct applied research on environmental issues that have public 
policy implications
  Provide a setting for environmental studies that focuses on the 
interface between government and the private sector
  Provide national leadership on emerging environmental policy
  Establish programs and partnerships with public and private 
institutions of higher education, governmental agencies, or private 
entities to develop and implement new policies, technology, strategies, 
relationships and sources of funding.
  The organization's mission statement is: ``TlAER conducts scientific 
research, economic inquiry, and institutional, statutory and regulatory 
analyses to address pressing environmental issues facing the state and 
nation and assists public entities in developing and implementing 
policies that promote environmental quality.''


                     strong economy, healthy earth

  TIAER continues to fulfill its mission by assembling and supporting a 
multidisciplinary research staff. TIAER houses economists, engineers, 
attorneys, agricultural scientists, mathematical modelers, 
communication specialists, water quality scientists, graphic artists, 
computer scientists, and water quality monitoring specialists to 
address the next generation of Clean Water Act initiatives.
  TIAER was among the first to recognize that emerging environmental 
issues in agriculture required new policy. TIAER developed the Planned 
Intervention Microwatershed Approach (PIMA) to address landscape-based, 
polluted runoff issues. PIMA uniquely links USDA voluntary programs 
with EPA programs in a manner that is tailored to the needs of 
production agriculture. PIMA protects privately-held lands from 
government intrusion.

  TIAER operates a one-million-acre outdoor laboratory, the Bosque 
River watershed, which consists of cropland, ranch land and, in the 
upper reaches of the North Bosque, a 250,000-acre watershed that is 
home to one of the largest concentrations of dairy farms in the Nation. 
The Bosque River watershed provides TIAER with a cross-section of 
agricultural lands and enables TIAER to address many of the 
environmental issues that production agriculture will face over the 
next quarter-century.


industry-led solutions (ILS)--leadership toward environmental solutions

  A major focus of TIAER's work began with the conception of 
``Industry-Led Solutions'' (ILS) in 1999. TIAER has hosted four 
national workshops and two regional Gulf of Mexico workshops with 
leaders of animal agriculture, the row crop industry, environmental 
groups, and government to explore ways that agriculture can proactively 
address environmental initiatives that will enable agricultural 
producers to be good stewards of the land while maintaining the 
economic viability of the industry. The intent is for ILS to serve as a 
``think-tank'' for agricultural environmental issues.
  The Nation is at a strategic point in determining how agriculture can 
meet Clean Water Act objectives. ILS is TIAER's response to the need 
for agriculture to become proactively involved in both policy 
initiatives and developing science-based programs that will lead to 
sustainable agricultural practices that provide for a strong economy 
and a healthy Earth.
  Agricultural producers and TIAER work together in a unique manner. 
Agricultural producers lead all ILS initiatives. TIAER provides 
staffing for ILS programs. The multidisciplinary staff of TIAER enables 
ILS to address all issues related to resolving environmental issues in 
agriculture. TIAER is unique in other ways:
  TIAER recognizes that the U.S. economy must remain strong in order to 
have a healthy Earth--``Strong economy, healthy Earth.''
  TIAER has the capacity to move quickly to address new initiatives. 
The TIAER Director reports directly to the Tarleton State University 
President. In addition, TIAER staff work full-time, further enabling 
TIAER to move quickly.

[[Page H2792]]

  The institute operates in an entrepreneurial manner. TIAER has no 
permanent funding. Therefore, the institute must address issues that 
are seen by TIAER clientele as pertinent and useful in addressing 
problems and issues they face.
  As a proponent of ILS, TIAER brings together the distinct concerns of 
entrepreneurs and environmentalists to develop effective public 
policies and cooperative, science-based solutions.
  In the past 30 years, efforts to improve the Nation's waters focused 
on cleaning up point source discharges--with great success. Now, 
however, water quality efforts will increasingly address nonpoint 
sources for the next increments in water quality improvements. The 
Clean Water Act of 1972 provided little insight into how agriculture 
would address polluted runoff from crop and ranch lands. It has become 
evident over the past decade that agricultural lands are in the 
crosshairs of the EPA and environmental groups. The challenge lies in 
developing programs that are specifically tailored to the needs of 
agriculture. At this fifteen-year anniversary, TIAER looks toward 
facilitating future successes in improving our Nation's air and water 
quality. That is a laudable goal, and it is made possible by 
congressional appropriations support that triggers valuable matching 
dollars. I hope my colleagues will continue to support successful 
efforts like this--responsible federal funding triggering additional 
financial support. That is a partnership that makes sense.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he or she has printed in the designated 
place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered 
read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5386

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   Management of Lands and Resources

       For necessary expenses for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), 
     $867,738,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,250,000 is for high priority projects, to be carried out 
     by the Youth Conservation Corps; and of which $2,750,000 
     shall be available in fiscal year 2007 subject to a match by 
     at least an equal amount by the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation for cost-shared projects supporting conservation 
     of Bureau lands; and such funds shall be advanced to the 
     Foundation as a lump sum grant without regard to when 
     expenses are incurred.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       Page 2, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.
       Page 28, line 2, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 75, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 107, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 107, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, over the past 40 years the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities 
have proven themselves time and time again to be among our country's 
most valuable and successful organizations.
  Their reach is national, their impact profound. They are tremendously 
beneficial to our economy, generating $134 billion annually in economic 
activity. Artistic endeavors return some $10.5 billion to the Federal 
Government in income taxes every year. And the arts support nearly 5 
million full-time jobs.
  When our children have art education in their lives, they score 
higher on their SATs, have greater self-confidence, and are more 
focused on their studies.
  I ask you today to urge stronger Federal commitment to the arts by 
supporting this amendment to provide modest increases to the NEA and 
NEH of $5 million each.
  Unless we provide an overall increase for NEA, the programs like 
Challenge America and the Big Read, which have been so important, will 
be slashed. And they will reach fewer people.
  Challenge America has enhanced America's communities through direct 
grants for arts education, at-risk youth and cultural preservation, 
community arts partnerships and improved access to the arts for all 
Americans, with local programs in every single congressional district.
  Because of the NEA, more children have music in the classroom today 
than ever before, and high school students are participating in poetry 
sessions and learning more about Shakespeare. And our brave men and 
women serving on our military bases throughout our country are 
entertained by popular opera performances.
  NEA's Big Read program has resulted in committed partnerships among 
local government officials, schools, libraries and arts organizations 
to address the terrible national decline in literary reading.
  As part of the program, a book is selected and everybody is 
encouraged to read it. It is that simple. The first 10 pilot programs 
now under way have proven to be overwhelmingly successful. The 
neighbors talk about ``Great Gatsby,'' friends are locked in heated 
debate about ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' and coworkers are analyzing 
``Fahrenheit 451.''
  Imagine the conversations, connections and community enrichment that 
will be generated if NEA expands the Big Read into 100 communities, as 
it currently plans.
  The value of these programs should no longer have to be proved. The 
real question is, Will the Congress, with its patriotism and pride in 
America, prioritize the betterment of its culture?
  In the late 1980s and 1990s, we funded the NEA at $170 million. The 
NEA was last funded at this amount in 1994 and has never recovered from 
the awful budget cut it took.
  As a result, today its invaluable programs remain seriously 
underfunded. The increases I propose today are modest, but without 
adequate funding the NEA and the NEH will be unable to continue these 
and other important programs.
  I urge Members to vote for the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price 
amendment and to preserve its funding in the final conference report. I 
thank my colleagues who have joined me today.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's 
amendment. She has been a leader and a valued advocate on this issue 
for many, many years; and I am very proud to be associated with her on 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for this amendment offered by 
Mrs. Slaughter and myself to increase funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  The amendment would provide an additional $10 million to be split 
equally between the two Endowments. The increase would be offset by a 
series of small cuts to several Interior Department programs.
  I am gratified to note that the debate over the last few years has 
calmed down. The votes in favor of this annual Arts and Humanities 
amendment had been growing by an increasing margin. And last year, 
Chairman Taylor accepted this amendment without the need for a rollcall 
vote.
  Although we offer this amendment each year, it is important that we 
again discuss the

[[Page H2793]]

importance of how this rather modest Federal support can have such 
large impact on our home districts. Most importantly, this seed money 
spurs private donations to the arts and humanities.
  I still wish that we could restore the funding levels for the NEA and 
NEH back to their level 12 years ago but this amendment will get us 
closer. I urge your support on this important amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. It is my understanding that the chairman, if we can close 
this debate quickly, will gladly accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/Leach/
Price amendment which will increase funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.
  As Dana Goia, the NEA Chairman, said ``A great nation deserves great 
art.''
  How we prioritize the arts and humanities and their impact on our 
society and children's education says a lot about us as Americans.
  Support of the arts should come from so many sources--individuals, 
foundations, arts consumers, and, yes, taxpayers. In a bill where we 
are spending $29.5 billion on various government programs, I believe 
spending $275.3 million on cultural programs is well worth the 
investment. It is a moderate amount of money that can have a big impact 
because today's economy is driven by ideas and innovation.
  In fact, nationwide, there are 548,000 businesses involved in the 
creation or distribution of the arts and employ 2.9 million people. The 
fourth District of Connecticut is home to 2,841 arts-related businesses 
employing 14,711 people.
  The Federal investment in the arts is the smallest part of arts 
funding. But we have a role--an important one. A stabilizing one. And 
one that we should continue.
  I grew up in an arts family. My parents--both performing actors--met 
in the theater.
  Listening to my father play the piano each night and hearing stories 
from their days on the stage gave me a profound appreciation for 
creative expression--an appreciation that I know so many of the 
constituents I represent share.
  I thank the Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks for their 
continued support of the arts and humanities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. We accept this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the chairman very much.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Shays 
Amendment to the FY07 Interior Appropriations Bill that would add $5 
million each to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  Many of us do not recognize the role the arts play in our lives. But 
without the arts, our lives would be black and white. Arts add the 
color. Arts add the diversity and aid the understanding. Arts allow for 
expression and facilitate the acceptance. These experiences are truly 
immeasurable.
  Cultures that have the ability to create, preserve and appreciate the 
arts are truly unique. I know you can think of times when a certain 
peal of a trumpet, or glimpse of a color triggers something--a memory, 
an awareness, or an idea. Though art can trigger strong emotions, the 
value of these has not historically been measured. But they are no less 
important than our experiences that are quantifiable.
  NEA and NEH ensure that Americans across the country can discover and 
share the treasure of artful expression while instilling a sense of 
historical and cultural heritage throughout the generations.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the benefits of preserving the arts 
and humanities by supporting this amendment's funding to NEA and NEH.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dicks-
Slaughter-Shays-Leach-Price amendment to increase National Endowment 
for the Arts by $5 million and increase the National Endowment for the 
Humanities by $5 million.
  The dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts and 
the Humanities far exceeds the investment we make with the limited 
Federal dollars.
  We could eliminate all funding for the endowments tomorrow, and the 
arts and humanities would survive.
  That's not the issue.
  The grants NEA provides don't make or break most theater productions, 
studio exhibitions or symphonic performances.
  What NEA does with its grants is to ensure that these performances, 
exhibits and productions are shared with greater audiences of 
Americans.
  Scholarly research on the humanities will continue without the NEH, 
but research, writings and creative thought on what it is to be an 
American, like the We the People initiative, the embodiment of who and 
what we are, and diffusion of this understanding and insight among 
Americans will suffer.
  Mr. Chairman, there is too much that divides us as a Nation.
  We need institutions like the NEA and the NEH, that find common 
ground through performances and pamphlets that inspire us to look past 
the parochial and appreciate greatness.
  Support the Dicks-Slaughter-Shays-Leach-Price amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, as a proud representative of New York 
City, an important center of the creative industries in our Nation, I 
rise in enthusiastic support of the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price 
amendment.
  This amendment will provide a very small, but critical increase in 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  Earlier this week, I was honored to be joined by the gentlewoman from 
New York and the gentleman from Connecticut--sponsors of this amendment 
and co-chairs of the Arts Caucus--in passing legislation recognizing 
the American Ballet Theater for their 65 years of service as 
``America's National Ballet Theater.''
  The ABT is just one of well over 7,000 arts-related businesses in my 
district, employing nearly 120,000 employees--the highest number of 
arts-related jobs in the country.
  And the NEA is key in bolstering the economic and creative force of 
these organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, for the 120,000 arts-related employees that I represent 
and the countless others who enjoy and benefit from their creativity 
and hard work, I urge a yes vote on the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-
Price Amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of 
the Slaughter amendment providing increased funding for the National 
Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts.
  For 40 years, the NEH has helped advance the study and understanding 
of our Nation's history, culture and heritage. The NEH provides seed 
money for high quality projects and programs that reach millions of 
Americans each year.
  As Co-Chair of the Congressional Humanities Caucus, I am pleased to 
support this amendment, which would increase funding for NEH by $5 
million and for NEA by a like amount.
  With a modest appropriation, the Humanities Endowment provides seed 
money for projects including continuing education for K-12 teachers and 
college and university faculty, television documentaries, educational 
museum exhibitions, and preservation of historically important books 
and newspapers.
  The State humanities councils, in partnership with the NEH, reach 
millions of Americans each year in all 50 states with such activities 
as teacher institutes, literacy programs, and programs on local history 
and culture.
  Today, the humanities play an increasingly important role in 
preparing our students and the public to be contributing and productive 
American citizens who also have a global awareness.
  This modest funding increase will aid NEH's efforts to conserve and 
nurture America's heritage, bring the humanities to communities across 
the country, and educate the next generation of Americans.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and 
strongly urge its adoption.
  Our contributions to the arts and humanities are the standard by 
which our history as a society will be measured. A strong public 
commitment to the arts and humanities, along with a dedication to 
freedom, is the hallmark of great civilizations. History has shown that 
religious and political freedoms go hand in hand with greater artistic 
and literary activity, and that the societies that flourish and have a 
lasting influence on humanity are those that encourage free expression 
in all of its forms. This is a lesson that resonates with people of 
every age, background, and belief, and one that we can guarantee our 
children learn.
  By sharing ideas and images from a diverse range of hack grounds and 
through many different media, the arts and humanities help to create a 
more informed citizenry. We are better prepared to meet the 
responsibilities of democracy; to ask ourselves the hard questions; to 
demand of our leaders the full answers; and to judge fairly the actual 
and potential endeavors of our country.
  Our support for the arts and humanities also has a profound impact on 
our economy. In my Congressional District, there are close to 2,000 
arts-related businesses, providing more than 9,000 jobs. This creates a 
substantial economic impact. Nationally, the arts industry generates 
$134 billion in economic activity, sustaining over 4 million jobs.

[[Page H2794]]

  Even more significant is the return on the investment for the 
American taxpayer. While the Federal Government spends just over $250 
million on the NEA and NEH annually, it collects over $10 billion in 
tax revenue related to the arts industry. Federal funding for the NEA 
and NEH is crucial to the arts community, helping leverage more state, 
local, and private funds. Clearly, the numbers show that investment in 
the arts is important not only to our national identity, but also to 
our national economy.
  Mr. Chairman, we must act decisively to commit ourselves to our 
national heritage and culture, by voting to increase funding for the 
NEA and NEH. I urge my colleagues to support creativity and reflection, 
to support our economy, and to support the continued growth and 
expression of democracy in its fullest form.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment to provide much needed 
funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  As a scientist, I am often advocating for investments in math, 
science, and technology research, development, and education. These are 
worthwhile expenditures that contribute to innovation and economic 
growth, but our nation requires a parallel investment in the arts to 
retain the cultural and creative growth that ties our diverse society 
together.
  This modest increase in funding will build programs that use the 
strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance 
communities in every State and every county around America. The 
additional funds provided through this amendment would support the very 
successful Challenge America program, which brings the arts to rural 
communities and inner-city neighborhoods whose limited resources don't 
always allow for community arts programs.
  In 2005, the Challenge America program provided grants to towns and 
cities in 99 percent of Congressional districts for jazz and blues 
festivals, showcases for regional musicians and artists, and public-
private partnerships that bring the arts into local schools. Dozens of 
studies have demonstrated the significant positive effect of arts 
education on students' academic performance, self esteem, and behavior, 
and the Challenge America grants are an excellent mechanism to bring 
the arts to students who can greatly benefit from that exposure.
  Similarly, the NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and 
cultural life. The additional funding contained in this amendment would 
enable NEH to improve the quality of humanities education to America's 
school children and college students, offer lifelong learning 
opportunities through a range of public programs, and support new 
projects that encourage Americans to discover their storied and 
inspiring national heritage.
  It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are 
among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our 
children learn. They give the elderly sustenance. They power economic 
development, even in regions that are down and out.
  Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding 
help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country 
more worth defending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan 
Arts' Caucus amendment that would fully fund the National Endowment for 
the Arts, NEA, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH.
  I Would like to especially thank co-chairs of the Arts Caucus and the 
authors of the amendment--the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)--for their leadership on 
this issue.
  In my district, the 9th congressional district of California, more 
than 10,000 people are employed in arts related jobs. They play an 
integral role in building and sustaining our local economy.
  The AXIS Dance Company, an NEA grants recipient in Oakland 
California, is just one example of an organization in my community that 
relies on these funds to sustain their programs.
  The AXIS Company includes dancers with and without disabilities. 
Thanks to an NEA Access to Artistic Excellence Grant, the company 
launched their first-ever Summer Intensive session last year.
  As Judith Smith, the companies' artistic director, explains: ``By 
presenting dance that includes dancers with and without disabilities we 
show youth what is possible when people with differences collaborate. . 
. . Ultimately it helps them see that they can do and accomplish 
whatever they set their mind to. This is the beauty of art.''
  The AXIS Company is but one example; nationally there are 548,000 
arts-related businesses, but it is impossible to count how many lives 
are impacted by their services. The facts speak for themselves--if you 
cut arts funding, you cut jobs and opportunities for all.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
Arts' Caucus bipartisan amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman. I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina in 
this colloquy. And, Mr. Chairman, as a resident of Southern California, 
I have witnessed the impact diesel emissions has had on our air 
quality. Our constituents are more likely to contract cancer, asthma 
and other respiratory problems. The emissions from older heavy-duty 
trucks, in particular, are among the highest contributors of ground 
level ozone, volatile organic compounds, and particulate pollution in 
the country. These trucks are the highest polluters among on-road 
transportation emissions sources.
  As a primary player in the movement of goods, diesel engines play an 
important role in keeping our economy strong. While the administration 
has taken action with the diesel fuel engine regulations to reduce 
emissions, the EPA estimates that there are 11 million existing engines 
that still need to be fixed. This is why providing the necessary 
resources for the important diesel initiatives under the Diesel 
Emissions Reduction Act should be central to any current national 
transportation plan.
  We have worked extremely hard to ensure that Americans may have 
cleaner air where they work and live. I know, despite the bipartisan 
support we received for DERA funding, finding the funds for this 
program was a tough process. Ultimately, while cuts had to be made to 
DERA's appropriation, I am very proud to have worked with the 
subcommittee leadership to get the funds that we did receive. However, 
the fight is not over.
  While the $26 million will go far in the mission for reducing diesel 
emission, a great deal more is needed. Despite the fact that today's 
diesel vehicles are 99 percent cleaner than their 1970 counterparts, 
each older truck contributes an average of 1 ton of pollutants into the 
air per year. We must make certain that every effort will be made 
during conference to increase funding above the $26 million level, or 
at least to consider keeping it where it is.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the DERA program is very important to my district. 
These funds play a critical role in fully integrating today's 
technological advances with consumer demands and environmental needs in 
order to provide cleaner air where our constituents live and work. And 
I would like just to have the chairman respond that we hope that in the 
conference, at least the money that has been placed there by the 
administration will be maintained with perhaps increases if we can.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has made 
a huge contribution on this matter to the committee. We did increase 
the amount up 12 percent from where we were. But I agree with the 
gentlewoman, if we can do more in conference, we will try to do it 
because the great need is there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       In addition, $32,696,000 is for Mining Law Administration 
     program operations, including the cost of administering the 
     mining claim fee program; to remain available until expended, 
     to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited 
     to this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to 
     result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $867,738,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, from communication site rental fees established by 
     the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site 
     activities.

                        wildland fire management


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression 
     operations, fire science and research, emergency 
     rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and rural fire 
     assistance by the Department of the Interior, $769,253,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $7,338,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of 
     fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available 
     for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts 
     from which

[[Page H2795]]

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

                              construction

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

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $3,067,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended.

                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein, 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $111,408,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all 
     receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested 
     Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a 
     charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and 
     shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).


               forest ecosystem health and recovery fund

                   (revolving fund, special account)

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


                           range improvements

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


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

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


                       miscellaneous trust funds

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


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on her certificate, not to exceed 
     $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share the cost of 
     printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau 
     determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted 
     quality standards.
       Section 28 of title 30, United States Code, is amended: (1) 
     in section 28 by striking the phrase ``shall commence at 12 
     o'clock meridian on the 1st day of September'' and inserting 
     ``shall commence at 12:00 ante meridian on the 1st day of 
     September''; (2) in section 28f(a), by striking the phrase 
     ``for years 2004 through 2008''; and (3) in section 28g, by 
     striking the phrase ``and before September 30, 2008,''.
       Refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis from an 
     information technology (IT) vendor as part of the Bureau of 
     Land Management (BLM) consolidated IT procurements for the 
     Department of the Interior and other Federal Government 
     departments hereafter may be deposited into the Management of 
     Lands and Resources Fund to be used to offset BLM's costs 
     incurred in providing this service.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, as authorized by law, and for scientific 
     and economic studies, maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general 
     administration, and for the performance of other authorized 
     functions related to such resources by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 
     agreements with public and private entities,

[[Page H2796]]

      $1,016,669,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008, except as otherwise provided herein: Provided, That 
     $2,500,000 is for high priority projects, which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $17,759,000 shall be used for 
     implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 
     of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, for species that 
     are indigenous to the United States (except for processing 
     petitions, developing and issuing proposed and final 
     regulations, and taking any other steps to implement actions 
     described in subsection (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or 
     (c)(2)(B)(ii)), of which not to exceed $12,581,000 shall be 
     used for any activity regarding the designation of critical 
     habitat, pursuant to subsection (a)(3), excluding litigation 
     support, for species listed pursuant to subsection (a)(1) 
     prior to October 1, 2006: Provided further, That of the 
     amount available for law enforcement, up to $400,000, to 
     remain available until expended, may at the discretion of the 
     Secretary be used for payment for information, rewards, or 
     evidence concerning violations of laws administered by the 
     Service, and miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activity, authorized or approved by the Secretary 
     and to be accounted for solely on her certificate: Provided 
     further, That of the amount provided for environmental 
     contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may remain available until 
     expended for contaminant sample analyses.


                              CONSTRUCTION

       For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of 
     buildings and other facilities required in the conservation, 
     management, investigation, protection, and utilization of 
     fishery and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein; $39,756,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, $19,751,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated for specific land acquisition projects can be 
     used to pay for any administrative overhead, planning or 
     other management costs.


                      landowner incentive program

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     private conservation efforts to be carried out on private 
     lands, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount provided herein is for a Landowner 
     Incentive Program established by the Secretary that provides 
     matching, competitively awarded grants to States, the 
     District of Columbia, federally-recognized Indian tribes, 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, to establish or 
     supplement existing landowner incentive programs that provide 
     technical and financial assistance, including habitat 
     protection and restoration, to private landowners for the 
     protection and management of habitat to benefit federally 
     listed, proposed, candidate, or other at-risk species on 
     private lands.


                       private stewardship grants

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     private conservation efforts to be carried out on private 
     lands, $7,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount provided herein is for the Private 
     Stewardship Grants Program established by the Secretary to 
     provide grants and other assistance to individuals and groups 
     engaged in private conservation efforts that benefit 
     federally listed, proposed, candidate, or other at-risk 
     species.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as 
     amended, $80,507,000 to remain available until expended, of 
     which $20,161,000 is to be derived from the Cooperative 
     Endangered Species Conservation Fund and $60,346,000 is to be 
     derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $14,202,000.

               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     as amended, $36,646,000, to remain available until expended.


                Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation

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

                multinational species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225, 
     4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 
     1997 (Public Law 105-96; 16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), the Rhinoceros 
     and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), the 
     Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6301), and the 
     Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-266; 
     16 U.S.C. 6601), $6,057,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                    state and tribal wildlife grants

       For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 
     and federally-recognized Indian tribes under the provisions 
     of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and 
     Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and 
     implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and 
     their habitat, including species that are not hunted or 
     fished, $50,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amount provided herein, $5,000,000 is 
     for a competitive grant program for Indian tribes, not 
     subject to the remaining provisions of this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall, after deducting 
     said $5,000,000 and administrative expenses, apportion the 
     amount provided herein in the following manner: (1) to the 
     District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     each a sum equal to not more than one-half of 1 percent 
     thereof; and (2) to Guam, American Samoa, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, each a sum equal to not more than one-fourth of 1 
     percent thereof: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     apportion the remaining amount in the following manner: (1) 
     one-third of which is based on the ratio to which the land 
     area of such State bears to the total land area of all such 
     States; and (2) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to 
     which the population of such State bears to the total 
     population of all such States: Provided further, That the 
     amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be adjusted 
     equitably so that no State shall be apportioned a sum which 
     is less than 1 percent of the amount available for 
     apportionment under this paragraph for any fiscal year or 
     more than 5 percent of such amount: Provided further, That 
     the Federal share of planning grants shall not exceed 75 
     percent of the total costs of such projects and the Federal 
     share of implementation grants shall not exceed 50 percent of 
     the total costs of such projects: Provided further, That the 
     non-Federal share of such projects may not be derived from 
     Federal grant programs: Provided further, That no State, 
     territory, or other jurisdiction shall receive a grant if its 
     comprehensive wildlife conservation plan is disapproved and 
     such funds that would have been distributed to such State, 
     territory, or other jurisdiction shall be distributed 
     equitably to States, territories, and other jurisdictions 
     with approved plans: Provided further, That any amount 
     apportioned in 2007 to any State, territory, or other 
     jurisdiction that remains unobligated as of September 30, 
     2008, shall be reapportioned, together with funds 
     appropriated in 2009, in the manner provided herein: Provided 
     further, That balances from amounts previously appropriated 
     under the heading ``State Wildlife Grants'' shall be 
     transferred to and merged with this appropriation and shall 
     remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Putnam:
       Page 16, line 13, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 107, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to submit an amendment to 
assist States dealing with the increasing problem of alligator attacks.
  As you may know, just in the past week there have been a number of 
attacks resulting in three human fatalities, just in the State of 
Florida. Florida is not the only State that has to deal with this 
problem. Citizens across Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, 
and Texas have all been victims of alligator attacks, often deadly, 
over the years.
  The number of alligator complaints received by the Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Commission continues to grow. Last year there were over 18,000 
complaints alone, which resulted in the removal of over 7,000 
alligators.
  Unfortunately, with three deaths in 1 week, current efforts are 
insufficient to prevent these attacks. I rise today to offer an 
amendment to add $500,000 to the monies available to the States to hire 
trappers and expand alligator trapping activities.

[[Page H2797]]

  Our support for nuisance alligator programs helps provide the 
critical resources States need to respond and remove these alligators, 
as well as educate the public on the prevention of these attacks.
  Across the gulf coast and throughout the South, these attacks are 
increasing in frequency and severity and this amendment will help the 
States obtain the resources they need to accelerate their trapping 
program as we continue to face this challenge of an urban interface 
with the wildlife that are listed as threatened only because of their 
resemblance to the American crocodile.

                              {time}  1345

  There is no population concern whatsoever with the alligator.
  And I thank my colleagues for their support and urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  I see that the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee has risen, 
and I would be happy to yield to him for any comments.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the 
gentleman is trying to do, but I would ask him to withdraw his 
amendment.
  The money that you want is in control of the State, and if you could 
withdraw, we will sit down between now and the conference and try to 
work with you.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly I recognize 
the difficult position that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Taylor are in in crafting 
an appropriate spending bill for this area. I appreciate the 
gentleman's expression of concern about this problem. Obviously being 
from the South, he understands the issues we are dealing with, and I 
hope that we will be able to work something out in conference toward 
that end.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, even from Washington State we understand the 
severity of this problem because we have seen it on national 
television, but I want him to know we are very willing to work with the 
gentleman on this issue before the conference and during the 
conference.
  Mr. PUTNAM. We appreciate that. Obviously, the Wildlife Grant Fund is 
something that is a formula-driven process and was an imperfect 
vehicle, but we certainly wanted to take this opportunity to make the 
important case for doing everything we can to ameliorate what has 
become a deadly situation this alligator mating season.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns 
about both the underlying Peterson amendment that was adopted in the 
committee and the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida. I 
voted against the Peterson amendment when it was offered in committee 
because it fails to include the 100-mile buffer along Florida's coast 
that I believe is important to ensuring that we can adequately protect 
Florida's shoreline. I am not opposed to the drilling for natural gas, 
provided we have a 100-mile buffer to protect Florida's coast.
  I want it to be very clear what I support and that is: a policy that 
allows for natural gas wells 100 miles or more off the coast of 
Florida.
  The amendment before us, offered by my Florida colleague, however 
would ban natural gas wells not only along the Florida coast, but also 
along southern, central and northern California; Washington; Oregon; 
and the North Atlantic. It would not permit natural gas wells located 
100 miles or more off the coast of Florida, and for that reason I will 
not support it.
  There is some confusion that must be cleared up. No one here today is 
proposing that we allow natural gas wells within 3 miles of the Florida 
coast. In the event that the underlying bill before us is approved 
today the Presidential moratorium remains in place protecting Florida, 
and President Bush has pledged to ensure that Florida is permitted to 
maintain at least a 100-mile protective buffer. Moreover should the 
Presidential moratorium be removed, the Congress must enact legislation 
directing the Department of Interior on where to permit Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) leases. This is not a one step process.
  Some have suggested that allowing natural gas wells will do little to 
address the energy costs in the United States. This claim simply is not 
based on sound economics. As many of my colleagues know, over the past 
decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of natural gas to 
produce electricity. Switching to natural gas for electric power 
generation has been a very quick and cost effective way to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. According a 2005 report from the Florida 
Public Service Commission, in 2003, 26 percent of Florida's electric 
power was generated using natural gas. By 2013, just seven years from 
now, the FPSC projects that over 50 percent of Florida's electric power 
will be generated using natural gas. Clearly, Florida is increasingly 
relying on natural gas to meet our everyday energy needs and ensuring a 
longer-term affordable supply of natural gas will help keep Florida 
consumer's power bills affordable.
  When you consider this growing reliance on clean burning natural gas 
along with price increases we have seen, it is clear that Florida 
consumers will continue to pay higher costs for electricity if we don't 
address natural gas supply concerns. According to the U.S. Department 
of Energy, the costs of natural gas for electric power generation 
increased 300 percent between 2000 and 2005.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to support ensure that 
Florida has an adequate protective buffer while looking to meet our 
long-term clean energy needs.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 54 passenger motor vehicles, of which 54 are 
     for replacement only (including 15 for police-type use); 
     repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to 
     reservation areas caused by operations of the Service; 
     options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each 
     option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses 
     on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary 
     purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria, 
     buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     Service and to which the United States has title, and which 
     are used pursuant to law in connection with management, and 
     investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under 
     cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements 
     authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators 
     in connection with jointly produced publications for which 
     the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing 
     either in cash or services and the Service determines the 
     cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Service may use up to $2,000,000 from funds 
     provided for contracts for employment-related legal services: 
     Provided further, That the Service may accept donated 
     aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or 
     interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new 
     unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the 
     purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the statement of the 
     managers accompanying this Act.

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a 
colloquy, along with Mr. Kirk from Illinois.
  Chairman Taylor, let me first thank you and the committee for the 
funding you provided to the Science and Technology Account of the EPA. 
This important funding will be used to address a wide range of 
environmental and health concerns, including both long-term basic 
research and near-term applied research in order to discover knowledge 
and develop technologies necessary to protect our environmental 
resources and prevent future harm. I recognize that the apparently 
dramatic increases are primarily due to transfers of funds from other 
accounts, and for that reason I would strongly discourage any Member 
from offering an amendment to reduce this account. Nevertheless, the 
minor increases in basic science research funding are much appreciated, 
and I wanted to convey my appreciation.
  But I rise today to discuss an issue of pressing national importance: 
the cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes comprise 
the largest source of freshwater in the world, 20 percent of the 
Earth's total and 95 percent of surface freshwater in the U.S., and 
they provide drinking water, transportation, and recreation to millions 
of people in the U.S. and Canada. However, the Great Lakes are

[[Page H2798]]

plagued by contaminants from years of industrial pollution that have 
settled into the sediments of tributaries to the lakes. These 
pollutants degrade the health of both humans and wildlife and disrupt 
the beneficial uses of those waters. The longer we take to clean up 
these areas, the greater likelihood that the sediment will be 
transported into the open waters of the Great Lakes where cleanup is 
virtually impossible.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act, which was enacted in 2002 in response to 
slow cleanup progress, authorizes the EPA to clean up contaminated 
sediments in the Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes. This Legacy Act 
has an added advantage in that 35 percent of the funding comes from the 
local communities and the States. The Legacy Act program was funded at 
about $29 million last year, and the authorization is $50 million. The 
bill your committee drafted provides a small increase to $29.6 million. 
Frankly, I considered offering an amendment to boost this total to that 
recommended by the President, to near full funding of $49 million. I am 
also disappointed by the $500,000 cut to the Great Lakes National 
Program Office, which operates the Legacy Act program, directs other 
EPA cleanup and protection actions in the lakes, and helps to 
coordinate the activities of other Federal agencies within the region. 
But I decided against offering an amendment because I recognize that 
limited resources are available to you in this bill because of your 
small allocation.
  I can assure you that I am not the only one concerned about these 
funding levels. Last year over 1,500 Federal, State, and local 
government officials, scientists, engineers, and other stakeholders 
participated in the President's groundbreaking Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration. This diverse group of experts and advocates developed a 
strategic action plan for restoring the Great Lakes. Among the 
recommendations was $150 million in annual funding for the Legacy Act. 
This funding level is justified because of the success of the six 
projects that are completed or underway or in the pipeline and nine 
other potential projects being considered by the EPA. In fact, Federal 
and State officials involved in cleaning up contaminated sediment have 
recently estimated that 75 million cubic yards of sediment need to be 
remediated at a total cost range of $1.6 billion to $4.4 billion. The 
comparatively small amounts in the Legacy Act will help leverage State, 
local, and private dollars and get some of these ready-to-go projects 
off the ground.
  Chairman Taylor, I urge you to work with me and my Great Lakes 
colleagues on increasing funding for this important, oversubscribed 
program, and help to jump-start restoration efforts for this national 
treasure. We simply cannot wait.
  I yield now to my friend from Illinois, a stalwart champion of Great 
Lakes restoration and my Cochair of the Great Lakes Task Force, Mr. 
Kirk.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding and strongly 
share his sentiments regarding the importance of funding the Great 
Lakes and especially the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
  As the gentleman from Michigan noted, the Great Lakes are a national 
treasure. Our history is filled with supporting these national 
treasures, and in 2000 Congress and the administration rose to the 
occasion, providing a restoration plan for the Everglades that yielded 
impressive results.
  Today the country is beginning to recognize a new effort. The Great 
Lakes Regional Collaboration brought together local, State, and 
national officials and interests, including the administration, to work 
on a coherent plan, a thorough plan for Great Lakes restoration and 
protection. Last December all Great Lakes Collaboration members met and 
endorsed this process. But we must go further. We must waste no time in 
moving forward with tangible changes in practice and funding. The Great 
Lakes face a myriad of threats, from invasive species to mercury 
contamination to the effects of long-term pollutants which are awaiting 
cleanup. These same Great Lakes are also an invaluable resource for 
drinking water, recreation, and transportation purposes. And to protect 
them we must increase coordination and funding of Great Lakes programs.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act provides an essential function: addressing 
sediment contamination in areas of concern in the Great Lakes. My 
district contains Waukegan Harbor, a contaminated area that, if 
properly cleaned, would increase the economic value of lakefront 
property by over $800 million.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act funding cleans one of our national 
treasures while simultaneously adding value to the areas it addresses.
  I strongly urge the chairman to lend his support to this program as 
we move through the committee process. More funding for the Great Lakes 
Legacy Act is extremely important in the overall effort to clean up the 
Great Lakes and to restore the economy of our region.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments 
of the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Illinois. I 
recognize the importance of the Great Lakes as a natural resource and 
an issue of national importance. I commend those involved in the 
Regional Collaboration for their work, which will provide research 
managers and policymakers with a helpful guide in setting priorities 
and implementing critical resource and protection programs.
  The committee allocation did not allow us to provide a sizable 
increase in the funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act. Indeed, many 
programs in the bill are funded substantially below the 2006 level 
while the Great Lakes program received an increase, albeit a small one.
  I would be happy to work with my colleagues to see if we might 
increase funding for this program should additional funds be available 
when we go to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his assurance. I 
thank him for his consideration.
  And I also wish to thank the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
House for being generous with his time and also for his outstanding 
work over the years in working for the Great Lakes.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank these two chairmen.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         National Park Service

                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     $1,754,317,000, of which $9,829,000 is for planning and 
     interagency coordination in support of Everglades restoration 
     and shall remain available until expended; of which 
     $86,164,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008, is 
     for maintenance, repair or rehabilitation projects for 
     constructed assets, operation of the National Park Service 
     automated facility management software system, and 
     comprehensive facility condition assessments; and of which 
     $1,909,000 is for the Youth Conservation Corps for high 
     priority projects: Provided, That the only funds in this 
     account which may be made available to support United States 
     Park Police are those funds approved for emergency law and 
     order incidents pursuant to established National Park Service 
     procedures, those funds needed to maintain and repair United 
     States Park Police administrative facilities, and those funds 
     necessary to reimburse the United States Park Police account 
     for the unbudgeted overtime and travel costs associated with 
     special events for an amount not to exceed $10,000 per event 
     subject to the review and concurrence of the Washington 
     headquarters office: Provided further, That funds in this 
     account may be spent without regard to the ``no net loss'' of 
     law enforcement personnel policy.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
       Page 20, line 3, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, on September 11, like so many institutions 
of the Federal Government, everything came to a halt, including all the 
facilities of the national parks. Almost immediately thereafter, we 
began a process to reopen them. We reopened them literally but we also 
reopened them

[[Page H2799]]

symbolically to say, in the words of Secretary Norton from September 12 
of that year, ``Even though atrocities such as those of September 11 
can affect us, they cannot close us down.'' She said that while 
standing above Hoover Dam on September 12, 2001.
  Today, after a period of a couple of months after September 11, all 
of the facilities of the national parks were reopened. Today these many 
years later, all of them are reopened except one, perhaps the most 
symbolic national park that there is, the Statue of Liberty. The Statue 
of Liberty is still not reopened. Why? Well, it is not for lack of 
money. We in Congress have allocated more than $19 million to do 
security upgrades, to do improvements to the facility. In fact, there 
has been over $6 million that was raised privately. We all remember the 
Statue of Liberty Foundation, major companies lined up, people sent in 
their coffee tins. Boys and girls from around the country collected 
pennies and dimes and nickles to help reopen the Statue of Liberty. So 
it is not for lack of funding.
  Frankly, the reason that the Statue of Liberty is still closed is the 
lack of imagination and will on the part of the Park Service. Over the 
course of years, we in this House have said in many different ways 
either open it or tell us why you cannot. And each time they said 
things like, well, we are still thinking about it, we are pondering it, 
we are trying to figure it out.
  The final analysis is quite clear. They do not want to reopen it. 
They are concerned they cannot possibly make it safe. Some of us have 
suggested why not have no bags permitted? Why not say only a limited 
number of people can go in? Why not suggest that you have reservations 
in advance? Why not come to us and say maybe we need additional 
security? No. In fact, what they said is you can go to the part that 
was built here in the United States, but the iconic Statue of Liberty 
that all of us remember climbing up to when we were children is closed. 
It is the only national park that is.
  It is a shame. In fact, in the words of the Daily News, it is worse 
than a shame. It says we need to break the ties that bind Miss Liberty 
and that continue to make her a laughingstock for al Qaeda. That might 
be strong, but I want to tell you something. It is hard to explain any 
other way how the one park that was closed after September 11 is still 
closed. Let us have it reopen. And if the Park Service says we cannot 
do it, we figured out a way to open the Capitol. We figured out a way 
to open the Washington Monument. We figured out a way to open Hoover 
Dam. We figured out a way to open up all of the other national parks. 
This one, we simply cannot figure it out.
  Have them come to us. Have them come to Mr. Dicks and Mr. Taylor, who 
have shown great creativity in finding ways to help the Park Service do 
their job and let us reopen Statue of Liberty to her crown. Doing 
anything else is, frankly, to cower in the face of this challenge. This 
is not that difficult a challenge, but I can tell you this: It is 
certainly a symbolic one. To say that we simply cannot allow future 
generations of children to climb up through the statue, to peer out and 
to say, you know what, we are completely back on our feet after 
September 11, to make this of all the symbols the one that we refuse to 
open is simply a shame.
  What my amendment does is simple. It does not say the words ``Statue 
of Liberty'' anywhere. It takes $1 million and moves it from a 
personnel account to the equipment account to help them provide 
security. But this is a chance and it is a chance for all of us in the 
House to go on record and say reopen Statue of Liberty. If you need to 
come back, if you need to say to us there are considerations that we 
need to take into account, we have never been shy in this House in a 
bipartisan fashion of accommodating the Park Service and every other 
agency of government.

                              {time}  1400

  If they have a legitimate concern, we are Americans, we can solve 
those concerns. This might be a difficult challenge to make because 
they are narrow. It is an old structure, it is a historic structure, it 
is a symbolic structure, it is an iconic structure.
  To simply say, well, you can go visit the island and pat Lady 
Liberty's toes is not good enough. This is an opportunity for us to say 
reopen the Statue of Liberty, and all of those of you who go on record 
and say ``yes'' to this amendment, we will send a clear message not 
only to the Park Service that we mean business, but we will send a 
clear message to terrorists who think we are going to start closing 
down our icons simply because they attack us.
  We were bowed on September 11. We lost over 2,800 of my neighbors. 
But I can tell you this: the closest national park to Ground Zero still 
being closed is an insult to their memory, and this is an opportunity 
for us to do something.
  I want to thank in advance the gentleman from Washington and the 
chairman of the subcommittee for their indulgence. This is a chance for 
us to do the right thing and also do the symbolic thing.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand the gentleman's concern. The Statue of 
Liberty was reopened to the public on August 3, 2004, but the crown was 
not opened at that time, and let me tell you why the crown was not 
opened to the public: safety and security.
  The statue has long been recognized by the intelligence community as 
one of the highest profile targets for terrorists. After the events of 
9/11, the Department of the Interior made the decision to close the 
statue to assess its vulnerability to attack.
  The Interior Department asked the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and 
other recognized experts to conduct bomb blast and other security 
analyses on the statue. Based on the results, the Park Service spent 
nearly $20 million on numerous safety and security improvements.
  They did open the statue, except for the crown. The decision was made 
that the visitors could not be properly protected on the narrow spiral 
staircase in the crown, the thinnest part of the statue, and the 
Department of the Interior made the decision not to open that section. 
So I would urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the narrowness of the 
stairwell is such an inhibitor. We have some awful narrow passageways 
in this building. We have reopened the White House with very intricate 
security concerns.
  Certainly, with all of us putting our minds together, with the 
resources that we have, certainly we can figure out a way. For example, 
we could say you can have no bags. We will have a second security 
check. We will limit it only to a few dozen people a day. The symbolism 
is so important, I can't imagine we are technically unable to secure 
this site.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I am not qualified to speak on why the 
intelligence service says this, but I would yield to a gentleman to 
make a comment about who is qualified to make statements on that.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I appreciate the 
concerns of the gentleman from New York. As the National Parks 
Subcommittee chairman, I would say that this issue has not been brought 
to us and that we would gladly hold a hearing on it.
  On my own last year, Mr. Chairman, last year in October I did go to 
the Statue of Liberty to ask similar questions. The island is open. The 
statue is open to the base.
  Originally, the stairs all the way to the crown were installed for 
maintenance. They are extremely narrow, and the problem with 
evacuations, I forget the exact time, but the time to evacuate the 
statue is very high.
  Again, the gentleman talks about securing the statue, and that is a 
plus and a minus question. The idea of securing the World Trade Center 
would have 5 years ago or 6 years ago been just, yes, it is possible. I 
don't think we can anticipate all of the factors that could come in.
  Like I said, I would be more than happy to look into the issue. I 
would be

[[Page H2800]]

happy to have public hearings, but I would like that request submitted 
to the Parks Subcommittee.
  I would oppose the gentleman's amendment, with all due respect. I 
understand what he is trying to do, and I understand the frustration. I 
am not always on the side of the park's management team, but in this 
case I have been; and I have taken a look at it myself and see the 
problems they are wrestling with. No amount of money can change the 
size and scope of the stairways. It is limited by the inside diameter 
of the statue itself.
  I recognize what your concern is. Our attempt in going to see so many 
parks is to see how we can increase visitation, how we can increase the 
enjoyment. So you and I are approaching this from a very similar 
fashion. But, myself, I struggle.
  The Park Service did have a significant study, a multiple-page study; 
I have copies of that and would be happy to share them with the Members 
of the Chamber. But, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Are you suggesting a public hearing?
  Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I would be happy to do public hearings. Since I have 
been chairman, just almost a year, I suspect we have done oversights or 
hearings on business plans and the numbers of visitors coming into 
parks. We have done two field hearings. We have done hearings on access 
for the handicapped.
  So we have done multiple, multiple oversight on subjects such as 
this. I would be happy to work with the gentleman.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague from 
New York's amendment that would re-open all of the Statute of Liberty, 
the symbol of American freedom. When our Nation was attacked on 
September 11, 2001, a number of our national landmarks were temporarily 
closed to the public for security reasons. It is now four and a half 
years since that terrible day, and only one of these national treasures 
remains closed--Lady Liberty. Visitors to Liberty Island, which remains 
open while most of the statute is closed, have been down as much as 50 
percent from pre-9/11 levels, and that hurts the economy of New York 
City.
  Mr. Chairman, when terrorists attacked our country, they hoped that 
they could restrict our freedom and our way of life. They miscalculated 
the tremendous freedom-loving spirit of New Yorkers and Americans, who 
have showed their resilience. But it would be a tremendous additional 
display of our Nation's ever-lasting freedom to re-open the Statute of 
Liberty and to welcome visitors from around the world back to the 
statute that has long been a signal of hope. The Park Service shouldn't 
have to resort to essentially holding a bake sale for private donations 
to try to get it re-opened. Our Nation's beacon of liberty deserves 
better than that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman.
  Chairman Taylor, thank you for your leadership for North Carolina. We 
are so grateful in our State for your steadfast work and dedication to 
the cause of decreasing the size and scope of government. I just want 
to commend you for that work.
  I would like to discuss an important issue in my district, as well as 
for western North Carolina.
  In recent months, one of the most pressing matters that the Unifour 
Air Quality Committee, which is comprised of representatives from 
various organizations in four counties in western North Carolina within 
my district, has been dealing with is the accurate monitoring and 
control of fine particulate matter emissions, better known as PM 2.5, 
specifically in Catawba County.
  As you know, PM 2.5 monitor readings at the Water Tower monitoring 
site, maintained in Catawba County by the North Carolina Division of 
Air Quality, recently indicated an annual reading slightly above 15 
micrograms per cubic meter for PM 2.5, although the measurement was 
within the equipment's margin of error. Thus, Catawba County has been 
placed in non-attainment status for PM 2.5.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I am aware of this situation. I 
understand that the Environmental Protection Agency should soon be 
releasing the results of the March audit for the Catawba area.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman. It is also my understanding of the 
EPA audit. We hope to have the results of the audit as soon as possible 
so the Unifour Air Quality Committee can best determine what proactive 
steps need to be taken to control and monitor PM 2.5 emissions 
effectively. We also hope that the EPA has given careful consideration 
in its audits to the maps and other data the Unifour Air Quality 
Committee provided to the EPA in an effort to place the PM 2.5 
monitoring data in context.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank you, Congressman McHenry. I 
appreciate your leadership on this important issue and assure you that 
I will look forward to working with you on this issue. The committee 
will be in contact with EPA on the monitoring of PM 2.5 emissions in 
the Catawba area of North Carolina. Thank you for your effort.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last words for 
purposes of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on 
National Parks, I am deeply concerned with the fate of our national 
parks along our southern border, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, 
Coronado National Monument, Big Bend National Park, Amistad National 
Recreation Area, Padre Island, National Seashore and others. Both staff 
and I have seen firsthand the wanton destruction and detrimental 
effects that illegal immigration and drug-running has had on some of 
our most fragile desert environments in our country.
  It has become so bad at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument that up 
to one-third of the park is now closed to the public because the area 
is occupied by armed drug traffickers, and park employees cannot work 
throughout the park without an armed escort. We are not talking about 
potential impacts or future problems. These damages are occurring as we 
speak.
  I believe the National Park Service has blatantly ignored the 
congressional mandate to conserve these resources, including a number 
of listed species, unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
  While the U.S. Border Patrol is doing what it can to slow the flow of 
illegal activities through our parks, resource protection is not their 
priority. The National Park Service must be given the manpower to 
protect the visiting public and the national resources.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I, too, am aware of this increasingly 
difficult situation, not just in the national parks, but along other 
public lands funded in this bill. They comprise 43 percent of the 
border, the southern border. We need to work together. I would like to 
travel to that area. Perhaps we could hold a hearing in that area to 
draw the attention necessary. We need to work with our friend and 
former colleague, Rob Portman, once he is confirmed as the new director 
of OMB to ensure that adequate funds are provided to protect these 
lands.
  We have very little money for park rangers for 43 percent of the 
border. However, I believe that this is primarily the responsibility of 
Homeland Security. This subcommittee has expressed its concern to the 
administration over the past 4 years about additional Homeland Security 
duties imposed on agencies like the Park Service without providing 
additional funds. We also find in many other tribal lands that we are 
having some of the same problems.
  Mr. PEARCE. I would like to thank the chairman for his recognition of 
a serious problem and take seriously his commitment to meet with both 
Director Mainella and incoming OMB Director Portman to discuss what we 
can do. I think if we address this serious growing problem, then your 
willingness to work with us will cause the situation

[[Page H2801]]

to become much better for the public to be better served and for the 
Park Service to be better served. I thank the chairman for his 
indulgence.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       united states park police

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs of the 
     United States Park Police, $84,775,000.

                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, and grant administration, not otherwise 
     provided for, $47,161,000: Provided, That none of the funds 
     in this Act for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation 
     Assistance program may be used for cash agreements, or for 
     cooperative agreements that are inconsistent with the 
     program's final strategic plan.


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-333), $58,658,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund and to remain available until September 30, 
     2008, of which $15,000,000 shall be for Save America's 
     Treasures for preservation of nationally significant sites, 
     structures, and artifacts and of which $3,000,000 shall be 
     for Preserve America grants to States, Tribes, and local 
     communities for projects that preserve important historic 
     resources through the promotion of heritage tourism: Provided 
     further, That any individual Save America's Treasures or 
     Preserve America grant shall be matched by non-Federal funds: 
     Provided further, That individual projects shall only be 
     eligible for one grant: Provided further, That competitive 
     projects to be funded shall be approved by the Secretary of 
     the Interior in consultation with the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations and with the Advisory Council on 
     Historic Preservation prior to the commitment of Preserve 
     America grant funds.


                              Construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, including the modifications authorized 
     by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989, $229,934,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That none of the funds available to 
     the National Park Service may be used to plan, design, or 
     construct any partnership project with a total value in 
     excess of $5,000,000, without advance approval of the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National 
     Park Service may not accept donations or services associated 
     with the planning, design, or construction of such new 
     facilities without advance approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds 
     provided under this heading for implementation of modified 
     water deliveries to Everglades National Park shall be 
     expended consistent with the requirements of the fifth 
     proviso under this heading in Public Law 108-108: Provided 
     further, That funds provided under this heading for 
     implementation of modified water deliveries to Everglades 
     National Park shall be available for obligation only if 
     matching funds are appropriated to the Army Corps of 
     Engineers for the same purpose: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds provided under this heading for implementation 
     of modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park 
     shall be available for obligation if any of the funds 
     appropriated to the Army Corps of Engineers for the purpose 
     of implementing modified water deliveries, including 
     finalizing detailed engineering and design documents for a 
     bridge or series of bridges for the Tamiami Trail component 
     of the project, becomes unavailable for obligation: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided under this heading 
     for implementation of modified water deliveries to Everglades 
     National Park shall be available for obligation if the 
     consent decree in United States v. South Florida Water 
     Management District is terminated prior to the achievement of 
     the requirements of the consent decree as set forth in 
     Appendix A and Appendix B, including achievement of the 10 
     parts per billion numeric phosphorus criterion throughout the 
     A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades 
     National Park: Provided further, That hereafter, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, procurements for 
     the National Mall and Memorial Park, Ford's Theatre National 
     Historical Site accessibility and infrastructure improvements 
     may be issued which include the full scope of the project: 
     Provided further, That the solicitation and contract shall 
     contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 
     52.232.18.

                    land and water conservation fund


                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2007 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.

                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with the statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $29,995,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain available 
     until expended, of which $1,625,000 is for the State 
     assistance program administration: Provided, That none of the 
     funds provided for the State assistance program may be used 
     to establish a contingency fund.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 233 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 193 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 190 for police-type use, 11 buses, 
     and 6 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the southern 
     end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been submitted 
     to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior to the 
     expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day in 
     which either House of Congress is not in session because of 
     adjournment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certain) 
     from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $66,000 of funds available to the National 
     Park Service in this Act may be used to provide a grant to 
     the Washington Tennis and Education Foundation for recreation 
     and education programs to be offered to at-risk school 
     children in the District of Columbia.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may distribute to operating units 
     based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs 
     designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to 
     encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits 
     pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     return to appropriate positions for which they are medically 
     able.
       If the Secretary of the Interior considers that the 
     decision of any value determination proceeding conducted 
     under a National Park Service concession contract issued 
     prior to November 13, 1998, misinterprets or misapplies 
     relevant contractual requirements or their underlying legal 
     authority, then the Secretary may seek, within 180 days of 
     any such decision, the de novo review of the value 
     determination by the United States Court of Federal Claims. 
     This Court may make an order affirming, vacating, modifying 
     or correcting the determination.
       In addition to other uses set forth in section 407(d) of 
     Public Law 105-391, franchise fees credited to a sub-account 
     shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary, without 
     further appropriation, for use at any unit within the 
     National Park System to extinguish or reduce liability for 
     Possessory Interest or leasehold surrender interest. Such 
     funds may only be used for this purpose to the extent that 
     the benefiting unit anticipated franchise fee receipts over 
     the term of the contract at that unit exceed the amount of 
     funds used to extinguish or reduce liability. Franchise fees 
     at the benefiting unit shall be credited to the sub-account 
     of the originating unit over a period not to exceed the term 
     of a single contract at the benefiting unit, in the amount of 
     funds so expended to extinguish or reduce liability.

                    United States Geological Survey

                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 
     mineral and water resources of the United States, its 
     territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 
     43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their 
     mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to 
     power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); conduct inquiries into the economic conditions 
     affecting mining and materials processing industries (30 
     U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and related 
     purposes as authorized by law; and to publish and disseminate 
     data relative to the foregoing activities; $991,447,000, of 
     which $64,171,000 shall be available only for cooperation 
     with States or municipalities for water resources 
     investigations; of which $7,882,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for satellite operations; of which $21,083,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2008, for the 
     operation and maintenance of facilities and deferred 
     maintenance; of which $2,000,000 shall be available until 
     expended for deferred maintenance and capital improvement 
     projects that exceed $100,000 in cost; of which $175,597,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2008, for the 
     biological research activity and the operation of the 
     Cooperative Research Units; and of which, $13,000,000 shall 
     be available only for the Mid-Continent Mapping Center (MCMC) 
     in Rolla, Missouri to continue functioning as a full service 
     mapping organization: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used to consolidate the 
     functions, activities, operations, or archives of the Mid-
     Continent Mapping Center (MCMC), located in Rolla, Missouri, 
     into the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center

[[Page H2802]]

     (NGTOC): Provided further, That none of the funds provided 
     for the biological research activity shall be used to conduct 
     new surveys on private property, unless specifically 
     authorized in writing by the property owner: Provided 
     further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to 
     pay more than one-half the cost of topographic mapping or 
     water resources data collection and investigations carried on 
     in cooperation with States and municipalities.

                              {time}  1415


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 28, line 14, strike ``; and of which'' and all that 
     follows through ``Provided further,'' on line 22.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment. We have not seen the amendment. The gentleman has not shown 
us the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike language added 
during the committee markup that prevents the U.S. Geological Survey 
from consolidating its older and obsolete mapping centers into a single 
consolidated national geospatial technical operations center.
  According to the agency, the consolidation is critical to the USGS's 
ability to lead the Nation in facilitating and leveraging geospatial 
information services.
  The centers USGS is attempting to consolidate were established many 
years ago to support a large field-based workforce spread out across 
the country when map production involved exhaustive field survey and 
was more manually intensive. That was fine back then, but it makes no 
sense now.
  USGS, by their own admission, no longer manually collects and plots 
this kind of information, nor do they print a large volume of maps. 
Advanced technologies like remote sensing, we have all seen Google 
Earth, along with consumer demand for easy access to digital products 
have the USGS role.
  The language in my amendment would strike needlessly imposing a 20th 
century paradigm on an agency that is desperately trying to make its 
way into the 21st century. This consolidation is not only saving 
taxpayers money, but it will create a more effective, efficient and 
modern USGS that is better prepared to work with partners in the State, 
local and private sectors.
  In addition, it will make the agency more user friendly, a better 
place to respond to the needs of the most important customers, the U.S. 
taxpayer. This consolidation plan announced in September of last year 
has been rigorously reviewed twice, once by an internal USGS review 
team and again by the Interior Department Inspector General.
  Both found the process leading to the decision to consolidate the 
facilities was open, fair and adequate. The mission of the USGS is to 
serve the Nation by providing reliable, scientific information to 
describe and understand the Earth, minimize loss of property from 
natural disasters, manage water, biological energy and mineral 
resources and enhance and protect the quality of life.
  Its mission is not to maintain antiquated facilities or outmoded 
paradigms to serve the parochial interests of the State or the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I do intend to withdraw this amendment, but I first 
would yield to my colleague from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen makes a compelling point that we would be 
following the recommendations of a number of groups. Primarily the Bush 
administration has pointed out that this is a sound business decision 
that is fair to the taxpayers.
  I believe the gentlemen's amendment should be supported today, but we 
will support whatever decision he decides is appropriate.
  The amendment would remove language from the bill requiring the USGS 
to have a ``full service mapping organization'' at a specific location.
  The Interior Department says that this would require them to continue 
to use outdated technology and would block them from their plans to 
consolidate mapping operations.
  The Bush Administration objects to the language now in the bill 
because they say it is not fiscally responsible and would reduce their 
ability to provide needed geospatial information.
  In a letter to the appropriations committee, the Interior Department 
describes their plans as being ``a sound business decision'' that is 
``fair to the taxpayers.''
  I think that description is accurate, showing that even this 
Administration sometimes gets things right.
  So, I think that on this matter we should do what they suggest.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would join with my additional colleague from Colorado 
in supporting the gentleman's amendment. I entered into a colloquy 
earlier on the debate over the underlying bill and had that colloquy 
with the chairman of the subcommittee, and so my comments are in the 
Record. But I too am very supportive. I want to be on record as 
supporting the gentleman's amendment in every way, shape and form, and 
join my colleague, Mr. Udall, as well.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I hope we can work 
together on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman has decided to withdraw 
his amendment, because if he had been studying this issue as long as we 
had in Missouri you would find, number one, that the cost of moving the 
mapping facility to Denver, Colorado, is an increase to taxpayers of 
$2,069,322, and a 13.8 percent increase over the cost today of managing 
this program.
  Now, let me just give you a little bit of history about this. 
Originally the goal was to consolidate the four USGS mapping sites and 
find the office that would be most competitive against the private 
sector. This is according to the former USGS Director. And Rolla, 
Missouri, the facility that we have today, has scored the best out of 
all of the criteria that the USGS committee put together for this 
planning. As a matter of fact, it scored 4.18 out of a possible 5, and 
Denver scored 2.84 out of a 5. The USGS planning committee actually 
recommended that the mapping center be located in Rolla, but it was 
subsequently decided by one individual within USGS to move it 
arbitrarily, so that it would lose against private competitors.
  And let me also say that the Inspector General who did a report at 
the request of Senators Bond, Talent and I, has found that USGS 
``failed to effectively and transparently demonstrate the entirety of 
its criteria or communicate the magnitude of its rationale.'' In 
effect, the decision was made by one person who dismissed an entire 
team and planning process which was convened to select the site.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague from Missouri 
(Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate first of all the tone in which the 
gentleman offers this amendment. In the health care field, the 
Hippocratic Oath says first do no harm. A colloquialism from the 
outstate Missouri region that I think is appropriate here is, if it 
ain't broke, don't fix it.
  I can assure my friend from Colorado that the National Geospatial 
Technical Operations Center in Rolla, Missouri, is a bargain for 
America's taxpayers and then some. The 160 employees at USGS Rolla are 
extremely proficient and possess a specialized technical skill. In 
fact, I heard the word ``obsolete.'' These specialized individuals 
worked around the clock to produce digital data sets of graphics in the 
aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
  USGS Rolla continually provides the most current imagery and other 
geospatial data to the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. 
They form useful partnerships with Fort Leonard Wood as well as 
University of Missouri Rolla. The latter especially focuses on 
earthquake preparedness, as

[[Page H2803]]

the gentlewoman from southeast Missouri knows is so important in 
response to the New Madrid fault.
  USGS is not obsolete. It does play a critical role in Rolla in 
disaster response, and is the best and most affordable choice for this 
functionality.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentlemen from Missouri. I also want to point out to my colleagues from 
Colorado that the USGS facility in Rolla provides geospatial data to 
the border health issue, which I know is of great interest to the 
gentlemen.
  And I do want to correct a mistake. I did say that Denver scored 2.84 
out of 5 as compared to Rolla, which was 4.18. Denver actually scored 
3.11 out of 5, as compared to 4.18 for Rolla.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would 
like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment that would prevent 
the use of funds to delay action on a petition to remove the so-called 
Preble's Jumping Mouse from the Endangered Species List.
  I say so-called, because in December of 2003, a scientific study 
conducted by biologists and the Chair of the Denver Museum of National 
History's zoology department, concluded that the Preble's Mouse is, in 
fact, not really a valid subspecies at all.
  Ms. Ramey's findings contradicted a 1950 study based on just three 
museum specimens. That was the basis of the original ``threatened'' 
designation. Ironically, the Arizona professor who conducted the study 
a half century ago himself now agrees that Ramey's research invalidates 
his findings.
  In early 2005, in the wake of Ramey's study, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service determined the petition to delist the mouse was 
warranted, and the agency began the delisting process. Better late than 
never, although that belated policy shift is not much of a consolation 
to those who have coughed up an estimate $8 to $17 each year in 
compliance costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that Dr. Ramey's work and the courage of 
former Interior Secretary Gail Norton to take action on it were 
important steps in our effort to base conservation decisions on science 
instead of politics or emotion.
  Unfortunately, however, progress is stalled. In January of this year, 
the bureaucracy questioned the Ramey study, and in February the agency 
pushed back a decision on the delisting petition for another 6 months.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel the agency is falling back into the all too 
familiar analysis paralysis that has become the hallmark of the Federal 
resources agency.
  Quick action on this petition is extremely important to the people of 
my congressional district. I hope we can work together to ensure the 
agency's bureaucrats do not successfully subject this delisting 
petition to death by delay.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the gentleman's position. 
The Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service has informed the 
committee that he does not anticipate further delays in the delisting 
decision.
  I would be happy to work with the gentlemen to ensure that the 
Service lives up to that commitment. I appreciate the gentleman calling 
that to our attention.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I appreciate the chairman's attention to this issue. It 
is an extremely critical one in my area.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I was going to offer and then 
withdraw it. So I think all I am going to do today is place my 
statement in the Record and speak briefly in a colloquy with the 
chairman about this.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention a very 
important site called Fort King, which is in Florida. It is in my 
hometown of Ocala. It is a very prominent place in American history. 
Fort King is a site where Chief Osceola fought against the United 
States in the chapter of American history, the Second Seminole War. 
This is from 1835 to 1842.
  This site in Ocala, Florida is represented by my good friend, 
Congressman Keller, who also supports the idea of making Fort King part 
of a National Historic Landmark, because it played such a distinct role 
in the founding of our wonderful State of Florida.
  Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton designated Fort King a National 
Historic Landmark on February 24, 2004, and we were greatly pleased. 
Then in November, 2005, Fort King entered a draft special resource 
study and environmental impact statement public comment period.
  This continued, Mr. Chairman, and we look forward to moving Fort King 
along in the process, and so now I am working toward preserving Fort 
King in perpetuity as a National Park.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this to your attention. We have 
put in a request to fund it, and I think my only purpose today is to 
bring it to the chairman and his staff's attention how important it is 
to the history of Florida and its founding, and then if you in the 
future would consider it, that would be utmost appreciated.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield to Chairman Taylor.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen. I 
do recognize and appreciate you drawing it to our attention, the 
significance of the history of this matter, and we will take a look at 
it and see what we can do to work with the gentlemen.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about an 
important site called Fort King, Florida, a site prominent in American 
history. Specifically, Fort King is the site where Chief Osceola fought 
against the United States, in a chapter of American history, the Second 
Seminole War from 1835-1842.
  My home (and Representative Ric Keller's), Ocala, Florida, is home to 
Fort King. This Fort played a direct role in the founding of Florida as 
a State.
  Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton designated Fort King a National 
Historic Landmark on February 24, 2004, to our great delight. Then, in 
November 2005, Fort King entered a Draft Special Resource Study and 
Environmental Impact Statement public comment period. This continues, 
and we look forward to moving Fort King along in the process of 
preservation. And now, I am working towards preserving Fort King in 
perpetuity as a National Park. My good friend and colleague in the 
neighboring District, the Honorable Ric Keller, who also represents 
Ocala, has collaborated with me on this effort.
  Historic sites are a vital link between current and future 
generations of Americans and those who came before us. These landmarks 
give context to the national experience and help us understand our past 
so that we can envision our future.
  What happened at Fort King? It is a very long story, about which I 
will elaborate longer on another occasion. The abbreviated story is 
that on December 28, 1835, Fort King was the site of an outbreak of 
hostilities between the United States Government and the Seminole 
Indians. The Seminoles were led in this attack by Chief Osceola. This 
attack began the Second Seminole War, which lasted longer than any 
other United States armed conflict, except for the Vietnam War.
  Chief Osceola's first appearance to the world was at Fort King in 
October 1834. The defiant young war chief rejected the U.S. orders to 
leave Florida and threatened war unless the Seminoles were left alone. 
There was no trust left between the U.S. Army and the Seminoles. Then 
came the fateful day of December 28, 1835. That morning 40 miles to the 
south along the Fort King Road, the Seminoles ambushed and annihilated 
two companies of U.S. Army regulars in route to Fort King. That 
afternoon, Osceola shot and killed the Indian Agent Wiley Thompson 
outside the walls of Fort King. The Second Seminole War had begun.

  During the 7 year guerrilla war that followed, every major general 
and every regiment of the U.S. Army was stationed at or passed through 
Fort King: men who would gain fame in the Mexican and Civil Wars. And 
here stood the enlisted men: Bemrose, Clarke, and hundreds of others 
who served in the Florida War.
  Following the initial series of engagements, most of which the 
Seminoles won, U.S. forces withdrew from the interior of Florida 
abandoning Fort King in May 1836. The Seminoles stood victorious, and. 
burned the hated Fort King to the ground. But it would be a short lived 
victory, when the Army returned a year later and rebuilt Fort King.
  When it finally ended in 1842, most of the Seminoles had been killed 
or captured and relocated to Indian Territory in Oklahoma. These native 
Americans constitute the Seminole Nation of today. An unconquered and 
defiant few

[[Page H2804]]

withdrew to the vastness of the Florida Everglades and survived to the 
present as the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
  In March 1843, Fort King was abandoned by the U.S. Army for the last 
time and transferred to the people of Marion County. The Fort was used 
as the County's first courthouse and public building. In 1846, it was 
dismantled by the citizens of Marion County for its lumber. The great 
pines had done their job.
  Fort King and the surrounding area contain artifacts used in the 
attack and in the life of the Seminole Indians. Preserving our past for 
our children and grandchildren is imperative. Fort King is a historical 
gem that should be accessible to all. This site is significant, not 
only in Florida's history, but to the history of the Nation. I have 
been working on advancing Fort King through National Historic Landmark 
status towards hopeful, eventual National Park Service status, for the 
past several years, and am looking forward to see this project come to 
fruition. Representative Keller and I hope that I can count on the 
Chairman's support to preserve this unique historic site for future 
generations.

                           Fort King History

       Fort King was originally constructed in 1827 to implement 
     the conditions of the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, which 
     restricted Florida Indians to specified reservation 
     boundaries and prohibited all but authorized persons from 
     entering the reservation. The fort, which was located at the 
     edge of the Seminole Reservation, provided protection and 
     security to the inhabitants of Florida.
       On December 28, 1835 a band or Seminoles led by Osceola 
     attacked and killed the Seminole Indian Agent Wiley Thompson 
     and several others at Fort King. Simultaneously, a force of 
     Seminole and Black Seminoles attacked 100 federal troops 
     making their way to Fort King from Fort Brooke. Only one 
     soldier survived the attack. Most scholars consider these two 
     events as the beginning of the Second Seminole War.
       Fort King played an important military role throughout the 
     Second Seminole War by serving as a council site for 
     negotiations between Seminole and the U.S. Government and as 
     headquarters for the U.S. Army of the South.


           Chronology of Endeavors to Save the Fort King Site

       The Ocala Chapter of the Daughters of the American 
     Revolution purchased one acre of land that was thought to 
     have the Fort King cemetery located on it in the 1930s.
       Hurricane Gladys blew over a pine tree in 1968, exposing a 
     cellar from a building associated with Fort King.
       1988--1991: Ocala received matching grants from the Florida 
     Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, for 
     archaeological auger surveys to find the location of Fort 
     King. The grants totaled $56,000. Ground penetrating radar 
     was used and foundations from structures were recorded on the 
     high ground.
       In August 1991, the Marion County Board of County 
     Commissioners voted to proceed with the attempt to purchase 
     the Fort King site, using funds from the ``Pennies for 
     Parks'' program.
       The Marion County Commission with the help of the McCall 
     family, City of Ocala, Bureau of Historic Preservation and 
     Trust for Public Lands pursued the acquisition of the site 
     from 1988 to 2001.
       In 2001 the County, City, and State purchased the entire 
     Fort King site with the City agreeing to maintain and protect 
     the site.
       On June 12, 2003 the National Park System Advisory Board 
     unanimously recommended Fort King for National Landmark 
     status.
       On February 24, 2004 Fort King was designated as a National 
     Landmark.


                          Why a National Park?

       Since the early 1900s local citizens recognized the 
     historical value of this site not only to our community but 
     to the nation,
       On a national level, Fort King played a key role in the 
     Second Seminole War and is strongly associated with the 
     broader national themes of Indian Removal and Jacksonian 
     Democracy, Manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion. The fort 
     also had strong ties to persons, such as the famous Seminole 
     Indian leader Osceola and General Wiley Thompson, who are 
     significant in the history of our country. Most of the West 
     Point graduates during this time period served at Fort King.
       Compared to other Second Seminole War sites, Fort King 
     contains the greatest wealth of intact subsurface features 
     and artifacts presently documented. Archaeologists have also 
     found that the site contains several pre-contact American 
     Indian components, which with further research could answer 
     important questions as to the transition between the Archaic 
     (circa 2300-500BC) and Cades Pond (circa AD100-600) periods. 
     Archaeological studies have already identified structural and 
     artifactual features that relate to the early post-military 
     use of Fort King. This site has the potential to provide 
     important information about the establishment, early 
     settlement and expansion of the Florida peninsula.
       The City of Ocala and Marion County were politically and 
     geographically established because of Fort King. This 
     nationally significant historical resource fundamentally 
     defines our sense of place, who we are as citizens and our 
     role in our Nation's history.


                    Significance of a National Park

       The designation of Fort King as a National Park will 
     provide citizens the opportunity to experience the 
     interpretive and educational benefits that the site has to 
     offer. It will also create a new recreational opportunity, 
     which is currently unavailable within the region, A National 
     Park will attract visitors not only to this region but to the 
     State of Florida.
       Most importantly, the citizens of Ocala/Marion County are 
     very proud of their heritage and have gone to great lengths 
     to continually try to preserve it for future generations. The 
     City of Ocala, Marion County, the Historic Ocala Preservation 
     Society, the Marion County Black Archives, the Marion Country 
     Historical Commission, the Marion County Museum of History, 
     the Seminole War Foundation and many individuals have worked 
     tirelessly to save buildings, sites and historic information 
     as well as to create local preservation laws. These 
     preservation efforts would not have been possible were it not 
     for the continuous help and support from the State of 
     Florida.

  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging the chairman in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the chairman for his hard 
work on the National Fire Plan and also for the ranking member. The 
$2.7 billion in funding under the National Fire Plan increases the 
amount over last year by $80 million. It is essential in preventing 
forest fires throughout our Nation.
  This map here shows the largest southern Ponderosa pine forest in 
America. I know the gentleman is very, very familiar with it. We have 
the largest stand of heavy fuel loads left in the forest, which are 
providing large-scale size forest fires throughout Arizona.
  The last fire we had in our State broke the State record from the 
previous fire, which was over 560,000 acres. Communities like Flagstaff 
and Payson and Prescott, are entrenched with a fuel load around them 
that is making it a threat to live in this community and causing the 
insurance rates to skyrocket.

                              {time}  1430

  Severe drought, bark beetle infestation, and poor forest management 
have all led to this kind of a condition.
  I would ask, please, and would thank both gentlemen that the report 
language include some of the boundary projects that need to go in place 
for people who do live in the forest, who make their livings there, who 
raise their families there, to be able to survive through the next 
forest fire season. Our forest fire season begins in February, the 
earliest in the country, and goes all the way to the end of autumn. And 
I would like to thank both gentlemen for their work on this effort.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I realize 
the threat of the forest fires in Arizona, and I appreciate the hard 
work this gentleman has done on this issue. I will be happy to work 
with you to encourage the Forest Service to work on the fire breaks and 
the hazardous fuel projects in the vicinity of the Payson and other 
areas such as the gentleman represents in these important needs.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RENZI. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the 
chairman's remarks and the gentleman's remarks. These are very serious 
issues. I would just say one thing: also in this bill is a sense of 
Congress on global warming, on the warming of our climate; and one of 
the things that the scientists talk about is more severe droughts. And 
this warming will exacerbate this problem if we don't do something 
about it.
  So I just would say to the gentleman, because I know he is extremely 
sincere in his efforts to deal with protecting and allowing the 
clearing out of this understorage, you have got to also think about the 
severity of these droughts which is being made worse by the warming of 
the climate. So they are interrelated.
  Mr. RENZI. Reclaiming my time. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. 
We in Arizona understand warming, the sunshine State; and our 
initiatives are more towards the area of trying to thin the forest. We 
are so far behind in getting those fuel loads out, and I know the 
gentleman recognizes that. And I do appreciate the chairman talking 
about the town of Payson, Arizona, which we almost lost last year, an 
entire community where the fire was burning so hot and so fast it 
actually

[[Page H2805]]

blew embers a mile and a half in the air as they were landing in and 
near that community. So I thank you very much for your comments. Mr. 
Chairman, I thank you for your hard work on the National fire plan.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage Chairman Taylor in a colloquy 
regarding the State Water Research Institute's program.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to 
discuss the matter with the distinguished chairman of the Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Resources Committee, I 
have fought to add more domestic water supplies to blunt the effects of 
drought, population growth, and environmental mandates. We have made 
significant progress in this effort, but more change can be made to 
existing programs to help create more water supplies. One needed reform 
is to the State Water Research Institute's program which is funded 
through the USGS in this bill. This program needs to be reauthorized 
and changed to reflect current-day water supplies. In fact, the 
Resources Committee held a hearing just last week on Mr. Doolittle's 
bill to reauthorize the program by adding water supply creation as a 
focus and to create better transparency and results-oriented research.
  I have concerns with the appropriation in this bill to a program in 
desperate need of change, but I want to work cooperatively with the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina to resolve this concern. 
Absent such authorization, it will be difficult for Congress to 
continue its support for this program in the future.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I want to ensure my colleague from 
California that our water research program should be targeted and 
focused to solving real water supply problems. I am aware that the 
Resources Committee is advancing Mr. Doolittle's bill and that 
reauthorization is needed. I look forward to working with my colleague 
on this important issue and thank him for bringing that to our 
attention.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       administrative provisions

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

                      Minerals Management Service


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only, $157,496,000, of which $79,158,000 
     shall be available for royalty management activities; and an 
     amount not to exceed $128,730,000, to be credited to this 
     appropriation and to remain available until expended, from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee 
     collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities performed by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 
     over and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and 
     from additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf 
     administrative activities established after September 30, 
     1993: Provided, That to the extent $128,730,000 in additions 
     to receipts are not realized from the sources of receipts 
     stated above, the amount needed to reach $128,730,000 shall 
     be credited to this appropriation from receipts resulting 
     from rental rates for Outer Continental Shelf leases in 
     effect before August 5, 1993: Provided further, That 
     $3,000,000 for computer acquisitions shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2008: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses 
     related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup 
     activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be 
     available for refunds of overpayments in connection with 
     certain Indian leases in which the Director of MMS concurred 
     with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts owed to Indian 
     allottees or tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable 
     erroneous payments: Provided further, That for the costs of 
     administration of the Coastal Impact Assistance Program 
     authorized by section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1456a), MMS in fiscal years 2007 
     through 2010 may retain three percent of the amounts which 
     are disbursed under section 31 (b)(1), such retained amounts 
     to remain available until expended.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       Under ``Minerals Management Service_royalty and offshore 
     minerals management'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the Maloney-Miller amendment would direct 
$1 million of the overall appropriation for the Minerals Management 
Service to States and tribes for auditing purposes. I understand that 
the majority will accept this amendment, and I want to thank Chairman 
Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks and their staff for their assistance 
and support.
  I also want to thank Representative George Miller for working with me 
to provide this critical funding to the States and tribes to perform 
these audits. According to data collected from MMS in previous years, 
the States and tribes collect $5 for every dollar spent on audits. I 
believe this amendment is an important step in ensuring that the 
companies responsible for remitting royalties from minerals produced 
from Federal and Indian leases do so in compliance with applicable 
lease terms, regulations, and policies governing the valuation of the 
produced minerals. At a time of increased values for gas and oil, 
States and tribes should be given more resources to ensure that royalty 
payments are paid in full.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the committee, and hopefully 
he will support this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept 
this amendment and work with the gentlewoman and the Interior 
Department to increase State and tribal auditing funds. Thank you very 
much for bringing it to our attention.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the chairman and Ranking Member Dicks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,903,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $112,109,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, 
     pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants 
     to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2007 for civil 
     penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to 
     reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices 
     after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of

[[Page H2806]]

     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for 
     the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal 
     personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement sponsored training.


                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $185,936,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to 
     $10,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of 
     the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the 
     Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants 
     to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in 
     fiscal year 2007: Provided further, That pursuant to Public 
     Law 97-365, the Department of the Interior is authorized to 
     use up to 20 percent from the recovery of the delinquent debt 
     owed to the United States Government to pay for contracts to 
     collect these debts: Provided further, That funds made 
     available under title IV of Public Law 95-87 may be used for 
     any required non-Federal share of the cost of projects funded 
     by the Federal Government for the purpose of environmental 
     restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid mine 
     drainage from abandoned mines: Provided further, That such 
     projects must be consistent with the purposes and priorities 
     of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided 
     further, That amounts allocated under section 402(g)(2) of 
     such Act as of September 30, 2006, but not appropriated as of 
     that date, are reallocated to the allocation established in 
     section 402(g)(3) of the Act: Provided further, That amounts 
     provided under this heading may be used for the travel and 
     per diem expenses of State and tribal personnel attending 
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
     sponsored training.


                        administrative provision

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

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian 
     programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of 
     November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended, 
     $1,973,403,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008 
     except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed 
     $74,179,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not 
     limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, not to exceed $151,628,000 shall be available for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants, 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2007, as authorized by 
     such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet contract support 
     costs of ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual 
     funding agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; 
     and of which not to exceed $457,352,000 for school operations 
     costs of Bureau-funded schools and other education programs 
     shall become available on July 1, 2007, and shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2008; and of which not to 
     exceed $66,277,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     housing improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, 
     litigation support, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, land 
     records improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: 
     Provided, That in cases of designated Federal disasters, the 
     Secretary may exceed the welfare assistance payments cap, 
     from the amounts provided herein, to provide for disaster 
     relief to Indian communities affected by the disaster: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including but not limited to the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008, 
     not to exceed $44,060,000 within and only from such amounts 
     made available for school operations shall be available to 
     tribes and tribal organizations for administrative cost 
     grants associated with ongoing grants entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2006 for the operation 
     of Bureau-funded schools, and up to $500,000 within and only 
     from such amounts made available for school operations shall 
     be available for the transitional costs of initial 
     administrative cost grants to tribes and tribal organizations 
     that enter into grants for the operation on or after July 1, 
     2006, of Bureau-operated schools: Provided further, That any 
     forestry funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated 
     as of September 30, 2008, may be transferred during fiscal 
     year 2009 to an Indian forest land assistance account 
     established for the benefit of such tribe within the tribe's 
     trust fund account: Provided further, That any such 
     unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on 
     September 30, 2009.


                              construction

       For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $215,799,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available 
     to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway 
     Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management 
     costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds 
     provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
     13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2007, in implementing 
     new construction or facilities improvement and repair project 
     grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally 
     controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as 
     amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether such grantee would be deficient in 
     assuring that the construction projects conform to applicable 
     building standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State 
     health and safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(b), 
     with respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2504(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2507(e): Provided further, That in 
     order to ensure timely completion of replacement school 
     construction projects, the Secretary may assume control of a 
     project and all funds related to the project, if, within 
     eighteen months of the date of enactment of this Act, any 
     tribe or tribal organization receiving funds appropriated in 
     this Act or in any prior Act, has not completed the planning 
     and design phase of the project and commenced construction of 
     the replacement school: Provided further, That this 
     Appropriation may be reimbursed from the Office of the 
     Special Trustee for American Indians Appropriation for the 
     appropriate share of construction costs for space expansion 
     needed in agency offices to meet trust reform implementation.


 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $39,213,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for implementation of Indian 
     land and water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 99-
     264, 100-580, 101-618, 107-331, and 108-477, and for 
     implementation of other land and water rights settlements, of 
     which $316,000 shall be available for payment to the Quinault 
     Indian Nation pursuant to the terms of the North Boundary 
     Settlement Agreement dated July 14, 2000, providing for the 
     acquisition of perpetual conservation easements from the 
     Nation and of which $5,067,000 shall be for the Idaho Salmon 
     and Clearwater River Basins Habitat Account pursuant to the 
     Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004 and of which $200,000 
     shall be transferred to the ``Bureau of Land Management, 
     Management of Lands and Resources'' account for mitigation of 
     land transfers associated with the Snake River Water Rights 
     Act of 2004.

                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed and insured loans, $6,262,000, 
     of which $626,000 is for administrative expenses, as 
     authorized by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $87,376,744.


                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of 
     Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in 
     cooperation with States and other organizations.
       Notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 15, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     may contract for services in support of the management, 
     operation, and maintenance of the Power Division of the San 
     Carlos Irrigation Project.
       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 
     account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and 
     purchase and replacement of passenger motor vehicles.

[[Page H2807]]

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     oversight and executive direction and administrative services 
     (except executive direction and administrative services 
     funding for Tribal Priority Allocations and regional offices) 
     shall be available for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or 
     cooperative agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     under the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act or 
     the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
       In the event any tribe returns appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
     distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish 
     the Federal Government's trust responsibility to that tribe, 
     or the government-to-government relationship between the 
     United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to 
     access future appropriations.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided 
     herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 
     et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any 
     elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy regarding 
the Klamath River Basin recovery in northern California.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, salmon fishing off the coast of California 
and Oregon has been shut down this year due to poor returns of Chinook 
salmon to the Klamath River. In 2001, farmers in the Klamath Basin were 
similarly shut down due to the resource problems in this watershed.
  I know the chairman would agree with me that these two occurrences 
demonstrate the urgent need to combine peer-reviewed science with local 
stakeholder cooperation in order to help fish in the Klamath Basin 
recover so that fishing and farming in the area can continue. Mr. 
Chairman, you have helped with this effort in the past, and I thank you 
for your attention to this important issue.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the 
gentleman that accurate science, local input, and the establishment of 
a clear plan is the best approach to solve the problems in the Klamath 
Basin, and the committee has tried to be helpful in this regard.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. As you know, Mr. Chairman, one important 
aspect of addressing Klamath issues is the development of a salmon 
recovery plan. And no plan will be successful without broad support and 
voluntary cooperation by local stakeholders. Fortunately, there has 
been progress in the Klamath Basin to develop voluntary recovery plans 
and projects for the threatened Coho salmon. This has been done 
collectively with farmers, tribes, fishers, and scientists. Would the 
chairman support me in requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and NOAA fisheries use their existing authorities and the 
conservation funds identified in this bill for the Klamath Basin to 
implement the salmon recovery projects that have been developed by this 
local stakeholder group?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I agree with the gentleman that plans 
that identify locally supported and on-the-ground recovery projects are 
an important part of helping to solve the problems. I would be pleased 
to support the gentleman by directing the Fish and Wildlife Service 
work with NOAA fisheries and the local stakeholders. Further, the 
Committee would be glad to facilitate a meeting as soon as possible 
with the Fish and Wildlife Service on this important issue. I thank the 
gentleman for bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the chairman for his cooperation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for 
     schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. 
     No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support 
     expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade 
     structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the 
     Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of 
     October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not 
     be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded 
     school (as that term is defined in section 1146 of the 
     Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a 
     charter school that is in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
     funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to 
     operate during that period, but only if the charter school 
     pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reimburse the 
     Bureau for the use of the real and personal property 
     (including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school 
     are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau 
     does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of 
     the State in which the school is located if the charter 
     school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools 
     sharing a campus with a charter school and performing 
     functions related to the charter school's operation and 
     employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal 
     employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       Notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 2007(d), and implementing 
     regulations, the funds reserved from the Indian Student 
     Equalization Program to meet emergencies and unforeseen 
     contingencies affecting education programs appropriated 
     herein and in Public Law 109-54 may be used for costs 
     associated with significant student enrollment increases at 
     Bureau-funded schools during the relevant school year.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 
     section 113 of title I of appendix C of Public Law 106-113, 
     if a tribe or tribal organization in fiscal year 2003 or 2004 
     received indirect and administrative costs pursuant to a 
     distribution formula based on section 5(f) of Public Law 101-
     301, the Secretary shall continue to distribute indirect and 
     administrative cost funds to such tribe or tribal 
     organization using the section 5(f) distribution formula.

                          Departmental Offices

                            Insular Affairs


                       assistance to territories

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $77,561,000, of which: (1) $69,537,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and 
     brown tree snake control and research; grants to the 
     judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as 
     authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the 
     Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local 
     revenues, for construction and support of governmental 
     functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as 
     authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as 
     authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
     241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $8,024,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2008, for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of Insular Affairs: Provided, That all financial 
     transactions of the territorial and local governments herein 
     provided for, including such transactions of all agencies or 
     instrumentalities established or used by such governments, 
     may be audited by the Government Accountability Office, at 
     its discretion, in accordance with chapter 35 of title 31, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That Northern Mariana 
     Islands Covenant grant funding shall be provided according to 
     those terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives 
     on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern 
     Mariana Islands approved by Public Law 104-134: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts provided for technical 
     assistance, sufficient funds shall be made available for a 
     grant to the Pacific Basin Development Council: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts provided for technical 
     assistance, sufficient funding shall be made available for a 
     grant to the Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the 
     funds for the program of operations and maintenance 
     improvement are appropriated to institutionalize routine 
     operations and maintenance improvement of capital 
     infrastructure with territorial participation and cost 
     sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on the 
     grantee's commitment to timely maintenance of its capital 
     assets: Provided further, That any appropriation for disaster 
     assistance under this heading in this Act or previous 
     appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal matching funds 
     for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants provided pursuant 
     to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).

                      compact of free association

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

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $118,303,000; of which $7,915,000 for appraisal 
     services and Take Pride in America activities is to be 
     derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and shall 
     remain available until expended; of which not to exceed 
     $8,500 may be for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and of which up to $1,000,000 shall be available 
     for workers compensation payments and unemployment 
     compensation payments associated with the orderly closure of 
     the United States Bureau of Mines: Provided, That none of the 
     funds in this Act

[[Page H2808]]

     or previous appropriations Acts may be used to establish 
     reserves in the Working Capital Fund account other than for 
     accrued annual leave and depreciation of equipment without 
     prior approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Cannon

  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Cannon:
       Page 46, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 47, line 1, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 
20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CANNON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that I offer on 
behalf of myself, Mr. Mark Udall, Mr. Rob Bishop, Mr. Rahall, Mr. 
Gibbons, and Mr. Salazar to redirect $16 million from Departmental 
salaries and expenses to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.
  I am pleased to be working with this bipartisan group and thank the 
gentlemen for their support. All of us have something in common: we 
represent some of the 1,900 counties that host public lands that rely 
on the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program to mitigate the impact of the 
lost tax revenues resulting from Federal land ownership.
  The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land, most of 
it in the West. The map I have here has all land owned or held in trust 
by the Federal Government in red. As you look at this map, you can see 
that we have a problem: the Federal Government owns the bulk of the 
West. That means that we do not tax those lands, and that means that in 
the western United States we pay less per child for education but we 
tax our people more per family because we are supporting the Federal 
Government.
  As the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, I know well that 
my fellow colleagues in the West struggle with these issues. It is only 
fair that we pay a reasonable amount in lieu of taxes to cover this 
shortfall. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes program was created in 1976 to 
provide payments to counties to make up for the property taxes they are 
prevented from collecting on Federal lands located within their 
boundaries. This year, the administration's budget proposed to cut PILT 
by $34 million, a paltry 56 percent of the authorized level.
  Under Chairman Taylor's leadership, and I might say also Ranking 
Member Dicks', we have been able to achieve historic levels of PILT 
funding. We thank them both for that and for their efforts this year 
that have nearly restored last year's PILT funding levels.

                              {time}  1445

  While the number currently in the bill is significantly above the 
administration's recommendation, it is well under last year's level and 
far from what it should be, and our counties are bearing the brunt of 
it.
  While the Department's administrative budget has nearly doubled since 
2001, PILT funding levels have not kept pace, and this is not 
acceptable.
  It is imperative that we keep fighting for funding so our rural 
counties will not have to continue to foot the bill for lands owned by 
the Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to bring PILT funding 
levels to the nearly 70 percent of authorization and support the 
counties that host our public lands.
  This amendment will add a modest sum to the PILT program, a sum that 
is important to the American people who live in and around these 
Federal lands and those who travel to them and enjoy them from around 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment. The 
amendment would increase funding for the so-called PILT program, the 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes, by $16 million. It would bring the total in 
the bill to about 81 percent of the authorized amount. In my opinion, 
that is still not enough, but it is an important down payment and a 
definite improvement for all of our rural counties.
  As you can see here on the map, those of us in the West, in 
particular, are affected by payment in lieu of taxes payments because 
we have the great majority of public lands in the West. Uncle Sam is 
everybody's neighbor in the West, and we look to our neighbors for 
help. PILT is one of the best ways that Uncle Sam can help Colorado and 
other States. So this is an important amendment and one that deserves 
to be adopted by the House.
  If I could, I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about how 
we can do more.
  We should act to make it unnecessary to continue debating PILT as a 
part of the appropriations process every year, and this is why I have 
introduced along with my colleague the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Salazar) H.R. 788, which would provide permanent and automatic funding 
at the full authorization level and outside the appropriations process 
for PILT.
  Under our bill, PILT would no longer be held hostage every year to 
the appropriations and budget processes so local counties could count 
on receiving full and timely payments based on the formulas set by law.
  This legislation is similar to a bill proposed by our former 
colleague Congressman McInnis before he retired from the Congress, and 
like his bill, our legislation has bipartisan support.
  In addition, my neighbor, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), 
has introduced a bill that would phase in PILT funding over a 3-year 
period, and this, too, would be an improvement over the current 
situation.
  So I know, along with all of my Western colleagues, Republican and 
Democrat alike, I stand here hoping that the Resources Committee will 
take up our legislation soon, but in the meantime we should do the next 
best thing and adopt this important bipartisan amendment.
  I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  (Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the 
amendment that would add $16 million of PILT funding for the program.
  This bill is a great disappointment to me. Being from Colorado, in my 
district, where 74 percent of all of our lands is public lands, the 
State has vast public lands and public resources, and the funding this 
bill provides is vital for my State, but the funding fails us at many 
levels.
  One of the many problems with this bill is the cuts to the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund and the State Tribal Assistance Grants, and 
probably the most frustrating part of this bill is the lack of adequate 
funds for payment in lieu of taxes. As my colleague Mr. Udall said, we 
have introduced legislation that would actually make it an automatic 
funding.
  In fact, my district has 29 counties and over 60 percent of that in 
Federal ownership. This is lost revenues to these counties, and all 29 
counties receive PILT payments.
  Through legislation passed, the PILT funding program is authorized 
for $350 million in funding for fiscal year 2007. Yet, year after year, 
this funding program does not receive the adequate, authorized funding 
needed.
  This year, the Appropriations Committee chose to only fund $228 
million. This is $122 million short. My colleagues and I offer this 
amendment to help provide needed funding. This is vital to Western 
States. It is vital to rural America, and I would like to thank Mr. 
Cannon, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Rahall and Mr. 
Gibbons for their hard work on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this amendment.

[[Page H2809]]

  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for his comments, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah 
for yielding me the time, and Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to stand here 
in support of this bipartisan amendment, grateful not just as a Member 
of Congress from Nevada, but as member of the Western Caucus as well.
  Mr. Chairman, as you can see, in Nevada, the Federal Government owns 
more than 60 million acres of land, which equates to nearly 87 percent 
of the State. More often than not, for those of us in the West, the 
Federal Government is not just our neighbor, it is the neighborhood. 
With such a large Federal presence comes significant challenges, 
especially in our rural communities.
  The PILT program helps compensate for the inability of our rural 
communities to generate sufficient property tax revenues needed for 
schools and local infrastructure because of the overwhelming Federal 
land ownership, and since Nevada cannot generate revenue from nearly 87 
percent of the State, PILT funding is vital. Yet the program has never 
been adequately funded.
  In my congressional district alone, Nevada has lost more than $68 
million over the last 10 years because PILT has not been fully funded.
  I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Taylor, for his efforts to increase 
PILT this year. The $198 million requested by the administration was 
very disappointing and would only serve to exacerbate the current 
funding discrepancy and increase the burden on our rural communities.
  Chairman Taylor added $30 million to the PILT this year above the 
administration's request, and for that we are grateful but we cannot 
stop there.
  This amendment will allow all communities, and especially our rural 
communities, to continue to provide not only for their residents but 
for essential services for visitors to our public lands such as law 
enforcement, emergency health care, and search and rescue.
  It bears mentioning again that Nevada cannot raise revenue from more 
than 87 percent of our State, and many counties across the country face 
similar loss of tax based revenue.
  I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
amendment that will help the Federal Government fulfill its commitment 
and obligations to communities and ease the burden of heavy Federal 
land ownership in our rural communities.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the other maps were in green and 
red. Mine is in blue, and my chart is to show in the blue the total 
amount of each State's land that is now combined and controlled by the 
Federal Government.
  You can see an obvious change in States here that in the West who, 
when they were admitted to the States, were admitted with certain 
conditions for the yielding of that State land. It was unilaterally 
changed by the Federal Government in the 1950s, and in the 1970s when 
the PILT program came into effect, it was somehow to try and offset the 
impact of those particular changes.
  The Department of the Interior said 2 years ago when they took over 
the funding of the PILT issue they would ensure appropriate emphasis. 
It has not happened to this date.
  This amendment would actually do that by putting PILT up to what was 
appropriated last year and to where the Senate purports to be at the 
end of this year's session.
  Let me just say that in the short time I have to finish, the 
Washington Post has endorsed this amendment. You may not have known 
that because they do not know it either, but last year, they wrote the 
Federal Government is the largest landowner in Washington, DC, and 
since this land cannot be taxed, the Federal Government is the 
principal contributor to the district's chronic fiscal imbalance.
  That is our point for those of us in the West exactly. This is the 
problem that we have, and PILT is the one that tries to change that 
economic impact to mitigate the losses that we indeed have. The 
Department of the Interior has a commitment to make sure PILT was fully 
funded. All we are trying to do with this amendment is to help the 
Department of the Interior to maintain their commitments.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dicks and I in our original markup, which was a $34 
million cut, reinstated $18 million in that first appropriation. Later, 
we added another $12 million in for that and brought it within $4 
million of last year's effort.
  Now, when the gentleman takes $18 million out of the funding for the 
Department, we do considerable damage, and the Department oversees one 
in every five acres of national land, including vital tributaries and 
recreation areas, and produces over $14 billion in royalty revenue for 
the U.S. Treasury, and it must have the funds in the operations 
account.
  Frankly, if we were doing more harvest in our national forests we 
would not need this much PILT because that was really where it was to 
come from when the forests and other public lands were started, but we 
will try to do what we can.
  I will yield to the gentleman's amendment, and we will accept his 
amendment, knowing that in conference we may not be able to hold this 
third increase.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
to increase funding for PILT.
  I am proud to join my colleagues from Western States to make the 
point that PILT is a vital part of communities across this great land. 
PILT funds help make communities safer, cleaner and healthier in 49 of 
our 50 States--from Maine, to West Virginia, to California. In seeking 
adequate PILT funding, we are truly all in this together.
  Now some may say that, in the grand scheme of our Federal budget, 
PILT payments to counties are just not that important. Well I can tell 
you that the PILT funding received by Greenbrier County or Pocahontas 
County in West Virginia is crucial to their ability to provide the 
quality and quantity of local services the families of West Virginia 
deserve.
  I am also here to support more funding for PILT because I support 
public land ownership and acquisition, where it is appropriate. As the 
ranking member on the House Resources Committee, I have the privilege 
of working with the other committee members to oversee our national 
parks, forests and refuges. These lands are part of our national 
identity and they are a birthright we will pass on to future 
generations of Americans.
  But along with responsibility for these public lands comes a 
responsibility to the surrounding local communities. PILT payments 
compensate these local communities for lost revenue due to public land 
ownership. Making good on those payments is part of being a good 
steward but it is also part of being a good neighbor, and that is 
something we take very seriously in West Virginia.
  The budget priorities chosen by this administration and this Congress 
force many very painful decisions. However, funding for a program as 
broad and important to local governments as PILT must be funded 
adequately. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 46, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,800,000)''.
       Page 64, line 11, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,800,000)''

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the majority and 
the minority because my understanding is they have accepted this 
amendment, and I appreciate that very much.
  The legislative intent of this amendment is to increase the funding 
for the Environmental Protection Agency's EnergyStar Program in K-12 
school systems by $1.8 million offset by a reduction in administrative 
expenses for the Department of the Interior.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's 17,450 school districts are facing serious 
problems. Their budgets are threadbare, and most can barely pay their 
teachers a living wage. To make matters worse, America's school 
buildings are aging. The average age is over 42 years, and

[[Page H2810]]

the vast majority could greatly benefit from energy saving 
improvements.
  According to the EPA, energy costs represent a typical school 
district's second largest operating expense after salaries, more than 
the cost of computers and textbooks combined. Amazingly, in a typical 
school, one-third of the energy used goes to waste, largely due to old 
and poorly functioning equipment, poor insulation, and outdated 
technology.
  Unfortunately, school administrators are often hard pressed to 
allocate any of their limited funds toward improving the energy 
efficiency of their buildings and systems, even when it is clear that 
such improvements would save them substantial sums of money that could 
help pay for their other needs.
  Fortunately, the EPA has an energy conservation program that can help 
these schools do just that: to implement energy-saving strategies that 
save money, help children learn about energy, and create improved 
teaching and learning environments.

                              {time}  1500

  The EPA's EnergyStar Program, in its partnership with America's K 
through 12 school districts, is committed to building a new national 
infrastructure of schools that are smart about every aspect of energy.
  In addition to helping school districts save up to 30 percent on 
their energy bills each year, energy efficiency prevents greenhouse gas 
emissions and improves the students' learning environment. Schools that 
are well lit, well ventilated, and in good repair create a healthy, 
comfortable learning and teaching environment. A better physical 
environment is among the many factors that have been demonstrated to 
contribute to increased learning and productivity in the classroom, 
which in turn affects performance and achievement.
  Right now, more than 200 school districts across the country are 
partnering with EnergyStar. But for a Nation whose schools spend $5 
billion annually on energy, there is obviously a lot of work to do. Of 
the 11,000 school buildings that have been rated, only 16 percent of 
the Nation's total school building inventory, only 530 schools have 
earned an EnergyStar rating by achieving a score of 75 or higher, a 
score that means that they use about 40 percent less energy than 
average buildings.
  Fortunately, the EPA is now working with partners such as the 
National School Boards Association, the National Parent-Teacher 
Association, and the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council to 
collaboratively improve the energy efficiency and the indoor 
environments of many more of our Nation's K through 12 schools. These 
efforts are helping school districts to save big on utility bills and 
maintenance costs, in turn freeing up funds to pay for books, computers 
and teachers, and to improve indoor air quality and comfort. These 
efforts deserve our support.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, the EnergyStar Program helps our Nation's 
schools to implement energy saving strategies that save money, help 
children learn about energy and create improved teaching and learning 
environments. This amendment would add $1,800,000 to this important 
work in our Nation's K through 12 school systems.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  This amendment would provide an increase of $1.8 million, and while I 
do not approve of the proposed offset, I am prepared to accept the 
amendment and we will do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $228,000,000, of 
     which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be 
     made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the 
     computed amount of the payment is less than $100.

                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 
     $9,923,000, to remain available until expended.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $56,755,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $39,688,000.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

                         federal trust programs

       For the operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $150,036,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not to exceed $45,000,000 from this or any other Act, 
     shall be available for historical accounting: Provided, That 
     funds for trust management improvements and litigation 
     support may, as needed, be transferred to or merged with the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, ``Operation of Indian Programs'' 
     account; the Office of the Solicitor, ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'' account; and the Departmental Management, 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' account: Provided further, That 
     funds made available to Tribes and Tribal organizations 
     through contracts or grants obligated during fiscal year 
     2007, as authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 
     1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall remain available until 
     expended by the contractor or grantee: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the statute 
     of limitations shall not commence to run on any claim, 
     including any claim in litigation pending on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, concerning losses to or mismanagement 
     of trust funds, until the affected tribe or individual Indian 
     has been furnished with an accounting of such funds from 
     which the beneficiary can determine whether there has been a 
     loss: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall not be required to 
     provide a quarterly statement of performance for any Indian 
     trust account that has not had activity for at least 18 
     months and has a balance of $15.00 or less: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall issue an annual account statement 
     and maintain a record of any such accounts and shall permit 
     the balance in each such account to be withdrawn upon the 
     express written request of the account holder: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $50,000 is available for the 
     Secretary to make payments to correct administrative errors 
     of either disbursements from or deposits to Individual Indian 
     Money or Tribal accounts after September 30, 2002: Provided 
     further, That erroneous payments that are recovered shall be 
     credited to and remain available in this account for this 
     purpose.

                       indian land consolidation

       For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands 
     and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing 
     escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary 
     expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 
     1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative 
     agreement, $34,006,000, to remain available until expended, 
     and which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     and Departmental Management accounts: Provided, That funds 
     provided under this heading may be expended pursuant to the 
     authorities contained in the provisos under the heading, 
     ``Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, Indian Land 
     Consolidation'' of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-291).

           Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment and 
     restoration activities by the Department of the Interior 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et 
     seq.), and Public Law 101-337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et 
     seq.), $6,109,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions

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

[[Page H2811]]

     for approval: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     provide a semi-annual report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations on reimbursable support agreements between the 
     Office of the Secretary and the National Business Center and 
     the bureaus and offices of the Department, including the 
     amounts billed pursuant to such agreements.

             General Provisions, Department of the Interior

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the 
     emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for wildland fire operations shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until the Secretary determines 
     that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations'' 
     shall be exhausted within 30 days: Provided further, That all 
     funds used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation, which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible: Provided further, That such 
     replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata 
     basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 104. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     oil preleasing, leasing and related activities placed under 
     restriction in the President's moratorium statement of June 
     12, 1998, in the areas of northern, central, and southern 
     California; the North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and 
     the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude 
     and east of 86 degrees west longitude.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
       Page 54, beginning at line 15, strike section 104.

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about an issue that 
is in every paper and on every television program almost, on every news 
channel, and that is the supply of oil and gas that this country not 
only uses but in particular produces.
  For 25 years now, we have used this appropriations bill to 
unnecessarily restrict access by those who would explore for oil and 
gas to lands and properties and, in this instance, the Outer 
Continental Shelf, where it is clear that significant supplies of oil 
and natural gas exist. The additional production that would be gained 
from these areas is self-evident as to the values of it, not only the 
balance of payment, because every MCF of gas that we produce from these 
lands would offset gas that is imported, and any number of jobs are 
created when we are drilling for oil and gas on our own properties and 
our own lands.
  The industry's safety record over the last 25 years has continued to 
improve. The risks to the beaches in this area off the gulf coast of 
Mexico is de minimis. The safety record is exemplary not only in the 
drilling phase but also in the production phase.
  With respect to the production phase, you cannot paint a worse 
scenario to go through the Gulf of Mexico and destroy those production 
platforms than Hurricane Katrina in August. As a result of the sub-sea 
engineering that is in place to protect against oil and gas spills, 
when Hurricane Katrina came through and destroyed many of the 
production facilities, there was no release of crude oil and natural 
gas into the environment.
  The estimates for the amounts of oil and gas in this region range 
from trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of 
oil, all of which would go to reduce America's dependence on imported 
crude oil and natural gas. So my amendment would simply strike these 
provisions that have unnecessarily restricted access to these waters.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment, and I would ask the gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  I would say to the gentleman that I am concerned about high energy 
prices, and I would agree with him that it would be better to increase 
the production of oil and gas from our Federal waters, but this year I 
think the oil moratorium should be addressed with comprehensive 
authorizing legislation which would guide the appropriate leasing.
  So I would say to him that we would commit to working with him on 
this issue and ask that he withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. It was my intent to 
withdraw this amendment but after a discussion with my colleague from 
Florida. If I could have that discussion, sir.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage my good friend from Texas. This is an 
issue that the State of Florida and other coastal areas have been 
dealing with for the past 25 years in terms of the appropriateness of 
the moratorium. This particular issue is one that has obviously reached 
critical mass, with the shortages of natural gas that we are facing and 
the high price of gas that consumers are dealing with.
  However, this is an important balancing act that this Congress must 
consider very carefully. Whatever we do as it relates to offshore 
drilling ought to be done in a comprehensive manner, it ought to have 
the input of the States, and it ought to recognize the sensitive areas.
  My friend from Texas makes a very important point about the economic 
necessity and, frankly, the improvements in technology that allow for 
safer production and safer exploration capabilities. But it is my 
belief, and the belief of certainly the Florida delegation, that we 
must deal with this separate and apart from the spending bill.
  We must also deal with it in a way that does not expose an area as 
close to the beaches as 3 miles to the prospect of oil and gas rigs, 
and one which allows a range of input from throughout the membership so 
that we can move forward with the goal of dealing with our national 
energy crisis, do it in a safe and comprehensive way, and do it in a 
way that respects the rights of States to opt in or opt out, as 
appropriate, dealing with their own individual environmental 
sensitivities.
  We recognize our obligation as Floridians as major energy consumers, 
that we have an obligation to review our previous positions. We 
recognize the improvements in technology. But, frankly, 3 miles off of 
our coast is an unacceptable limit, and we believe that this issue is 
best served as a stand-alone comprehensive bill.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation with my 
colleague

[[Page H2812]]

from Florida and the chairman, and in the interest of working on a 
comprehensive solution that addresses the supply issues that face our 
Nation, as well as the States' rights issues that are very legitimate 
concerns as to where the drilling begins off a particular State's 
coast, and the opportunity to allow each State to make that decision 
for their own, as Texas has done for many, many years, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 105. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil 
     preleasing, leasing and related activities in the eastern 
     Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located outside 
     Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer Continental Shelf 
     5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-2002.
       Sec. 106. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil preleasing, 
     leasing and related activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South 
     Atlantic planning areas.


                     Amendments Offered by Mr. Poe

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer three amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, and I will not object, with the understanding with the 
gentleman that he will agree with a unanimous consent request that I 
will make to limit debate on the amendment to 10 minutes, with 5 
minutes divided on each side. Does the gentleman share that 
understanding?
  Mr. POE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Poe:
       Page 54, beginning at line 15, strike section 104.
       Page 54, beginning at line 24, strike section 105.
       Page 55, beginning at line 6, strike section 106.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited 
to 10 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they may be considered under that 
limitation.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, the United States has to be more self-
sufficient when it comes to energy. We import 60 percent of our crude 
oil from foreign countries. In doing so, we are subject to the illegal 
price-fixing cartel known as OPEC. The Gulf of Mexico is responsible 
for one-third of the domestic oil production and 20 percent of the 
domestic natural gas production. My amendment will end the 
congressional moratoria on energy exploration along the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  Right now, Mr. Chairman, the areas shaded in blue are where we drill 
offshore. We drill offshore of the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and part 
of Mississippi and Alabama. All of the red on the West Coast, East 
Coast, and the other parts of the Gulf of Mexico are prohibited by law. 
Since the 1980s, Congress has been placing appropriations moratoriums 
on drilling in all these red areas that are outlined on the map, which 
is about 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf that is off limits 
to energy development.
  All of these areas in these coastal States certainly want cheap 
gasoline and they want natural gas, but they do not want to drill in 
their neighborhoods. They would rather that Texas and Louisiana keep 
drilling in our neighborhoods. We can't have it both ways, cheap 
gasoline and refuse to drill offshore. It seems to me to be somewhat 
hypocritical, because this does not make sense.
  In the Outer Continental Shelf there are about 300 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas and more than 50 billion barrels of oil yet to be 
discovered. That is enough natural gas or oil to replace current 
imports from the Persian Gulf for 60 years and produce gasoline for 116 
million cars for 15 years. And these are conservative estimates, since 
these are largely unexplored. There is going to be drilling off this 
area because Cuba and China are already making plans to drill 47\1/2\ 
miles off Florida in those rich gulf reserves. It seems to me that we 
should take advantage of those reserves.
  While people talk about the pollution that comes from drilling, many 
of the problems have been overstated. According to the 2002 National 
Academy of Sciences report, the largest cause of pollution is from 
nature. Shown by this chart, 60 percent of the pollution to our shores 
is by nature itself. So the best way we prevent the number one cause of 
pollution to our shores is to eliminate this and drill for it.
  Boating. All those boats off the shores of our coasts are producing 
32 percent of the oil seepage. Tankers from the Middle East are 3 
percent. And offshore drilling only accounts for 2 percent of the 
pollution to our shores.

                              {time}  1515

  It obviously makes sense to drill offshore, Mr. Chairman, because 
nature is the primary cause of the pollution to our beaches.
  When Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast this last year, over 100 
platforms were damaged. But seepage from the Gulf of Mexico almost did 
not exist because the valves and the pumps for these offshore rigs were 
shut off immediately. So it seemed that opening up these areas would be 
an obvious choice.
  We are the only major industrial power in the world that has this 
silly rule about not drilling offshore. They drill in the North Sea and 
around the world, and they do so safely. It is important that we use 
some common sense.
  Americans worry about skyrocketing energy prices and lack of energy 
and want solutions. A decision where we drill is going to have to be 
made and made very soon by Americans. This is a price issue, but it is 
also a national security issue. Those who say ``no'' to offshore 
drilling have no solutions to this problem. We can drill offshore 
safely, environmentally correct; and when we get over the fear factor 
and take control of our own energy needs, this country will be better 
off.
  I yield 1 minute to Mr. Green from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members, I want to thank my 
colleague for yielding me a minute. I support his amendment. Obviously, 
I think that would be the ideal provision we need to do to eliminate 
that moratorium. The committee, I think, has struck a compromise on 
natural gas, although Congressman Poe and I know the difficulties of 
just drilling for one substance over the other. But obviously I support 
the amendment and I think the committee, though, came up with a 
compromise, and we will fight that battle later.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the politics of 
petroleum. But I represent Florida, and I represent the coast that we 
consider a valuable resource for tourism, the environment, the ecology.
  Let me remind my colleagues the area that they are proposing to drill 
both oil and natural gas wells has recently been referred to as 
Hurricane Alley. The gulf coast, we all know now, after Katrina, is 
responsible for 25 percent of U.S. production of natural gas. Following 
Katrina and Rita, almost 75 percent of the natural gas production in 
the gulf was shut down and not producing.
  As of May 3, almost 13 percent of natural gas production in the Gulf 
of Mexico was still offline 9 months later. So it begs the question, 
why would you put more rigs in a vulnerable place?
  Now, I understand some States like drilling, like oil and like 
offshore rigs. And my question, or my statement, to you is, have at it. 
But I do want to have the opportunity as a Floridian to defend 
ourselves from having oil drilling rigs off our coastline.
  Several Governors are opposed to the provisions, including Governor 
Schwarzenegger; my own Governor

[[Page H2813]]

Bush who sent a letter to the Speaker just yesterday; Governor Mark 
Sanford, our former colleague from South Carolina; Democrat Governor 
Corzine of New Jersey; Mike Easley of North Carolina; and Ted 
Kulongoski of Oregon. Our delegation remains strongly opposed to 
drilling for oil and gas in this very, very vulnerable area.
  Let me tell you the infrastructure problems suffered by our recent 
hurricanes. A Congressional Budget Office study estimated that gulf 
energy infrastructure repair costs will be between $18 billion and $31 
billion, just from the damages the hurricane created. So let's build 
some more rigs in this very vulnerable area.
  I mentioned the responsibility of natural gas. The gulf has 30 
percent of U.S. crude oil production, again another reason we do not 
want to endanger our coastline. Again, 9 months later, almost 22 
percent remain offline.
  So I urge defeat of this amendment, removal of the Peterson amendment 
from this appropriation bill, and let us do something right and not 
simply succumb to the politics of convenience on energy prices.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out to my friend from Florida, we just 
respectfully disagree. But he has made the argument for why we need to 
drill somewhere other than the gulf coast. Rita and Katrina basically 
shut down all the rigs in the gulf coast. Twenty-two percent of the 
refineries in the United States come from my district. They were shut 
down for weeks. That is 20 percent of the gasoline for the rest of the 
United States. We drill in one area. We drill in Hurricane Alley, as 
Mr. Foley has pointed out. We need to drill off even the sacred west 
coast of California and off the east coast because there is oil and 
natural gas there. We need to open up the moratoriums that this 
Congress has put on us. The American people are demanding answers. They 
want cheaper gasoline, but yet we refuse to take care of ourselves.
  I urge adoption of this amendment which will allow or release the 
restrictions and then we can start drilling where there is oil and 
natural gas to take care of ourselves. The hurricanes proved we can do 
it safely and securely without damage to the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In 
my home State of New Jersey, tourism supports nearly 500,000 jobs and 
indirectly generates $16.6 billion in wages and $5.5 billion in State 
tax revenues. Much of that enormous economic engine is driven by our 
coastline which we have worked hard to protect.
  All it takes is one incident from an industrial drilling rig sitting 
in the ocean to put this entire economic engine at risk. What this 
amendment would do is open up OCS areas as close as 3 miles from shore 
to drilling. There is no buffer here, no minimum barrier. If we pass 
this amendment, we can see drilling rigs as close as 3 miles from our 
shores. And for what?
  This will do nothing for the price of oil. It takes up to 7 years to 
begin producing from an offshore lease.
  And I would also like to know why the oil industry is so keen on 
getting these areas open for drilling when they have thousands of 
leases already in place, both onshore and offshore that they haven't 
bothered to explore.
  Mr. Chairman, our coasts are simply too valuable to risk like this. 
If we had to do a balancing act, there is no way you could support this 
amendment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Vote to protect our coasts.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose 
of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Washington.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to rise in opposition to the amendment and in 
support of the position taken by the chairman and the committee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Poe 
amendment, and I would like to set the record straight. This current 
ban on new drilling is actually two moratoria, one of which is enacted 
by Congress annually through a ban on Federal funding to drill for oil 
in areas now off limits.
  In addition, there is a complementary moratorium put into place 
originally in 1991 through an executive moratorium by George H. W. 
Bush, extended till 2012 by Bill Clinton, embraced by the current 
President in his current 2007 budget.
  The provision in the Interior bill and in the Poe amendment eliminate 
the annual congressional moratoria. It doesn't end the Presidential 
moratorium. However, the President certainly has the authority to 
revise or revoke his existing Presidential moratorium before 2012.
  I am not a betting person, but I would wager that if Congress 
eliminates the moratorium through this legislation and encourages the 
President to do the same, he is going to revoke the Presidential 
moratorium. Why not? Drilling advocates will argue that the people, 
through Congress, have spoken in favor of new drilling; and when that 
Presidential moratorium is revoked, it would mean an immediate end to 
the ban on new drilling in waters off our coastal States.
  It is not just coincidental this amendment is coming up just as the 
next 5-year plan is being enacted. This would happen right away.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is not some political issue. 
This is serious business. You are dealing with some of the most fragile 
marine ecosystems in the world. This moratorium was put on here for a 
good reason. And I mentioned earlier during general debate, it has 
evolved into a workable, effective protection for those ecosystems.
  The ecology of some of those Florida waters is just unbelievable. 
Now, the authorizing committee has been working on this issue for 
several months trying to come up with a good answer, a good responsible 
answer. Now, this is being offered without any hearings by the 
subcommittee, no hearings by full committees, just as a whim to 
accomplish something that some special interests want to see 
accomplished. This is not good government. This is a bad amendment, and 
we need to be very careful about what we do, not only on this amendment 
today, but on the Peterson amendment that we will deal with later.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request has expired.
  The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Texas will be 
postponed.

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 107. Appropriations made in this Act under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any unobligated balances 
     from prior appropriations Acts made under the same headings 
     shall be available for expenditure or transfer for Indian 
     trust management and reform activities, except that total 
     funding for historical accounting activities shall not exceed 
     amounts specifically designated in this Act for such purpose.
       Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal 
     Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal 
     year 2007. Under circumstances of dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
       Sec. 109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority 
     provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms 
     of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and 
     use any such reimbursement until expended and without further 
     appropriation:

[[Page H2814]]

     (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
     within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all activities 
     authorized by Public Law 100-696; 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
       Sec. 110. The Secretary of the Interior may use or contract 
     for the use of helicopters or motor vehicles on the Sheldon 
     and Hart National Wildlife Refuges for the purpose of 
     capturing and transporting horses and burros. The provisions 
     of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959 (18 U.S.C. 
     47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use. Such use shall be 
     in accordance with humane procedures prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
        Sec. 111. Funds provided in this Act for Federal land 
     acquisition by the National Park Service for Shenandoah 
     Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Ice Age 
     National Scenic Trail, and funds provided in division E of 
     Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat. 3050) for land acquisition at 
     the Niobrara National Scenic River, may be used for a grant 
     to a State, a local government, or any other land management 
     entity for the acquisition of lands without regard to any 
     restriction on the use of Federal land acquisition funds 
     provided through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 as amended.
        Sec. 112. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
        Sec. 113. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when such pedestrian use is consistent with 
     generally accepted safety standards.
        Sec. 114. None of the funds in this or any other Act can 
     be used to compensate the Special Master and the Special 
     Master-Monitor, and all variations thereto, appointed by the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 
     the Cobell v. Norton litigation at an annual rate that 
     exceeds 200 percent of the highest Senior Executive Service 
     rate of pay for the Washington-Baltimore locality pay area.
       Sec. 115. The Secretary of the Interior may use 
     discretionary funds to pay private attorney fees and costs 
     for employees and former employees of the Department of the 
     Interior reasonably incurred in connection with Cobell v. 
     Norton to the extent that such fees and costs are not paid by 
     the Department of Justice or by private insurance. In no case 
     shall the Secretary make payments under this section that 
     would result in payment of hourly fees in excess of the 
     highest hourly rate approved by the District Court for the 
     District of Columbia for counsel in Cobell v. Norton.
        Sec. 116. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     shall, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect 
     threatened and endangered species of salmon, implement a 
     system of mass marking of salmonid stocks, intended for 
     harvest, that are released from Federally operated or 
     Federally financed hatcheries including but not limited to 
     fish releases of coho, chinook, and steelhead species. Marked 
     fish must have a visible mark that can be readily identified 
     by commercial and recreational fishers.
       Sec. 117. (a) In General.--Nothing in section 134 of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002 (115 Stat. 443) affects the decision 
     of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in 
     Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250 (2001).
       (b) Use of Certain Indian Land.--Nothing in this section 
     permits the conduct of gaming under the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) on land described in 
     section 123 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 944), or land 
     that is contiguous to that land, regardless of whether the 
     land or contiguous land has been taken into trust by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
        Sec. 118. No funds appropriated for the Department of the 
     Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study 
     or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the 
     water level of the lake below the range of water levels 
     required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam.
       Sec. 119. Notwithstanding the limitation in subparagraph 
     (2)(B) of section 18(a) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 2717(a)), in fiscal year 2008, the total amount of 
     all fees imposed by the National Indian Gaming Commission 
     shall not exceed $13,000,000.
       Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any implementation of the 
     Department of the Interior's trust reorganization or 
     reengineering plans, or the implementation of the ``To Be'' 
     Model, funds appropriated for fiscal year 2007 shall be 
     available to the tribes within the California Tribal Trust 
     Reform Consortium and to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 
     Community, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 
     Flathead Reservation and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky 
     Boys Reservation through the same methodology as funds were 
     distributed in fiscal year 2003. This Demonstration Project 
     shall continue to operate separate and apart from the 
     Department of the Interior's trust reform and reorganization 
     and the Department shall not impose its trust management 
     infrastructure upon or alter the existing trust resource 
     management systems of the above referenced tribes having a 
     self-governance compact and operating in accordance with the 
     Tribal Self-Governance Program set forth in 25 U.S.C. 458aa-
     458hh. The California Trust Reform Consortium and any other 
     participating tribe agree to carry out their responsibilities 
     under the same written and implemented fiduciary standards as 
     those being carried by the Secretary of the Interior. The 
     Consortium shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that they have the capability to do so. The 
     Department shall provide funds to the tribes in an amount 
     equal to that required by 25 U.S.C. 458cc(g)(3), including 
     funds specifically or functionally related to the provision 
     of trust services to the tribes or their members.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any provision of law, including 
     42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., nonrenewable grazing permits 
     authorized in the Jarbidge Field Office, Bureau of Land 
     Management within the past 9 years, shall be renewed. The 
     Animal Unit Months authorized in any nonrenewable grazing 
     permit between March 1, 1997, and February 28, 2005, shall 
     continue in effect under the renewed permit. Nothing in this 
     section shall be deemed to extend the renewed permit beyond 
     the standard 1-year term.
       Sec. 122. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands, 
     waters, or interests therein including the use of all or part 
     of any pier, dock, or landing within the State of New York 
     and the State of New Jersey, for the purpose of operating and 
     maintaining facilities in the support of transportation and 
     accommodation of visitors to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty 
     Islands, and of other program and administrative activities, 
     by donation or with appropriated funds, including franchise 
     fees (and other monetary consideration), or by exchange; and 
     the Secretary is authorized to negotiate and enter into 
     leases, subleases, concession contracts or other agreements 
     for the use of such facilities on such terms and conditions 
     as the Secretary may determine reasonable.
        Sec. 123. Upon the request of the permittee for the Clark 
     Mountain Allotment lands adjacent to the Mojave National 
     Preserve, the Secretary shall also issue a special use permit 
     for that portion of the grazing allotment located within the 
     Preserve. The special use permit shall be issued with the 
     same terms and conditions as the most recently-issued permit 
     for that allotment and the Secretary shall consider the 
     permit to be one transferred in accordance with section 325 
     of Public Law 108-108.
       Sec. 124. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     National Park Service final winter use rules published in 
     Part VII of the Federal Register for November 10, 2004, 69 
     Fed. Reg. 65348 et seq., shall be in force and effect for the 
     winter use season of 2006-2007 that commences on or about 
     December 15, 2006.
       Sec. 125. None of the funds in this or any other Act may be 
     used to set up Centers of Excellence and Partnership Skills 
     Bank training without prior approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.

               TITLE II--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         Science and Technology

       For science and technology, including research and 
     development activities, which shall include research and 
     development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs 
     and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate 
     payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project, 
     $808,044,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

                 Environmental Programs and Management

       For environmental programs and management, including 
     necessary expenses not otherwise provided for, for personnel 
     and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals 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; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; 
     library memberships in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members; construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; and not to 
     exceed $9,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $2,336,442,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2008, including administrative costs of the brownfields 
     program under the Small Business Liability Relief and 
     Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $85,000 per project, $35,100,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2008: Provided, That in fiscal year 2007 
     and thereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Inspector General

[[Page H2815]]

     shall not serve as the Inspector General for the Chemical 
     Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

                        Buildings and Facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $39,816,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Hazardous Substance Superfund


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; 
     $1,256,855,000, to remain available until expended, 
     consisting of such sums as are available in the Trust Fund on 
     September 30, 2006, as authorized by section 517(a) of the 
     Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 
     and up to $1,256,855,000 as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as 
     authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated 
     to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) 
     of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, $13,316,000 shall be transferred to the 
     ``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain 
     available until September 30, 2008, and $30,011,000 shall be 
     transferred to the ``Science and Technology'' appropriation 
     to remain available until September 30, 2008.

                Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project, 
     $72,759,000, to remain available until expended.

                           Oil Spill Response

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $16,506,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.

                   State and Tribal Assistance Grants


                    (including rescission of funds)

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $3,007,348,000 to remain 
     available until expended, of which $687,555,000 shall be for 
     making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended (the ``Act''); of which up to 
     $50,000,000 shall be available for loans, including interest 
     free loans as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)(A), to 
     municipal, inter-municipal, interstate, or State agencies or 
     nonprofit entities for projects that provide treatment for or 
     that minimize sewage or stormwater discharges using one or 
     more approaches which include, but are not limited to, 
     decentralized or distributed stormwater controls, 
     decentralized wastewater treatment, low-impact development 
     practices, conservation easements, stream buffers, or 
     wetlands restoration; $841,500,000 shall be for 
     capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving 
     Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as 
     amended; $24,750,000 shall be for architectural, engineering, 
     planning, design, construction and related activities in 
     connection with the construction of high priority water and 
     wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico 
     border, after consultation with the appropriate border 
     commission; $14,850,000 shall be for grants to the State of 
     Alaska to address drinking water and waste infrastructure 
     needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages: Provided, That, of 
     these funds: (1) the State of Alaska shall provide a match of 
     25 percent; (2) no more than 5 percent of the funds may be 
     used for administrative and overhead expenses; and (3) the 
     State of Alaska shall make awards consistent with the State-
     wide priority list established in 2004 for all water, sewer, 
     waste disposal, and similar projects carried out by the State 
     of Alaska that are funded under section 221 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) or the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
     seq.) which shall allocate not less than 25 percent of the 
     funds provided for projects in regional hub communities; 
     $200,000,000 shall be for making special project grants for 
     the construction of drinking water, wastewater and storm 
     water infrastructure and for water quality protection in 
     accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such 
     grants in the joint explanatory statement of the managers 
     accompanying this Act, and, for purposes of these grants, 
     each grantee shall contribute not less than 45 percent of the 
     cost of the project unless the grantee is approved for a 
     waiver by the Agency; $89,119,000 shall be to carry out 
     section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 
     including grants, interagency agreements, and associated 
     program support costs; $26,000,000 shall be for the national 
     grant and loan program authorized by section 792 of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005 for the National Clean Diesel 
     Initiative; and $1,122,584,000 shall be for grants, including 
     associated program support costs, to States, federally-
     recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and 
     air pollution control agencies for multi-media or single 
     media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related 
     activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions 
     set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for 
     making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for 
     particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities 
     subject to terms and conditions specified by the 
     Administrator, of which $49,495,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, $14,850,000 shall be for 
     Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including 
     associated program support costs, not less than $18,500,000 
     of the funds available for grants under section 106 of the 
     Act shall be for the water quality monitoring initiative that 
     meet EPA standards for statistically representative 
     monitoring programs, $17,567,000 to make grants to States 
     under section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
     amended, and to federally-recognized tribes under Public Law 
     105-276, and to provide financial assistance to States and 
     federally-recognized tribes for the purposes authorized by 
     Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with 
     the exception of leaking underground storage tank cleanup 
     activities that are authorized by section 205 of Superfund 
     Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and $15,930,000 
     shall be for making competitive targeted watershed grants: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the limitation on 
     the amounts in a State water pollution control revolving fund 
     that may be used by a State to administer the fund shall not 
     apply to amounts included as principal in loans made by such 
     fund in fiscal year 2007 and prior years where such amounts 
     represent costs of administering the fund to the extent that 
     such amounts are or were deemed reasonable by the 
     Administrator, accounted for separately from other assets in 
     the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the fund, 
     including administration: Provided further, That for fiscal 
     year 2007, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act, the 
     Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated 
     for any fiscal year under section 319 of that Act to make 
     grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes pursuant to 
     sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, 
     That for fiscal year 2007, notwithstanding the limitation on 
     amounts in section 518(c) of the Act, up to a total of 1\1/2\ 
     percent of the funds appropriated for State Revolving Funds 
     under title VI of that Act may be reserved by the 
     Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of that Act: 
     Provided further, That no funds provided by this Act to 
     address the water, wastewater and other critical 
     infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United States 
     along the United States-Mexico border shall be made available 
     to a county or municipal government unless that government 
     has established an enforceable local ordinance, or other 
     zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the 
     development or construction of any additional colonia areas, 
     or the development within an existing colonia the 
     construction of any new home, business, or other structure 
     which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary 
     infrastructure: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading in Division I of Public Law 108-
     447, $500,000 is for Monticello, AR water and wastewater 
     infrastructure improvements and $500,000 is for Pine Bluff, 
     AR water and wastewater infrastructure improvements: Provided 
     further, That funds that were appropriated under this heading 
     for special project grants in fiscal year 2001 or earlier 
     that have not been obligated on an approved grant by 
     September 1, 2007, are rescinded.

                              {time}  1530


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina:
       On page 67, line 2, strike ``$3,007,348,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$3,009,348,000''.
       On page 69, line 2, strike ``$26,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$28,000,000''.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 
increase the EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants account by $2 
million for the National Clean Diesel Initiative. This is an important 
initiative that was authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These 
funds will be used to retrofit school buses and heavy duty trucks and 
contribute significantly to reducing harmful emissions into the air.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H2816]]

                       Administrative Provisions

       For fiscal year 2007, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and 
     6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement 
     directly Federal environmental programs required or 
     authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal 
     program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
     recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if 
     authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the 
     Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs 
     for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that 
     no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds 
     designated for State financial assistance agreements.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is 
     authorized to collect and obligate pesticide registration 
     service fees in accordance with section 33 of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (as added by 
     subsection (f)(2) of the Pesticide Registration Improvement 
     Act of 2003), as amended.
       None of the funds provided in this Act may be used, 
     directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       By December 31, 2006, EPA shall finalize a rule for the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, section 106 
     (Water Pollution Control) grants that incorporates financial 
     incentives for States that implement adequate National 
     Pollutant Discharge Elimination System fee programs.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, I raise a point of order against the 
provision beginning on page 73, line 3 and ending on line 8.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair finds that this paragraph includes language 
imparting direction to the Executive.
  The paragraph therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the paragraph is stricken from 
the bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pallone

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone:
       On page 73 after line 2 insert the following:
       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     promulgate in final form, issue, implement, or enforce the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory 
     Burden Reduction Proposed Rule published in the Federal 
     Register on October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191) at pages 
     57822 and following or the Toxics Release Inventory 2006 
     Burden Reduction Proposed Rule published in the Federal 
     Register on October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191) at pages 
     57871 through 57872.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) to protect local communities' 
rights to know what toxic chemicals are being dumped in their 
backyards.
  Eighteen years ago Congress passed the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act, which established the Toxics Release 
Inventory Program. This simple program does not force companies to 
reduce the amount of toxic chemicals they use. Rather, it requires that 
they disclose the types and amounts of chemicals used at a particular 
facility and how those substances were disposed of, recycled, or 
released into the environment.
  This critical disclosure requirement lets communities know 
specifically how much of which chemicals are being dumped where. For 
citizens concerned about their health, this information can be 
critical. It is also valuable to a host of other constituencies, 
including workers who could be affected on the job site, first 
responders and others who need to plan for incidents at specific 
facilities.
  Not only does the program provide this important information to those 
who need it, it also has been extremely successful at getting companies 
to voluntarily reduce their toxic releases. Since the program started, 
overall toxic releases are down 59 percent around the country.
  In fact, the chemical industry themselves thinks this is a good 
program. Earlier this year the Washington Post quoted Michael Walls, 
manager of Regulatory and Technical Affairs for the American Chemistry 
Council, saying, ``It's one of the most successful regulatory programs 
we have been involved in.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the EPA does not seem to agree. Last 
year they proposed a set of changes that would seriously undermine the 
intent of the program.
  First, they are proposing to eliminate reporting for more than 22,000 
facilities that release up to 5,000 pounds of toxic chemicals every 
year. These facilities would switch to a simple form merely indicating 
what chemicals they have on site, not how they are released and in what 
quantities.
  Second, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the same type of detailed 
reporting from facilities that manage up to 500 pounds per year of 
persistent bioaccumulative chemicals, some of the deadliest substances 
used in industry today. These chemicals, which include mercury and 
lead, can cause serious harm even in tiny quantities.
  And, third, EPA is proposing to require that companies report only 
every other year rather than every year as the program currently 
requires. This final change makes the least sense of all. EPA 
themselves point out that data for certain chemicals can swing widely 
from year to year depending on the actions of one particular facility 
such as a large mining operation.
  The EPA would gut the intent of the TRI program, and I would like to 
remind my colleagues that this program was created in the wake of the 
Bhopal disaster in India, where an explosion at a Union Carbide 
facility more than 20 years ago killed thousands. We have the program 
so we know where we might have the potential for another Bhopal, but 
also so we know where slow, silent releases of toxic chemicals could 
pose serious threats to public health.
  So I would like to emphasize again to my colleagues that our 
amendment is really about protecting community right to know. It is 
about standing up for the principle that your constituents should be 
able to find out what toxic chemicals might be getting dumped in area 
streams, pumped out into the air, or trucked to a nearby landfill. And 
it is also about protecting a highly successful program, one of the few 
that has been consistently recognized even by industry as being 
effective and worthwhile.
  So, again, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this 
amendment, and I would like to thank Chairman Taylor for being open to 
discuss this issue, and I hope that we can continue to work together.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this proposal, this amendment, 
and I want to tell you it is really difficult for me to see us put more 
and more barriers in the way of keeping and creating jobs in America.
  What the gentleman is doing with his amendment is striking language 
that will allow reforms to the Toxic Release Inventory annual reporting 
requirements. The reason it is important is because it directly affects 
small businesses. In fact, it has a tremendously greater impact on 
small businesses than it does on large businesses.
  There was an example given by W. Mark Crain in a report called The 
Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms. It was done by the Small 
Business Administration Advocacy Group, the overall regulatory burden 
was, as estimated by Mr. Crain, to exceed $1.1 trillion in 2004. The 
costs have gone up since then. But for manufacturing firms of fewer 
than 20 employees, the annual regulatory burden of 2004 was $21,919 per 
employee, two and a half times greater than the $8,748 burden per 
employee with firms of 500 or more employees. So by striking this 
language, you target the small businesses, and in Kansas small 
businesses are four out of five jobs. So this is a direct assault on 
the jobs in America because it raises costs making us less competitive.
  Now, the EPA has followed the proper process of reforms. In response 
to the continuing calls for this Toxic Release Inventory annual 
reporting system, EPA conducted stakeholders outreach meetings in 2003. 
It took public

[[Page H2817]]

comments in 2003 and 2004 on possible reporting reforms. The EPA 
subsequently proposed and revised a Form A and took additional public 
comments on that proposal, and they came up with a plan that works. It 
alleviates the burden and it still has 99 percent of the current 
information now reported on a different form, on Form R. This is going 
to reduce the cost for small businesses. It is going to allow us to 
continue to have the reporting on these toxic release inventories.
  But let me just tell you the impact on one of the local small 
businesses. Nancy Klinefelter is president of Baltimore Glassware 
Decorators. Her small business specializes in printing small quantities 
of custom glass and ceramicware for special occasions. Some of Nancy's 
work can even be found in the House Gift Shop right here. When they 
print these mugs or glasses for customers, they sometimes use lead-
bearing colors on the outside surfaces. These colors are expensive; so 
they use only a minimal amount of paint needed, which reduces waste, 
and the finishing process ensures that none of the lead leaches out. So 
their products are completely safe for anyone who uses them. I am even 
told that the EPA sells her products in their gift shop. But because of 
this Toxic Release Inventory lead rule, Nancy's business is forced to 
compile daily records on how much color is used for the mugs because 
the colors contain a very small amount of lead. Each year her small 
business then has to report to the EPA how much lead has been used. 
This may sound like some innocuous rule, but the truth is it costs 
Nancy $7,000 annually. When you add up all the other small businesses, 
it is over $70 million every year.
  And what do Americans get for this? Do they get cleaner air? No. Do 
they get less lead being used? No. Is there less exposure to lead by 
children because of this? No. The answer is none of these things. All 
the American people get are thousands of reports on estimates on how 
much lead is being used. Many reports are never read, and our air is 
not any cleaner. The average citizen does not gain any public health 
benefits. Instead, small businesses have to comply with the EPA 
reporting rule and are literally wasting tens of millions of dollars 
every year, and it is costing us good-paying jobs. These jobs end up in 
other countries, offshore.
  Rather than focussing on reducing the real pollution and focusing on 
real pollution cleanup, EPA has to spend an inordinate amount of time 
on these small reports that nobody ever uses. Now, with an average cost 
of $21,919 per employee for small businesses that have less than 20 
employees, is a lot of money. It could be reinvested and create more 
jobs. But, instead, it is just reporting paperwork that piles up.
  The gentleman has good intents on having clean air and clean water, a 
clean environment, and I support that. But striking this language will 
not make the environment any cleaner. It will only cost us jobs. Again, 
ninety-nine percent of the same information will still be reported 
under the reforms conducted by EPA and put in place correctly by EPA.
  So for that reason I rise in opposition to the gentleman's proposal, 
and I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The amendment would block the EPA from changing the reporting 
requirements for toxic releases. I appreciate the proponent's concerns 
that the information on toxic releases should be reported in a timely 
manner and that this information should be publicly available. These 
concerns are shared by many State and local officials.
  On the other hand, I believe that some accommodation should be made 
by EPA for small businesses that have no toxic releases or have only 
trace amounts of toxic releases.
  I am prepared to accept the amendment today with the understanding 
that we will work with EPA to determine how we can accomplish the 
amendment's goals without placing unnecessary reporting burdens on 
businesses that release no toxics or have only trace amounts.
  I commend the amendment's authors for pursuing this and look forward 
to working with EPA on that matter.

                              {time}  1545

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PENCE. 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 New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Foley, 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. 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________