[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7083-H7087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2643, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 514 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 514
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2643) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2643
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my
namesake and good friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 514.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 514 provides
for consideration of H.R. 2643, the Department of the Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year
2008. It is an open rule, and allows all Members the opportunity to
amend the bill.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, the funding levels in the underlying bill make clear the
change in priorities of this new Democratic Congress. This bill
refocuses our Nation's priorities to ensure that all Americans have
access to clean water and air as well as appropriately addressing
climate change and conservation, all of which have not been seen since
Democrats last controlled this body in 1994. Democrats are restoring
our obligation to the American people to protect and preserve the land
and shores and all creatures who inhabit this Earth.
I commend Chairman Dicks and Representative Tiahrt for their hard
and, perhaps most importantly, bipartisan work on this legislation. I
do believe that they did a tremendous job in crafting this bill.
This bill restores our promise to America's underserved minority
communities and to our children to ensure that our cherished land,
water, and air will be preserved for generations to come. I commend the
committee for including funding for important environmental justice
programs I have long advocated for such as $1.1 billion for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund. This is $437 million above the
administration's request and will help over 150 communities with
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects.
The bill also includes $140 million for sewer and water grants, which
received zero funding in 2007 and was not in the President's budget
request this year. Further, this legislation provides $16 million for
rural water technical assistance that was also zeroed out in the
President's budget request. We are ensuring that all communities have
clean and safe drinking water.
The underlying legislation also includes limitation language that I
authored in the 109th Congress, ensuring that EPA respects the needs of
environmental justice communities. It appropriate $7 million for
environmental justice programs, the amount that Congresswoman Hilda
Solis, I, and others requested. This is $3 million over the
administration's budget request and $2 million over fiscal 2007 levels.
This bill provides much-needed funding for our national parks and
wildlife protection. The legislation includes $2.5 billion for our
national parks, $223 million above the 2007 levels.
[[Page H7084]]
Democrats are appropriating $1.4 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, $86 million above 2007 levels and $130 million above the
President's budget request.
Ladies and gentlemen, our national parks have been shortchanged for
too long. This funding will be used for critical maintenance and
repair, conservation, and recreation, and for the preservation of our
natural heritage.
Importantly, the underlying legislation maintains the longstanding
Presidential and congressional moratoria on drilling for natural gas on
the Outer Continental Shelf. The committee rightly rejected attempts to
permit drilling to occur off the shores of coastal States, including my
home State of Florida, and I am sure my colleague from Tampa (Ms.
Castor) will speak more specifically to that issue during her time on
the rule. In doing this, we continue to protect and preserve the health
of Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our
State.
Amendments may be offered today on the floor that will seek to strip
Florida and other coastal States of their protections. I urge all of my
colleagues to do what is right for our Nation and reject such
amendments. Drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf
will have zero impact at the gas pumps. It will not under any
circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
This legislation offers a more forward thinking approach to our
Nation's energy needs. Instead of looking for short-term, short-sighted
solutions, Democrats have a smarter, long-term energy strategy. For
starters, Democrats have increased funding for programs such as the
global climate change research, providing $10 million above the
President's request for new research on global climate change and its
impact on rivers, groundwaters, and on organisms.
The bill also increases our investment in energy conservation and
alternative fuels and research capabilities by nearly 60 percent. What
a difference a change in Congress does make for our Nation.
Critically important to my district and to the entire State of
Florida is restoration of America's Everglades, one of the most
biologically diverse areas in the world and a unique and world-renowned
eco-region. The Everglades is one of the Nation's most fragile
ecosystems and remains an area of national and international
significance. Increased funding to advance this restoration initiative
ensures that the Federal Government keeps its commitment to the River
of Grass, the largest environmental rescue in the world. Chairman Dicks
and Representative Taylor, in my judgment, should both be applauded for
their continued effort to restore and preserve this pristine ecosystem.
Democrats also take significant steps to finally work to fulfill our
promise to our neglected Native American communities. In all, the bill
provides almost $250 million more in funding for Native American health
care and education opportunities than last year.
This legislation truly provides for each and every one of us. By
investing in the health of America's natural resources, we are
investing in the future of this majestic country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, later today I intend to offer an amendment that
would designate $1 million for grants for the National Underground
Railroad Network to Freedom, the only national program dedicated to the
preservation, interpretation, and dissemination of underground railroad
history. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
I am pleased to support this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge
my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good
friend and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee heard
testimony nearly 2 weeks ago from my good friend and colleague from
Washington, Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks and the Ranking Member
Todd Tiahrt of Kansas. When they appeared before the Rules Committee,
concerns were raised that the bill at that time did not include a list
of earmarks or earmark sponsors and that no Member could challenge,
discuss, and call for a vote on earmarks on the House floor.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republicans succeeded in forcing the
Democrat majority to restore the earmark transparency and
enforceability rules that they had changed at the beginning of this
Congress, and now spending bills are being brought to the floor with
earmarks where they can be discussed, debated, and voted upon, as they
should be.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the fiscal year 2008 Interior and
Environment Appropriations bill that we will consider today contains a
list of earmarks and the names of the sponsors of those earmarks. This
means that Members will have the opportunity to review them before
casting their vote on the House floor and not just see them added
months from now, as was previously tried.
Mr. Speaker, the Central Washington area that I represent covers more
than 19,000 square miles, much of which is controlled and managed by
the Federal Government. The Federal agencies funded in this bill
directly impact those that I represent on a number of levels. When
storms and mudslides wipe out trails and roads, it affects not only my
constituents that enjoy camping, hiking, and hunting on public roads,
but also visitors to the area and the local businesses that rely on
tourism. When invasive species, plant pests, and wildfire threats are
not adequately controlled on Federal land, the problems do not stop at
the property line.
I think I speak for many Western Members of the House when I talk
about the huge stake we have in the general direction of the agencies
funded under this bill. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned
that at a time when Federal land agencies struggle to manage the land
they now have, this Congress would provide tens of millions of dollars
for the Federal Government to buy up more land. This takes private
property off the tax rolls and leaves county governments with a heavier
burden to pay for emergency services, roads, and schools.
I have stood on this floor before to discuss the importance of
another program, the Secure Rural Schools program, which compensates
local governments that are negatively affected by Federal forest land
policy and ownership and the virtual shutdown of the Federal timber
program over the last 15 years. We need to get the Secure Rural Schools
program reauthorized and we need to get the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
program fully funded for the long term before we start spending
millions of dollars adding more and more land to the Federal estate.
Finally, I want to express my concern about the overall increase in
spending that this bill represents. I know that the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member worked very hard to try to manage
the many demands for funding under this bill. However, this bill
represents a $680 million increase over last year. As I have said
previously with respect to other appropriation bills this year, we
simply must rein in spending in order to prevent the massive tax
increases that the Democrat majority is poised to impose, as reflected
in their budget.
Congress must work for balancing the Federal budget in 5 years. There
are two ways to balance the budget, whether it is your family budget or
the Federal budget. You can either, one, reduce the amount of money
being spent or, two, increase the amount coming in. This bill
highlights the Democrat majority's allegiance to option number two:
spending more money each and every year and at a rate faster than
inflation, while relying on tax increases to balance the budget down
the road.
Mr. Speaker, we don't need a bigger Federal Government. We need a
balanced approach that holds the line on spending; provides for our
Nation's most fundamental priorities; and allows taxpayers to keep more
of their hard-earned money to spend, save, and invest as they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 6 minutes to my good friend
[[Page H7085]]
and member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Castor).
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), who has been an outspoken advocate for environmental justice
for this great country and a strong supporter of Everglades
restoration. So I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, our natural environment and clean neighborhoods are
vital to the health of the folks that we represent back home. This
bill, and the rule, contains much to recommend it to the American
people. But I rise in support today because my community, the Tampa Bay
area, will benefit greatly due to the new investments being made under
the leadership of this new Democratic Congress.
See, our communities have suffered over past years while
environmental agencies were infiltrated by industry lobbyists. That was
a strategy of this White House, unfortunately. And some in past
Congresses whittled away at environmental protections.
{time} 1045
Well, we're going to begin to turn that around today and repair
America's natural environment and the public health so we can breathe
easier.
First, we will make new investments in clean air and clean and safe
drinking water. We know that the rate of asthma in children is rising
in America, and this bill will help our communities get back on track
with enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
On clean water, the residents of the cities of Tampa and St.
Petersburg have benefited greatly over the years due to the Clean Water
Act and the State Water Revolving Loan Program because my communities
have been able to repair sewers, and in my hometown, clean up Tampa Bay
and make it safer for swimming, boating, and fishing. But we have more
work to do. The National Estuary Program portion of this bill will
help, as the bill provides greater assistance to local communities to
improve water quality in our national estuaries like Tampa Bay.
I also hope the committee will look favorably upon an amendment
relating to the red tide that is affecting the physical environment of
our coastal communities and causing respiratory ailments at a time when
folks are trying to enjoy their vacation at the beach.
Urban communities like mine also need assistance in cleaning up toxic
waste sites and Superfund sites. As a former county commissioner back
home, I understand the value of cleaning up old brownfield sites so
they do not remain as blights on the community. Oftentimes these
polluted industrial sites are located in communities of modest means.
So I salute the committee and Chairman Dicks for his commitment to
environmental justice to ensure that environmental decisions do not
adversely affect minority populations.
This bill also charts a new direction on global warming as well by
increasing climate change scientific research, including attention to
coastal communities to help us determine how we can best adapt to a
warming planet.
This act and rule also provides long overdue funding for our national
parks, including the beautiful Florida Everglades. Thanks to Chairman
Dicks and the committee for stepping up our efforts to ensure that
these valuable environmental resources are protected.
One final issue: this bill maintains the long-standing moratoria on
oil and gas drilling off our beautiful gulf coast beaches. Now, I
expect that the oil and gas lobby will take a run at this protection
today, and I urge my colleagues to hold firm.
In Florida and in other coastal States, drilling threatens our
environment, it threatens our health, and it threatens our economic
livelihood. Instead of risking our critical coastline for short-term
gain, the new Democratic majority is pursuing a long-term energy
strategy by investing in energy conservation and alternative fuels.
Granting oil and gas leases and access to our coastline is not the
solution to our energy crisis. The current leases that oil and gas
companies exploit far off the coastline exist with the help of
taxpayers. Allowing drilling closer to our coastline is simply a way
for oil and gas companies to maximize their profits. Such actions will
have no effect on either the cost of gas or on the future of our energy
needs.
I urge my colleagues to beat back this scheme of the oil and gas
lobby today, their attempt to kill a ban on coastal drilling that was
enacted in response to a 1969 oil and gas bill that blackened 35 miles
of California's coast.
Instead of drilling for limited resources, the country needs an
accelerated program for alternative fuels, and Congress needs to
investigate the oil companies' unseemly profits.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and the rule. I
salute the leadership of Chairman Dicks, and I thank Ranking Member
Tiahrt. This legislation will protect our environment and our public
health and focus on renewable energy solutions that are vital to the
State of Florida and the future of our great Nation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American
taxpayers in opposition to this rule.
A couple of weeks ago we had a lot of debate on this floor about
earmarks. At the end of this agreement we were able to have a process
that's more open and transparent for the earmark process, and so that
was a victory for the American taxpayer. However, it's worth noting
that when you look at the spending, for example in 2005, earmark
spending was less than 1 percent. So even though the battle was won on
earmarks, the war is still on against overspending of the American
taxpayers' money.
There are many causes for overspending in this country today, and one
of those is the entitlement programs. Those are programs,
unfortunately, that this body doesn't even get to vote on. And the fact
that the new majority's budget now has an additional discretionary
spending of $20 billion does not help the spending problem at all.
I would argue that Congress is failing at another very important
issue as well. According to a CQ Weekly article recently, $100 billion
in appropriations this year that we will make aren't authorized. Now,
the American people know what ``authorized'' means. If you go down and
open up a checking account, people want to know if you're authorized to
sign on that account. If you get a credit card, certain people are
authorized to use the credit card. I wish we were using a checking
account for the American taxpayers, but unfortunately we're using a
credit card.
What we're going to have in this bill today, the Interior EPA
appropriations bill, is $7.29 billion that's not authorized. What does
that mean? That means that the committees of jurisdiction have chosen
either not to authorize this spending or to reauthorize this spending,
yet the appropriation process is going to go ahead and spend $7.29
billion of the American taxpayers' money. Let me tell you where some of
that unauthorized money is going to be distributed; $160 million to the
National Endowment of the Arts was last authorized and it expired in
1993. The authorization for this expired in 1993. $1.8 billion of
discretionary programs for the Bureau of Land Management. That
authorization expired in 2002. $10.5 million for EPA State and Tribal
Grants to Alaskan Native Villages. Authorization for this spending
expired in 1979. These projects aren't on autopilot. In fact, there is
not even a pilot in the cockpit. These are programs that no one has
chosen to reauthorize in a number of years.
As Members of Congress, we're entrusted to spend the taxpayers' money
wisely. Congress is supposed to continually review these policies and
programs to determine, one, are they working; secondly, do they need to
be improved; or, third, should they be eliminated altogether.
Get this: House rules require appropriations to go through the
authorization program, yet each year the Rules Committee chooses to
waive points of order authorizing spending. In other words, that means
we have rules in this House to protect the American taxpayer by saying
we're not going to fund projects that aren't authorized. But what is
the first action that we take? We waive the rules. This is a practice
[[Page H7086]]
both Republican and Democratic Congresses are guilty of. However, I
think it's important to point out this shortcoming as we go into this
very important legislative process.
Now, some might argue, well, Congress is just too busy, doesn't have
enough time to review all of these program. Well, quite honestly, if
these programs aren't important enough for Congress to take the time to
review them to determine whether they should be continued to be funded
or if they're relevant today, we probably shouldn't be sending billions
of dollars of the taxpayers' money for those programs. And to the
argument, well, we're too busy, well, we haven't been too busy in the
first 6 months of this Congress. In the first 6 months of this Congress
we've authorized $828 billion in new programs. So if we have time to
authorize $828 billion in new programs, it looks like to me we have
time to go through these programs that are going to be funded today in
this bill that are unauthorized.
Clearly, Congress needs to do a better job. The first thing Congress
needs to do is follow the rules. These were rules that were put in
place to put checks and balances on how we spend the American
taxpayers' money. And so I would encourage our Members today to vote
against this rule and for Congress to follow its own rules, and that
is, to make sure that we do not fund unauthorized projects.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good
friend on the Rules Committee, let me clear up something for the
American public.
Mr. Dicks and Mr. Tiahrt, in a very responsible manner bringing this
appropriations measure to the floor, had to work assiduously to ensure
that this is a bipartisan effort and that we are being proper stewards
of the environment. There is no question, I don't believe, that anybody
can say about that.
But I've listened now for a considerable number of days about the
hammering of earmarks. Now, I'm not here as an apologist for anybody,
but I think something needs to be understood that is not clear in the
minds of many, particularly in the American public because of the
confusion that has been put forward by my colleagues on the other side.
Let me use as a ``for example'' in this particular measure some of the
so-called earmarks that I say are needed in these communities. And I go
specifically to Florida and specifically to Republicans who work on
this floor with me.
I support the city of Sarasota's water system placement that
Congressman Buchanan asks for. I support Congressman Crenshaw's town of
Callahan for the wastewater treatment plant. I support the fourth-
ranking member of the Republican Party's request for the city of
Brooksville Southwest Florida Water Management District for the Peace
and Myakka Rivers. I have fished in those rivers. I have seen them be
damaged. They are nowhere near the district that I am privileged to
serve, but I support that particular effort of Congressman Putnam.
I support the city of Clearwater for wastewater and reclaimed water
infrastructure. I have been in Clearwater when it was flooding and the
people had problems in that area. That's offered by Mr. Young, the
former appropriations Chair, and Mr. Bilirakis. Enough already,
colleagues. These people need this environmental protection. They need
these water treatment facilities. They need the things that Mr. Dicks
and Mr. Tiahrt have worked out. And it's wrong for folks to come down
here and to try to give the American public the impression that because
somebody that is sent here for the purpose of trying to use the budget
for the purposes of protecting the environment and the American people,
that they have done something wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Vermont, my good friend who is on the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from Florida and for his
ringing endorsement of public spending for public projects.
Two things: first, Democrats readopted in this Congress the principle
of pay-as-you-go, acknowledging that we have to pay our bills, and that
good intentions are not enough to balance the budget. We will do that
as we did before. But in this bill we are proposing to spend 7.5
percent more than the President asked for. And the reason? That
spending is necessary and required if we're going to protect the
rivers, the waterways, the air and the land of this great country.
Second, the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is alive and well in this
bipartisan bill by Mr. Dicks and by Mr. Tiahrt. We are getting back
into protecting the America that we are responsible to hand down to the
future. This bill, a bipartisan bill, appropriates $266 million for
climate change research across all Federal agencies. This bill creates
a commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation that will
review scientific questions that need to be addressed to adapt to
global warming and to recommend action. This investment in furthering
our understanding of the impacts of climate change is a down payment on
our future. If there has been a debate about whether global warming
exists, this bill puts an exclamation point that the bipartisan
conclusion of Congress is that global warming is real, is urgent, and
requires immediate attention.
The spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is also alive and well in this bill in
the Forest Legacy Program. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member. The Forest Legacy Program brings communities together,
protecting their forests. In my own State, two very small towns of
Fairlee and West Fairlee have been working hard contributing their own
money to protect their Brushwood Forest. The increase in the Forest
Legacy Program, something that's been overdue, is going to give them a
fighting chance to be able to do that.
The spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is alive and well in the bill's
commitment to water quality. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
provides all of our States resources for local sewage treatment
projects, one of the most important investments in the country towards
public health.
{time} 1100
The spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is alive and well in the self-help
efforts in this bill in the small amount of money, $16 million, that
provides for rural water technical assistance. This helps small
communities across the State of Vermont and across the country get the
technical assistance that they need in order to do locally what is
required for the benefit of their own citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen on both sides of the aisle for
their leadership in this overdue legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague
from Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee.
As the chairman is aware, I have been concerned for some time with
the issue of Federal land acquisition due to its effect on local tax
rolls. Many of the counties that I represent are heavily federally
owned. Some of them have strong reservations about Federal land
acquisition.
I would like to say a word or two specifically about the Columbia
River Gorge National Scenic Area. As the chairman knows, I represent
the northeastern part of the scenic area. The Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic River Act, passed by Congress in 1986, authorized $40
million for land acquisition, $10 million for economic development
grants, and $10 million for recreation grants for the scenic area. I am
concerned that even though it has been 20 years since the Act was
passed, the economic development and recreation accounts have yet to be
fully funded. Meanwhile, the Forest Service has spent more than $55
million on land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
Area. I believe we should make it a priority to fund the economic
development and recreation accounts as envisioned under the Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to Chairman Dicks for his comments.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I share your interest in seeing that the economic development and
recreation accounts under the gorge act are fully funded. I will be
happy to work with you on this issue which is so important to the
communities in your scenic area.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the chairman's remarks. I also
[[Page H7087]]
noted that the committee report includes $1 million for land
acquisition in the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area requested by our
colleagues, Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon and Mr. Baird of Washington. I
would like to clarify with the chairman that it is not his intent that
these funds would be spent on land acquisition in the part of the
scenic area that I represent.
Again, I would be happy to yield to the chairman on this question.
Mr. DICKS. That is correct. The earmark in the committee report is
for land acquisition in areas of the scenic area represented by the two
gentlemen who requested the funding.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the chairman. I appreciate very
much your comments. I look forward to working with you on issues
related to the implementation of the Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Act.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee, by a voice vote, approved
an open rule for the consideration of the Department of Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. I am pleased that
this rule keeps with the longstanding tradition of allowing an open
debate on spending bills. I support House Resolution 514.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation
moves our country in a better direction, providing improvements long
overdue to our entire Nation. Our investments today will ensure that
our children and grandchildren will have water and air that is cleaner,
natural landscapes and historic structures that are protected, and arts
and humanity centers that are bolstered.
This bill fulfills past due obligations to our underserved
communities and to our entire planet. Republicans in the last Congress
and in the current administration have continued to fail to effectively
fund the environmental and conservation needs of the American people
and its natural resources.
Today, under the Democratic leadership, we are reversing this trend
and restoring funding to vital programs and agencies, fulfilling our
promise to this Nation and to this Earth. The investments this bill
makes are of vital importance today, and their benefits will be felt
for years to come.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________