[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.
____________________