[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2835-H2872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H2835]]

House of Representatives

     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--Continued
                              {time}  1700

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is legal, it is 
simple, and it is fair. All we are asking is to preserve existing 
contracts but that those firms that fail to renegotiate fairly would 
then not be granted new oil or gas leases.
  Not to accept this amendment is to take sides, is to choose to stand 
by an industry that has posted the highest profits of any industry in 
modern history by charging consumers about $50 every time they fill up 
their gas tank. Those profits are coming from our constituents. And not 
to support this amendment is to decide we are going to side against our 
constituents. We are going to give up as much as $80 billion, $80 
billion over the next 25 years. That is money that should be our 
constituents' because it is their Federally owned land that the oil 
companies are drilling on.
  We have a responsibility to represent the American people before we 
represent a very wealthy and profitable industry. And to decide that we 
are going to figure out a way to let them continue with these contracts 
that never should have been signed this way in the first place, that 
gives up $80 billion of American taxpayers money, is wrong. It is 
wrong.
  It is wrong that our consumers are paying so much when these oil 
companies are making tens of billions of dollars more than they have 
ever made. Here is an opportunity, legal, fair and simple, to represent 
the interests of our constituents, the American taxpayer.
  To turn down this amendment is to choose one of the major political 
contributors in this corrupt political system instead the interest of 
our constituents.
  Pass this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR or North Carolina. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why the Clinton/Gore 
administration negotiated these leases. They do some rather 
extraordinary things that there would be no built-in provision when the 
price of oil reached a certain amount that you wouldn't start to pay 
royalties.
  I have read that substantial amounts of money were raised by the 
Clinton administration and the Gore candidacy from the major oil 
companies. Maybe that had something to do with it. I don't know.
  All I know is it is wrong and to me it seems inherently unfair, and 
to violate due process and equal protection of the law, to take people 
who have current leases that are legal and say to them, we are not 
going to allow you to bid on some leases over here unless you change 
the leases you presently have. That is coercion. That is almost 
extortion. And it is not the right of the government to behave in such 
a fashion.
  And I have heard asserted here that private companies can do that, 
and I would question that. But the government is bound by the 
provisions of the United States Constitution not to impair contracts, 
not to deny equal process of the law, and to guarantee due process.
  Therefore, I would urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that we have an 
administration now in the White House that is replete with oil 
contacts; and the transition team that set up the energy policy of this 
administration was made up entirely, except for one person, of people 
from the oil companies. That is what needs to be dealt with.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Markey 
amendment. This amendment does absolutely nothing to any existing 
contract. The oil companies signed a deal at $25 a barrel, royalty 
relief complete. It goes to $50 a barrel, they still don't have to pay 
royalties; $75 a barrel, they still don't have to pay royalties; $100 a 
barrel, still no royalties. And we are not going to take that contract 
away.
  All we are saying is that if you are going to play Uncle Sam as Uncle 
Sucker, then we are not going to allow you to have any new contracts, 
because the American consumer is being shaken upside down and having 
money shaken out of their pockets. Subsidizing the oil industry at $70 
a barrel to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim. You don't 
have to do it.
  President Bush said on April 19, I will tell you with $55 a barrel 
oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore, Bush 
said in a speech to newspaper editors. There are plenty of incentives.
  But here is the GOP, not the Grand Old Party, but Gas and Oil Party. 
That is what they have turned into.
  And by the way, last night they cut public health programs by $16 
billion. They cut veterans programs by $8 billion. And where could the 
money have come from? Well, another $10 billion from royalties. If Kerr 
McGee wins their case, another $60 billion.
  If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break 
your toe. Keep the money, they say, in the hands of the oil companies. 
Let them rake off all this money from the taxpayer. Cut the programs in 
public health, in education, and for veterans, even as their own 
president is saying they don't need these royalties.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, we say keep those contracts, but you are 
not getting any new contracts with our government if you are going to 
keep these windfall profits. That is why you should vote for the 
Hinchey-Markey amendment to send a message to the oil companies in our 
country.

[[Page H2836]]

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk here. I have 
heard about a corrupt political system.
  I would point out that I went to Russia, the Soviet Union, in about 
1991. They are awash in petroleum. They are awash in enough petroleum 
to change the price of the world price of petroleum significantly. But 
they have a corrupt political system, and they can't even produce.
  To claim that the American oil companies are somehow gaming the 
system simply just doesn't wash. Oil is traded as a commodity. No 
company is large enough to affect the price of oil. It is set 
worldwide. The price of oil is set.
  When I look at a demand curve from China, I see that the price of oil 
is exactly mirroring China's increased demand through the last few 
years. India is sitting out there requiring a lot of oil too.
  For us to begin to talk about punishing people who are bringing a 
product to the market when people desperately need it, and another 
system, the Soviet system, cannot even get into the market at $70, in 
which anyone should be able to get oil to the market at that price, 
seems ludicrous; and it seems like we are not even talking in the 
United States of America.
  This is a free market economy. The price is set because of supply and 
demand. We have arbitrarily limited the supply through our failure to 
drill in ANWR. We are limiting the supply by not issuing BLM leases 
throughout the Nation. This BLM today is issuing one-third fewer leases 
than 5 to 10 years ago. Those are the reasons that we have a price that 
is going up rather than down. It is a matter of supply and demand.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, it is about families. It is about families 
across this country who are wrestling with record-high gas prices. This 
Congress not only has the obligation to do something; but with this 
amendment, we have an opportunity to do something.
  National average price of gasoline per gallon, double what it was 
when President Bush took office. Oil executives making off with half 
billion dollar retirement packages.
  We can all agree that we have better things to do with as much as $80 
billion of taxpayer money than giving it to the oil companies for 
nothing in return.
  $80 billion is how much the GAO says we could simply be giving away 
to the oil companies over the next 25 years if we do not change the 
royalty relief law.
  Royalty relief is not without its purpose. Prices are low; royalty 
relief can create a powerful incentive to remove more oil from the 
ground.
  Let's look at the prices. This is nothing more now with royalty 
relief than a giveaway to those who least need it. One Shell official, 
New York Times said the other day, under the current environment we 
don't need royalty relief. They sure don't. ExxonMobil, $36 billion 
last year. Record, historic. Shell, $22.9 billion.
  It is about the people in our communities, the people that we 
represent that are taking their savings and they are putting it in 
their fuel tanks.
  These folks are taking their money. They are dealing with their stock 
options. They are paying down their debt, and they are taking high 
salaries. It is time we took away this opportunity to do that.
  And I will tell you that my colleagues on the other side that want to 
talk about contracts, the Federal Government is given the right to 
terminate contracts without cause. It is in contract law; it is called 
the termination of convenience of the government. So we can do this. 
Let's do it with this bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of this amendment suggest that 
it will fix an error made by the Interior Department in failing to 
include price thresholds for royalty relief in leases issued in 1998 
and 1999.
  The fact is, most companies pay their royalty obligations as they are 
required. A very small number have disputed their obligations, and that 
matter is under litigation.
  Congress should let the legal system do its work and not meddle.
  The oil and gas industry spends billions of dollars in this country 
every year, providing good-paying jobs for Americans and providing 
energy to fuel this massive economy.
  The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most attractive investment 
opportunities in the world right now, and it is in our best interest to 
keep it that way.
  If we adopt this amendment, we will send a signal that the United 
States does not abide by its contracts and obligations.
  In this time of high prices and unrest in oil markets, the last thing 
we should do is limit our access to our domestic resources.
  If companies holding 1998 and 1999 leases are, in effect, precluded 
from participating in the 2007 sale, it will impair the domestic oil 
and gas supply chain. At a time of record-high energy costs and an 
uncertain global market, we need to encourage our domestic companies to 
invest here at home, not shut them out of the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment that is 
full of unintended consequences and is wrong for America.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey 
amendment. This amendment is a fair and fiscally responsible way to fix 
a huge problem in our country.
  Because of mistakes made in lease agreements in the 1990s and other 
subsidies contained in last year's Energy Policy Act, we currently are 
allowing energy companies, who already are reaping huge profits, to 
take oil and gas from our public lands and waters without paying any 
return to the taxpayer.
  The situation as it currently stands will result in the loss of many 
billions of dollars in revenue.
  So while our constituents suffer from skyrocketing gas and home 
heating prices, oil companies are able to take publicly owned resources 
for free.
  Both oil company executives and the President said that there is no 
need for incentives because oil prices are so high, to encourage 
companies to drill for new sources.
  Yet, this Republican leadership has thus far failed to take any 
action to address the situation.
  Energy companies should willingly come forward to renegotiate the 
leases in question. They should refuse more subsidies. To continue to 
benefit so much from mistakes made in the 1990s and to take subsidies 
when they are not needed is corporate irresponsibility at its worst.
  My constituents are angry about taxpayer handouts to an industry 
awash in cash. This amendment is a fair way to deal with an issue that 
is currently defying common sense and fiscal responsibility.
  Vote ``yes'' for the Hinchey amendment, and in that way, protect our 
consumers and in that way respect the hardworking American taxpayers.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.
  As I understand the situation, because of the price of crude oil, 
energy companies have made profits over the last three years totaling 
more than $125 billion. Exxon alone had profits in one quarter last 
year of $9.9 billion and are estimated to have had a profit of $36 
billion in a single year.
  A portion of those profits--about $7 billion according to the New 
York Times--came because of an administrative error made by the Mine 
and Minerals Service. At issue is a set of oil and gas leases entered 
into during the 1990's when oil was selling for $10 a barrel. As an 
incentive for oil companies to drill, the U.S. government said it would 
waive its right to royalty payments if oil prices remained low. These 
royalty forgiveness leases also, however, typically had a clause that 
said if oil exceeds $35 per barrel, the deal is off and you have to pay 
the royalty.
  The error occurred in about 1000 leases when, evidently by accident, 
the $35 cancellation clause was not included. This small clerical error 
has created an enormous windfall

[[Page H2837]]

estimated at, as I said, $7 billion over the next five years. GAO 
estimates that this problem could result in the loss $60 billion over 
the next 25 years in lost royalties.
  This amendment merely calls on these companies to renegotiate in good 
faith to include the proviso included in all other leases. It does not 
actually void any lease. On the other hand it does say that if a 
company does not want to be a good citizen, the government may not want 
to do business with you in the future.
  I don't know all the legalities of contract law in this case or the 
issues of constitutionality. But I think the amendment does nothing 
more than try to recover $7 billion of excess profits which this 
country needs and--the oil companies don't. I urge adoption.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to Mr. Hinchey's amendment because it does not 
follow sound logic or the rule of law. Basically what we are saying in 
this amendment is that if you are out there with a lease today that has 
a provision that was put in place by the Clinton administration in the 
Outer Continental deepwater area, then you cannot have any future 
leases. So if you have made a deal, you have signed a contract, and you 
are out there producing product that is helping us keep our gas prices 
from going completely through the roof instead of just high like they 
are now, then you cannot do that any more unless you break your 
existing contract.
  I think this is commonly referred to as blackmail. If you do not do 
this, then we are going to make you suffer. And under this amendment, 
an oil company who in good faith entered into a contract with the 
Clinton administration to produce a product when nobody else was 
willing to do it, and you entered into that contract in good faith, we 
are going to punish you for that unless you completely absolve yourself 
of that contract and start paying more money to the Federal Government.
  Personally, in the private sector nobody gets a free ride on 
royalties, and I do not think anybody should produce a product without 
paying royalties if it is natural gas or if it is crude oil. Any place 
in Kansas where we have been drilling for oil and gas for over 100 
years, we pay royalties. But that is really not the point here. The 
point is the Clinton administration made these agreements and are we 
going to allow, as the Federal Government, them to abide by that 
contract or are we just going to blackmail them into doing something 
totally different?
  I think we should vote down this amendment, that we should honor the 
contracts that we have made, whether it was with the Clinton 
administration or the Bush administration, and not blackmail people who 
are just trying to produce a product, something that we greatly need.
  So oppose the Hinchey amendment and let us move on.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey 
amendment. The Hinchey amendment is about fairness, common sense, and 
doing what is right.
  It merely states that the oil companies should renegotiate their 
leases to pay a fair price, a market price, on oil and gas that is 
owned by the American people or they do not get any other leases.
  Our constituents, Americans, are suffering under high gas prices. The 
oil companies have record profits. The only fair thing to do is to 
renegotiate these windfall leases that are sweetheart deals. The New 
York Times estimates that at a minimum, renegotiating these leases will 
bring $7 billion over the next 5 years.
  Last night many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted 
to cut student loans, seniors, veterans, many areas. Support this 
amendment so that money will be in the budget so that we can fund 
things instead of giving more profits to the oil companies. It is 
absolutely wrong. Support this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I like a good demagoging just like anybody else, but 
this is not terribly relevant to everything we have said here to this 
bill or what has actually happened.
  Mr. Miller a little while ago made an analogy to a loan that could be 
changed from time to time. The problem is if you have got a 4 percent 
rate for 10 years fixed and the bank comes along and says, it has been 
5 years and I want to take that up to 8 percent, you are going to say 
forget you, I have got a contract that keeps me at 4 percent for 10 
years, not 5. And then the courts are going to uphold what you are 
saying. Also if you say, well, I have got a way here where I can 
blackmail you and you will come across, the court is going to come down 
on you like a ton of bricks.
  Now, we could do that that the gentleman suggests, but the problem is 
we are going to spend lots of money, the courts are going to uphold the 
law because the Constitution and the law are still in place in this 
country.
  Now, a lot of people might not want it to be. I cannot remember and 
do not know why the Clinton-Gore administration overlooked this and did 
not put a rate after the rates rose a certain number and royalties were 
beginning to flow, but they did not. Now, that was caught and after 
that any drilling in that area is going to pay a royalty.
  We have got a small period of time. We cannot do anything about it. 
If I sell my car for $200 and then later find out it is worth $600 and 
I have signed a contract, we have a law that says I have got to sell 
that car for $200. And if I try to get around that, I will pay twice 
because I will pay all my legal fees, I will pay any sort of penalties, 
any blackmail money, and I will still lose my car for $200.
  So that is pretty much where we are now, and I would say we need to 
vote against this. We do not want to waste any more money from the 
mistake that was made in 1998 and 1999.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey 
royalty relief amendment and am proud to be included as a cosponsor.
  When the original deep water royalty relief legislation was on the 
House floor in 1995, I opposed it and said that it was ``an early 
Christmas'' for big oil.
  Eleven years later, the holiday has never ended and royalty relief 
keeps on giving ever-bigger gifts.
  We were assured by the champions of royalty relief that the 1995 act 
was a miraculous piece of legislation that would end up making money 
for the taxpayers by giving away publicly owned oil as an incentive for 
drilling.
  But the concept of paying big oil companies to do what they would do 
anyway did not make any sense then and it makes even less sense now. 
Simply put, the taxpayer should not continue to massively subsidize an 
industry reaping the benefits of record prices and swimming in profits.
  According to a recent estimate by the GAO, deep water royalty relief 
under the 1995 act will cost the taxpayers between $20 billion and $80 
billion over the next 25 years, depending upon the outcome of an 
industry lawsuit.
  Thankfully, today we have an opportunity to adopt the Hinchey 
amendment and put a halt to this fiscal rip-off.
  This carefully crafted amendment provides an incentive for the major 
oil and gas companies which were granted royalty-free leases under the 
Clinton administration--companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and 
others--to renegotiate those leases to include a price cap on royalty 
relief. The companies may choose not to do so, but would then not be 
eligible for new OCS leases.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of false bravado and empty rhetoric in 
this Chamber when it comes to reducing the budget deficit. But this 
amendment is the real deal. Let's stand up for the taxpayers and adopt 
it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. 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.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rahall

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


[[Page H2838]]


       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SALE OR SLAUGHTER OF 
                   FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used 
     for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and 
     burros (as defined in Public Law 92-195).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been passed unanimously 
by this House in previous years, including last year.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the House voted 249 to 159 to adopt my 
amendment to end the sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. I 
ask the House today to reaffirm the stand it took to protect these 
icons of America's western heritage.
  Earlier this year the Nevada State Quarter was issued by the U.S. 
Mint. Now, Nevada is known as the ``Silver State.''
  However, if you look on the back of the quarter, you will not see a 
picture of a silver mine. No, what the good people of Nevada chose as 
the representation of their state was a wild horse.
  Nevadans are rightly proud of the heritage of their wild horses. It 
is unfortunately a heritage at risk because of a legislative rider 
inserted into an Appropriations bill in the dead of night in late 2004 
that puts thousands of wild horses and burros in danger of ending up on 
dining tables overseas.
  We need to stop the slaughter of wild horses and burros not only 
because it is morally wrong but also because the program itself is a 
failure.
  As a result of this failure, 41 wild horses have been slaughtered and 
thousands more face an uncertain fate.
  While the Bureau of Land Management may have good intentions to 
prevent sales for slaughter, the legislative rider that created this 
problem in the first place severely handicaps any such effort.
  Make no mistake about it, more wild horses and burros will end up 
slaughtered. After all, if the purpose of the legislative rider was to 
only sell off these animals to good homes, why was the long-standing 
prohibition on slaughter removed from the law.
  According to the BLM's own statistics, the agency has approximately 
the same number of wild horse and burros in the sale program today as 
when the program started. For each one the agency has sold, another one 
has been added to take its place.
  BLM has resorted to sending out letters to public land ranchers 
pleading with them to buy a horse. It has teamed up with a private 
entity to offer limited financial incentives to purchasers. These are 
not the actions of a sound program but the desperate attempts to 
implement and unwise and unsound policy.
  Mr. Chairman, the wild horse and burro program is a failure both 
morally and administratively. We can and must do a better job of 
protecting these magnificent creatures. It is time to sheath the sword 
that hangs over these animals.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this 
amendment to help save a national treasure--the wild horse.
  The wild horse is known throughout the world as a symbol of the 
American West and we should be doing everything we can to protect it.
  In the 1800s, more than 2 million wild horses roamed the American 
West. Today, that number is down to 35,000.
  Due to a provision slipped into the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, 
the sale of any wild horse that has been rounded up and is more than 10 
years old is now allowed. This language was placed into law without any 
hearings or public debate.
  This rider removed protections under the Wild Free Roaming Horse and 
Burro Act, which was passed in 1971 after the public demanded that 
something be done after the shooting of hundreds of thousands of horses 
and burros for pet food and meat in European restaurants.
  Already, at least 41 horses have lost their lives due to this 
irresponsible language, and the lives of 8,400 horses now being held by 
the Bureau of Land Management are in jeopardy.
  This is an inhumane slaughter against these majestic animals, and 
there is no need for it to continue.
  There are other options we can explore.
  The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over 100 herd management 
areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size of the herds 
manageable.
  There is simply no reason for these horses to be slaughtered for use 
as meat in other countries.
  The American public want the wild horses protected. In my district 
alone, countless constituents have asked me to stop this senseless 
slaughter.
  The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved 
literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of 
adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our 
history.
  Poet and author Pam Brown says, ``A horse is the projection of 
people's dreams about themselves--strong, powerful, and beautiful--and 
it has the capability of giving us an escape from our mundane 
existence.''
  I cannot say it any better, and encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment and help save the wild horse.

                     Protect America's Wild Horses

       After 34 years, protections for wild horses from sale to 
     slaughter were removed through an omnibus rider. No bill, no 
     hearings, no debate. Late in 2004 (and late into the night), 
     Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) attached this highly 
     controversial rider to the omnibus appropriations bill. The 
     amendment, passed with no hearings or public review, reversed 
     longstanding federal policy of protecting wild horses from 
     being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter 
     plants. Representatives Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Ed Whitfield 
     (R-KY), John Sweeney (R-NY), and John Spratt (D-SC) will 
     offer the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Wild Horse 
     Amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. Just 
     last year, the House overwhelmingly approved an identical 
     amendment, as well as another similar appropriations 
     amendment to prohibit horse slaughter, but the Department of 
     Agriculture has thwarted Congress's will and used private 
     funding to enable the grisly slaughter of horses to continue. 
     ``A public outcry has again begun across the United States 
     over the change in law that now allows the commercial sale 
     and slaughter of these animals, `` said Rahall. ``We need to 
     act before it is too late for thousands of these animals.''
       It is already too late for 41 mustangs. On April 15, 2005, 
     six horses were purchased by Oklahoman Dustin Herbert. Only 
     three days later, these horses were sent directly to a 
     foreign-owned slaughter plant in Illinois. Mr. Herbert told 
     the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that he intended to use 
     the horses for a church youth program. Another 35 were killed 
     at the same slaughter plant one week later after being traded 
     unwittingly by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe soon after they were 
     sold by BLM. By pure chance, another 52 were snatched from 
     the slaughterplant line in a last minute effort to preserve 
     their lives by fast-thinking officials. We have graphic 
     evidence in hand now that sale authority is not a workable 
     solution.
       Horse slaughter is fundamentally inhumane. The cruelty of 
     horse slaughter is not limited to the slaughter itself. 
     Economic rather than humane considerations dictate transport 
     conditions, as horses are shipped in crowded trucks, 
     frequently over long distances, and are typically given no 
     food, water or rest. The truck ceilings are so low that 
     horses are not able to hold their heads in a normal, balanced 
     position. Heavily pregnant horses, horses with broken limbs, 
     and horses missing one or both eyes may be legally shipped 
     for many days to slaughter. Inappropriate floor surfaces 
     cause slips and falls, and sometimes even trampling. Some 
     horses arrive at the slaughter house seriously injured or 
     dead. Horses are required to be rendered unconscious prior to 
     slaughter, usually with a captive bolt pistol, which shoots a 
     metal rod into the horse's brain. Some horses are improperly 
     stunned and still conscious when they are shackled and 
     hoisted by a rear leg to have their throats cut. In addition, 
     conditions in the slaughterhouse are stressful and 
     frightening for horses. Death at the slaughterhouse is not a 
     humane end for horses. All three of the remaining horse 
     slaughterhouses in the United States are foreign-owned. 
     Congress acknowledged this in the strong, bipartisan votes 
     cast on the FY2006 interior and agriculture appropriations 
     bills in both the House and Senate (House Interior 249-159; 
     House Agriculture 269-158; Senate Agriculture 69-28), yet the 
     United States Department of Agriculture undermined the will 
     of Congress by constructing a private payment system 
     specifically to enable the continuation of this brutal 
     practice.
       The number of horses in the US is dwindling. In the 1800s, 
     over two million wild horses roamed the American West. When 
     Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act 
     (WFRHBA), there were 60,000. Today, the combined number of 
     wild horses and burros is approximately 35,000. That 
     represents a nearly 50% reduction of wild horses out on the 
     range since Congress passed federal legislation to protect 
     them. The entire wild horse and burro populations of six 
     western states have been completely eradicated.
       Wild horses and burros have been federally protected for 
     decades. In 1971, Congress

[[Page H2839]]

     passed the WFRHBA in response to enormous public outcry over 
     the shootings of hundreds of thousands of horses and burros 
     and the slaughter of horses for pet food and human 
     consumption in European restaurants. The Burns rider removed 
     crucial protection under the WFRHBA by requiring that the BLM 
     sell wild horses over the age of ten or those offered for 
     adoption more than three times. The lives of 8,400 horses now 
     being held by BLM--and more in the future--are in jeopardy 
     due to this controversial rider and the law must be changed.
       BLM's current removal policy is costing taxpayers over $39 
     million a year. According to the U.S. Geological Service, 
     $7.7 million could be saved annually through the use of 
     contraceptive measures alone. Since 1988, seveeral wild horse 
     populations have been controlled under pilot programs using a 
     contraceptive vaccine (PZP) developed with the help of The 
     Humane Society of the United States. Additionally, there are 
     other, less expensive alternatives available. A 1990 GAO 
     Report states that, ``[r]educing authorized grazing levels 
     would likely be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve 
     the same reduction in forage consumption.''
       Cattle outnumber wild horses and burros at least 100 to 1 
     on public lands. BLM's private livestock grazing program 
     encompasses 214 million acres of public lands and costs over 
     $130 million to manage annually. Over 4 million head of 
     private cattle enjoy subsidized grazing on public lands. A 
     congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of 
     Sciences found that, in one year, livestock consumed 70% of 
     grazing resources on public lands, while wild horses and 
     burros consumed less than 5%. The WFRHBA mandates that wild 
     horses and burros be provided 47 million acres of public 
     lands on 303 herd areas. Since 1971, the BLM has reduced the 
     number of herd areas to 201, taking approximately 13 million 
     acres of land from these federally protected animals.
       Horses are not crusing rangeland degradation. The 1990 GA0 
     study detemined that (1) the primary cause of rangeland 
     degradation is poorly managed domestic livestock grazing, (2) 
     wild horse removals have not demonstrably improved range 
     conditions, (3) wild horse behavior patterns make them less 
     damaging than cattle to vulnerable range areas, and (4) wild 
     horse removals are occurring in some locations not being 
     damaged by widespread overgrazing (GAO/RCED-90-110, Rangeland 
     Management--Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse 
     Program).
       Americans want wild horse protection. Support for the 
     Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment to protect our 
     cherished wild horses crosses all social, cultural, and 
     political boundaries. When it was revealed that wild horses 
     had been sent to slaughter since the enactment of the Burns' 
     rider (with widespread media coverage in Peole Magazine, CNN, 
     MSNBC, and dozens of papers across the country), Americans 
     made sure their voices were heard, resulting in BLM 
     temporarily suspending their sales program. Without the 
     passage of protective legislation, sales will resume.
       The answer is simple. There is no need to sell off and 
     slaughter America's Western heritage. With the millions of 
     acres of public land in the US, we can surely make room for 
     35,000 horses. Americans do not wish to have their tax 
     dollars spent on the sale and slaughter of this last living 
     icon of our American heritage.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Rahall-
Whltfleld-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment, which bans the sale and slaughter 
of wild free-roaming horses. I am pleased to state this exact same 
amendment passed the House last year with overwhelming support with a 
vote of 249-159.
  As my colleagues have stated, a measure was snuck into the FY05 
Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow wild horses to be slaughtered for 
human consumption overseas. The provision to allow the sale and 
slaughter of wild horses was underhanded and wrong.
  When Congress unanimously passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and 
Burro Act of 1971, it established a policy to protect wild horses from 
capture, harassment, and death. BLM responsibly carried out this 
mission for 33 years, before the statute was secretly changed 2 years 
ago. Americans have clearly made their voices heard that these wild 
horses must be protected.
  This amendment is a responsible solution to this problem. The passage 
of this amendment would prevent BLM from selling horses--and close the 
loophole on slaughter.
  Since BLM began the sale of wild horses, a number of horses have been 
purchased and slaughtered. This has generated a massive public outcry. 
In response to this, BLM temporarily suspended its sale program, with 
the intent to resume the sale shortly. Mr. Speaker, this is not 
enough--it is urgent we pass this amendment and end this practice now.
  The slaughter of wild horses is indicative of the larger overall 
problem of horse slaughter. Last year, 90,000 American horses were 
slaughtered in this country and served as meals in restaurants in 
Europe and Asia. That is why I'm fighting for the passage of my 
legislation, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 503, 
which bans the slaughter of ANY horse for human consumption.
  In addition to this same amendment last year, I also offered an 
amendment to the FY06 Agriculture Appropriation's Bill to temporarily 
suspend this horrific act. Although our amendment had enormous public 
support and overwhelmingly passed both chambers, the USDA defied the 
will of Congress by granting a petition allowing a fee-for-service 
option submitted by three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants to 
circumvent the ban.
  I am pleased to hear that I may finally get my stand-alone 
legislation, H.R. 503, addressed in committee so we aren't forced to do 
these stop-gap measures each year. I appreciate our Leadership and 
Chairman Barton reviewing the need for this legislation. I look forward 
to working with you as we address this cruel topic.
  Horse Slaughter is not humane euthanasia--it is a malicious, painful 
end for these animals. Americans don't eat horses, nor do we raise them 
for human consumption. This amendment will right a wrong and is a 
positive step forward in our ultimate goal of ending the slaughter of 
horses in the United States for human consumption overseas.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record in support of the amendment 
offered by Representative Rahall to protect wild, free-roaming horses 
and burros from commercial slaughter.
  Since 1971 when Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and 
Burros Act, the federal government has ensured the protection of wild 
mustangs and burros roaming on public lands. Unfortunately, in 2004, a 
controversial rider rolling back these protections was slipped into the 
massive omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. Congress must 
act to right this wrong. We owe it to the next generation to preserve a 
piece of American heritage--to protect our wild and free horses. As 
cosponsor of H.R. 297--the bill upon which this amendment is based, I 
urge my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment and reinstate the 
humane and appropriate protection of wild, free-roaming horses and 
burros.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gordon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gordon:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings 
     performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order 
     13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments 
     made thereby).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant of the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government wastes $250 million a year by 
not enforcing its conservation statutory requirements in its Federal 
buildings. I do not think we can ask the American public to do adequate 
conservation if we are not going to do it ourselves.
  My amendment simply requires the Interior Department to follow the 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires 
Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of an Executive Order 
that deals with instituting energy efficiency improvements in Federal 
buildings and reporting on progress in that regard.
  We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H2840]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to plan, design, study, or construct, for the purpose 
     of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals, a 
     forest development road in the Tongass National Forest.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Taylor) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1982 the Forest Service has lost $850 million 
subsidizing private timber in the Tongass National Forest. That is a 
$40 million annual loss. If anyone wonders why our national debt is as 
large as it is, and it is currently $8.3 trillion, by the way, one 
needs to look no farther than taxpayer boondoggles like this one. They 
really add up.
  The Tongass National Forest was established in 1907 by President 
Theodore Roosevelt. It is America's largest forest, about the size of 
West Virginia. Located along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often 
referred to as ``America's Rainforest'' and is home to abundant 
wildlife: bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, and salmon; as well as 
old growth trees such as the giant Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and 
yellow cedar.
  There are thousands of miles of roads in the Tongass right now. The 
Forest Service acknowledges that existing roads are ``sufficient to 
satisfy local demand for roaded recreation, subsistence, community 
connectivity needs and demands in most districts.'' Yet year after year 
the Forest Service spends millions of tax dollars building roads for 
private timber companies that by the agency's own admission are not 
really necessary. To make matters worse, the Forest Service has a 
nationwide road maintenance backlog of about $10 billion, tens of 
millions of which are in the Tongass. Incredibly, the Forest Service is 
not maintaining existing roads; yet they want to build more, even 
though they admit there are enough already.
  The timber program is not a profitable business in the Tongass the 
way the Forest Service is currently running it. Nobody argues this. The 
Forest Service concedes that 90 to 95 percent of all existing timber 
sale contracts in the Tongass are unprofitable. Nearly half of Tongass 
timber contracts go unsold. Of those that are sold, the majority have 
only a single bidder, resulting in a bargain basement, discounted sale.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would 
simply prohibit the Forest Service from building logging roads for 
timber companies subsidized by the American taxpayer in the Tongass. It 
does not prevent the Forest Service from building roads to connect 
communities, to provide recreation, or to otherwise manage the forest. 
It does not stop timber companies from building their own roads. I know 
that there are some who want you to believe differently, but this 
amendment has nothing to do with the roadless rule. It has everything 
to do with good government.
  Opponents of this amendment will argue that the massive losses in the 
Tongass are due to litigation, that taxpayer dollars are ending up in 
the pockets of trial lawyers. Mr. Chairman, I am not often accused of 
being a darling of the trial lawyers.
  As some may know, the Freedom of Information Act request was filed 
with the Forest Service in 2002. Although the request was to be for the 
years ranging from 1991 to 2001, the Forest Service could only provide 
numbers from 1998 to 2001. During that time the Forest Service spent 
$121 million on its timber program. Litigation costs amounted to $1.6 
million. That means only 2 percent of the total cost were spent on 
appeals and litigation. Just 2 percent.
  Opponents of this amendment will say that the National Environmental 
Policy Act requirements also increase costs, and they are right. The 
NEPA process needs reform, and I supported legislation to do this, as 
many of us have. But whether we like it or not, NEPA is on the books. 
To gouge taxpayers year after year and justify it by pointing to 
burdensome environmental requirements is just wrong.
  Some say this amendment is an attempt to take away jobs in Alaska. It 
is not. In fact, as timber subsidies have increased, timber-related 
jobs have decreased. Taxpayer subsidies per Tongass timber job have 
risen from $12,000 in 1996 to over $150,000 per job now. Think of that. 
Every job, $150,000 in taxpayer subsidy for that one job.
  Finally, according to a 2003 National Forest Service publication, 
there is enough timber available off the current road system of the 
Tongass to meet demand for several years.
  Mr. Chairman, let us restore some fiscal sanity to the Tongass timber 
program. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayers 
and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  The Chabot amendment is not about fiscal responsibility. The costs 
within this program, the cost of appeals and litigation, attempts by 
the agency to bulletproof all of its documents from those lawsuits 
amounts to 75 percent of the cost of running the program within the 
agency. In fact, if you took out those costs that are incurred because 
of lawsuits, the litigation, the appeals, and attempts by the agency to 
bulletproof their environmental documents, the Tongass forest sales 
would actually produce a 13 percent profit margin.
  In an effort to gain support from fiscal conservatives, some group 
called the Taxpayers for Common Sense has tried to couch this as a 
fiscal argument, and again 75 percent of the costs are brought in by 
many of the same groups that are supporting this amendment. These 
outside groups, because they have not been able to achieve their goals 
legislatively of completely devastating the forest program and 
eliminating any kind of timber sales, have now tried to do it in this 
manner, in bringing it before the appropriations bill and trying to 
limit the ability.

                              {time}  1730

  Again, if you look at the actual cost in this entire program, 75 
percent of the costs associated with these timber sales are because of 
the NEPA reviews, the appeals and the litigation. Only 25 percent is 
the actual cost of preparing the sale.
  Yes, I guess if you run up enough lawsuits, if you appeal all of 
those lawsuits, if you continue to badger the Forest Service, you can 
run up the cost to make this program unprofitable. But this is a long 
debate we have had in this House; and trying to couch this as a fiscal 
debate, I believe, is just a smokescreen over what the true intention 
of most of these outside groups is, and that is just to try to 
eliminate the timber program completely.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the Chabot-Andrews amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. It is my 
pleasure and honor to offer this amendment with him, and urge our 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chairman, the question in this amendment is whether or not the 
public should pay to build more roads in the Tongass National Forest. I 
think the answer is no. I think the answer is no for three reasons:
  First, building more roads would further put at risk what is truly a 
treasure, a jewel in the National Forest system. Environmentally, I 
think it simply makes no sense to build more of these roads.
  Second, it is a terrible investment for the taxpayers. Since 1982, 
the taxpayers have expended $850 million more than we have taken in in 
revenues from this investment. In fiscal year 2005 alone, the taxpayer 
cost was nearly $49 million, and the taxpayer revenue was about 
$500,000. I don't know any of my constituents who would make an 
investment of $49 million in a business that is only going to return 
$500,000 on the investment.
  Finally, building more roads in the Tongass National Forest is an 
unnecessary idea when it comes to the jobs

[[Page H2841]]

that are involved. I think that we always should be involved and 
concerned about the jobs of any of our fellow citizens, no matter where 
they are, in what region. But the fact of the matter is, the roads that 
already exist in the Tongass National Forest open up an area of that 
forest that would permit the harvesting of those trees for years and 
years and years to come. A substantial amount of the trees that could 
be harvested in that section of the forest already open to roads have 
not yet been harvested.
  So I would urge our colleagues in both political parties to vote 
``yes'' in order to preserve an important national environmental 
treasure, in order to continue with the jobs that are presently going 
on there, and, most importantly, to protect the wallets of our 
taxpayers. For every $100 that we spend to run the Federal Government, 
we only bring in $75 worth of revenue. We need to start to reduce what 
we spend. This is a great place to do that. I would urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is no surprise, of course, that 
I am adamantly opposed to this sneaky amendment offered by two people 
that don't know what they are talking about, have never known what they 
are talking about, deal not with what they are talking about, and will 
never know what they are talking about.
  The Alaskan rainforest, as you gentlemen recognize, is as big as 
Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, 
including New Jersey.
  I am sure you will be happy to know that we have 19 designated sites 
of wilderness in that area, a national monument that takes up 35 
percent of the forest. Seventy-eight percent of the Tongass is slated 
for roadless areas already. All I am saying is what this is attempting 
to do is put the last remaining small group of Alaskans out of work.
  Ironically, the two gentlemen that are offering this amendment are 
crying about outsourcing: My God, we are losing jobs. They are going 
overseas. But here we are in Congress taking away the jobs of my 
Alaskan constituents. That is the thing that probably disturbs me the 
most about this, is we had a forest of 21 million acres, 21 million 
acres. And we were told in this body in 1980 that we will only lock up 
all of it but 2 million acres and you will have those acres to actually 
retain a timber industry and have your people work. And now we are down 
to 1,000 acres, and you want to take that away.
  And you say we don't need the roads. That is not what the Forest 
Service says. They say we need these roads if we are going to harvest 
the timber. They will put up the sales. Who is going to bid it, if they 
can't get the timber?
  That is true. Anybody that debates that, you better understand it, 
because what is happening here is you are trying to put the last 
remaining, the last remaining few Alaskans that are trying to make a 
very meager living, 300 people, 300 jobs, take it away from them for 
the environmentalists. It has nothing to do with taxes.
  By the way, I hope you understand, my good friends that are offering 
this amendment, I was precluded from offering an amendment to the 
amendment today because of the unanimous consent; but if this amendment 
is adopted, I will offer the same amendment to the forests in Ohio, 
which loses money every year, a large sum; to New Jersey, if you have 
national forests; and to the areas in New Hampshire. Every area, every 
person that votes for this amendment, there will be an amendment next 
year on this bill to do the exact same thing. Because if we are going 
to be true to ourselves, if you are talking about fiscal 
responsibility, then you will step up to the plate and take your 
forests and make sure they are under the same category.
  Unless you are saying, All right, it is just Alaska. He is way away. 
It is just his district. On a personal note, none of you in this body 
has ever seen me address anybody's one district, because I believe in 
the representative form of government. Representative form of 
government. If it is your district and it is what you want and in your 
district. I will support that. If you don't want it, I will support 
that.
  But to have two Members of this House, and, yes, it is bipartisan, 
and I shall not forget that, to come and attack a single Member and his 
total district, to take away the jobs of his people, I say is wrong. 
And each one of you think about this in this room: this should be 
representative form of government, and what you are doing is dead 
wrong, and I shall not forget it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points I would make. First of all, it 
certainly is not an attack on any Member of this body nor an attack on 
any State. I would just note that those jobs that are being paid for 
and the $48 million paid out last year alone, those tax dollars come 
from New Jersey and they come from Ohio and they come from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That $48 million went to the Forest Service. It 
didn't go to my 300 civilians. It went to the Forest Service. That is 
what people must understand. You are creating jobs for the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since 1982, there has 
been almost $1 billion, $850 million in all, spent for this. And 
relative to jobs, back in 1996 there were 1,500 jobs. It is down to 
below 300 right now. So every one of those jobs is basically being 
subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of $150,000 per job. So 
what we are trying to do here is be responsible to the taxpayers of my 
State, Ohio, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Texas and New York and 
Vermont and all the other States who right now are donor States who are 
sending these dollars up to Alaska to sustain those few jobs.
  Now, I am all for timbering, I am all for allowing roads to be built; 
just not at taxpayer expense, not when the taxpayer is getting ripped 
off.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, once again we are confronted with the 
question of how to manage one of our great national treasures, the 
Tongass National Forest in Alaska. It is my hope that we will choose 
more wisely this time.
  The choice here is really quite simple. We can choose to follow the 
law and respect the results of the forest planning process, or we can 
trump the law and substitute our own political needs for those of an 
economically depressed region of the country.
  The gentleman's amendment is the final piece of a long-standing 
strategy to do one thing and one thing only, to kill what remains of 
the forest products industry in Alaska. This is not a decision about 
protecting pristine forests. My friends, we have already done that. 
More than 96 percent of the Tongass National Forest has not and will 
not be managed for timber under the existing forest plan. This 
amendment simply says ``get lost'' to the last few sawmills in the 
region and the hundreds of jobs they provide.
  The Tongass National Forest has a newly revised forest management 
plan, a carefully considered plan that took more than 13 years to 
complete. The plan provided for careful roadless area management 
following established planning processes, including extensive public 
participation. The gentleman's amendment ignores all of this for no 
other reason than to shut down the Alaska timber industry.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my coauthor, and salute him for 
his integrity for bringing this amendment under difficult 
circumstances.
  President Kennedy said 40 years ago or so, governing is choosing, and 
every time we make a choice, somebody doesn't like it. But when you 
avoid choices, that is how you wind up with an $8 trillion debt. That 
is how you wind up borrowing 25 percent of the money that you spend to 
run the government.
  It is always easier to say yes when people want to spend the public's

[[Page H2842]]

money, but it is not always right; and here it isn't right. Since 1982, 
the taxpayers have put about $1 billion into building roads into this 
forest. We have gotten back $150 million. We should stop building these 
roads. That is what this amendment does. It does it artfully and 
correctly. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I find the arguments amazing. The Lincoln 
National Forest is in the Second District of New Mexico. One of the 
retired foresters grabbed me one day and said, You know, I used to run 
this 1 million acres by myself and one part-timer. Then he said, Myself 
and the part-timer did all the timber sales, all of the conservation 
projects, all of the business opportunity projects by ourselves. Now 
the Lincoln National Forest has 142 people.
  If the gentlemen were really interested in the operation, in the use 
of the operation of the Forest Service and the use of Federal funds, 
they would go in and de-fund every timber sales department that has not 
sold a tree in decades, because we are still funding timber sales 
departments that don't fund it.
  I find your arrogance tremendously offensive, that you come into 
another man's district and begin to take away his jobs. In the Second 
District of New Mexico, there used to be 22 mills that processed these 
forest products, and we are down to two. The Lincoln National Forest is 
in a position to offer them the product that would keep them in 
business. They grow 50 million board feet a year of new timber in 
Lincoln. They will not even commit 12 million.
  There is a policy and culture in our Forest Service that says we will 
not cut trees, we will not keep our forests healthy. We will watch them 
burn down before we cut a tree. That is what I find offensive about the 
debate from our friends on the other side of the issue.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just note there are very diverse groups on all 
sides of the political spectrum that strongly support this amendment, 
group likes Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers 
Union, Taxpayers For Common Sense, on the one hand; the National 
Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and many others; and I would 
strongly urge my colleagues to take a vote here which is in the best 
interests of the taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about roads. The roads are used for many 
things, recreation, all those sorts of things. Over 90 percent of the 
Tongass is unroaded, won't be roaded and so forth.
  It ought to be that forests in America, managed the best in the 
world, should be providing the resources for all over the world. For 
instance, if we don't have wood, we will have to rely on steel or 
plastic. Steel takes lots more energy, about eight times as much to 
make a steel 2 by 4 versus a wooden 2 by 4, and plastic, we know what 
that comes from.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Chabot-Andrews 
amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill to block taxpayer 
spending on new commercial logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. 
Facing massive Federal deficits, every dollar counts, and we must take 
a stand against the Forest Service's fiscal mismanagement of the 
Tongass.
  In addition, I would like to state my disappointment with the deep 
cut proposed in this bill for the State Wildlife Grants Program. This 
bill includes only $50 million for this program, a cut of $17.5 million 
below FY 2006 and nearly $25 million below the President's request.
  The State Wildlife Grants program is not just a ``Grants Program'' it 
is the Interior Department's core program for preventing wildlife from 
becoming endangered by working in partnership with State Wildlife 
Agencies. The deep cut included in this bill will have a dramatic 
impact on Wildlife conservation efforts in Wisconsin and across the 
country.
  State Wildlife grants program has strong bipartisan support from 
every corner of the country. Earlier this year 170 representatives 
joined together on a letter of support for $85 million in funding for 
this program. This program has also been championed by the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest caucus in the House. 
Across the Capitol, 56 Senators joined together on a similar letter.
  Further, this program is championed by the teaming with Wildlife 
Coalition, which includes hunters and anglers, environmentalists, 
wildlife agencies and others. In Wisconsin, this coalition includes 
almost 200 organizations, including the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, 
Audubon Chapters, and local businesses. and there are similar 
coalitions in every state.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot-Andrews amendment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record in support of the amendment 
offered by Representative Chabot to protect the Tongass National 
Forest.
  The Tongass National Forest spanning 17 million acres in southeastern 
Alaska is the United States' largest national forest and home to the 
world's largest temperate rain forest. Over the past 24 years, the 
American taxpayers have provided $850 million in subsidies to the 
timber industry to harvest areas within the Tongass. The American 
taxpayers deserve better. The bipartisan amendment offered by 
Representative Chabot and Representative Andrews would simply prohibit 
the Forest Service from using any more tax dollars to build more roads 
for private timber in the Tongass. I urge my colleagues to support this 
environmentally smart and fiscally responsible amendment. Additionally, 
I am submitting for the Record an editorial in the Hartford Courant 
that also expresses support for the amendment.

               [From the Hartford Courant, May 16, 2006]

                    Protect Tongass National Forest

       Later this week, Congress will have a chance to right a 
     wrongheaded public boondoggle that last year gave the timber 
     industry $48.5 million in Federal funds to defile the Tongass 
     National Forest in Alaska.
       Tongass was established as a national forest by Teddy 
     Roosevelt in 1907 and occupies the extreme southeast corner 
     of the Alaskan coast. The world's largest intact temperate 
     rainforest, it's a place of unimaginable lushness and beauty 
     strewn along the Inside Passage like a jade necklace. It is 
     home to ancient Sitka spruce, bald eagles, bears and wolves. 
     It's also a renowned destination for tourists who fish, hunt, 
     hike or simply want to witness the rugged grandeur of one of 
     the world's last wild places.
       During the past two decades, the Federal Government has 
     spent as much as $1 billion to prop up the timber industry in 
     the Tongass. Putting aside the environmental consequences of 
     clearcutting and road-building in this natural treasure 
     (consequences including the destruction of rare, old-growth 
     trees and woodland habitat, erosion, streams choked with silt 
     and the loss of fish habitat), this practice is also a 
     singularly bad investment.
       Last year for example, the forest service spent $48.5 
     million to help timber interests build roads in the Tongass. 
     In return, the government--or, rather, taxpayers--received 
     $500,000 in logging revenues. It's a situation reminiscent of 
     the oil-industry giveaway uncovered early this year by The 
     New York Times. The investigation found that, while prices 
     for natural gas nearly doubled between 2001 and 2005, the 
     royalties paid by companies to the Federal Government for 
     right to drill on public lands and coastal waters actually 
     declined.
       Thursday, the House is scheduled to consider an amendment 
     to the House Appropriations bill that would put an end to the 
     Tongass boondoggle. The amendment is being offered by 
     Representatives Steve Chabot, a Republican from Ohio, and 
     Democrat Rob Andrews of New Jersey.
       Congress should support this amendment. Wasting taxpayer 
     money is bad. Wasteful corporate welfare with little or no 
     public benefit is worse. Publicly subsidizing the destruction 
     of the largest intact temperate rainforest is beyond the 
     pale.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. 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 Ohio will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Weiner of New York.
  Amendments by Mr. Poe of Texas.

[[Page H2843]]

  Amendment by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment by Mr. Beauprez of Colorado.
  Amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
  Amendment by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266, 
noes 152, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 163]

                               AYES--266

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Hinojosa
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1809

  Mr. GILLMOR and Mr. CAMP of Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. MEEK of Florida, JONES of North Carolina, CULBERSON, ISSA, 
HENSARLING, ROHRABACHER, FOLEY, GINGREY, and LATHAM changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 163, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''


                     Amendments Offered by Mr. Poe

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendments.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendments.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 279, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               AYES--141

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wicker

                               NOES--279

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow

[[Page H2844]]


     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1817

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EVERETT and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 187, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Evans
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1825

  So the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H2845]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Beauprez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 306, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--112

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--306

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1833

  Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 165, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               AYES--252

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland

[[Page H2846]]


     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--165

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blunt
     Cannon
     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan and Mr. WELLER changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 167 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 168]

                               AYES--237

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Blunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1848

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to promulgate regulations without consideration of the 
     effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of American 
     businesses.


[[Page H2847]]


  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for the future of 
American jobs and for our future economy. Tonight we have decided to 
keep energy prices higher by blocking exploration offshore on the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  We have also blocked the EPA from reducing the paperwork burden on 
small businesses and on pop and mom shops, because we have blocked them 
from reducing the toxic relief information paperwork.
  We have even tried to blackmail oil companies tonight that entered 
into contracts in good faith to produce oil and gas. Now, we have 
adopted an amendment to force them to breach those contracts or else 
they are unable to drill offshore in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It says that none of the 
funds made available in this act may be used to promulgate regulations 
without consideration of the effect of such regulations on the 
competitiveness of American businesses. It is very simple: it is about 
American jobs.
  ``Without consideration'' is a very simple term. It is like being 
polite to people in the future. Being polite often says that we are 
just going to be considerate of others. In terms of our future economy 
and in terms of our children's opportunities, we should be considerate. 
We should be considerate of the barriers that have been created by this 
Congress and by Congresses before us over the past generation that are 
keeping us from creating and keeping American jobs.
  We have excessive health care costs, much of which is driven by an 
archaic system called Medicare which was created in the 1960s and today 
is heavily laden with paperwork, and it drives up our health care cost.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a tax policy that is punitive to success. We 
have regulation burdens, as I spoke about tonight, in relationship to 
the toxic release inventory deduction. We also have a trade policy that 
goes largely unenforced in some areas, allowing other countries to 
target businesses and run them out so that they can import their 
products.
  We also have excessive litigation costs. The one thing that we do 
have in excess in this country is lawsuits. We should be exporting our 
lawsuits through our trade policies, holding other countries 
accountable when they violate our trade agreements. But litigation 
costs have driven up the expenses for small businesses and large 
businesses alike. When expenses go up, we are less competitive and we 
lose jobs.
  Our energy policy has failed to meet the demands of our economy. That 
is why we have $3 gas. That is why our natural gas costs are the 
highest in the world because of policies created by this Congress.
  And our education policy has failed to meet the needs of our high-
tech society these days. Our math scores, our science scores, those 
students pursuing engineering degrees and science degrees are 
diminishing, and so are their test scores. And our unfocused research 
and development programs have also created barriers to keeping and 
creating jobs here in America.
  So, Mr. Chairman, that is why I created this very simple amendment 
that just says that we won't put a barrier in place when it comes to 
writing regulations because it costs us American jobs.
  Now, I realize that my amendment is subject to a point of order 
because our rules say that a Member cannot add authorization language 
to an appropriations bill. And I assume that there is wisdom in the 
process, and we will abide by that.
  So with reservations, I will withdraw this amendment. But I will not 
withdraw from the fight to remove the barriers that Congress has 
created that prevent us from keeping and creating jobs here in America.
  Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a 
colloquy with the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee, 
the ranking member, and the chairman of the National Park Service 
Subcommittee regarding the National Park Service's extension of the 
current contract to provide ferry service to the Statue of Liberty/
Ellis Island National Monument, in spite of Congress's explicit 
instruction that concessions contracts be put out to bid upon their 
expiration.
  Mr. Chairman, the current concessionaire, Circle Line, has held the 
contract to provide ferry service from Manhattan to the Statue of 
Liberty for decades. They provide what is less than enjoyable service 
for park visitors. The old clunky boats and temporary screening 
facilities they use when docking at the edge of a city park hardly do 
Lady Liberty justice.
  In 1998, Congress passed, thanks to the leadership of the House 
Resources Committee, a bill that overhauled the National Park Service 
Concession Program and instilled for the first time competition into 
the contract process. Specifically, the preferential right of renewal 
for an incumbent that grossed more than a half a million dollars 
annually was eliminated. In section 403, subsection 2, the National 
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 says: ``Prior to awarding a new 
concession contract, including renewals or extension of existing 
contracts for concessions, the Secretary shall publicly solicit 
proposals for a concessions contract.''
  It was clearly the intent of Congress to put an end to the Park 
Service's age-old practice of indefinitely renewing existing contracts 
to the detriment of each park's service, was it not, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. PEARCE. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will.
  Mr. PEARCE. The gentleman from New York is right. It was and 
continues to be the intent of Congress that the National Park Service 
open contracts to competition upon their termination.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time. However, when Circle Line's contract 
expired in 2004, the Park Service utilized language in the 1998 act 
providing the Secretary with extension authority and awarded Circle 
Line a 3-year extension, did it not, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. PEARCE. If the gentleman from New York will yield?
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will.
  Mr. PEARCE. The Service did indeed extend the Circle Line contract 
from March 31, 2004, to March 2007 due to a number of factors stemming 
from the events of September 11, including the fact, as my colleague 
knows, that the statue was closed to the public from 9/11 through 
August 2004. During this time, Liberty Island underwent an extensive 
security and safety assessment that focused on a number of 
vulnerabilities such as the statue's 3/32 of an inch thick skin, and 
local park officials spent much more time focusing on those issues than 
preparing for a new contract prospectus. Obviously, they dropped the 
ball.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, now as we approach the 
expiration of the extended 2004 contract, I have been informed, as have 
my colleagues on the authorizing and appropriations committees, that 
the National Park Service will not have a prospectus on the street to 
solicit bids and award a new contract by the expiration of the current 
Circle Line contract in March 2007 when the 3-year renewal is scheduled 
to expire, meaning that the Circle Line contract will have been 
extended again.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. WEINER. I am happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman from New York is right, 
the National Park Service has notified the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee that due to its inability to complete an open bid before 
the expiration of the current extension in April 2007, the Park Service 
will have to temporarily

[[Page H2848]]

extend Circle Line's contract once again to prevent the disruption of 
service to Liberty Island.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
would Chairman Taylor, Ranking Member Dicks and Chairman Pearce agree 
with me that the National Park Service has failed to heed Congress's 
direction that expiring contracts are to be put to bid on schedule, and 
that extending the Circle Line contract beyond March of 2007 should be 
called into question?
  Would they further agree to work with me to ensure that those who are 
responsible for ignoring Congress's intent are held accountable?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. WEINER. I certainly will.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I agree with the gentleman from New 
York that the Circle Line contract set to expire March 2007 should not 
be extended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New 
York, the chairman of the authorizing committee and the ranking member 
of this subcommittee to ensure that the new contract is in place as 
soon as possible and those responsible for the current delay are held 
accountable.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. PEARCE. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will yield.
  Mr. PEARCE. I agree also with the gentleman from New York that the 
Circle Line contract set to expire on March 2007 should not be 
extended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York 
and the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee 
to ensure that a new contract is in place as soon as possible and those 
responsible for the current delay are held to account for their 
actions.

                              {time}  1900

  I also thank the gentleman for bringing this problem to my attention. 
With over 600 concession-related contracts in the National Park system, 
it is difficult for me and the subcommittee staff to always stay on top 
of these ongoing deadlines.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him, 
with the chairman, and with the authorizing committee to ensure that a 
new contract is in place as soon as possible and those responsible for 
the current delay are held to account.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Dicks, and I also want 
to extend my gratitude to Mike Stephens of your staff, Deb Weatherly of 
Mr. Taylor's staff, and Rob Howarth of Mr. Pearce's staff for their 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following articles for the Record.

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 4, 2004]

 Liberty Is Open Again to the Masses, But Just to the Hem of Her Robes

                          (By Carolyn Curiel)

       For anyone who has ever trekked up the spiral staircase of 
     the Statue of Liberty and peered through the crown's narrow 
     windows, the statue's reopening this week, for the first time 
     since the 9/11 attacks, is bittersweet. Its surrounding 
     grounds and facilities have been spruced up, and members of 
     the National Park Service gamely claim that the statue, an 
     international icon, is better than ever. But there's no way 
     to ignore the loss of what was the main attraction: tourists 
     can no longer knock themselves out by climbing those storied 
     354 steps.
       It's perhaps an unavoidable result of the vigilance against 
     terrorism, but a sad one nonetheless. The new tour stops 
     short of the hem of Liberty's robes, at the top of her thick 
     concrete pedestal, in a room that holds only 30 people at a 
     time, or about 3,000 people a day who are quickly shuffled in 
     and out. While a guide gives a short talk and shows a video, 
     tourists are invited to look up at the ceiling, where a few 
     glass panels give a glimpse of a few feet of the interior. 
     Tourists can also step into the open air on a deck that lines 
     the pedestal. That's as good as it gets. And that's only 
     after each visitor is screened twice, by X-ray and metal 
     detectors before boarding a ferry to the monument, and then 
     on the premises by new scanners looking for explosives and 
     narcotics.
       Throughout the statue's base are monitors showing the 
     routes to the nearest exits in case of an emergency, while 
     across the bottom scrolls a constant message: ``If you see 
     something, say something.'' Oddly enough, this antiterrorism 
     mantra, which appears in bilingual postings in city subways 
     and buses, is only in English at this symbol of America's 
     polyglot immigration.
       Larry Parkinson, a deputy assistant secretary for law 
     enforcement and security at the Interior Department, says 
     greater access to the statue itself has not been ruled out. 
     But it isn't in the works right now, and the motives for 
     caution seem to stretch beyond security. There is concern 
     about wear and tear on the statue. The people who used to 
     climb the stairs were apparently not unlike those 
     unconscionable climbers of Everest who left behind proof of 
     their presence in the form of garbage--in this case, mostly 
     chewing gum and food refuse.
       But it's hard to avoid the impression that the officials 
     who spent millions in private and public funds to restore and 
     fortify the statue don't want anyone to mess it up. With the 
     nonprofit charity that has been in charge of soliciting 
     donations under fire for paying its executives too much 
     money, this seems like a time when everyone should be trying 
     to make things as accessible as possible.
       Obviously, security will have to come first, but visitors 
     to the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of American freedom, 
     shouldn't be constrained forever.
                                  ____


                   [From the Daily News, May 7, 2006]

                            Carrying a Torch

       Sen. Bob Menendez did his best at Interior Secretary 
     nominee Dirk Kempthorne's confirmation hearing last week. The 
     New Jersey Democrat eloquently explained why the Statue of 
     Liberty must be reopened to the public, and he pressed 
     Kempthorne to explain when that might happen. But the Idaho 
     governor has his bureauspeak down pat. He can answer a 
     question while saying nothing at all.
       Menendez is to be thanked for raising the issue of how Lady 
     Liberty is being held hostage by the National Park Service 
     (under Interior Department auspices) and the Statue of 
     Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation. Since Liberty Island was 
     closed 9/11, only the pedestal has reopened, despite much-
     improved security measures for the island and the statue. The 
     public is denied access to the crown and the spiral staircase 
     leading there--a staircase trod by multitudes before the feds 
     began cowering.
       Citing those new security measures, Menendez told 
     Kempthorne: ``I hope that you will help us liberate Lady 
     Liberty. We should not buckle in to the fear of terrorism. We 
     should let Americans travel to the top of Lady Liberty.'' 
     Exactly.
       Then Menendez expressed hope that Secretary Kempthorne 
     ``would make a commitment'' to do what is necessary to reopen 
     the statue in its entirety. Responded Kempthorne: ``I will 
     take your counsel'' and ``look into'' how access can be 
     expanded ``while understanding that we want to make sure that 
     it is done safely.'' And yada yada yada.
       Americans are sick of double-talk. Open the statue. All of 
     it.
                                  ____


                   [From the Daily News, May 4, 2006]

                         Liberate Lady Liberty

       The Statue of Liberty, held hostage by the Interior 
     Department and the National Park Service, has a new champion 
     in Senator Robert Menendez who, it is hoped, will be able to 
     free her from the bureaucratic shackles that have imprisoned 
     her since 9/11. Today, Menendez and the rest of the Energy 
     and Natural Resources Committee will hold a confirmation 
     hearing for Interior Secretary-nominee Idaho Gov. Dirk 
     Kempthorne, at which time the New Jersey Democrat will demand 
     answers and action to ensure Lady Liberty is open to the 
     public, which she is not, despite lies by the feds and their 
     nonprofit fund-raising partner, the Statue of Liberty-Ellis 
     Island Foundation.
       All that is open is the pedestal. Visitors can look up her 
     skirts. They cannot, as had been the case before 9/11, climb 
     the spiral stairway to her crown. She has become the Statue 
     of Cowardice, thanks to the people who run Liberty Island and 
     are terrified of terrorism.
       Aren't we all? No. We are aware of it and wary of it, but 
     we are not terrified. If we were, this whole city--full as it 
     is of ripe, potential targets--would have shut down. If we 
     were, the terrorists would have won. Thus far, they can claim 
     victory over only the statue.
       Though strict security measures have been implemented--
     reserved admission, repeat metal detection--the frightened 
     feds are loath to let visitors climb the statue. The entire 
     situation is shameful. May Menendez bring that to the 
     attention of Kempthorne, and the entire nation, and may there 
     be such an outcry as to break the chains that bind Miss 
     Liberty and make her a laughingstock for Al Qaeda.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise

[[Page H2849]]

     pay for the attendance of more than 50 employees from a 
     Federal department or agency at any single conference 
     occurring outside the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we will accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that, and I will be very 
brief, just to say that Members on both sides of the aisle may disagree 
on exactly how we got to this point, but I think most people will agree 
that our deficit in this country is too high.
  If people watched TV last night and watched the debates on the floor 
with regard to our budget, there was much disagreement on our spending 
levels and the like. But one thing we all came to agreement on at the 
end of the evening is that we are spending too much and that when we 
spend too much it creates a deficit. So when we can at an appropriate 
time try to limit and rein in those spendings, I think that is an 
appropriate and common sense approach to do that. To do that we have 
this amendment.
  This amendment is basically to say that when Federal agencies travel 
overseas on international conferences there should be some limit as to 
how many members and their staff goes. The amendment picks out a 
reasonable number and that is 50.
  No one would disagree with the fact that we should attend 
international conferences and no one would disagree with the fact that 
we should allow staff to go to them. Our amendment simply says that 
only essential staff should attend those conferences, and we therefore 
set a limited number.
  I appreciate the fact that the chairman has agreed to this amendment 
in past legislation, and I certainly appreciate the fact that the 
amendment once again is agreed to by the chairman at this point in time 
as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No funds made available by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to conduct the San Gabriel Watershed 
     and Mountains Special Resource Study (authorized by the San 
     Gabriel River Watershed Study Act (Public Law 108-42)) in the 
     cities of Diamond Bar, La Habra, Industry, Chino Hills, and 
     the community of Rowland Heights in Los Angeles County, 
     California (as defined by the following boundaries: the City 
     of Industry on the north, Orange County on the south, the 
     City of Diamond Bar and California State Route 57 on the 
     east, and the City of La Habra Heights and Schabarum Regional 
     Park on the west.).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  In 2003, I was approached by the chairman of the Resources Committee, 
Richard Pombo, and he was asked to put language in a bill that would 
authorize the National Park Service, San Gabriel Valley Watershed and 
Mountain Special Resource Study to survey the San Gabriel River and its 
tributaries and the San Gabriel Mountains north of, and including, the 
City of Santa Fe Springs to determine if any resources are available 
for National Park Service designation. And when he approached me, it 
was because I am from the region, and we looked at the maps. His staff 
determined that this had no impact on my district. I agreed, when I 
reviewed the language, that it had no impact on my district.
  However, since then the National Park Service has been conducting 
public hearings in my district. The cities that they have been 
conducted in have stated very clearly, the cities I mentioned in my 
amendment to be removed, that they do not want to be part of the study.
  My city is clearly not in San Gabriel Mountains nor is it north of 
Santa Fe Springs. It is clearly far to the east of Santa Fe Springs. My 
cities have no affiliation with the National Park Service nor do they 
believe they should be part of the National Park Service.
  My reason for not objecting to this when the language was presented 
to me was I was assured by Chairman Pombo that this would not impact my 
district. In fact, the chairman wholeheartedly supports my language in 
this amendment that is asking that no funds made available by this act 
may be obligated or expended to conduct the survey in the cities listed 
within my amendment.
  We worked with the National Park Service. We have tried to get them 
to eliminate our cities. In fact, Chairman Lewis today even called them 
and asked them once again to delete these cities from that study. They 
said they believed they had congressional authorization, although the 
committee chairman believes that is not the case. And what we are 
saying is I have no problem with what any other Member of Congress 
wants to do within their district. In fact, when this was proposed to 
me I supported what they wanted to do because it is their district.


                              Introduction

  This amendment is simple. It only affects the communities within my 
district who do not want to be the subject of a Federal National Park 
Service study.
  My amendment would exclude cities within my congressional district 
(and one neighboring city) from a study being conducted by the National 
Park Service (NPS): ``the San Gabriel River Watershed and Mountains 
Special Resource Study.''


    National Park Service Study Has Gone Beyond Congressional Intent

  In 2003, Congress authorized the National Park Service San Gabriel 
Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study to survey the ``San 
Gabriel River and its tributaries and the San Gabriel Mountains, north 
of, and including the city of Santa Fe Springs'' to determine if any 
resources are available for National Park Service designation.
  Let me be clear--My district is not in the San Gabriel Mountains, nor 
does it contain a tributary, and it is not north of Santa Fe Springs.
  It is east of the area that was authorized to be studied.
  I did not oppose the original authorization of this study because, 
according to my interpretation of the language, my district would not 
be affected.
  I strongly believe that the inclusion of cities in my district in the 
NPS study went beyond the scope of the congressional authorization.


   My cities do not want their land to be added to the National Park 
                                 System

  We have reached out to the NPS on numerous occasions asking them to 
remove these cities from the study--they have refused.
  I rise today to ask that you support my efforts to ensure these 
cities are not forced to be included in a study they did not seek.
  This amendment does not affect any other cities in the study than 
those in my district (plus the City of Industry) that have asked to be 
excluded.
  If other members want their cities to continue to be included in the 
study, then this amendment will not affect them.
  The bottom line is that I represent these cities and they have told 
me they do not want to be included in this study.


                               Conclusion

  The cities in the 42nd Congressional District, which I represent, 
have worked hard to address the challenges associated with the rapid 
pace of growth in our region, including finding innovative solutions to 
manage future development, alleviate traffic congestion, and preserve 
open space.
  These cities are in the best position to make decisions regarding 
land use within their boundaries and I am opposed to any federal action 
that falsely conveys the perception that this authority might be 
curtailed in the future.
  The results of this study could ultimately be used to compromise the 
ability of local governments to decide what is best for their 
communities.

[[Page H2850]]

  Land management responsibility and decision-making should be made at 
the local level where officials have a clear understanding of community 
needs.
  Existing land use management by local municipalities is preferable to 
Federal involvement in this rapidly growing region.
  I urge my colleagues to support my efforts to protect the communities 
that I represent.
  A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote against spending Federal 
dollars where they are not welcomed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is 
opposition being included in the Special Resource Study currently being 
conducted by the National Park Service.
  Would the gentleman agree to work with the ranking member and myself 
to see if we can resolve that?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Yes. I would ask that my amendment 
be adopted, but I would be happy to work with you.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to 
the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I agree that there is still some confusion 
over this, but for the sake of moving the process forward, we will 
cooperate with the gentleman. But we need to be able to work this out.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Absolutely. Reclaiming my time, Mr. 
Chairman, I would do nothing to impact anybody else's district. The 
cities delineated within the amendment are clearly under my purview, 
and they all have issued letters requesting to be removed; so I would 
be happy to work with the gentleman.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
sponsored by Congressman Miller. This amendment is based on a 
fundamentally flawed understanding of the study process incorporated in 
the legislation which I authored and which was signed into law on July 
1, 2003 and would result in a change in the study design.
  The San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act was signed into law on July 
1, 2003 after a lengthy effort to build consensus, an effort which 
included outreach to and coordination with all the members of the San 
Gabriel Valley delegation, including the Representatives of Diamond 
Bar, La Habra Industry, Chino Hills, and the unincorporated area of Los 
Angeles County in the community of Rowland Heights. As a result of this 
effort, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives with 
broad support.
  Congressman Radanovich noted in a letter to the editor on August 4, 
2002, that ``the legislative process works best when those with 
differing views get together to resolve those differences and arrive at 
solutions that are responsible, workable and widely acceptable. That is 
what happened in this instance.'' I am proud of the iterative and 
compromising process by which this legislation was drafted and enacted. 
In fact, upon passage, Representative Pombo noted that this bill 
``enjoys the broad support of both the majority and the minority, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.''
  During this process, the boundaries of the study were clearly 
defined. According to the legislative text, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall conduct a special resource study of the following areas: 
(1) the San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and including 
the city of Sante Fe Springs, and (2) the San Gabriel Mountains within 
the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and 
Mountains Conservancy--as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the 
State California Public Resource Code. This study was directed to be 
done in consultation with Federal, State and local governments, 
including the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains 
Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State and local governmental 
entities. These areas were chosen for their importance in the regional 
watershed.
  During consideration of this legislation, the Department of the 
Interior recognized the need for this study. It noted that:

       The watershed of the San Gabriel River contains important 
     natural resources which are disappearing throughout Los 
     Angeles County. Continuous greenbelt corridors provided by 
     the river serve as habitat for breeding, feeding, resting or 
     migration birds and mammals, which allows migration to take 
     place through developed areas. The rugged terrain of the 
     higher reaches of the watershed contains different 
     vegetations including rock outcroppings and vegetation native 
     to the Pacific Coast foothills. This area also has a rich 
     cultural heritage which is evident by the large number of 
     historically significant properties within the proposed study 
     area. Among them is the Mission San Gabriel Archangel, 
     founded in 1771 by the Spanish missionaries who were moving 
     up the coast of California.

  The Department of Interior also noted that this study would have to 
examine a number of alternatives for protecting resources in the area. 
Specifically the Department of the Interior stated:

       Alternatives to federal management of resources are often 
     considered in a special resource study for this type of area 
     including national trail designations, national heritage area 
     designations, and the provision of technical assistance to 
     state and local governments for conservation of rivers, 
     trails, natural areas, and cultural resources. A study of an 
     area where land ownership and jurisdictional boundaries are 
     as complex as they are in the San Gabriel River Watershed 
     would likely emphasize public-private partnerships.

  This study provides a multitude of opportunities for public comment. 
The National Park Service has made accommodations to boundaries where 
these changes do not alter the intent of the study. In its final report 
to Congress, the National Park Service will make recommendations and 
include with those recommendations the comments provided by the local 
stakeholders. Additional legislative acts of Congress would be required 
before any recommendation could be implemented. This action would 
require local and Federal support. By design, no action could be 
implemented as a result of this study without consent.
  This study provides our communities with a very rare opportunity to 
develop a plan to bring and protect natural resources in our area for 
future generations. Many of the possible recommendations could result 
in additional monies being brought to the community, improved health 
for our children, and high property values at no loss of local control.
  I am proud that this process is a transparent one which provides all 
stakeholders an equal opportunity to participate in the process of 
developing recommendations for future consideration and commenting on 
particular land use needs. The National Park Service is committed to 
finding creative ways to help improve the community and I encourage 
everyone to think outside of what is perceived as the traditional 
Federal land management process.
  I believe the concerns represented by those in support of this 
amendment are unfounded based on the legislative record and encourage 
all stakeholders to work together to come to an agreement which 
preserves the intent of the authorizing legislation. I oppose this 
amendment because I believe the legislative record provides ample 
support for the inclusion of these areas and provides ample protections 
for local landowners, stakeholders, and other interested parties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds in this Act may be used by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     implement or enforce the Joint Memorandum published in the 
     Federal Register on January 15, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 1995).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order has been reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and I and others offer today will 
define where we stand on protecting water quality in America. Will we 
allow the Federal Water Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, to be a 
national program, as it was intended by Congress when written and 
enacted in 1972, to protect the Nation's waters; or will we allow it

[[Page H2851]]

simply to become a limited program that abandons the national priority 
for clean water by leaving a rather substantial number of lakes, 
streams, and wetlands unprotected?
  This bipartisan amendment we offer would prevent the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing or enforcing the 
wetlands policy guidance issued in a joint memorandum of EPA and the 
Corps of Engineers in 2003. That memorandum was drafted in response to 
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Solid Waste Agency of North Cook 
County against Army Corps of Engineers, commonly known as the SWANCC 
case. The EPA's guidance in pursuance of the court's decision goes well 
beyond what the court directed. The court held that the Clean Water Act 
jurisdiction did not extend to isolated intrastate waters where 
jurisdiction is asserted solely on the presence of migratory birds. But 
the joint memorandum, EPA expanded upon the case and made it more 
difficult to protect all intrastate waters regardless of impact on 
water quality or on commerce. Our amendment would prevent EPA from 
implementing that unsound policy.
  With our amendment EPA and the Corps of Engineers will once again be 
able to follow their own regulations and procedures in determining what 
waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act. If the 
amendment is defeated, streams, ponds, wetlands will continue to endure 
unregulated wastewater and other damaged water discharges. The result 
will be loss of habitat for waterfowl, loss of habitat for wildlife, 
endangered wildlife, increased frequency and increased severity of 
flooding and increased risk of drinking water and polluted groundwater 
supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of point of order and claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from North 
Carolina will control 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the 
leaders of this amendment, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Leach, Mr. Dingell, to 
protect water quality.
  This amendment reverses the harmful policy of EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers that empowers regulators to allow the pollution of waters and 
destruction of wetlands but eliminates the authority of local 
regulators to protect waters from such pollution and destruction.
  Since January, 2003, EPA and the Corps have restricted the ability of 
their own personnel to implement regulations that have been in use 
since 1986. These regulations are valid, understood in the regulated 
community, and are the method we use to protect some 20 percent of the 
Nation's waters. The Nation's ponds, streams, rivers, lakes, and 
wetlands can be no healthier than the headwaters and runoff that feed 
them.
  Since EPA guidance was put in place in 2003, regulators have allowed 
the pollution and destruction of these critical waters, imperiling the 
health of the entire aquatic system.
  This amendment is not about stopping the direct pollution of our 
great rivers such as the Mississippi or the Trinity River, which flows 
through my home city of Dallas. It is about protecting the waters that 
feed into these systems and that serve as the origins of these great 
rivers. When we fail to protect smaller bodies of water, we lose the 
flood control, water supply, water filtering, and habitat benefits that 
these waters provide.
  Waters that may appear isolated on the surface tend to be 
interconnected with the ground and surface waters elsewhere. We cannot 
simply ignore the connections among and the values of all of the 
Nation's waters.
  I support this bipartisan amendment and urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in voting ``yes.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would like to oppose this amendment strongly. On January 9, 2001, 
the Supreme Court ruled that there must be a significant and important 
connection between traditional navigable waterways and the wetlands or 
waters to be regulated by Federal agencies.
  The EPA and the Corps of Engineers issued guidance to their field 
staff in 2003 clarifying that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction did not 
extend to isolated waters that are both intrastate and non-navigable. 
This guidance also clarifies that field staff should continue to assert 
jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands 
and their tributaries systems and adjacent wetlands. Field staff was 
directed to make jurisdictional and permitting decisions on a case-by-
case basis.
  The plain text of the Clean Water Act emphasizes that Congress 
constructed the statute in a manner that intended, as the Supreme Court 
has articulated, to ``recognize, preserve, and protect the States' 
primary authority and responsibility over local land and water 
resources.'' Misguided efforts to expand the geographical scope of the 
Clean Water Act will create and exacerbate local land and water 
resource decisions with burdensome and costly Federal controls.
  I will give you an example. Right now the Clean Water Act is being 
used in farms, with livestock, cattle primarily, to try to clean the 
streams where cattle are grazing.

                              {time}  1915

  If we allow the situation we have here for navigable waters to be 
translated to ditches, small tributaries with an ounce of water, the 
soil conservation today, and we are providing grants for soil 
conservation to take those streams, provide drinking water for cattle, 
and then enable them to go back into a stream which is fenced off, if 
we rule according to what has been asked here, we will find that the 
soil conservation will be barred from doing any sort of work in 
cleaning water. We will actually get dirtier water. We could have up to 
six agencies get involved in trying to clean up water on a farm. Not 
only will the cost be prohibitive, but the bureaucracy, because many of 
those agencies do not agree in this thing.
  Eliminating this guidance will create confusion and could lead to the 
classification of ditches, drains, curbs, roads, gutters and erosion 
features as ``navigable water of the United States.'' Clearly, this 
goes beyond common sense, but it won't be the first time that the 
Federal Government has tried to force something like this.
  Such an expansive regulatory reach would have the Federal Government 
interfering and frustrating local decisions regarding construction, 
operation, maintenance, management, transportation, flood control, and 
agricultural production.
  For instance, soil water conservation, which would be working with 
the farmer, has an elected delegation inside the county, as well as the 
State delegations elected, and they are trying to do the right thing, 
and we are spending Federal money to help it. This could be stopped by 
the Corps of Engineers simply for bureaucratic action.
  Eliminating this guidance would require Federal oversight of ditches, 
storm drains and sewers. These are local structures that are 
constructed and managed and maintained at the local level. We don't 
want the Corps of Engineers and all the bureaucracy that would be 
entailed to get down to a small storm drain or a small ounce of water 
on a farm. The cost would be prohibitive, and it would go against what 
the Clean Water Act is trying to do, and that is clean water for a 
special agriculture problem.
  One critical consideration is the Supreme Court is expected to rule 
in two new Clean Water Act cases prior to the expiration of the current 
term in June. The decisions in these cases will provide important 
clarification of the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act 
jurisdiction. We should not act at this time on issues that are being 
actively deliberated by the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who, along with my predecessor, John 
Blotnick, was the original inventor of the clean water program.

[[Page H2852]]

  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Minnesota, who 
has done so much for the natural resources of this country and for the 
protection of its waters. I salute you, Jim.
  When the original Clean Water Act and its amendments were passed, the 
waters of this country were so filthy that they were unsafe for 
recreational purposes, for swimming, for drinking and even for 
industry. Imagine that. And we were ditching, draining, drilling and 
drying our wetlands at a pace which was unbelievably bad for the 
country. We also were destroying in that process not only wildlife 
habitat, but one of the finest natural flood control systems that has 
ever been devised by the mind and hand of the almighty God.
  Now, in the debates on the Clean Water Act, if you read the history, 
you will find that there the managers of the bill in a colloquy with me 
said that this law was to cover all navigable waters of the United 
States and all waters that affected the navigable waters of the United 
States, and that has been the settled interpretation of the law ever 
since. It has stopped the drainage and the drying up of our wetlands. 
It has done an enormous amount of good to clean up the waters, so that 
now they can be used for swimming and boating and recreation and 
industry and irrigation and other things which were not available 
before.
  If you will but take a look, you will find the consequences of this 
understanding which this amendment would deny funding for. The guidance 
that we are talking about has wiped out the protections for bodies of 
water like the Sacramento River in New Mexico, a water supply for a 
number of communities. Despite being a drinking water source, the 
Folsom South Canal in California has been determined not to be water 
under the Clean Water Act. Imagine that, if you please. Forested 
wetlands in Delaware that connect to the Little River, feeding directly 
into Delaware Bay were declared isolated and not covered. An 86-acre 
lake in Wisconsin, popular with fishermen, is no longer covered by the 
Clean Water Act.
  Now, I want to remind my colleagues that not long back, 218 Members 
of this body joined in sending a letter to the President of the United 
States asking him not to implement the plans that were in the offing in 
the administration. That letter was honored by the President 
withdrawing the regulatory change, but he left in place the guidance. 
The guidance is every bit as bad.
  This corrects that situation. It makes it possible for matters to be 
corrected so that we can continue the protection of wetlands in the 
United States, we can continue to protect our drinking water, our 
recreational waters and the waters which are so important and precious 
to fish, wildlife, and conservationists.
  This is an amendment which will stop wrongdoing. This is an amendment 
which will protect the water resources of this country at a time when 
the need is clear. This is a proposal which sees to it that the wishes 
of 218 Members of this Congress, communicated to the President from 
Members from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, are 
carried forward and that we do serve as wise conservators and 
protectors of the natural resources and, above all else, the precious 
water of the United States.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment offered by my good friend Mr. 
Oberstar and by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce you to Gene, 
who is a third-generation sugar beet farmer. That is a root crop that 
can't grow in wetlands. Nonetheless, his sugar beet farm was ruled by 
the Federal Government as a wetland. The reason it was a wetland was 
because the creek was connected to his farm by way of an irrigation 
ditch with a pipe in it. The water to his wetland went through an 
irrigation pipe which he allowed to pool so the higher end of his farm 
could actually be irrigated the same way. In our district, 8 days of 
irrigation is one of the criteria for a wetland.
  I don't believe that those who actually wrote the Clean Water Act 
intended an irrigation pipe to be considered one of the navigable 
waterways of the United States, but the act is written so loosely and 
the interpretation by bureaucrats on the administrative side has been 
so perverse that indeed those kinds of decisions have been made in 
reality.
  The SWANCC decision by the courts simply said enough is enough. We 
need to bring some element of logic, write some rules that actually are 
the intention of this particular act. So Gene, when he took the 
irrigation pipe away and the water dried up, was still threatened with 
fines because he had interrupted the navigable waterways of the United 
States. And when he and his wife for medical needs tried to use the 
only asset that they had, which was their farm, and they tried to sell 
it for their needs and their family needs, the value of their farm was 
shot, because this is now farmlands. They were forced to sell their 
property for one-quarter of the value of the exact neighboring farm 
with the same kind of crops on the same road.
  What we are doing with the Clean Water Act, as it is being 
interpreted, is hurting people. We are taking their property rights 
away without any kind of compensation from the Federal Government and 
forcing them to suffer. We are forcing them to try and prove to the 
person who made the original accusation that his accusation was 
inaccurate.
  For example, when the water actually dried up on his property, the 
person who made this request, who made this declaration it was water 
land, simply said we are in a drought cycle; we have to wait until we 
have a wet cycle in Utah to see if the water will return automatically 
by itself.
  This is unfair to people. And this amendment, well-intentioned as it 
is, just like the law, well-intentioned as it is, in its practice hurts 
people. It hurts real people in the United States, and that is not why 
we are here.
  I urge you to reject this amendment. Let the SWANCC decision go 
forward, so logical rules on how we deal with real people can be put 
into place.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. This amendment has a very clear purpose, to ensure that the 
Clean Water Act, one of the most vital and effective laws, to ensure 
that the Clean Water Act protects as many waters as possible.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has issued guidance that, sadly, 
has the effect of limiting the application of the Clean Water Act. 
There is no good reason to do that. The guidance goes beyond any 
limitation that was necessary because of the Supreme Court ruling in 
what is known as the SWANCC case, and the guidance is not even helpful. 
The Government Accountability Office has documented that the guidance 
is actually causing confusion and inconsistent interpretation of the 
law. Some guidance.
  The guidance is so misguided, that 2 years ago, 218 Members of this 
House, a bipartisan group, wrote to the EPA asking that the guidance 
not be implemented. Our call went unheeded, so we need to send a 
stronger message here and now.
  We need to block the implementation of this guidance to protect our 
Nation's waters. This amendment will not prevent EPA from issuing new, 
more thoughtful guidance; but this amendment will prevent a rollback of 
the Clean Water Act.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
chairman in opposition to this amendment. I have 8 years of local 
government experience, 30 years of small-town business experience, and 
19 years of State government experience before I came here; and I can't 
tell you the time I have spent bringing reason to wetland designation 
in my district.
  The problem we have had, and what I believe the creep here is, we are 
going

[[Page H2853]]

to bring EPA and put them in charge of wetlands in small-town USA 
neighborhoods that are not real wetlands; they are wet spots. They are 
spots where someone has put dirt in an appropriate place and water no 
longer drains, and we now have a few cattails and certain grass is 
growing, and it is determined a wetland.
  I can't tell you the cases where companies who build a new building, 
when they did their soil movement afterwards, didn't get good drainage, 
had a wet spot, and when they went to expand their building, they 
couldn't because it was declared a wetland. It took a year or two for 
them to litigate it.
  I have farmers who have had to stop farming fields because they were 
cleaning out the ditches and the corps came by and said you can't clean 
that ditch, a ditch your father put in with Federal support to drain so 
you could farm those fields.

                              {time}  1930

  I have one near Titusville, Pennsylvania where they stopped the 
construction of a new building. Do you know what the site was? It was 
wet. There was grasses and cattails growing there. There were three 
railroad tracks there where there used to be a factory. It was on top 
of a landfill. It was the old city dump.
  Folks, it was not a wetland, but it was declared a wetland because it 
was wet on top. Drainage was no longer available. Water was standing 
there. Folks, our local soil conservation people are diligent in our 
rural areas in dealing with these issues. We do not need EPA officials 
and Corps officials boring down the backs and stopping what little 
growth and prosperity we have in rural America by regulating every wet 
spot and drainage ditch that has a cattail or certain grasses growing.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to not expand their ability.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the chairman of the 
subcommittee how many speakers he has remaining?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have one more.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do for my colleagues is to 
demonstrate the 1987 manual of the Army Corps of Engineers to determine 
what is a jurisdictional wetland that is associated with navigable 
waters, which gives the Army Corps of Engineers, through the Clean 
Water Act, as passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by 
the President. The Clean Water Act is to make sure that waters of the 
United States are clean, and the Corps of Engineers determines what are 
waters of the United States. So the experiment is as follows.
  Gravity pulls water downhill. So the 1987 manual of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, to determine what are waters of the United States so that 
the Federal Government can protect those waters from pollution, 
determines that in three ways.
  What is the soil type? What is the vegetation in that area? And what 
is the hydrology of that area? If it meets that criteria and it comes 
under their jurisdiction, it means that no matter where that water is, 
if it runs downhill and eventually gets miles away to a stream or a 
tributary that runs into navigable waters or the seas, that what you do 
in that isolated wetland, if the hydrology is such that it moves with 
gravity, will eventually pollute the navigable waters or seas of the 
United States.
  And so the Federal Government has decided to use its resources in a 
reasonable, practicable way, based on the 1987 manual, to ensure that 
waters of the United States, of which we all depend, are not polluted. 
And in most instances, I represent an agricultural district with a lot 
of wetlands, on the Delmarva Peninsula. Those areas in my district, an 
agricultural community that depends on agriculture, that depends on 
silviculture, that depends on the fishing community to harvest their 
striped bass or eels or catfish or whatever, we have understood the 
compatibility of human activity with nature's design. And we want to 
ensure that that is still in law and that our waters of the United 
States can continue to be protected.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman ought to go talk to his farmers more, 
because if this passes the farmer will soon find out, Mr. Chairman, 
that he no longer can drain even a few drops of water out of his ditch 
and try to collect it or put it in a way that he can responsibly manage 
his farm, even if that has been done for years and years.
  The Soil and Water Conservation has tried working with the EPA in 
this Clean Water Act to put common sense into these measures, to try to 
see that reality happens, that you can farm in a responsible way. In 
fact, they are doing more to clean up the water, especially in farms, 
by putting in systems that are drained into a central watering spot 
that is covered by fabric and stone, and then the cow will not 
contaminate the water that goes in it, rather than going into the 
streams themselves.
  Now, there is much government money going into this. But the Corps 
right now will stop that any time, any time that they get a chance. And 
I know that in my home. And that is why the Farm Bureau is against this 
group, the Home Builders, the American Forest and Paper, the National 
Association of Realtors, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives, and 
the Edison Electric Institute, the National Grange, the National 
Association of Counties, the National Cattlemen, and the National Corn 
Growers, because it goes beyond common sense.
  We have been successful. I worked with the EPA, and we have tried to 
fund the EPA for clean water. But what we find often is if we have a 
rule, some people think that if we double or triple that rule it will 
be better. Actually, after you start and get a certain distance with 
that rule, it becomes corrupting in the sense that it disrupts the 
whole purpose of the original rule.
  And that is what we are about to have here. The individuals 
landowners and the taxpayers certainly know what they can do inside 
small watershed areas. And the Soil and Water Conservation would be 
directly against this type of program, because they cannot have six 
agencies trying to manage the farms of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman has either himself or 
perhaps one other speaker remaining, I yield myself the balance of our 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speakers have missread the issue. The 
holding by the Supreme Court very clearly stated, this is the exact 
language, says that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction cannot be asserted 
based solely on the presence of migratory birds.
  Previous speakers have alluded to other issues that have nothing to 
do with the question at hand. So the Corps of Engineers no longer can 
make decisions based on presence of migratory birds. Now, if we take 
the interpretation of what the Corps of Engineers and the EPA have done 
in previous cases and applied it to the district of the gentleman in 
the chair, presiding at this moment, we would not have been able to put 
in place very likely, the Rochester Flood Control Project and the Soil 
and Water Conservation projects investing over $100 million dollars to 
protect the City of Rochester from flooding.
  Mr. Chairman, that just does not make sense. Now, all of those who 
have said the Clean Water Act meant this and meant that, I was on the 
staff at the time of the Clean Water Act passage in the House. In fact, 
I was involved in drafting the language that is at stake here.
  The issues that the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee 
raised, have to do with nonpoint-source discharges. We have many farms 
across this country, including some in my district, where cattle, dairy 
cows go right up to the water's edge and do what cows do in the water, 
and that pollutes the water for the guy downstream. You do not want 
that to happen. Well, habitat, increased severity of flooding are 
issues related to this matter that we are discussing here.
  What we want to do is to restore to the Corps of Engineers its 
ability to protect these endangered waters, not to deal with some 
little puddle that

[[Page H2854]]

was there once in 50 years and not to have the Corps declare that this 
is wetlands simply because a migratory bird came over it at one time or 
another.
  The Supreme Court said, no, you cannot do that to the Corps of 
Engineers. We are trying to restore responsibility and authority to the 
Clean Water Act so it can be implemented to protect the quality of our 
waters, the fishability of our waters, the swimability of our waters 
and to protect Americans' clean water future.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would only point out 
that the gentleman's recommendation is entirely contrary to what is 
happening in a sense. The Soil and Water Conservation is trying to put 
small tributaries underground, put into a pond, a clean water pond, 
with fabric around it, and so forth, to cow's activities getting 
involved in the water.
  Now that is what they are trying to do. The Corps is trying to oppose 
them in my own State, time after time. And we may have to get back and 
take money away that the Federal Government put forth for the Soil and 
Water Conservation, because the Corps bureaucratically says that one 
drop of water is in their control and the Corps has no authority.
  Now, if you want to pollute streams, enact this bill and you will see 
on farms more and more activities that will be ignored. No farmer would 
get involved in this, and we will have to have a police state to go by 
every cow and every animal to see that there is any compliance.
  Right now the farmer knows best and is the best steward of his lands. 
He is working with the Soil and Water Conservation, with elected 
members from that community, and they are doing a good job. Put more 
bureaucracy in it, we will bring it to a halt and create more 
pollution.
  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the clean water 
amendment offered by my colleagues Mr. Leach, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. 
Dingell.
  This is an important amendment for public health and safe drinking 
water, for hunting, boating, and swimming, for protecting homes and 
businesses from floods, and for our economy, much of which depends on a 
clean environment, especially clean water.
  That is why the 1972 Clean Water Act is one of the nation's most 
fundamental and popular environmental protection laws. Clean water is 
vital to almost every aspect of quality of life in our nation.
  The policy adopted by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 
undermines the Clean Water Act's promise of clean water for all 
Americans and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. It 
threatens to reverse decades of progress in cleaning up the nation's 
waters.
  This policy is leaving many wetlands as well as headwater and 
seasonal streams without federal limits on water pollution. The policy 
tells the agencies' field staff they must get permission before 
applying Clean Water Act protections to certain so-called isolated 
waters, although that term is not used in the Clean Water Act to 
exclude waters from the law, nor is the term even defined in the 
policy, leaving it unclear at best what is and is not protected. No 
permission is needed before the EPA or Corps staff can deny protections 
for waters, and leave them open to pollution from sewage and industrial 
wastes, or even destruction.
  The total number of streams at risk across the country--and 
consequences for drinking water health and safety--are significant and 
potentially severe.
  Maintaining safe drinking water requires protecting the sources of 
drinking water--both surface water and groundwater supplies--from 
pollution. The EPA recently concluded that the majority of public 
drinking water systems that rely on surface waters get their water from 
``source water protection'' areas that contain headwater streams or 
seasonal and intermittent streams.
  Again, these are the very types of streams both I and my colleagues 
offering this amendment believe are most at risk of losing federal 
Clean Water Act protections under the agencies' policy.
  According to the EPA's letter:

       In total, over 90 percent of surface water protection areas 
     contain start reaches or intermittent/ephemeral streams. 
     Public drinking water systems which use these intakes (as 
     well as other sources) are estimated to provide drinking 
     water to over 110 million people.

  If this policy continues, some or all of these source waters could 
lose federal Clean Water Act restrictions against water pollution, and 
the people who rely on these waters will either pay the price: either 
with dirtier water or higher costs for safe drinking water.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join me today in voting to reaffirm 
protections from all of the nation's waters, including streams and 
wetlands, as the Clean Water At has always done. Vote for the Oberstar-
Leach-Dingell clean water amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment to H.R. 5386, the Interior-Environment 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. As co-chair of the 
Congressional Great Lakes Task Force, I believe it is imperative that 
we take immediate steps to prevent polluted discharges into streams, 
ponds, and wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes have 
already lost more than half of their original wetlands, and invasive 
species, non-point source runoff and food web disruptions continue to 
threaten the health and sustainability of this delicate ecosystem.
  The Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment would prohibit the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) from moving forward with a plan that will make 
it overly difficult to protect intrastate waters. Should EPA's policy 
remain intact, our Great Lakes basin will face greater threats of 
pollution to our drinking water, increased frequency and severity of 
flooding, and the loss of habitat for waterfowl and endangered 
wildlife.
  Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment has broad support 
among Great Lakes interests, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
for it. I am pleased to submit for the Record a letter from the Heal 
Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition in support of this important 
amendment.

                                                     May 17, 2006.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-
     Great Lakes Coalition, we ask you to vote for the Oberstar-
     Leach-Dingell `Clean Water Amendment' to the House's Fiscal 
     Year 2007 Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill 
     when it is considered on the floor this week. This amendment 
     will help protect the remaining wetlands, streams, rivers, 
     and lakes in the Great Lakes Basin.
       The Healing Our Waters Coalition is a group of 85 national, 
     regional and local organizations working to restore and 
     protect the Great Lakes. The Coalition represents millions of 
     Americans that live, work, and love this national treasure.
       As you know, the Great Lakes basin is defined by its rich 
     water resources, its vast sand dunes, biologically rich 
     coastal marshes, lake plain prairies, blue-ribbon trout 
     streams, rocky shorelines, sparkling inland lakes, and 
     diverse wetlands. Yet the wetlands, marshes, and shorelines 
     people in the region remember are being lost. The Great Lakes 
     have lost more than half of their original wetlands, 
     including 90 percent in Ohio and 50 percent in Michigan. 
     Invasive species, non-point source runoff and food web 
     disruptions threaten the health and sustainability of this 
     delicate ecosystem.
       In response to these threats, the Great Lakes Regional 
     Collaboration, which was commissioned by President Bush, 
     recommended in its December 2005 strategy to restore and 
     protect the Great Lakes that Congress ensure that all 
     wetlands are protected, including so-called ``isolated'' 
     wetlands. Yet federal policy not only fails to implement this 
     simple recommendation, it also puts many of the remaining 
     Great Lakes wetlands at risk of degradation or destruction.
       The Oberstar-Leach-Dingell ``Clean Water Amendment'' ends 
     the implementation of an out-dated policy put in place by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2003. EPA's policy 
     was intended to interpret a narrow U.S. Supreme Court 
     decision that limited protection for certain socalled 
     ``isolated'' waters. Instead, it threatens--by EPA's own 
     estimation--the 20 percent of wetlands left in the contiguous 
     United States and withholds Clean Water Act safeguards from 
     countless numbers of streams and large lakes. The Oberstar-
     Leach-Dingell amendment prohibits funds from being used to 
     implement a misguided policy that is resulting in the loss of 
     even more of the Great Lakes precious few wetlands.
       Support for ending this policy is not new. 218 members of 
     the u.S. House of Representatives wrote to the Administration 
     calling for this policy to be rescinded. It is, 
     unfortunately, still in effect.
       It is time for the federal government to end its out-dated 
     policy. Great Lakes waters depend upon it. Please vote yes on 
     the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell Clean Water Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Kiernan,
       Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters Coalition.
     Andy Buchsbaum
       Co-Chair Healing Our Waters Coalition.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H2855]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. 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 Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce the National Primary Drinking Water 
     Regulations for arsenic and radionuclides promulgated under 
     section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300g-1(b)(4)(E)) in the case of any public water system 
     serving 10,000 people or less.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you agree that sound 
science, not unproven theories be at the root of our Federal drinking 
water rules.
  Families in rural communities should not be required to pay thousands 
of additional dollars each year to comply with regulations that are 
founded in theory rather than in fact.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with 
the gentleman that the Federal regulations should be based on sound 
science, that rural communities should not be unfairly asked to pay 
additional, unnecessary costs for their drinking water.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, currently rural 
communities across America are being forced to comply with extremely 
costly regulations regarding arsenic and radionuclide standards that 
have been established by the EPA.
  There is no data available to support the assertions made by the EPA 
that these regulations materially protect public health and safety. I 
am concerned that the current EPA rules are not supported by public 
health information, that the results from unvalidated mathematical 
models are used to support these rules, and that the rules are 
unnecessarily creating a category of radioactive waste for which there 
is currently no approved method of disposal.
  Mr. Chairman, my comments are supported by the EPA's own statement 
and the notice of data availability document from April of 2000. ``EPA 
recognizes the inherent uncertainties that exist in estimating health 
impacts at the low levels of exposure, and the exposure rates expected 
to be present in the environment.
  EPA also recognizes that at these levels, the actual health impact 
from ingested radionuclides will be difficult if not impossible to 
distinguish from natural disease incidences, even using very large 
epidemiological studies employing sophisticated statistical analysis.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the rural communities are not protected, but 
rather are harmed by water standards that allegedly promote health at 
the expense of economic well being. I have rural constituents who are 
currently paying 770 percent more for water service than that of urban 
populations due to the regulatory burdens placed on them by EPA.
  Small water suppliers cannot comply with these standards. Current 
consumer rates will inevitably result in the loss of customers, and 
poor families will be forced to go back to using unregulated shallow 
ground water and dirt tanks for human and livestock consumption.

                              {time}  1945

  As more people exit these systems, the costs for the remaining 
customers will continue to rise.
  Currently, the EPA exempts water systems with fewer than 25 users. I 
believe we should extend that exemption to water systems that service 
fewer than 10,000 users. This would provide hope for the viability of 
small rural systems and the areas and communities they serve. The 
current requirements reach far beyond what is reasonable and are 
bankrupting local governments.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I commend the gentleman for his efforts 
on the part of his constituents and for all the rural water users who 
are facing similar problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see 
what can be done to fix this problem. The committee will be glad to 
facilitate a meeting with the EPA to address this important issue and 
see what can be done as we move this bill through conference with the 
Senate.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent now to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Putnam:
  TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
       Sec. __. No funds provided in title I may be expended by 
     the Department of the Interior--
       (1) for the conduct of offshore natural gas 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;
       (2) to conduct offshore natural gas 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; or
       (3) to conduct natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning 
     areas.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her to 
control and yield.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer language to strip from this bill 
a grievous assault on Florida and on other States that are dramatically 
impacted by what will be a 3-mile drilling limit. It does not recognize 
the needs of our military; it jeopardizes world-class one-of-a-kind 
ecosystems and industries. It doesn't respect the rights of our States 
to manage our own resources. It is an ill-conceived plan tied to the 
back of the wrong legislative vehicle.
  We come here this evening to debate a very important component of our 
national energy policy. This particular piece of our national energy 
policy needs to be comprehensive in nature; it needs to be dealt with 
in a forum other than the annual spending bill which controls 
everything from the National Park Service to wetlands mitigation and 
the national endowment for the arts and the humanities. It should be a 
stand-alone bill for this House to consider the merits and challenges 
of opening up the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration to assuage our 
national energy needs.
  We are in the process of negotiating a comprehensive solution to this 
problem. The sponsor of the legislation that found its way into this 
spending bill has his own comprehensive solution at 20 miles, and yet 
this jeopardizes our coasts at 3 miles. It does not leave any room for 
error, it did not have any input from the affected States, and it is 
opposed almost across the board by the Governors of those States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition.

[[Page H2856]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I will take 2 minutes to respond to the 
opening comments, and then I will share time.
  Why are we here tonight on an appropriations bill? Because for 25 
years we have had authorizing language placed in the initial draft of 
an appropriations bill that has nothing to do with appropriating, but 
has a lot to do with the energy policy of this country.
  This country is in an energy crisis, and the crisis in this country 
is natural gas. But natural gas is readily available in this country 
onshore and offshore. We are the only country in the world that has 
locked up its Outer Continental Shelf. That is from 3 miles to 200 
miles. We are the only country in the world.
  Now, my language that I placed in this bill, because it is all I 
could do in an appropriating bill; I can move authorizing language. I 
chose not to remove gas and oil because I think gas is the crisis that 
we can deal with. I removed the prohibition of natural gas only. I 
couldn't put my language in there from the bill I have that protects 
the shorelines for 20 miles. I couldn't do that. But we removed it for 
natural gas only. Still, we have a Presidential moratorium. Nothing can 
happen. We have a 5-year plan that anything that is leased, nothing can 
happen. We have to have authorizing language to allow gas leases only. 
Nothing can happen.
  This is the beginning of a debate, folks, that you have all been 
avoiding. This debate has been avoided year after year as the gas 
crisis in this country has continued to skyrocket. We used to have gas 
for less than $2 about 6 years ago. Last year, the average price was 
$9.50 a thousand and peaked at 14 and 15 for 4 months. We have the 
petrochemical business moving away. We have lost half of the fertilizer 
business in the last 2 years. Polymers and plastics are moving away. 
Steel, aluminum, bricks, and glass cannot do business in this country 
with these gas prices.
  It is important that we deal with this issue, and we start that 
debate tonight.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Our amendment restores the longstanding bipartisan ban that currently 
protects sensitive coastal and marine areas from new drilling. We 
support the current ban not just because the coastlines are beautiful; 
they are. And not just because we believe our coastlines provide 
valuable environmental habitat, and they do. We support the ban because 
we know our coasts are the economic engines of our communities, and 
that is threatened by new drilling. The people in these communities 
whom we represent know the value of their coastline, and that is why 
they are so against new drilling.
  Under this bill, we could literally see the push for new drilling as 
close as 3 miles to our coasts begin almost immediately. The oil and 
gas companies, awash in profits from our constituents' pockets, would 
have you believe that all offshore resources are off limits today; that 
we are only talking about drilling for natural gas and not oil; and 
that today's high gas prices demand this new drilling. These arguments 
simply don't hold up to scrutiny.
  First, the industry already has access to the vast majority of 
natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. Indeed, according to the 
Bush administration, about 80 percent of the known reserves are located 
in areas where drilling is already allowed.
  Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns drilling rights to 
more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone.
  Second, there really is no such thing as gas-only drilling. Drilling 
for natural gas means drilling for oil. Even the Bush administration 
and energy industry honchos have dismissed the so-called gas-only 
drilling as unworkable. This is the president of the American Petroleum 
Institute on gas-only drilling:
  ``We are somewhat concerned about some gas-only leasing proposals 
that have been embraced by people who don't know how the industry 
works.''
  And this is the head of MMS:
  ``Natural gas seldom comes totally by itself. Do you want to drill a 
well offshore that will cost anywhere between $20 million and $80 
million? And then, if you find oil with it, what will you do? I do not 
know how successful it will be.''
  Finally, new drilling 3 miles off our coasts will not lower gas 
prices today or anytime in the near future. It would take an estimated 
7 years for natural gas for new leases to come online. Serious energy 
efficiency measures and more use of renewables would reduce demand and 
bring down prices much faster.
  Mr. Chairman, the grand energy plan President Bush unveiled 5 years 
ago is over 95 percent implemented according to his own energy 
department; yet, with this plan in place, energy prices and industry 
profits are at record highs, the predictable result of a strategy of 
increasing supplies and ignoring demand.
  The Peterson amendment to drill within 3 miles off Florida, 
California, and other coastal States is just more of the same. With 3 
percent of the world's resources, 25 percent of the world's demands, 
shouldn't it be obvious that we can't drill our way out of this 
problem? We need to be using energy smarter, develop renewable and 
alternative energy, and use the one resource which we do have in 
abundance, our creativity. I urge my colleagues to vote to protect our 
coasts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Osborne) for 4 minutes.
  Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to oppose anything with my friend Adam 
Putnam's name on it, but in this case I feel that I am required to do 
so because of my constituency.
  As everyone knows, we are currently in very short supply of natural 
gas, and this of course has led to tremendously increased prices. In 
Nebraska, which is mostly rural, mostly agricultural, this has 
increased the cost of center pivot irrigation exponentially. We have 
even seen at one time 60, 70 percent of the irrigation wells were 
powered by natural gas. We have had to shift to diesel which is very 
expensive and electricity which is very expensive, and as a result 
farmers who at one time were making reasonable profits are now 
struggling just to have a profit line at all.
  This has increased the cost of fertilizer, anhydrous ammonia, that is 
made from natural gas, and of course anhydrous ammonia is a principle 
ingredient in fertilizer. So we have seen as much as 400 and 500 
percent in the last 5 years, again eating into the bottom line for most 
people in agriculture. Of course, everyone knows what this has done to 
home heating and cooling, 400, 500 percent increases, which has hit 
every American in every corner of the Nation. And so we have a crisis 
in this area that we need to address.
  The United States has large reserves of natural gas. It has been 
pointed out that we have maybe 3 percent of the world's petroleum 
reserves, but we have huge amounts of natural gas reserves, and we are 
handicapping ourselves in a way that is pretty much unprecedented in 
this area.
  At the present time, only 15 percent of available Outer Continental 
Shelf acres are not under a moratorium. Another way to put this is that 
roughly 85 percent of Outer Continental Shelf acres are off limits to 
exploration. And, of course, this is again handicapping what we are 
trying to accomplish here in reducing this shortage.
  I am sure that these moratoria are due to fear of spills and 
pollution, and yet we have had numerous hurricanes in the last few 
years that haven't caused oil rigs to malfunction or lines to rupture. 
We have not seen any massive pollution even though we have had huge 
damage from these hurricanes.
  Canada has natural gas wells in the Great Lakes with no pollution. In 
Lake Erie, they have 2,200 wells on the Canadian side alone. Now, if 
you have ever been on the Great Lakes, you realize that this is very 
much like the ocean; they can get as rough as the ocean. I have been up 
there fishing many times. And so if Canada has been able to do this 
with no great environmental threat, why can't we do this anywhere from 
3 miles to 200 miles offshore in the ocean? I would think we can do 
this very efficiently. China will be drilling for gas off the coast of 
Cuba within a short period of time. Now, this is very close to Florida.
  So we think these are things that we need to consider. And so at the 
present

[[Page H2857]]

time we are handicapping ourselves because of this not-in-my-backyard 
mentality. We all want to have something happen somewhere else, but not 
anywhere close to ourselves. Natural gas is clean burning; it is 
environmentally friendly. We need to open these supplies both offshore 
in the U.S. and in Alaska.
  It was mentioned earlier that it would take about 7 years for natural 
gas to come online. But if you don't start at some point, it will be 7 
years from next year, and then it will be 7 years from 2 years from 
now, and at some point we have to begin to address this problem.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman who represents the pristine Florida Keys, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank our leader, Mr. Putnam, for 
the time. And along with my colleagues from the Florida delegation, I 
rise in strong support of the Putnam amendment and in passionate 
opposition to any amendment, any language which would allow offshore 
drilling a mere 3 miles from our Nation's coast.

                              {time}  2000

  The Peterson language would overturn the current moratorium on 
drilling, a moratorium which has been in place for over 25 years.
  The bipartisan Florida delegation position remains firm, remains 
strong: oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf is 
dangerous for the economy, is dangerous for the environment, runs 
contrary to national security interests, and is not an immediate nor a 
long-term answer to the Nation's growing energy needs.
  Drilling 3 miles off a Florida coast, as Mr. Putnam pointed out.
  I am so proud to represent the ecological treasures of the Florida 
Keys. It is a premier destination for ecotourism. Any offshore drilling 
near this area would place thousands of rare and vulnerable marine 
plant species in harm's way and could cripple the Keys' tourism 
economy.
  Drilling structures along the gulf coast would be located in the 
middle of a hurricane zone. So I hope that we strongly oppose the 
Peterson language by adopting the Putnam language tonight, and I thank 
the chairman.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I am here to speak on an issue of 
paramount importance to my constituents in south Louisiana and I think 
the entire Nation. Outer Continental Shelf production and coastal 
impact assistance are very important.
  Louisiana is uniquely positioned in the OCS debate. Our State is one 
of the few that allows production off its coast. We are also major 
consumers of this production, through chemicals, fertilizers and 
various other gas-intensive manufacturing.
  Some quick facts for you. Among the 50 States, Louisiana ranks first 
in crude oil production; second in natural gas production; second in 
total energy production from all sources; second in petroleum refining 
capacity; second in primary petrochemical production; third in 
industrial energy consumption; third in natural gas consumption; fifth 
in petroleum consumption; eighth in total energy consumption. We are a 
State that is a working State with a working coast.
  Our State is a vital part of the domestic energy production and 
consumption, which keeps our entire economy humming. As others refrain 
from similar production, natural gas supplies tighten and the prices 
rise, jeopardizing tens of thousands of well-paying jobs that are being 
shipped overseas, many of these from my own State and district.
  The energy support Louisiana and other coastal States provide for our 
Nation is not without cost. We are happy to provide what others would 
rather not. However, this supply also impacts our coastal communities 
and wetlands conservation, and we bear the costs of onshore 
infrastructure required to support this production activity.
  Every debate on OCS production should also include an equity 
discussion. Coastal producing States should receive a fair share of 
revenues off their coasts, just as inland States receive from onshore 
production.
  I appreciate the leadership Mr. Peterson has taken on this issue, and 
I respectfully oppose Mr. Putnam's intent to strike this language from 
the bill.
  If you look off the coast in the next several years, if not sooner, 
between Cuba and Key West, you will see the Chinese and the Cubans 
starting their venture to drill right off the coast of Florida. They 
may not be visible but they will be there.
  Gas and oil production offshore, the technology that is there today, 
is astounding. I would invite every one of you that have never been on 
an offshore rig or seen the technology for drilling, I invite you to 
come to Louisiana to take the trip offshore, to understand what energy 
production is all about. It is not what it is perceived to be, as it 
was some 50 years ago.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to a 
previous speaker.
  According to an Army Corps of Engineers report on the drilling in the 
Great Lakes, ``Routine drilling is known to be hazardous to human 
health. Discharges and accidental spills of toxic chemicals from 
drilling can also contaminate the water of Lake Erie contaminating a 
primary drinking water source for millions of people.''
  Drilling, either in the Great Lakes or offshore, is a dirty process.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis), my colleague.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Capps for 
yielding.
  One of the things that everyone agrees on tonight with respect to 
this amendment is that we need to have an adequate supply of energy to 
meet the needs of this country. Eighty percent of the known oil and gas 
reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf are already available to the 
energy companies that need them. There are more than 4,000 leases held 
by these energy companies that are currently not used at all.
  It is important to point out what this amendment does. The amendment 
says it allows drilling for gas up to 3 miles off the east coast of 
Florida, 9 miles off the coast of Florida, my home the West Coast, as 
well as the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. It has been 
pointed out, and it has not been objected to, this is not just about 
gas, it is also about oil because if a company makes an investment to 
earn a profit for gas and they get oil, they are going to go for oil.
  The bitter irony here is off the coast of Florida there is very 
little oil. It is really a drop in the bucket. That is why the 
amendment does not talk about oil, but it is enough to make a 
difference to the State of Florida.
  There has been a lot of conversation here tonight about other States, 
about this being about jobs. Let me tell you about my home State 
Florida. This is about jobs. Last year, we had 88 million tourists 
visit our State. Those of you who are here tonight represent families 
who are saving their money to enjoy their family vacation, what State 
will be the number one destination for beaches? Florida. This is not 
just a State treasure; it is a national treasure. Yes, this is about 
jobs and Florida's beaches are a critical part of our economy.
  There has been some discussion tonight that there is no risk as far 
as spills. The truth of the matter is none of us really know exactly 
what the risk is. One of the few things we do know is last year when 
Tropical Storm Arlene hit off the coast of Louisiana, there was an oil 
spill. There was a rig that resulted in a spill that soiled the coast 
of Louisiana. We cannot have this happen in Florida. It is too 
devastating. It is too important to our economy.
  This is about balance. It is about protecting jobs. It is about 
respecting the rights of States. Nobody has a monopoly on what the 
truth is as to where the line is drawn. There is plenty of drilling off 
the coast of Florida right now in the central and western gulf, but 
this is the wrong time and the wrong place to have this debate.
  The folks we represent in Florida deserve an open and honest 
discussion in our State, on our beaches, with small business owners 
whose livelihood depends upon the risk of a spill to our coast, and 
there we will discuss the balance, the tradeoff in meeting the 
country's energy needs, but not tonight

[[Page H2858]]

in a one-hour debate in the evening on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Floridians deserve better. Americans deserve better. I urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This is the beginning of the debate. This is not the end. The 
gentleman from Florida knows, no drilling can happen. There is still a 
presidential moratorium. There is still a 5-year plan. We have to have 
legislation to allow gas only. Florida is rich in gas. They are not 
rich in oil. I am not about oil. We need gas in this country. We cannot 
drill our way out of oil.
  We can help ourselves in other places, but natural gas is a richness 
this country has. It is the clean fuel. It has the least pollutants 
when you use it. It is the mother's milk of everything we make in this 
country. From women's face creams to every chemical we buy at the 
hardware store, the grocery store, polymers, plastic, carpet, drapes, 
it all is full of natural gas.
  There is about 3 million jobs in those industries I have just 
mentioned, and every one of them are already moving offshore. They do 
not want to. They have to. We cannot put the disadvantage of $9.50 gas 
last year, $14 and $15, when South America is $1.80, Russia is about a 
buck, China and Taiwan 3-something.
  This is about the economy of America. Drill only gas? Canadians have 
drilled 2,200 wells successfully, gas only. I grew up around the oil 
patch. I have never been in the oil business. I have never made a 
dollar off the oil business. They drill down through and they choose 
what they are going to produce. They mark it as they drill through it, 
and they produce what is there.
  Florida is rich in gas. Florida uses 235 times more natural gas than 
they produce. They could be self-sufficient. They could have huge 
royalties, and there has never been a gas well that has polluted a 
beach. I have asked for examples. I was told the Santa Barbara spill. 
That was an oil well.
  A gas well is a steel pipe in the ground. It is cemented at the 
bottom, and it is cemented at the top. It is open where the gas vein 
is, and you let gas out. In Lake Erie it runs underground onto shore. 
Citizens do not even know it is there.
  Natural gas is not something to be afraid of. It is something this 
country needs. I am not for 3 miles offshore. I have legislation that 
protects us, but I cannot put that on this bill or I would. I can only 
start this debate tonight.
  This debate has been put off. For 3 years I have been talking about 
this issue. From this day forward, we are going to debate this issue 
until we do what is right for the future of America.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), who represents the cradle of naval 
aviation.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  You have heard a lot tonight about the potential environmental 
impacts, but let me just draw to your attention the issue as it affects 
our national defense.
  Looks pretty cluttered, but this is a test range for Eglin Air Force 
Base where they do weapons testing from the panhandle of Florida all 
the way to the Florida Keys. This red line right in here is a military 
mission line. Basically, the Air Force says, the Secretary of Defense 
has said, the Navy has said that anything that is east, anything that 
is east of that military mission line is incompatible with the mission 
at Eglin Air Force Base. There is live fire testing. We are not just 
practicing out there. This is not Top Gun flying airplanes around. 
These are new weapons systems, classified new weapons systems that are 
being tested over the Gulf of Mexico.
  Yes, the beaches of Florida are a national treasure, but I can tell 
you from a national defense standpoint, this entire area of the extreme 
eastern Gulf of Mexico is a national treasure because there is no other 
weapons testing area like it in the country or in the world.
  Opponents of the Putnam amendment say that the underlying language 
does nothing to hurt the readiness of our military. Well that is 100 
percent wrong!
  As you can see from this map, the Joint Gulf Test Range extends from 
the Panhandle of Florida to Key West.
  The Air Force uses this area for Live Fire testing and evaluation of 
weapons systems. The Navy uses the Gulf Ranges to do predeployment 
certifications and to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles from submarines.
  Let me read you a list of just a sampling of current and future 
missions that are conducted in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training and live fire F/A-22 pilot 
upgrade training including AMRAAM live fire Tomahawk Cruise Missile 
launch from submerged vessels Testing of Small Diameter Bomb program 
against man-made targets in the Gulf F-16 weapons systems testing and 
evaluation, U.S. Navy predeployment certification, testing and 
development of hypersonic munitions, low-cost miniature cruise 
missiles, Air-Dominance munitions, unmanned combat air vehicles, 
Directed Energy weapons, and classified programs.
  The Commander of the Air Armament Center, Major General Robert W. 
Chedister, said last August ``Clearly, structures associated with oil/
gas production are totally incompatible with, and would have a 
significant impact on, the mission activity in the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico. Accordingly, it is absolutely `visceral' that the vast water 
area encompassed by the Gulf be preserved in order for us to continue 
to serve the needs of national defense.''
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote ``areas east of 
the 86 deg.41' line in the Gulf of Mexico commonly known as the 
`military mission line' are specially critical to DoD.'' He went on to 
say ``In those 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, weapons testing, and training.''
  Now let me show you where this 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 Navy.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, this is about American jobs, the American 
family and the American economy. Here are the plain facts.
  Natural gas costs less than a $1.50 per Btu in Russia, Iran, Saudi 
Arabia, but here in the United States this one report had it at $8.85, 
and it has been as high as $13. This means homeowners pay about $200 
more to heat their homes. This means the United States steel, for every 
dollar the price of natural gas goes up, costs them $80 million.
  If you are a company and you ask yourself where are you going to 
build or where are you going to move to, we have already lost 90,000 
jobs in the chemical industry. We have lost 3 million jobs in the 
manufacturing industry due to energy prices.
  We talk about the law of supply and demand of the 1990s. Ninety 
percent of new electric energy plants use natural gas. World demands 
have gone up. It is expected about a 90 percent increase in natural gas 
demands in the next 10 years, but since 1982 this Nation had a self-
imposed moratorium on offshore natural gas and oil drilling.
  Here is the real law of supply and demand we need to look at now. 
Americans are demanding that lawmakers increase the supply. We cannot 
afford to continue to have these high gas prices and send jobs to Saudi 
Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Iran and Russia or let other countries do with 
natural gas prices like they did with Ukraine and double the prices on 
them. We cannot compete as a nation for jobs with this.
  It is no wonder the building trades have come out with a very 
strongly worded letter and said, please, let us start lowering the 
prices for goods and services in America. People get up here time and 
time again and say China is eating us for lunch. What are we doing 
here? We are cutting our own legs off and destroying jobs in America.
  We have abundant supplies of natural gas. We can protect the 
coastline. This will not be within 3 miles. It takes entirely different 
legislation to do that, but please, please, let us save jobs in America 
for a change and stop talking about it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I respond to my colleague, Mr. Peterson. I lived in Santa Barbara in 
1969. I saw that devastation with my own eyes, beach closures, fish 
kills, air pollution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).

[[Page H2859]]

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me follow up on what the gentlewoman 
said. I was in New Jersey in the late 1980s where I live, and we saw 
the beaches closed. We saw the entire tourism industry destroyed for 
not only that one summer in 1988 but two or three summers afterwards.
  I listened to what the previous speaker here on the Republican side 
said, and he talked about jobs. He talked about the economy. He talked 
about housing. That is what is at stake here. In my home State of New 
Jersey, people think of New Jersey as an industrial State, tourism is 
as big an industry in New Jersey as the petrochemical industry. We 
depend on that tourism economy, and we cannot have our beaches dirtied 
by an oil spill that would result from natural gas drilling. And don't 
tell me that you are going to drill for natural gas and you are not 
going to affect oil. There is no question that you can.
  The problem I see here is that the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, 
well, this is not a real debate because if this happens it won't matter 
because the President has an executive order. Well, I can't depend on 
the President. The President is an oil man. For all I know he could 
lift the executive order if this legislation goes through and you can 
drill for natural gas and we don't have the moratorium in effect any 
more.
  I want you all to understand that we are not just talking here pie in 
the sky. We have seen our beaches closed. We have seen the impact. In 
New Jersey, tourism is 500,000 jobs, $16.6 billion in wages, and $5.5 
billion in State tax revenue. You shut that down, the way it was closed 
in the late 1980s in New Jersey because of a different type of 
pollution, and you basically shut down a significant portion of our 
State. We are talking about real things here.
  When you talk about the fact that you can drill for natural gas and 
you are not going to hit oil, every indication is the opposite. The 
American Petroleum Institute has said the opposite and the Minerals 
Management Service has said the opposite. And we are talking 3 miles 
from shore. You could actually see these rigs. We could actually have 
oil rigs right up to 3 miles from the shore if this legislation passes 
and we don't have this amendment.
  Pass this amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us not confuse 
medical waste off New Jersey. That was medical waste dumped in the 
ocean.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it will 
continue the status quo of high natural gas prices that are harming 
every day hardworking American families.
  The choice is clear: we can either increase the supply of natural gas 
in this country, or we can continue to pay some of the highest prices 
in the world for natural gas.
  So what is wrong with the status quo? What is wrong with high natural 
gas prices? First, millions of middle-and low-income working families 
are suffering from costly increases in their home heating and cooling 
bills. Those high monthly bills are straining and even breaking family 
budgets all across America.
  Second, family farmers and ranchers are already struggling with 
natural disasters, high diesel costs, and foreign government-subsidized 
competition. Now, high natural gas costs have driven nitrogen 
fertilizer costs from $100 a ton to more than $350 a ton. For many ag 
producers, higher fertilizer costs will be the straw that breaks the 
camel's back.
  And by the way, if you like what OPEC has done for high oil prices, 
you will love what dependence on foreign food will do to the price of 
food products in American grocery stores.
  The third reason I oppose this amendment is that I am sick and tired 
of seeing good-paying American jobs being shipped overseas. American 
factories run by high-priced natural gas here at home are being put at 
a huge disadvantage against foreign factories using lower-cost natural 
gas. For American factories and businesses to compete with foreign 
factories and businesses, it is kind of like trying to run a race with 
a 20-pound weight tied around your ankle. It just won't work. And the 
price for that is we are losing the race for international competition 
for good-paying jobs.
  The final reason I oppose this amendment is that in my district the 
utility companies in Texas want to build five new coal-fired plants for 
electric power. Tell me how replacing natural gas-fired plants with 
coal-fired plans, increasing mercury, CO2, and other 
pollutants in the air, in our streams, and in our lakes is good for 
America.
  Stand up for our farmers, our factories, and for hardworking American 
families. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman who 
represents Florida's gulf coast (Ms. Harris).
  (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
amendment by Mr. Putnam and Mrs. Capps. This is not just a Florida 
issue; it is a national issue. If the Putnam amendment is not adopted, 
the 25-year bipartisan Outer Continental Shelf moratorium will come to 
an abrupt end, thus allowing natural gas wells as close as 3 miles from 
every coastal State.
  If the Putnam amendment is not adopted, coastal State economies that 
rely on a healthy tourism for their continued prosperity will be 
severely jeopardized, and coastal waters, fisheries, and marine 
ecosystems will be greatly jeopardized as well.
  And, finally, there would be severe national security consequences 
when the military could no longer conduct military operations and 
training.
  In closing, there is no doubt that high energy prices pose a serious 
challenge to our Nation's manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. 
However, the gas exploration provision in this bill will not provide 
Americans with short-term relief, nor will it lead toward an energy 
independent future.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Putnam-Capps 
amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
just want to point out that the natural gas beyond the 3 miles belongs 
to all the people of America; 280 million of us own that, and we are 
entitled to use it. We are entitled to use it for jobs, and we are 
entitled to use it for fueling our industry. Many of you have seen the 
buses on the highways in our cities that are fueled by clean-burning 
natural gas.
  I want to point out something else, and that is that in the Labor-HHS 
bill we put in a lot of money for LIHEAP. Why? Because the price of 
natural gas keeps going up and we, therefore, have to subsidize this 
with tax dollars, tax dollars that could be used for medical research, 
tax dollars that could be used for education and things that build the 
quality of life for Americans.
  I do not think it is fair to 280 million Americans to deny them 
access to an asset that belongs to all of them, the resources that lie 
beyond the 3-mile limit. That limit is there for a reason.
  I also want to point out one other thing. For those that have not 
seen it, the technology today is vastly improved. The drilling rigs are 
safe. The production platforms are usually under the water and you 
don't even know they are there. And they are not going to be an 
impediment to military operations, and they are not going to be an 
impediment to the viewscape of the tourists who go to Florida, 
California, or wherever the case might be.
  I think for jobs for America, for health research, for education we 
need to use this natural resource that belongs to all of us.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to a 
couple of statements that have been made.
  First, LIHEAP has been underfunded for years, high natural gas prices 
or not. Yesterday's price of natural gas was $5.91 per million Btus. 
That was about 8 percent less than it was 1 year ago. There is a better 
way to respond to today's high prices than by drilling. We can start by 
making our homes, our buildings, and our cars more energy efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise in

[[Page H2860]]

support of the Putnam-Capps bipartisan amendment which strikes the 
Peterson language that would allow for drilling just 3 miles off our 
shoreline.
  Members, let us put this in perspective. Imagine yourself on the west 
steps of the United States Capitol admiring the view of our Nation's 
Capitol, taking in the scenery and enjoying the environment. Now 
imagine yourself gazing towards the Kennedy Center, and just beyond the 
Kennedy Center, right there in the middle of the Potomac River, you see 
a big old oil rig. It is not quite as appealing any more, is it?
  Now, I know that we are not going to be drilling for gas or oil in 
the Potomac River, but I paint this scenario for a reason. That 
distance from the Capitol to just beyond the Kennedy Center is the same 
distance that Mr. Peterson is proposing we place natural gas rigs off 
our Nation's beaches.
  There are drastic and devastating environmental and economic 
repercussions that come with drilling into the ocean floor so close to 
our beaches, for my own State of Florida and for the rest of the 
Nation. For example, the uncontrollable discharges of mud, rock, and 
minerals that come with piercing a hole into our Earth would be 
devastating for our near-shore activities.
  Now, for our colleagues that feel they need to vote for something, 
anything, to be able to say they are trying to address gas prices, I 
have a reminder: cars don't run on natural gas. People who are now 
paying upwards of $50 to fill their gas tanks, this amendment, if we 
leave it in place, will do nothing to change that. Gas prices will 
still be astronomically high.
  And to address the issue of oil rigs off our shoreline put there by 
Cuba and China, do we want to emulate the actions of nations like Cuba 
and China? Do we want the Florida straits dotted with oil rigs? I think 
not, and I think most Americans would also agree.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the coast of the United States and 
vote ``yes'' for the bipartisan Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have been having this 
debate with the Florida delegation and other delegations for some time, 
and I really appreciate and like all and respect them very much, but I 
find recently that poll data show me that Floridians are ahead. Over 60 
percent of Floridians in all the recent polls I have seen support 
production of energy off their shores.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my 
good friend and colleague from Florida here, and I am dismayed that, 
unfortunately, politics has not kept up with technology or good energy 
policy in this country.
  Florida has faced an energy crisis before. Back in the 1970s, I was 
in the Florida legislature and I voted during that crisis to drill in 
the Florida Everglades for oil. You won't believe this, but today we 
are producing oil safely and in an environmentally sound fashion from 
the Everglades.
  This is a myth here about this 3 miles, and we should not drill as 
close as 3 miles. We should look at the conditions. But today we have 
the technology to drill safely and in an environmentally sound manner.
  Florida's population is expected to grow 29 percent by 2020. The 
consumption of natural gas is expected to grow by 140 percent. Why? You 
all were here, many of you here, during the 1990s. The Clinton 
administration proposed that we convert our coal and oil plants in 
Florida to natural gas. Well, 28 of the 34 electrical generating plants 
designed in Florida are going to need natural gas. We built a billion 
dollar pipeline across the gulf, and we need to hook up to that.
  Cuba and China are going to be drilling very close to our shores, and 
they will be getting oil and gas. The American people and Floridians 
will be getting the shaft. We can do this in an environmentally sound 
fashion. We don't have to play politics.
  What is our alternative for stable sources? Nigeria? The Mideast? I 
say no.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this, and now one of his supporters, 
have both said 3 miles is not their ultimate goal. That is what is in 
the language. If that is not your ultimate goal, let's withdraw this 
amendment and have a real debate on a separate basis about a 
comprehensive solution to this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Jacksonville, Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is really just a question of whether 
you solve a problem the right way or you solve it the wrong way.
  Now, we ought to adopt this amendment, we ought to leave the 
moratorium in place while the Resources Committee, which has been 
working on this, having hearings, having testimony, comes up with a 
comprehensive program to solve this problem and to deal with this 
issue.
  This is not the only time or the only place. In fact, it is not the 
right time, on this appropriation bill, or the right place. It is a 
complicated issue. You heard that it deals with environmental issues, 
economic issues, and military issues. It doesn't lend itself to a quick 
fix.
  If we don't adopt this amendment, we will end up with a knee-jerk 
reaction that will allow offshore drilling anytime, anywhere, off any 
coastline within 3 miles. And that is just terrible public policy. 
Terrible public policy.
  So let us be reasonable. Let us let the Resources Committee do their 
work, and then let's make a decision based on the facts.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania for his diligence in working on this issue.
  I understand tourism is Florida's biggest producer of revenue, and a 
lot of people go there. But if we don't pass an amendment that will 
help us get more natural gas, people at Disney World are going to have 
to be drinking their Cokes, or whatever they drink, out of something 
other than a plastic cup.

                              {time}  2030

  Our plastics industry in our country is made from natural gas, not 
only the feed stock, but the actual plastic. And so I don't know what 
we are going to do in our country if we continue to see high natural 
gas prices. We are already paying huge amounts to cool our homes in our 
part of the country, or heat our homes in the north. But we have a 
chemical industry that may not be popular if it is down the street, 
although it is in my neighborhood. But it produces jobs, high-paying 
jobs; and it produces this plastic that we drink from every day. And if 
we don't come up with some other way to lower the price of natural gas, 
we can just kiss this plastic goodbye.
  Eighty percent of our U.S. offshore waters are currently excluded 
from production: the eastern gulf, the Pacific, the Atlantic coast and 
some coasts of Alaska. Only Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 
have coastal production.
  100,000 jobs have been lost because of the high prices of natural 
gas. And these are high-paying manufacturing jobs that we desperately 
need to keep in our country.
  We have the highest natural gas prices in the industrialized world 
primarily because of our offshore moratorium. Even Northern Europe has 
cheaper gas, and I know we have had jobs move from my district to 
Northern Europe because the price of natural gas there is so much 
cheaper. And their environmental laws are so much stronger.
  Norway, Great Britain produce off their coast. Are we saying that 
they are not concerned about their beaches? It is ludicrous.
  We only have two options to prevent the loss of jobs, either import 
more LNG, liquefied natural gas, which we will bring in, or produce 
offshore. There is no alternatives. We have got to have it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against the Putnam-Capps 
amendment.
  Eighty percent of our U.S. offshore waters are currently excluded 
from production--the eastern gulf, the Pacific, and the Atlantic coast, 
and some coastal areas off Alaska. Only the Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama coasts have production.
  This contributes to high natural gas prices that have cost the U.S. 
nearly 100,000 jobs, primarily high paid manufacturing jobs.

[[Page H2861]]

  We have the highest natural gas prices in the industrialized world, 
primarily because of our offshore moratoria. Even Northern Europe has 
cheap, because they produce in the North Sea. Norway, Great Britain, 
who have drilled off their coasts with strong environmental laws.
  We only have two options to prevent the loss of further jobs--we can 
build more LNG import plants and we can produce more gas offshore. 
There is no alternative to natural gas in many cases.
  Unfortunately, the opponents of both options are often the same 
pepple--they oppose LNG and they oppose drilling for gas. Maybe they 
think energy and plastics are made from thin air.
  Natural gas is the cleanest energy source we have besides solar or 
wind, and it is a critical fuel for industrial facilities and is a 
feedstock for the petrochemical industry that makes plastic.
  If we cannot produce natural gas here, we are going to have to import 
gas to heat our homes and import more plastic in bulk or in consumer 
products. That hurts our balance of trade.
  Canada has been producing gas-only wells in Lake Erie for decades. 
Any producer would rather have oil too at these prices, but if Congress 
says ``gas-only'' then it will be gas-only, and there will be no chance 
of oil spills.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support U.S. jobs, U.S. energy, and 
reducing the trade deficit by supporting U.S. natural gas. And oppose 
the Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I remind the gentleman that there is production off my district as 
well. Several coastal State Governors are voicing concerns about the 
proposal to allow drilling as close as 3 miles off our coast, including 
California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger; New Jersey Governor, Jon 
Corzine; North Carolina Governor, Mike Easley; South Carolina Governor, 
Mark Sanford. And this is what our former colleague, Mark Sanford, had 
to say: ``Energy independence is something we are all after, but we 
think it makes more sense in the long run to pursue that goal through 
focusing on alternative forms of energy rather than fossil fuels. 
Tourism is our State's number one industry, and we don't think it makes 
sense to undertake something that could potentially damage our coast.''
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Ms. 
Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support 
of the amendment. You know, I have been an elected official for 25 
years, 14 years in the Congress. And I want to be clear that the people 
of Florida are united against any drilling in Florida. Now, when I 
listen to the people from Texas and other places, you know, I 
understand that Florida is the number one tourist destination in the 
world. The number one. And we shouldn't do anything that would be 
against the people of Florida and the people of the United States. 
People save their money to come to Florida.
  And certainly we need a comprehensive energy policy. But someone said 
that the people in Florida in some surveys support drilling in Florida. 
That is definitely untrue. The people of Florida do not support 
drilling in Florida. And the people in Florida are united against any 
drilling in Florida.
  Florida's coastline is a treasure not just for Floridians, but all 
Americans and the rest of the world. For years Florida's delegation has 
worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources. Even 
conducting an inventory of resources in the Gulf of Mexico will begin 
to destroy the efforts we have made as a state to preserve our 
sensitive lands. As long as there are rigs In the area, the potential 
for devastation to Florida's beaches persists. Florida's beaches are 
not something we can afford to compromise. This decision goes against 
everything that Floridians have worked for over so many years. 
Certainly, the people of Florida do not support off of our shores.
  In fact, the impact of offshore drilling threatens irreversible 
scarring to the landscape, affecting thousands of species, each 
critical to the ecosystem. The great weather, pristine beaches, and I 
marine wildlife are the number one draws to our fine state. By moving 
forward with even a resources inventory, you risk a multi-billion 
dollar industry for only a few extra barrels of petroleum.
  There are environmental risks associated with near-shore natural gas 
drilling despite claims to the contrary. Liquid hydrocarbon found with 
natural gas could float on top of the water and was up on Florida's 
beaches. Moreover, one huge problem with the plan is that the areas 
that are off limits to drilling now are not where the resources are. In 
fact, 80 percent of the Nation's undiscovered technically recoverable 
natural gas on the OCS is located in the Central and Western Gulf of 
Mexico and offshore Alaska--where drilling is currently allowed and 
already underway.
  Indisputably, allowing drilling would be harmful to tourism and risk 
Florida's $57 billion tourist economy. In fact, this policy would 
affect all U.S. coastlines from Alaska to Maine. Any drilling would 
also be visible from the beach and have no effect on oil prices, 
especially when natural gas prices are falling.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, fear can be overcome with 
facts. And hopefully down the road here we will get the facts.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise strongly against this amendment. 
It was said earlier that this is not the right time to make this 
decision. Well, it is always easy to say it is not the right time to 
make a tough decision. And the reason we are in this terrible situation 
is we have made bad decisions in the past.
  There is no reason at all that we should have a North America gas 
market that is four or five times the rest of the world. We should be 
paying a competitive price for gas, but we are paying this outrageous 
price because of the decisions that we have made in the past. And we 
have made them based on outdated facts.
  Let's look at the true facts. Let's look at the facts that technology 
has changed. We can do this safely; we are doing it safely in other 
places. We want to preserve Florida's coastline. Nobody wants to do 
anything that would have any harm. But we also need the natural gas.
  We are losing jobs every day because of the price of natural gas in 
North America. Now, when we lose jobs to China because people over 
there are willing to work real cheap, we are real upset about that, as 
we should be.
  But we are losing jobs because of the price of natural gas that would 
pay top American wages, jobs we can't afford to lose. We cannot afford 
to be uncompetitive in the world. This ban must be lifted. We must 
figure out how to do it properly so that we are not locking up the 
resources that we need to be competitive in the world.
  This is a very simple subject that just needs a little cold logic put 
on it, and we can't be worrying about the fears of the past. We have to 
be taking care of the future. We need to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends again, we agree on the 
technology having been improved. We agree on the need for a 
comprehensive solution. But you all agree with us that 3 miles is too 
close. If that is the case, let's adopt this amendment and do this the 
right way.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  (Mrs. DRAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am an ardent supporter of safe deep sea 
drilling for natural gas. However, the current language does not 
contain necessary safeguards to protect our Nation and our coastal 
States. Revenue sharing must be included. And we must address the needs 
of our military.
  The coast of Virginia is a valuable training area. We must not impact 
that training capability. We currently are in discussions with the Navy 
as to whether we can develop a way to coexist with industry and create 
a win/win situation, realizing that the needs of the Navy are the top 
priority.
  We must also address the issue of the boundaries drawn by Minerals 
Management Service and correct the existing map.
  It is for these reasons that I support the Putnam amendment and look 
forward to a complete and detailed discussion of this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my concerns regarding the 
Peterson language included in H.R. 5386 which would lift the 
Congressional moratorium on natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS). While I am an ardent supporter of safe, deep-sea drilling for 
natural gas, I do not support the Peterson language. I do support the 
Putnam amendment, which strikes the Peterson language.
  Our Nation is in an energy crisis. Consumers are paying more to heat 
their homes and to buy American-made products and crops. Because 
natural gas is a domestic product, its price is determined by domestic

[[Page H2862]]

supply and demand. Companies and jobs are moving to other countries 
where the price of doing business is cheaper because of lower costs in 
natural gas. The moratorium on offshore drilling places our nation at 
an extreme disadvantage.
  However, I can only support a plan for deep sea drilling that 
contains the safeguards that I feel will best suit the needs of our 
nation and the citizens of coastal states. First, the plan must allow 
the states the option to opt-out of the moratorium on offshore 
drilling. Coastal states know what is in their best interest. As such, 
they should be able to determine what terms should be allowed for 
drilling off of their shore.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia and the Hampton Roads area in particular 
are very proud of the military presence in our region. Norfolk, 
Virginia is home to the largest Navy base in the world and much of 
their training occurs off the coast of Virginia. I am committed to 
ensuring that the Navy will continue to use these areas offshore for 
training and recognize that offshore drilling can only occur off the 
coast of Virginia if the military training areas are preserved. I have 
shared with the Navy that it is my desire to work with the military to 
come up with the best plan for the coexistence of energy production and 
military presence. I look forward to continuing our conversations so 
that offshore drilling is compatible with our military's mission.
  In addition, a suitable plan must include a revenue-sharing component 
with the states. This money can be used for important projects such as 
transportation, education, sand replenishment, and Chesapeake Bay 
restoration.
  I also believe that the plan that will come out of Congress must fix 
the Minerals Management Services' (MMS) federal OCS offshore 
administrative boundaries which determine OCS state adjacent 
administrative zones. These boundaries, as they are currently drawn, do 
not accurately reflect the relative boundaries of States and 
furthermore penalize States, such as Virginia, with concave coastlines 
and result in grossly unfair zoning. This inequity affects all of the 
Commonwealth's activities in the ocean including sand and gravel 
dredging, mariculture, and offshore renewable energy projects involving 
wind, waves and currents. I have expressed my concerns regarding these 
administrative boundaries to the Department of the Interior and it is 
my desire that these boundaries be revised as part of Congressional 
legislation.
  The House Committee on Resources, of which I am a member, is the 
authorizing committee with jurisdiction over OCS. While I applaud 
Representative Peterson for bringing this critical issue to the 
forefront, I believe it is the responsibility of the Resources 
Committee to approve legislation that contains the principles I have 
outlined. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues towards 
passage of a bill that encompasses all of these principles. At this 
time, I do not believe including the Peterson language in the Interior 
Appropriations bill allows for the debate that is necessary for such an 
important issue. For these reasons, I support the Putnam amendment and 
will continue to discuss this important national security issue with my 
colleagues in Congress and the important stakeholders on the coast of 
Virginia.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
do so always reluctantly when it involves my good friend from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam), with whom I have the greatest respect.
  But in 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering 
more than 85 percent of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. 
natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world. Today, 
U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world.
  Prices for natural gas continue to increase while the government 
continues to promote new natural gas consumption. To balance the 
market, we need to invest in efficient and alternative energy. But we 
also need to increase access to new sources of supply to keep pace with 
new sources of demand.
  The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and 
forest sector. Paper mills, a major employer in my district, are very 
energy intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of 
operating a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The 
impacts have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills across the country 
have closed, and 182,000 jobs lost since 2000, when energy prices 
started a steep rise.
  For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for 
fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 
2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-1992 level, very near all 
time high records. The Interior appropriations bill begins to address 
the supply piece of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down.
  We can no longer continue to ban access to large sources of supply, 
even as we continue to encourage new demand. The bill exempts natural 
gas from the congressional ban on energy development in the OCS. The 
ban on oil development remains in place. It allows the Federal 
Government to begin the process of developing these important 
resources.
  The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a 
quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer 
continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, 
prohibit more production.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  My friends, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  In 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering more 
than 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. 
natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world.
  Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized 
world. Prices for natural gas continue to increase, while the 
government continues to promote new natural gas consumption.
  To balance the market, we need to invest in efficiency and 
alternative energy, but we also need to increase access to new sources 
of supply to keep pace with new sources of demand, like ethanol and 
hydrogen.
  The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and 
forest sector.
  Paper mills, a major employer in my District, are very energy 
intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of operating 
a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The impacts 
have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills have closed and 182,000 jobs 
lost since 2000 when energy prices started a steep rise.
  For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for 
fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 
2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-92 level, very near all-
time records.
  The Interior Appropriations bill begins to address the supply piece 
of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down. We can no longer 
continue to ban access to large sources of supply, even as we continue 
to encourage new demand.
  The bill exempts natural gas from the Congressional ban on energy 
development in the OCS. The ban on oil development remains in place. It 
allows the Federal government to begin the process of developing these 
important resources.
  The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a 
quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer 
continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, 
prohibit more production. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Peterson wants to discuss the facts, so here are the facts:
  Most of the natural gas off our shores is already available. In 
February MMS released its inventory. This is the copy right here that 
was required by our energy bill. It says that 80 percent of the 
Nation's undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas on the Outer 
Continental Shelf is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico 
and offshore Alaska where drilling is currently allowed and well under 
way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  (Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
support of the amendment that we have before us that was crafted by 
many of my colleagues from Florida, as well as friends on the other 
side of the aisle from California.
  Obviously, because of the bipartisan stance that we have taken in 
Florida, it is very, very important to the State of Florida.
  The Peterson language which is included in the Interior 
appropriations bill basically will have drilling within 3 miles of our 
shores. I can tell you that back in Florida, when we even talked about 
having drilling 25 miles from the shore, it was not at all popular.

[[Page H2863]]

  I would be doing a disservice to my constituents if I didn't fight to 
keep the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf in 
place.
  Many of you on both sides of the aisle have come up to me and said, 
you know, my mother or my grandmother or my dad lives in Florida. Many 
of them live in my district. I would ask you, pick up that phone, call 
your mom and dad and listen to what they have to say about how much 
they love Florida, and how much they love the beaches, and how much 
they want to make sure that we have a State that will continue to be 
number one in tourism.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this provision in this 
bill, if it goes into law, will have the effect obviously of lifting 
the prohibition on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is of interest 
to many of those of us from Florida. And if that provision were to be 
lifted, I think there is a very significant impact on the military 
training mission that exists along the gulf coast.
  As many of you may know, Tyndall Air Force Base is the home of the 
training for the F-22 and the F-15. The Joint Strike Fighter is going 
to be based up in that area, and if that prohibition were to be lifted, 
obviously, that would seriously impact, according to the military, the 
officials in the Pentagon, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the 
Secretary of Defense, all have said that the critical nature of that 
Gulf of Mexico training range will be seriously impacted and our 
military as a result will be impacted.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Putnam, and all the Members who 
have spoken on this critical issue tonight. I thank you.
  Most of those supporting the drilling do not live in Florida. It is 
interesting, we haven't had many speakers from the Sunshine State who 
have said, let's go ahead and drill. And I think there is a reason for 
it.

                              {time}  2045

  Let me give you the statistics. NOAA, a very trusted agency, has said 
we are entering a 20-year cycle of heavy hurricane activity. Since 2004 
there have been nine hurricanes that have hit the Gulf of Mexico. One 
of the reasons there has been a spike in energy prices is because most 
of it is located in the gulf, exactly where some proponents of drilling 
would have us build more drills. We simply do not need it. We do have 
to be more conservative in our approach to fuels and use alternative 
energy. Sticking pipes in the ground in Hurricane Alley is not a 
solution.
  So I would urge my colleagues to heed the warnings and advice of 
those who live in Florida and ask you to reject the notion that we 
should drill there. Support our amendment, support the amendment to 
strip this provision from the bill, and allow us to continue to talk 
and negotiate with those parties who are involved.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We have begun an important debate here that even the author of the 
language that we are seeking to strip admits is Draconian, and allowing 
drilling 3 miles offshore, even the sponsor admits that is not his 
goal. If that is not his goal, adopt the Putnam-Capps amendment and let 
us move on to the appropriate way to discuss comprehensive energy 
policy in this Nation and how it impacts the Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will make three points. First, the Poe amendment and the Peterson 
amendment are the same thing. Two hundred and seventy-four Members just 
voted ``no'' on the Poe amendment. If you voted ``no'' on the Poe 
amendment, you should vote ``yes'' on our amendment.
  Drilling for gas is drilling for oil. The American Petroleum 
Institute says as much, as does MMS. Second, it is simply untrue to say 
that we do not have access to the vast majority of resources on the 
Outer Continental Shelf. The Bush administration itself says that we 
currently can drill in areas where 80 percent of the natural gas is 
located.
  Finally, this is more of the same failed energy strategy that has 
gotten us record high energy prices and record high profits for the oil 
companies. We need a new direction on energy.
  Vote for the Putnam-Capps amendment, protect our coasts, and take a 
step into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am standing here on what is normally 
the Republican side to emphasize, and I have said this right from the 
very beginning when Mr. Peterson and I have tried to deal with this 
issue in the Resources Committee, that is not a Republican and 
Democratic issue. And I think you can see from the fact that people 
have come to both sides here tonight to speak about it that it is not a 
Democrat and Republican issue. This is an issue of trying to come to a 
sensible conclusion on what American policy should be.
  And believe me, I think I am in a good position to say to folks that 
I can appreciate the fact that tourism is on the minds of our good 
friends from Florida and from California and elsewhere in the country, 
particularly around the coasts. I do not think that anybody is as close 
to tourism or is closer, I should say, to tourism in terms of their 
representation than myself.
  So the issue is what should we do and what can be done to advance 
America's independence with regard to energy and what at the same time 
can protect our constituents in a way that we can all be compatible 
with?
  I think what needs to be said and has not been said tonight are what 
some of the origins of our difficulties are. Right now the Republicans 
have their particular difficulties with certain segments, factions, as 
our Founding Fathers and mothers said, factions that come in. You have 
got your problems. Certain people have religious views.
  What we have on the Democratic side are other people with religious 
views. We have environmental Talibans out there now who have revealed 
wisdom with regard to drilling, in this instance, for natural gas, and 
you cannot thwart them. You cannot stand up and say let us have a 
discussion to see whether that really represents today's reality. That 
is all this is about.
  Believe me, no one, Mr. Peterson, myself, nor any other advocate, 
wants to drill 3 miles off of anybody's coastline. What this gives us 
the opportunity to do is to have a responsible conversation in the 
Resources Committee about whether or not we should move forward with 
natural gas extraction and exploration and, if so, how should we do it 
in a way that is responsible to everyone?
  So what I ask is please allow us to begin that conversation by not 
supporting the amendment and allowing us to move to the Resources 
Committee to have the discussion Mr. Putnam has requested.
  We are with you and we would like to be able to do it.


                              Environment

  Lifting the moratoria will not allow production 3 miles off of the 
coast. This is only the first step and will provide for discussion and 
consideration of the kinds of restrictions that are needed for 
responsible production. Mr. Peterson and I have introduced legislation 
to give States a 20-mile buffer zone and 40 percent revenue sharing for 
producing States.
  Natural gas-only drilling is possible and takes place in Canada on 
the Great Lakes and will begin next year in the Barents Sea by Norway.
  Drill cuttings are contained and shipped to shore for proper 
disposal, not left to pollute the ocean and hurt marine life. This 
disposal technology is used throughout the world and was recognized by 
a blue ribbon panel of judges from the U.S. Coast Guard, the Minerals 
Management Service and the National Academy of Sciences' Marine Board 
as an outstanding contribution to safety and protection of the 
environment.

[[Page H2864]]

  Eighty percent of known resources are already open to development. 
This is based on 40-year-old estimates that are hopelessly out of date. 
New technology, 3-D seismic and the like, could give better estimates, 
but MMS is prohibited by the appropriations moratorium from conducting 
physical assessments in those areas.


                          Jobs and the Economy

  The Putnam amendment is opposed by the International Brotherhood of 
Boilermakers; Sheet Metal Workers International Association; Building 
and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; and the Forest Products 
Industry National Labor Management Committee.
  Since 2000, U.S. natural gas prices have been the highest in the 
world. U.S. companies--and U.S. workers--are at an unfair competitive 
disadvantage in the global market.
  The Department of Commerce estimates that during 2000-04, natural gas 
price increases reduced civilian employment by an average of 489,000 
jobs/year. Losses in the manufacturing sector accounted for 16 percent 
of that loss, 79,000 jobs per year.

         Building and Construction Trades Department, American 
           Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2006.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the affiliated unions of 
     the Building and Construction Trades Department and the 
     millions of union members and their families whose 
     livelihoods depend on affordable natural gas, I am writing to 
     ask you to stand up for the American worker and vote against 
     the Putnam-Capps Amendment to the Interior Appropriations 
     bill.
       Putnam-Capps is a slap in the face of every union member 
     who works in an industry that is losing business due to the 
     high price of natural gas.
       Manufacturing industries consume large amounts of natural 
     gas to power their equipment, and as a raw ingredient that 
     goes into thousands of manufactured goods. Union workers make 
     the production, distribution and consumption of those goods 
     possible. Since 2000, U.S. natural gas prices have been the 
     highest in the world. U.S. companies--and U.S. workers--are 
     at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the global market. 
     Industrial production is shutting down or moving overseas and 
     more than three million manufacturing jobs have disappeared 
     in that time.
       The cause for high U.S. natural gas prices is a severe 
     imbalance between supply and demand. U.S. government policy 
     pushes up demand by encouraging new uses for natural gas, 
     including electricity generation, ethanol and hydrogen. At 
     the same time, Congress severely restricts access to new 
     supplies. In the absence of new supply, new sources of demand 
     are driving traditional industrial demand out of the market, 
     wiping out union jobs in the process.
       Supporters of the Putnam-Capps Amendment are turning a 
     blind eye to the problem and they are jeopardizing millions 
     of good paying union jobs by prohibiting access to new 
     sources of natural gas supply.
       For the Building Trades, offshore natural gas production is 
     first and foremost a jobs issue. If you support keeping good-
     paying union jobs in the USA, you will vote against the 
     Putnam-Capps, Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               Edward C. Sullivan,
                                                        President.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend from Hawaii. That conversation is well underway. I 
appreciate the leadership of our friend from California, the chairman 
of the Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo, who has led that discussion and 
has led to a very bipartisan, thoughtful, and candid approach to the 
proper way to deal with this Nation's energy crisis, the proper way to 
deal with exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the proper way to make 
sure that we are not impeding the military mission that would affect 
our Nation's defense.
  This language that the amendment I have sponsored with Mrs. Capps and 
a number of others is an overreach. The amendment fixes what even the 
authors of that language admit is an overreach. Three miles is not 
supported by even the person who wrote the language. So if that is the 
case, let us pass the Putnam-Capps amendment and begin to move further 
down that road of the exploration question to solve our Nation's energy 
problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield the balance of my time to a 
champion for Florida, a stalwart in this debate, the chairman of the 
Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend, 
Mr. Young.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my friends who are opposing the 
Putnam-Capps amendment would like us to believe that in the Gulf of 
Mexico there is an unlimited supply of nice, clean, cheap natural gas 
just waiting for someone to punch a hole and it will come flowing out. 
That is really interesting because Mr. Peterson's effort last year was 
to create an inventory to see if there was any natural gas in the Gulf 
of Mexico. There is something wrong here. That is not really 
consistent. Last year we did not know if there was or not. This year we 
are prepared to violate environmental concerns. Is there gas there or 
is there not gas there?
  And what about the high cost? I learned something interesting at the 
Appropriations Committee the other day, that no matter what it costs to 
produce a barrel of oil domestically in the United States we still pay 
the same price that OPEC charges. Why? I do not know. One Member told 
me that his State produces oil for $30 a barrel that has to go through 
Canada, and they sell it back to us at 70 some dollars a barrel. There 
is something wrong with that. And then this afternoon I learned that 
natural gas is priced the same way. So is it going to be less expensive 
to produce in the Gulf of Mexico, where the environmental issues are 
real and the national defense issues are real, or should we allow, as 
Mr. Putnam has suggested and I suggested earlier on the Poe amendment, 
and that was a good vote on the Poe amendment, to let the authorizing 
committee that holds hearings, and there were no hearings on this, on 
the appropriations part of it, let the authorizing committee do their 
work and let us make a decision based on what is the truth versus 
fiction versus opinion, what is real, what is safe for the environment, 
and let us pass the Putnam amendment here this evening.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate an important fact 
that was made in the full committee. Federal offshore lands already 
open to exploration is 80 percent of potential gas reserves offshore. 
Of the most current mean estimate of undiscovered, technically 
recoverable gas: offshore non-moratoria reserves, 328 trillion cubic 
feet; offshore moratoria reserves, 77 trillion cubic feet.
  There is a lot of offshore drilling that can be done that is legal, 
as the gentlewoman said, from the Minerals Management Service's most 
recent report. So let us go drill there and protect our beaches. That 
is the best way to move forward and let the authorizers go forward and 
try to come up with a responsible end to this. But to precipitously 
move out tonight on this Peterson amendment would be a mistake, and I 
support strongly the Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
the gentleman's comments and I appreciate his support, and it is more 
than just beaches. It is fisheries, ecosystems that are critical to the 
food chain in the Gulf of Mexico. This is more than just beaches, and 
beaches are important. And I represent a lot of beaches and they are 
beautiful, and we welcome all of you to come.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, we do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Actually, yes, and we appreciate that very 
much.
  But, anyway, let us pass the Putnam amendment. This is the right 
thing to do, and let us let the House work its will through the 
established process, through the committee process, a committee that 
has appropriate jurisdiction.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I want to thank everybody tonight. There has been a good tone of this 
debate. There has been no personalities. It has been friendly, but I 
think it has been very informational.
  I want to share this letter with you. Mr. Abercrombie was supposed 
to. ``Supporters of the Putnam-Capps amendment are turning a blind eye 
to the problem, and they are jeopardizing millions of good-paying union 
jobs by prohibiting access to new sources of natural gas supply,'' says 
the Building and Construction Trades and Contractors. In fact, eight 
unions in the last few days have signed up in support of this 
legislation.
  Folks, this is not about 3 miles offshore. This is not about 
hearings. Did we have hearings before this authorizing language was 
placed in this bill 25 times? I was here 5 years before I knew

[[Page H2865]]

I was voting to prohibit offshore production of natural gas. I would 
have been protesting a long time ago.
  Folks, this is about our future. America's richest energy source is 
natural gas. It is the cleanest, it is the mother's milk of all of our 
industries. American women in the North should not have to keep their 
thermostats at 55 degrees, and they have in my district. Churches in 
rural areas should not have to meet in the basement in January and 
February because they cannot a afford the gas bill, and they have in my 
district.
  Folks, natural gas prices are changing how people live in this 
country, and they are changing to where companies decide on whether 
they want to live here. When we lose the industries we have talked 
about, folks, it is happening. We cannot delay.
  They talk about the years it is going to take to get the supply. That 
is why we need to do it tomorrow. We need to do authorizing language. 
We need to have the President look at this issue with a bright eye. We 
have a lot of work to do, folks. But energy is the mother's milk of our 
country. We will never balance the budget without a growing economy, 
and our economy will stop growing if we do not have affordable, clean 
natural gas to fuel it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
amendment to retain the moratoria on drilling in protected offshore 
areas of the United States.
  If we don't approve this amendment, we will undo a 25-year legacy of 
protecting the coast of my State of California and other States from 
the damage that can be done by drilling.
  Three Presidents . . . George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, 
have supported the drilling moratoria in sensitive coastal areas of the 
United States.
  The Governor of the State of California has written to Members of the 
California delegation to express his support of the moratorium and he 
opposes the language in this bill. He wrote:

       ``[T]he 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 argument we're hearing is that we need to develop domestic 
natural gas supplies to bring down prices and avoid dependence on 
foreign sources of energy.
  This argument is a masquerade.
  It's well known that there cannot be selective drilling for natural 
gas. Drilling is drilling, and where gas is found, oil is also found. 
Last fall, the Director of the Mineral Management Service, Johnnie 
Burton, said so. He said:

       Natural gas seldom comes totally by itself. It has some 
     liquids with it. Sometimes it is oil, sometimes it is very 
     refined oil . . .

  So lifting the moratorium on gas drilling will also effectively lift 
the ban on oil drilling.
   Mr. Chairman, if we're concerned about prices and security, we need 
to begin requiring the use of renewable fuels and improving the fuel 
economy of our automobiles. We shouldn't tear our oceans apart and ruin 
our coastlines.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record in support of the Capps amendment 
to H.R. 5386, the FY2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill.
  The bill before the House today includes a provision lifting a long-
standing Congressional ban on natural gas drilling and production in 
most of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). More import than what it 
does, however, is what it fails to do. For instance, rather than giving 
States a ``buffer zone'' which allows them to block the construction of 
natural gas platforms within 20 miles of their shores, the provision in 
this bill opens the OCS to drilling as close as three miles. Since this 
provision is being tacked onto an appropriations bill, it does not 
include the critic authorizing language that will provide the 
Department of the Interior with guidance on how and where to provide 
for drilling and production, or even grant them the authority to issue 
leases. In addition, it lifts only the Congressional prohibition on OCS 
natural gas drilling and leaves intact the Executive ban in effect 
until 2012, making this provision meaningless without more extensive 
authorizing legislation.
  Many of our colleagues have deep concerns about the impact that 
opening our OCS to natural gas drilling and production will have on 
their States. This is therefore not an issue we should rush into with 
only cursory debate in an appropriations bill. Rather, it is one that 
should be carefully considered, with input reflecting all sides of this 
issue, through hearings held by the House Resources Committee. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Putnam-Capps 
amendment to restore the congressional spending moratorium against 
natural gas leases off the coastline of the national Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS).
  The repeal of the congressional spending moratorium that was adopted 
by the Appropriations Committee limits States' ability to safeguard 
their natural resources and would set current OCS policy badly adrift. 
The prohibition of OCS drilling has been a national priority for over 
20 years. Congress led the way by passing the first moratorium on OCS 
leasing in 1982, which was soon extended to waters throughout much of 
our nation's coastal areas.
  Opposition to OCS drilling is particularly strong in Florida due to 
the potentially devastating consequences it could have for our economy, 
natural resources, and quality of life. Our pristine beaches and 
waterways represent our best and most distinctive qualities and attract 
millions of visitors from across the country and world every year. 
Repealing the moratorium severely jeopardizes Florida's $57 billion 
tourist economy.
  Our natural habitats, particularly our marine life, represent some of 
the richest and most diverse ecosystems in the world. The quality of 
life enjoyed by Floridians is due in large part to these natural 
endowments, which has made my state one of the most desirable places in 
the country to work and live.
  I am also concerned about the impact the repeal of the moratorium 
could have on our military readiness. The language incorporated into 
H.R. 5386 poses a serious threat to the critical missions of our Air 
Force and Navy which are conducted in the Gulf of Mexico. Since the 
closing of the ranges in Vieques, Puerto Rico, the Gulf of Mexico is 
home to a number of training missions for our military, specifically 
those conducted by the U.S. Navy. The Navy uses the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico to conduct pre-deployment certifications. Additionally, 
submerged U.S. Navy submarines launch Tomahawk cruise missiles from the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico. If natural gas companies were allowed to begin 
to explore the area, serious encroachments on these pre-deployment 
training exercises would be created.
  The Air Force also uses the Gulf of Mexico water ranges to do live 
fire tests and evaluations of many of its new weapons systems. For 
example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training is being 
located at Eglin Air Force Base. The projected Air-to-Surface live fire 
weapons training requirements of the F-35 will, according to the Air 
Armament Center, ``significantly increase the amount or airspace needed 
over the Eastern Gulf.''
  In a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wrote that ``Prior analysis and existing 
agreements recognize that areas east of the 86 deg. 41' line in the 
Gulf of Mexico commonly known as the `military mission line' are 
especially critical to DoD due to the number and diversity of military 
testing and training activities conducted there now, and those planned 
for the future. In those 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, weapons testing, and training.''
  The current language in H.R. 5386 could open the entire eastern Gulf 
of Mexico, including areas east of the military mission line, to 
natural gas exploration and activities. This is in direct conflict with 
the statement from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and a direct threat to 
the readiness of the United States military.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Putnam-Capps amendment to H.R. 5386. This amendment, which has broad 
bi-partisan support, would remove the provisions in the underlying bill 
that lifts three long-standing moratoriums on offshore natural gas 
leasing.
  This provision will not provide the relief its supports claim it 
will. It will merely hinder our efforts to get a real and permanent 
solution to this problem.
  The repeal of the congressional moratorium will limit States' ability 
to safeguard their natural resources and would set current OCS policy 
badly adrift. The prohibition of OCS drilling has been a national 
priority for over 20 years. Congress led the way by passing the first 
moratorium on OCS leasing in 1982, which was soon extended to waters 
throughout much of our nation's coastal areas. Dismantling this 25-year 
congressional moratorium in an appropriations bill is an unwise 
approach to our nation's energy needs.
  Comprehensive legislative is needed to deal with the many complex oil 
and gas issues on the OCS. For the past few months, I have been working 
with some of my Florida colleagues on a comprehensive solution to this

[[Page H2866]]

issue, not a patchwork of legislative initiatives. We have worked with 
Chairman Pombo on legislation that would give the states the final 
authority to decide whether or not to allow drilling or leasing off its 
shores.
  It is imperative to empower all coastal states to determine their own 
future, putting decisions regarding offshore development in the hands 
of our state elected officials instead of the federal government. The 
bill would have put a 125-mile buffer permanently under state control 
for purposes of oil and gas leasing.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the interior 
appropriations bill and in support of the Putnam/Capps amendment.
  For 25 years we have maintained a bipartisan agreement to ban any new 
drilling off our shores because we believed it was more important to 
safeguard the health and beauty of our coastal environment for future 
generations to enjoy.
  But now the interior appropriations bill threatens to upset this 
agreement and open our coastal areas to drilling despite overwhelming 
opposition from the American people.
  We should not be trading away our pristine coastal habitats to fatten 
the coffers of the administration's cronies in the oil and gas 
industry.
  The fact of the matter is that new offshore drilling will do nothing 
in the short term to reduce the high gas prices that consumers are 
facing at the pump, and will do nothing in the long term to wean us 
away from our addiction to oil.
  The best way to fight high gas prices now is to hold oil companies 
accountable for gouging consumers by instituting a windfall profits 
tax.
  At the same time, we need to make immediate investments to expand 
energy efficiency by raising vehicle fuel economy standards, increasing 
the use of renewable fuels, and by adopting a foreign policy that does 
not hold our constituents hostage to the latest political crisis in the 
Middle East.
  Today our constituents are paying the price for this administration's 
deliberate decision to prioritize the profit margins of the oil and gas 
industry over a comprehensive and sustainable long term energy policy.
  Vote against another giveaway to the energy industry. Support the 
Putnam/Capps amendment and save our coastal environments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. 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 Florida will be 
postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to eliminate or restrict programs that are for the 
     reforestation of urban areas.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

                              {time}  2100

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their kindness and understanding of the importance of 
this amendment and allowing me to present this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be delighted to yield to the 
gentleman from North Carolina. I would like to be able to explain the 
amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to 
accept it, if the gentlewoman would explain it briefly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the chairman. You are very kind.
  Mr. Chairman, I live in an area that is urban, but yet rural, and I 
ask in this amendment that no funds be used to eliminate or restrict 
programs that are for reforestation of urban areas.
  If I might, Mr. Chairman, just indicate to you, the surveys indicate 
that some urban forests are in serious danger. In the past 30 years 
alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our urban trees, a loss of 
over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the American population live 
in dense quarters of a city.
  This amendment simply emphasizes the importance of urban 
reforestation, and allows me to salute the City of Houston Parks 
Department, the Pleasantville community that invested in the 
reforestation of their neighborhood, and it also provides the umbrella 
of trees that cleans the air, clears the air of toxic entities, and 
provides the quality of life that all of us would like.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment to 
reemphasize the importance in the Interior Department to as well affirm 
the value of reforestation.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that emphasizes the 
importance of urban forests, and preserves our ability to return urban 
areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children.
  Surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious danger. In 
the past 3 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban 
trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.
  Eight percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters 
of a city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete 
area that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and 
agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars 
in storm water management costs. I have certainly seen neighborhoods in 
Houston benefit from urban reforestation.
  In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have 
beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and 
psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real 
estate.
  Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban 
sprawl and/or deterioration. Commitment to enhancing our environment 
involves both the protection of existing natural resources and active 
support for restoration and improvement projects.
  In 1999, American Forests, a conservation group, estimated that the 
tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973 
to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water 
runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm 
water control facilities to manage.
  Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen. People breathe 
in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. A typical person consumes about 38 
lbs of oxygen per year. A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can 
produce about 260 lb of oxygen annually. Two trees supply the oxygen 
needs of a person for a year!
  Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and 
pollen with their leaves. A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 lbs of 
the small particles and gases of air pollution. They help combat the 
effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased carbon dioxide produced 
from burning fossil fuels that is causing our atmosphere to ``heat 
up''.
  Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, 
concrete and metal surfaces. Buildings and paving in city centers 
create a heat-island effect. A mature tree canopy reduces air 
temperatures by about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit. A 25-foot tree reduces 
annual heating and cooling cost of a typical residence by 8 to 12 
percent, producing an average $10 savings per American household. 
Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds and reduce 
annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.
  Trees play a vital role in making our cities more sustainable and 
liveable, and this amendment simply provides for continued support to 
programs that reforest our urban areas. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting these efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone claim the time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:

[[Page H2867]]

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 501: None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
     Smithsonian Institution.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we will be happy to 
accept this amendment also.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
the ranking member of the full committee, and the chairman of the full 
committee.
  Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this reemphasizes the importance of the 
Smithsonian, but what it says is that no funds shall be used to 
eliminate the outreach programs of the Smithsonian.
  The reason why I offer this is simply a quote from James Baldwin that 
says ``the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it 
within us, and that history is literally present in all that we do.''
  The outreach programs for the Smithsonian will help cities beyond the 
Beltway to establish culturally grounded museums that present the 
history of America. The City of Houston is attempting to do an African 
American History Museum, and it will be the importance of the 
Smithsonian outreach program that provides the thousands of communities 
that serve millions of Americans and hundreds of institutions in all 50 
States through loan objects, traveling exhibitions and sharing of 
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, 
training programs and Web sites.
  I know that we are going to be able to establish that museum in the 
City of Houston. It will be through reaffirming the value of the 
outreach programs of the Smithsonian, and we ask that no funds be 
utilized to stop that outreach program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment that encourages 
support of the Smithsonian Institution's outreach programs.
  It is of the utmost importance that none of the funds made available 
in this Act be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
Smithsonian Institution.
  The Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian scholars in 
art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and into their 
own backyard. Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in 
Washington, D.C. But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, 
``the increase and diffusion of knowledge'', the Smithsonian seeks to 
serve an even greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves 
of communities who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of 
cultural history offered by the Smithsonian.
  The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans, 
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 
states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of 
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, 
training programs, and websites. Smithsonian outreach programs work in 
close cooperation with Smithsonian museums and research centers, as 
well as with 144 affiliate institutions and others across the nation.
  The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based 
cultural and educational organizations around the country; ensure a 
vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence in all 50 states 
through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a network of 
affiliations; increase connections between the Institution and targeted 
audiences (African American, Asian American, Latino, Native American, 
and new American); provide kindergarten through college-age museum 
education and outreach opportunities; enhance K-12 science education 
programs; facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with 
students and scholars at universities, museums, and other research 
institutions; and publish and disseminate results related to the 
research and collections strengths of the Institution.
  One example of a large and successful outreach program is the 
Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES).
  SITES will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's 
National Museum of African American History and Culture, as the 
planning for that new Museum gets under way. Providing national access 
to projects that will introduce the American public to the Museum's 
mission, SITES in FY 2007 will tour such stirring exhibitions as ``381 
Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story''.
  The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national 
network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish 
active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the 
country. There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United 
States, Puerto Rico, and Panama. By working with museums of diverse 
subject areas and scholarly disciplines, both emerging and well-
established, Smithsonian Affiliations is building partnerships through 
which audiences and visitors everywhere will be able to share in the 
great wealth of the Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise 
in local communities.
  The Smithsonian also offers access to its resources to underserved 
audiences in urban locales and to individuals with disabilities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and support the 
Smithsonian's high quality education and its ability to share our 
wealth of knowledge to every American.
       Recently I was asked if museums that explore the African 
     American experience are still valuable as they once were in 
     this diverse and more integrated America. While I responded 
     quickly, I realized later that the question deserved more 
     thought.
       The notion that African American history has limited 
     meaning should be a concern for all Americans. We would be 
     better served if we remember the words that James Baldwin 
     wrote in his powerful novel, The Fire Next Time: ``. . . 
     history does not refer merely or even principally to the 
     past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from 
     the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously 
     controlled by it in many ways, and that history is literally 
     present in all that we do.''
       Let me cite four reasons why the interpretation and 
     preservation of African American history and culture are so 
     important and relevant for an America still struggling with 
     the legacy and impact of race.
       (1) The Danger of Forgetting: You can tell a great deal 
     about a country or a people by what they deem important 
     enough to remember, what they build monuments to celebrate; 
     and what graces the walls of their museums. Throughout 
     Scandinavia there are monuments and museums that cherish the 
     Vikings as a proud symbol of Nordic curiosity, exploration, 
     and freedom. In Scotland, much is made of the heroic 
     struggles of William Wallace (whom we know as Mel Gibson) to 
     throw off the yoke of British domination. Until recently, 
     South Africa was dominated by monuments and memories of the 
     Vortrekker, while the United States traditionally revels in 
     Civil War battles or founding fathers, with an occasional 
     president thrown into the mix.
       Yet I would argue that we learn even more about a country 
     by what it chooses to forget. This desire to omit--to forget 
     disappointments, moments of evil, and great missteps--is both 
     natural and instructive. It is often the essence of African 
     American culture that is forgotten or downplayed. And yet, it 
     is also the African American experience that is a clarion 
     call to remember.
       A good example of this nexus of race and memory is one of 
     the last great unmentionables of public discourse about 
     American history--the story of slavery. For nearly 250 years, 
     slavery not only existed but it was one of the most dominate 
     forces in American life. Political clout and economic fortune 
     depended upon the labor of slaves. Almost every aspect of 
     American life--from business to religion, from culture to 
     commerce, from foreign policy to western expansion was 
     informed and shaped by the experience of slavery. American 
     slavery was so dominant globally that 90 percent of the 
     world's cotton was produced in the American South. By 1860 
     the monetary value of slaves outweighed all the 
     money invested in this country's railroads, banking, and 
     industry combined. And the most devastating war in 
     American history was fought over the issue of slavery.
       And yet few institutions address this history for a non-
     scholarly audience. And there are even fewer opportunities to 
     discuss--candidly and openly--the impact, legacy, and 
     contemporary meaning of slavery.
       I remember a small survey from the early 1990s that 
     assessed the public's knowledge about slavery. The results 
     were fascinating: 81 percent of white respondents felt that 
     slavery was a history that had little to do with them; 73 
     percent felt that slavery was an important story but that its 
     real relevance was only to African Americans. Even more 
     troubling was the fact that the majority of African Americans 
     surveyed expressed either little interest or some level of 
     embarrassment about slavery.
       There is a great need to help Americans understand that the 
     history of slavery matters because so much of our complex and 
     troubling struggle to find racial equality has

[[Page H2868]]

     been shaped by slavery. And until we use the past to better 
     understand the contemporary resonance of slavery, we will 
     never get to the heart of one of the central dilemmas in 
     American life--race relations. But it is also important for 
     those who preserve and interpret African American life to 
     help combat the notion of embarrassment. I am not ashamed of 
     my slave ancestors, I am in awe of their ability--in spite of 
     the cruelties of slavery--to maintain their culture, their 
     sense of family, their humor and their humanity. I wish more 
     people knew the words of William Prescott, a former slave who 
     when asked about slavery by a WPA interviewer in the 1930s 
     said, ``They will remember that we were sold but not that we 
     were strong; they will remember that we were bought but not 
     that we were brave.''
       (2) The power of inspiration: There is a great need and 
     opportunity to draw inspiration, sustenance, and guidance for 
     African American culture. And from this inspiration, people 
     can find tools and paths to help them live their lives. The 
     importance of inspiration was brought home to me on a trip a 
     few years ago.
       In 1997, I was lecturing in South Africa. One day I found 
     myself in the small city of Pietermaritaburgr, which is 
     located in Durban in Kwa Zulu Natal. This city has a 
     significant Indian population and it was the site of Mahatma 
     Gandhi's first brush with the racism of South Africa in 1903. 
     While I was there, Nelson Mandela came to this city that was 
     the ancestral homeland of his political and tribal rivals, 
     the Zulus. He was to receive ``the freedom of the city.'' I 
     was privileged to sit on the podium as Mandela gave his 
     speech. As is his custom, he spoke in several languages--from 
     Xhosa to Zulu to N'debele--about his struggles against 
     apartheid. And then in English he spoke about his 27 years in 
     the prison on Robben Island. He said one of the things that 
     gave him strength and substance was the history of the 
     struggle for racial equality in America. He spoke 
     passionately and eloquently of how American abolitionists 
     such as Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, William Lloyd 
     Garrison and Frederick Douglass inspired him and helped him 
     to believe that freedom and racial transformation were 
     possible in South Africa.
       Mandel's words helped me to remember the power of African 
     American culture. We hold such important moments within 
     our collective institutions. Who could not be inspired by 
     the oratory, the commitment to racial justice, or the 
     ultimate sacrifice of Dr. King? Who is not moved by the 
     beauty of the work of Betty Saar, the richness of the 
     words of Langston Hughes or the quiet bravery of Rosa 
     Parks and John Lewis? Or who is not moved by the family 
     who came north during the Great Migration or the person 
     who struggled and risked death to keep his name on the 
     voter registration list during the 1960s? It is crucial to 
     remember that we are all made better by embracing the 
     inspirational stories and lessons of African American 
     culture.
       (3) The power of illumination: Far too often, many view the 
     experiences of the African American community as an 
     interesting and occasionally exotic ancillary story that has 
     limited impact on most Americans. Yet the story of how race, 
     how African American culture has shaped and continues to re-
     shape American life, is less understood than it should be. It 
     is important that we help all to grapple with the centrality 
     of race in the construction of American identity.
       As American continues its internal debates about who we are 
     as a nation and what our core values are, where better to 
     look than through the lens of African American history and 
     culture. If one wants to understand the notion of American 
     resilience, optimism, or spirituality, where better than the 
     black experience. If one wants to explore the limits of the 
     American dream, where better than by examining the Gordian 
     knot of race relations. If one want to understand the impact 
     and tensions that accompany the changing demographics of our 
     cities, where better than the literature and music of the 
     African American community. African American culture has the 
     power and the complexity needed to illuminate all the dark 
     corners of American life, and the power to illuminate all 
     the possibility and ambiguities of American life. One of 
     the challenges before us, whether we write, preserve, 
     exhibit history or consume culture, is to do a better job 
     of centralizing race.
       (4) The Mirror: A final reason why African American history 
     and culture are still so vital, so relevant, and so important 
     is because the black past is a wonderful but unforgiving 
     mirror that reminds us of America's ideals and promises. It 
     is a mirror that makes those who are often invisible, more 
     visible, and it gives voice to many who are often overlooked. 
     It is a mirror that challenges us to be better and to work to 
     make our community and country better. But it is also a 
     mirror that allows us to see our commonalities. It is a 
     mirror that allows us to celebrate and to revel but also 
     demands that we all struggle, that we all continue to ``fight 
     the good fight.''
       The struggle to create a national monument to black life 
     goes back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This 
     desire for recognition, acceptance, and cultural 
     acknowledgement was thwarted until the recent legislative 
     success engineered by Congressman John Lewis and Senator Sam 
     Brownback. Legislation was passed by Congress in 2003 and 
     signed by the President. Now at last the National Museum of 
     African American History and Culture exists. It is not yet 
     what it will be one day--a site has yet to be chosen from the 
     four now under consideration--but that begs the question, 
     What is NMAAHC?
       It is a museum that will celebrate and honor African 
     American history and culture by reveling in and revealing the 
     richness, the lessons, the ambiguities, the challenges and 
     the beauty of African American culture. And through that 
     exploration, the many publics will find meaning, relevance, 
     and understanding.
       When I imagine the museum I see interactive exhibitions on 
     the history and legacy of slavery, on the Cultural 
     Renaissance of the 1920s, on the Civil Rights movement. But I 
     also see the opportunity to explore cultural expressions like 
     dance, performance, and of course, art. But while the museum 
     must explore the large stories, it must also provide glimpses 
     into more intimate moments of the African American story.
       The museum must also use this culture as a lens for all to 
     better understand what it means to be an American, so that 
     all who visit, interact with its online activities, and 
     experience its national programming will see how America was 
     and will always be shaped by this culture.
       The museum must be a place of collaboration and education--
     especially with the African American museum field. I see this 
     museum as a collaborator, not a competitor. And I see that 
     collaboration beginning immediately. I believe that this 
     museum must begin strategic program and collaborations right 
     away. I want to work with many of our African American 
     museums to develop lectures and performances that we can co-
     sponsor in their communities. I would also like to work 
     together to craft a national campaign to ``save our 
     treasures'' so that sister institutions can continue to 
     collect the patrimony that is quickly vanishing. And I would 
     like to find ways that this national museum in Washington can 
     also highlight the work and increase the visibility of 
     museums in communities across the country. It may be as 
     simple as suggesting that as visitors explore an exhibition 
     on migration here at the Smithsonian, they are encouraged to 
     visit the DuSable museum in Chicago, or the African American 
     museum in Los Angeles to get a deeper look at this history, 
     or letting visitors know about related exhibits at museums of 
     every kind--art, history, science, living collections, 
     children's museums--in communities everywhere.
       There are many possibilities to explore from collaborating 
     to help train future generations of African American museum 
     professionals to working through and with the Institute of 
     Museum and Library Services to help ensure the sustainability 
     of the African American institutions.
       If we do the job right, the National Museum of African 
     American History and Culture will be a place of meaning, of 
     reflection, of laughter, of learning, and of hope. A beacon 
     that reminds us of what we were, what challenges still 
     remain, and points us toward what we can become.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone claim opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:
                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 601. Each amount appropriated or otherwise 3 made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced 
     by 1 percent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to be very brief because, first of all, it 
is wonderful to be here with my amendment at a time when the chairman 
is in the mood to accept amendments. I am sure he will probably accept 
this one as well.
  This is one that I have offered for the last 3 years, and it is 
identical to them. It is an amendment which trims outlays for H.R. 5386 
by 1 percent under the Holman rule, which means that if the amendment 
passes, it will be up to the administration to determine where the cuts 
will fall.
  I think Mr. Taylor, as always, has done a solid and conscientious job 
on this bill. That said, I don't think that the funding levels in this 
bill are reflective of a country with a deficit in

[[Page H2869]]

excess of $350 billion. This amendment would trim a penny on a dollar 
across the agencies funded by this bill.
  Last night there was a lot of pontificating about how we need to 
balance the budget and we need to get our spending under control. Well, 
this is a way to prove that you are really serious about that, not that 
this is going to balance the budget, of course. It is not. But it would 
at least symbolically say we care about this issue.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment, and ask for support of 
the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I love the gentleman from Colorado like a brother, but 
I am going to have to oppose his amendment. First of all, the bill has 
already been reduced $145 million below the $206 million level. The 
nine largest agencies in this bill have absorbed more than $2 billion 
in pay and other fixed costs over the past few years, and this bill 
assumes that several hundred millions of dollars more in costs will 
have to be absorbed.
  The committee has done a responsible job, and one might say we gave 
at the office. We have already cut this bill about as much as we can. I 
have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I would encourage its passage, and yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

  TITLE VI--ENHANCED APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSERVATION, RECREATION, THE 
                   ENVIRONMENT, AND NATIVE AMERICANS

       Sec. 601. In addition to the amounts otherwise made 
     available by this Act, the following sums, to remain 
     available until expended, are appropriated:
       (1) $300,000,000 for clean air and water programs 
     administered by the Environmental Protection Agency as 
     follows:
       (A) $250,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, 
     as authorized by title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act.
       (B) $50,000,000 for clean diesel and homeland security 
     programs, as requested in the President's budget.
       (2) $300,000,000 for protection of Federal lands 
     administered by the Department of the Interior and the United 
     States Forest Service as follows:
       (A) $100,000,000 to address maintenance backlogs within the 
     national parks, refuges, forests, and other lands of the 
     United States.
       (B) 150,000,000 for acquisition and preservation of 
     priority lands within the national parks, refuges, and 
     forests when such lands are threatened by development 
     activities that could restrict access to such lands in the 
     future by the American people.
       (C) $50,000,000 to address staffing shortages for visitor 
     services at national parks and national wildlife refuges.
       (3) $30,000,000 for grants to States administered by the 
     National Park Service for support of conservation and 
     recreation programs within the States.
       (4) $20,000,000 for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 
     program administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service.
       (5) $50,000,000 for ``Payments in Lieu of Taxes'' as 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior and as 
     authorized by sections 6901 through 6907 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (6) $50,000,000 for ``Indian Health Services'' for support 
     of expanded clinical health services to Native Americans.
       (7) $50,000,000 for ``Bureau of Indian Affairs--Operation 
     of Indian Programs'' for support of educational services to 
     Native Americans.
       Sec. 602. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of 
     $1,000,000, for calendar year 2007 the amount of tax 
     reduction resulting from the enactment of Public Laws 107-16, 
     108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 1.94 percent.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the previous order of the House today, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't take much time. The Republican bill 
before us is based on the assumption that the Senate has passed the 
House Republican budget resolution. It hasn't. This amendment is based 
on a more responsible assumption.
  It is in conformance with the Spratt budget amendment. It adds 
roughly $800 million for restoring the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund. We add $50 million to the EPA budget to protect local water 
supplies from terrorist attacks. We add $300 million for our national 
parks, refuges, and forests. We provide $150 million to provide some 
key land acquisitions at Valley Forge, Acadia, Grand Teton, Mount 
Rainier and a number of other purposes.
  We pay for it with a modest 2 percent reduction in the tax cuts 
expected for millionaires. It would reduce the size of their tax cuts 
by about $2,200.
  I would hope that no one lodges a point of order on this amendment so 
we could have a more constructive approach to these programs.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly must concede the point of 
order. I would have preferred that the gentleman had not made the point 
of order, but given the fact he has done it, the rule under which this 
bill is being debated precludes the inclusion of this amendment. I very 
much regret that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
amendment is not in order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dent:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce section 20(b)(1) 
     of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I do intend to withdraw, would 
prevent the Department of the Interior from using any appropriated 
funds to further the expansion of off-reservation gambling under the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  Casino gambling sponsored by Indian tribes is a multi-billion dollar 
business that today comprises some 23 percent of gambling revenue 
nationwide. Unfortunately, as these casino profits increase, so does 
the motive to use the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as a vehicle not for 
promoting Indian culture, but only as a tool to spread casino gambling 
into places where tribes have no federally recognized historical 
presence.

[[Page H2870]]

  Because profits in this industry are so high, many of these casinos 
are being established long distances, in some cases hundreds of miles, 
from existing reservations.
  The residents of my district in Pennsylvania, where there are no 
federally recognized tribes, have felt the sting caused by the 
unbridled expansion of tribal gambling. Recently, the Delaware Nation, 
which is headquartered in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, filed suit in U.S. 
District Court in Pennsylvania seeking title to land in my district 
based on a conveyance that allegedly occurred in 1737.
  This land is currently occupied by approximately 25 homeowners as 
well as commercial entities such as the Binney and Smith Corporation, 
makers of the world-famous Crayola crayons. These innocent homeowners 
and businesses have had to go to court to defend their title against 
this encroachment, and only after a couple years of litigation and 
attorneys' fees has the third circuit found in their favor.
  This suit, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the preservation 
of Indian culture and everything to do with establishing a casino, 
represents just how out of control the pursuit of off-reservation 
gambling rights has become.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. Pombo, my specific question to you, I know you plan to advance 
legislation out of your committee that will deal with the issue of 
reservation shopping.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I appreciate 
your agreeing to offer this amendment and withdraw it. This is a major 
issue and you have talked to me several times in the past about this 
issue and the impact that it has on your district.
  I fully understand that. It is something that we in the committee 
have taken very seriously. As we move forward with this issue in the 
committee, it is something that is extremely important to us and to a 
number of other Members of Congress; and I can guarantee you that as we 
move forward that the issues that you raise will be taken under 
consideration.
  In terms of crossing State lines and having the ability to locate off 
current reservation land, we will deal with that.
  Also we have the issue dealing with tribes who do not currently have 
land in trust. That is a major issue. It is an issue in California, and 
something we are dealing with in the underlying legislation. As the 
authorizing committee moves forward, this is something that we are 
going to address.
  I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of Congress. I do 
know that it is a major issue in your district, and we will deal with 
it.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield 1 minute to my 
friend from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Dent, and I rise in support of his 
amendment because of a proposed Indian gambling casino for the Columbia 
River Gorge National Scenic Area. The Columbia River Gorge National 
Scenic Area is the crown jewel of Oregon's natural heritage. The 
Columbia River cuts the only sea level passage through the Cascade 
Mountains. It is, to many, another Yosemite, with many waterfalls and 
the second tallest waterfall in North America.
  There is a proposed 700,000 square foot casino for this national 
scenic area. It would draw 3 million people per year and 1 million 
extra cars with the attendant pollution and urbanization.
  I support Mr. Dent's amendment and would ask the committee chairman 
to address the issues, because the amendment as originally structured 
would put a pause and encourage the Department to consider on 
reservation sites this for the tribe with the largest reservation in 
the State of Oregon.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota.
  Amendment by Mr. Putnam of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 198, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof

[[Page H2871]]


     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Cannon
     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2142

  Messrs. TIBERI, BARRETT of South Carolina, SMITH of Texas, TERRY, 
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LaTOURETTE and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 203, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--217

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--203

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (GA)
     Cannon
     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (NY)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Pombo
     Reynolds
     Strickland
     Stupak

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 312, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 171]

                               AYES--109

     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell (CA)
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling

[[Page H2872]]


     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--312

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bishop (GA)
     Cannon
     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (NY)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Strickland
     Stupak

                              {time}  2157

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________