[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7110-H7134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      compact of free association

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

                        Office of the Solicitor

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $59,250,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $43,822,000.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

                         federal trust programs

       For the operation of trust programs by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and grants, 
     $182,542,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $56,384,000 from this or any other Act, shall 
     be available for historical accounting: Provided, That

[[Page H7111]]

     funds for trust management improvements and litigation 
     support may, as needed, be transferred to or merged with the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, ``Operation of Indian Programs'' 
     account; the Office of the Solicitor, ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'' account; and the Office of the Secretary, 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' account: Provided further, That 
     funds made available through contracts or grants obligated 
     during fiscal year 2008, as authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall 
     remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the statute of limitations shall not commence to run 
     on any claim, including any claim in litigation pending on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, concerning losses to 
     or mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe or 
     individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of 
     such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether 
     there has been a loss: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     shall not be required to provide a quarterly statement of 
     performance for any Indian trust account that has not had 
     activity for at least 18 months and has a balance of $15.00 
     or less: Provided further, That the Secretary shall issue an 
     annual account statement and maintain a record of any such 
     accounts and shall permit the balance in each such account to 
     be withdrawn upon the express written request of the account 
     holder: Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000 is 
     available for the Secretary to make payments to correct 
     administrative errors of either disbursements from or 
     deposits to Individual Indian Money or Tribal accounts after 
     September 30, 2002: Provided further, That erroneous payments 
     that are recovered shall be credited to and remain available 
     in this account for this purpose.

                       indian land consolidation

       For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands 
     and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing 
     escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary 
     expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 
     1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative 
     agreement, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     and which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     and Office of the Secretary accounts.

                        Department-Wide Programs

                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $232,528,000, of 
     which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be 
     made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the 
     computed amount of the payment is less than $100.

                              {time}  1345


                    amendment offered by mr. lamborn

  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
       On page 44, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $160,000,000)''.
       On page 96, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.

  Mr. DICKS. I reserve a point of order against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, this amendment would eliminate funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts and increase the funding for 
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT program. This amendment 
recognizes the difficult fiscal situation that our government is 
facing. Many of my colleagues and I are finding opportunities to reduce 
funding in areas to offset increases in others, and we are working to 
trim Federal spending wherever possible. The Interior appropriations 
bill has the largest increase over the President's request of any of 
these appropriations bills, and I will support efforts to bring the 
cost down as they arise.
  Now, the opposition to the NEA should not be perceived as opposition 
to the arts. True art can survive in the private sector without Federal 
handouts. The NEA did not even exist before 1965, and look at all the 
wonderful artists in American history who survived and thrived before 
that time. Artists have a constitutional right to be creative, but free 
speech does not mean that the taxpayer has to fund it. Even if I did 
support the NEA agenda, at a time when fiscal restraint is crucial, we 
must closely examine how and where we are spending taxpayer money. As 
such, I feel it is not only appropriate but necessary to question some 
of the funding in this bill and see if it can be either reduced or 
redirected to more worthwhile programs.
  Much of the land contained in the rural counties in Colorado and out 
west, including much of my congressional district in Colorado, is 
largely owned by the Federal Government. In fact, more than one-third 
of Colorado, 24 million acres, is owned by the Federal Government. This 
removes much of the land in these counties from any ability to generate 
revenue to pay for basic government services like law enforcement or 
fighting fires. At a time when we are facing record spending, this 
commonsense amendment simply lets Americans know that we are willing to 
make tough choices.
  My amendment would reduce all of the $160 million in funding for the 
NEA while offering a modest $52 million increase to this much-needed 
PILT program. This still reduces the overall cost of this spending bill 
by over $100 million and sends a message that in this budget 
environment we are willing to tighten our belts as any American family 
or business would.
  I know many of my colleagues support the NEA. I simply believe the 
government has no business funding art with taxpayer dollars, 
especially in light of our difficult budget circumstances. My 
colleagues that support the NEA should put their money where their 
mouth is by making private donations instead of doing so with the hard-
earned tax dollars of working men and women.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment and I ask for 
support on it.


                             point of order

  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays by 
$140 million in the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
this amendment and offer another one in lieu which I hope would satisfy 
that point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    amendment offered by mr. lamborn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
       On page 44, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $52,000,000)''.
       On page 96, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $160,000,000)''.

  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, I won't repeat the points that I just 
made a moment ago, other than to say that the dollar amounts have been 
changed in this subsequent amendment and I believe they answer the 
gentleman's point of order. It is offered for the same reason. Let's 
take NEA money that can be privately funded through the private sector 
and put it into the counties that are sometimes losing dollars when so 
much land is federally owned and let's improve the PILT program by $52 
million.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment. The principal purpose of this amendment is to block the long 
overdue increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts 
provided in the bill. The gentleman is correct that the bill reported 
by the committee provides $160 million for the NEA, an increase of $35 
million over the 2007 enacted level. I am very proud of that increase 
which I think is fully justified and broadly supported by the Members 
of this body.
  It is important for Members to realize as they consider the 
committee's action that the $160 million recommended only partially 
restores cuts made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in 
this bill is still $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After 
adjusting for inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below 
the level in 1993, as displayed on the chart in front of the Members.
  As we debate the amendment, Members should also note that the 
National Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts 
funding debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the 
NEA into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivey, appointed by 
President Clinton, negotiated and then implemented bipartisan reforms 
in NEA's grant structure to ensure that funds go to activities for 
which public funding is appropriate. Dana Gioia, the current

[[Page H7112]]

chairman, then energized the agency with many new programs and a 
commitment to reach beyond the cultural centers of our major cities. 
Last year every single congressional district received NEA support 
through innovative programs such as American Masterpieces, Operation 
Homecoming and the Big Read. Today, NEA is truly a national program 
with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of 
our society.
  Each of us has different reasons to support the arts. Some will 
describe their support in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a 
personally enriching experience. Others support the arts as engines of 
job development and economic growth. It is equally important to 
emphasize that except for a few members of the Flat Earth Society, 
there is little opposition to Federal funding for the arts and for the 
humanities. The culture wars are over. For each of the last 7 years, 
with the help of many Members in this Chamber, a bipartisan majority of 
the House has voted to increase funding for the NEA. During the last 2 
years, Ms. Slaughter's and my amendments to add funds were adopted by 
voice vote without opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not normally include quotes in my floor remarks, 
but I was struck in preparing for this year's arts debate by a quote 
attributed to actor Richard Dreyfus at the Grammy awards ceremony:
  ``Perhaps we've all misunderstood the reason we learn music and all 
the arts in the first place. It is that for hundreds of years, it has 
been known that teaching the arts helps to create the well-rounded mind 
that Western civilization, and America, have been grounded on. 
America's greatest achievements in science, in business, in popular 
culture, would simply not be obtainable without an education that 
encourages achievement in all fields. It is from that creativity and 
imagination that the solutions to our political and social problems 
will come. We need that well-rounded mind now. Without it, we simply 
make more difficult the problems we face.''
  I believe Mr. Dreyfus is right, and the committee has acted to 
provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American 
communities with a richer variety of programs.
  I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. I want to insist on my point of order.
  The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in 
the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? Or the amendment?
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, I would ask for a ruling from the 
Chair because I believe that it is in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the 
bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, 
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill 
not yet read.
  The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 
     $9,954,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That hereafter, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums 
     recovered from or paid by a party in advance of or as 
     reimbursement for remedial action or response activities 
     conducted by the Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) 
     of such Act, shall be credited to this account, to be 
     available until expended without further appropriation: 
     Provided further, That hereafter such sums recovered from or 
     paid by any party are not limited to monetary payments and 
     may include stocks, bonds or other personal or real property, 
     which may be retained, liquidated, or otherwise disposed of 
     by the Secretary and which shall be credited to this account.

           Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment and 
     restoration activities by the Department of the Interior 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Public 
     Law 101-337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $6,224,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                       administrative provisions

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by 
     donation, purchase or through available excess surplus 
     property: Provided, That existing aircraft being replaced may 
     be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to 
     offset the purchase price for the replacement aircraft.

             General Provisions, Department of the Interior


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the 
     emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for wildland fire operations shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until the Secretary determines 
     that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations'' 
     shall be exhausted within 30 days: Provided further, That all 
     funds used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible: Provided further, That such 
     replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata 
     basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; purchase 
     and replacement of motor vehicles, including specially 
     equipped law enforcement vehicles; hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     purchase of reprints; payment for telephone service in 
     private residences in the field, when authorized under 
     regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment of 
     dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 104. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     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.
       Sec. 105. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the

[[Page H7113]]

     Interior to conduct oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing 
     and related activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 
     planning areas.
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this Act under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any unobligated balances 
     from prior appropriations Acts made under the same headings 
     shall be available for expenditure or transfer for Indian 
     trust management and reform activities, except that total 
     funding for historical accounting activities shall not exceed 
     amounts specifically designated in this Act for such purpose.
       Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies. No federally-recognized tribe shall receive a 
     reduction in Tribal Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 
     percent in fiscal year 2008. Under circumstances of dual 
     enrollment, overlapping service areas or inaccurate 
     distribution methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does 
     not apply.
       Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority 
     provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms 
     of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and 
     use any such reimbursement until expended and without further 
     appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all 
     activities authorized by 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
       Sec. 109. The Secretary of the Interior may hereafter use 
     or contract for the use of helicopters or motor vehicles on 
     the Sheldon and Hart National Wildlife Refuges for the 
     purpose of capturing and transporting horses and burros. The 
     provisions of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959 
     (18 U.S.C. 47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use. Such 
     use shall be in accordance with humane procedures prescribed 
     by the Secretary.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds in this or any other Act can be 
     used to compensate the Special Master and the Special Master-
     Monitor, and all variations thereto, appointed by the United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia in the 
     Cobell v. Kempthorne litigation at an annual rate that 
     exceeds 200 percent of the highest Senior Executive Service 
     rate of pay for the Washington-Baltimore locality pay area.
       Sec. 111. The Secretary of the Interior may use 
     discretionary funds to pay private attorney fees and costs 
     for employees and former employees of the Department of the 
     Interior reasonably incurred in connection with Cobell v. 
     Kempthorne to the extent that such fees and costs are not 
     paid by the Department of Justice or by private insurance. In 
     no case shall the Secretary make payments under this section 
     that would result in payment of hourly fees in excess of the 
     highest hourly rate approved by the District Court for the 
     District of Columbia for counsel in Cobell v. Kempthorne.
       Sec. 112. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     shall, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect 
     threatened and endangered species of salmon, implement a 
     system of mass marking of salmonid stocks, intended for 
     harvest, that are released from federally-operated or 
     federally-financed hatcheries including but not limited to 
     fish releases of coho, chinook, and steelhead species. Marked 
     fish must have a visible mark that can be readily identified 
     by commercial and recreational fishers.
       Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any implementation of the 
     Department of the Interior's trust reorganization or 
     reengineering plans, or the implementation of the ``To Be'' 
     Model, funds appropriated for fiscal year 2008 shall be 
     available to the tribes within the California Tribal Trust 
     Reform Consortium and to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 
     Community, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 
     Flathead Reservation and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky 
     Boys Reservation through the same methodology as funds were 
     distributed in fiscal year 2003. This Demonstration Project 
     shall continue to operate separate and apart from the 
     Department of the Interior's trust reform and reorganization 
     and the Department shall not impose its trust management 
     infrastructure upon or alter the existing trust resource 
     management systems of the above referenced tribes having a 
     self-governance compact and operating in accordance with the 
     Tribal Self-Governance Program set forth in 25 U.S.C. 458aa-
     458hh: Provided, That the California Trust Reform Consortium 
     and any other participating tribe agree to carry out their 
     responsibilities under the same written and implemented 
     fiduciary standards as those being carried by the Secretary 
     of the Interior: Provided further, That they demonstrate to 
     the satisfaction of the Secretary that they have the 
     capability to do so: Provided further, That the Department 
     shall provide funds to the federally-recognized tribes in an 
     amount equal to that required by 25 U.S.C. 458cc(g)(3), 
     including funds specifically or functionally related to the 
     provision of trust services to the federally-recognized 
     tribes or their members.
       Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands, 
     waters, or interests therein including the use of all or part 
     of any pier, dock, or landing within the State of New York 
     and the State of New Jersey, for the purpose of operating and 
     maintaining facilities in the support of transportation and 
     accommodation of visitors to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty 
     Islands, and of other program and administrative activities, 
     by donation or with appropriated funds, including franchise 
     fees (and other monetary consideration), or by exchange; and 
     the Secretary is authorized to negotiate and enter into 
     leases, subleases, concession contracts or other agreements 
     for the use of such facilities on such terms and conditions 
     as the Secretary may determine reasonable.
       Sec. 115. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production of 
     oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to any lessee under an existing 
     lease issued by the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337 note), where such existing lease is not subject 
     to limitations on royalty relief based on market price.

  Mr. DICKS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the 
Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Alabama). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       Page 50, line 3, after the period, insert ``The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply with respect to natural gas offshore 
     preleasing, leasing, and related activities beyond 25 miles 
     from the coastline'':
       Page 50, line 7, after the period, insert ``The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply with respect to natural gas offshore 
     preleasing, leasing, and related activities beyond 25 miles 
     from the coastline''

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. This amendment, I believe, is one of 
the most important issues that we will deal with in this Congress. It's 
about having affordable, available, clean, green natural gas, the fuel 
that we take for granted. It's the fuel that heats about 60 percent of 
our homes, 70 percent of our businesses, and is the major building 
block to all the industries that are left in this country.
  The petrochemical industry, 55 percent of their operating cost is 
natural gas. The polymers and plastic industry, 45 percent of their 
operational cost is natural gas. And fertilizer can be as high as 70 
percent of their cost is natural gas because they use it as a fuel and 
they use it as an ingredient to make their product. It's an ingredient 
in all those products.
  Clean, green natural gas now generates about 20 percent of our 
electricity. That didn't used to be. Biodiesel consumes huge amounts of 
natural gas in the production cost. Ethanol, 96 percent of the plants 
that make ethanol use huge amounts of natural gas. We are consuming 
more natural gas in this country than we're able to produce.
  The chart on the left with the red, that's the gap that's growing, 
because we as a country, 26 years ago, Congress decided that we 
shouldn't produce energy offshore. Every country in the world produces 
both oil and gas offshore. Now, they have setbacks. But they all use 
offshore production because it's the cleanest, best, safest way to 
produce energy, and there's huge amounts out there.
  Now, for this country to have the highest natural gas prices in the 
world almost is insanity, because we have lots of it, but we have 
chosen to lock it up and not produce it. This is the clean, green fuel. 
It's greener than biofuels. It's what we use to generate electricity 
when the wind doesn't blow. It's what we use to generate electricity 
when the sun doesn't shine for solar. It's what we use to make hydrogen 
for the hydrogen vehicles that are oncoming. It's the bridge to our 
future because it's clean, it's green. No NOX, 
SOX and a third of the CO2 that all other 
energies project. For this country not to open up its Outer Continental 
Shelf to natural gas, my amendment opens it up from 25 miles on out.

[[Page H7114]]

That doesn't mean it's going to be drilled. It would still have to be 
in the 5-year plan, but it would open it up.
  Let me tell you, folks, we're going to do this sometime. It depends 
on whether we do it in time to save the millions of jobs that are 
leaving. Dow Chemical's energy bill went from $8 billion in '02, 
natural gas bill, to $22 billion in '06. They came to our committee the 
last 2 years and begged for release. Produce natural gas. We didn't. 
They just invested $30 billion that they wanted to invest in America 
for working men in America and working women in America to have a good 
job. They're putting it in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya, because 
natural gas is a fraction there of what it is here. It is absolute 
insanity for America to starve itself of the clean, green fuel that has 
never foiled a beach.
  California, New Jersey and Florida will protest the most. It will 
never foil a beach. A gas well has never foiled a beach. It has never 
washed up on a shore. It's a gas. And they are the three States that 
are the largest consumers and who have switched their electric 
generation to gas and helped cause the problem that have protested the 
production of clean, green natural gas.
  My amendment is the amendment that can keep America competitive. It 
can keep us strong as a nation. It can keep American working people 
working in their jobs, in their factories. But if we don't pass my 
amendment, we will lose millions of jobs in this country; in fact, all 
of the manufacturing jobs. I lost a plant this year that made clay 
tile. Natural gas prices. I got a letter the other day from a guy who 
re-formed steel, and he said if it continues to go up, it has went up 
three times in the last 2 years, 300 percent.

                              {time}  1400

  He said, if it goes up any further, I am out of business. I can't 
make sign posts. I can't make bed rail anymore out of recycled steel 
rail.
  Folks, clean, green natural gas is more America's fuel that can keep 
this country strong and growing and environmentally green.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I rise in very strong opposition to both amendments by my colleague 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) which eliminate current protections 
for sensitive, coastal marine areas for new offshore drill for oil and 
gas.
  Under these amendments, we could literally see the push for new 
drilling off our coast begin almost immediately. Though oil and gas 
companies awash in profits from our open constituents profits would 
have us believe that all the offshore resources are off limits today, 
that we are only talking about drilling for natural gas and not oil, 
and also that today's high gas prices demand this new drilling, these 
arguments don't hold up under scrutiny.
  First, the industry already has access to the vast majority of 
natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, already has access to it. 
Indeed, according to the Bush administration, about 80 percent of the 
known reserves are located in areas where this drilling is already 
allowed. Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns the 
drilling rights to more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of 
Mexico alone.
  Second, there is no such thing as natural gas-only drilling. Drilling 
for gas, natural gas, means drilling for oil.
  Even the Bush administration and the energy industry have dismissed 
so-called gas-only drilling as unworkable. This is what the American 
Association of Petroleum Geologists has to say about gas only drilling. 
This is a quote, ``There are a lot of times when you drill for oil, and 
find gas instead--and the other way around. You never know for sure 
what you're going to find until you're in there.''
  Here is another quote from the former head of Minerals Management 
Service. ``While gas-only leasing sounds appealing, as a practical 
matter, it may remain difficult to implement in a manner that reflects 
sound public policy.''
  Now, finally, new drilling off our coast is not going to lower gas 
prices today or any time in the near future. It would take an estimated 
7 years for natural gas from new leases to come online, 7 years. 
Serious energy efficiency measures, and more use of renewables, this 
would reduce demand and bring down prices much faster.
  Mr. Chairman, President Bush has promised to end our oil addiction. 
Yet, energy prices and industry profits are at record highs. The 
predictable result of a strategy of focusing on supply and ignoring 
demand. The Peterson amendment to drill within 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 demand, it 
should be obvious there is no way we are going to drill our way out of 
this problem.
  We need to use energy in smarter ways to improve fuel efficiency of 
our cars and trucks, invest more of the development of new, cleaner 
technology. In doing so, we would be generating way more jobs, the 
kinds of jobs and growth that will ensure our continued preeminence in 
among the world's economies. Let us not sacrifice our most important 
treasures, our coastal economies, in a hopeless way to drill our way to 
energy security. It doesn't work.
  I urge all my colleagues to protect our coasts by defeating both 
Peterson amendments.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, America needs to secure its own sources of energy, be 
it from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear renewable or other sources. A 
strong, vibrant economy with well-paying jobs goes along with it. It's 
inextricably linked with reliable and preferably inexpensive energy 
sources.
  Sadly, as Mr. Peterson points out, we pay more now for natural gas 
than we ever have before in the history of this Nation. If we want to 
help workers and businesses that employ workers, we must continue to 
build and strengthen our economy and provide them with reliable energy 
resources.
  If we want to have high-quality, high-paying jobs in America, and I 
think we all do, then we are going to need additional energy, and we 
are going to need additional natural gas. Do we have the resources? 
Yes, we have the resources. Can we produce it safely? Yes, we can 
produce it safely.
  We have been producing gas, natural gas, in Kansas for over 100 
years. Natural gas is very versatile. You can make so much from it. You 
can make fertilizer, you can make make-up, clothing, plastics, ethanol. 
But we mostly use it to produce energy or electricity, energy in the 
form of electricity.
  I think when we look at this issue, we have to figure out, are we 
going to make energy available inexpensively, and, if we are, we are 
going to have to go to where the reserves are. This amendment opens up 
an area for us to produce natural gas, or it can be produced safely, 
and it's going to be essential if we are going to continue to grow our 
economy.
  So I urge the adoption of Mr. Peterson's amendment, because I think 
we know that we have proven reserves that can produce safely, natural 
gas. This is the time for us to send this message to America, that we 
are going to continue to build a strong economy, and we are going to 
give our economy the tools necessary to produce the jobs we need to 
continue to provide the hope and a source for continuing to complete 
dreams here at home.
  I urge strong support of this amendment.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard many times from the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania the suggestion that drilling for natural gas is low impact 
compared to oil drilling. In fact, he even called it clean on the floor 
today. Unfortunately, this opinion runs contrary to scientific findings 
on the matter. There are drastic and devastating environmental and 
economic repercussions that come with drilling into the ocean floor, 
drilling into the ocean floor.
  Mr. Peterson refers to the use of natural gas as a clean fuel, and 
that may well be true. But what we are talking about here is drilling 
into the ocean floor so close to our beaches, that is a problem for 
both my home State of Florida, as well as the rest of the Nation.
  According to the Minerals Management Service, once exploratory 
drilling begins, the toxic impacts are similar for either oil or gas 
exploration or development. Drilling operations produce hundreds of 
thousands of gallons of

[[Page H7115]]

drilling muds that routinely discharge toxic metals such as lead, 
mercury and cadmium. None of those seem clean to me.
  Water discharged from drilling and exploratory operations often 
contain dangerous levels of carcinogens and radioactive materials such 
as benzene, toluene and arsenic. None of those seem clean to me either. 
The impact is not just limited to the off-shore platform. Natural gas 
drilling requires on-shore storage and processing facilities, including 
miles of pipelines, roads, ports, helipads and dorms.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks to minimize the perception of 
the impact of drilling for natural gas, when the reality is that it 
would generate toxic poisons seeping into our oceans, have a 
significant impact environmentally on our coastline, and be a 
significant danger to opening the door, not just to gas drilling, but 
oil drilling as well.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the oceans and breaches of the United 
States and oppose the Peterson amendment, both this one and the next 
one that is offered.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that when multiple Members 
rise for recognition, priority is given, by custom, to Members who 
serve on the committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the passion of the introducer of this 
amendment. I understand his arguments. I should. We have talked about 
them at least twice a week for the last 3 or 4 years.
  I agree with a lot of his argument, but the problem is that this 
amendment wouldn't solve most of those problems. It really isn't 
directed at those problems.
  In the outer continental shelf, there are vast areas of the outer 
continental shelf that are available for drilling for oil and for gas.
  But in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, there are some very 
environmentally sensitive areas that have been protected by this 
Congress since 1983. This amendment would undo those protections. In 
recent years, something very important has come about, and this is the 
military mission line. The Defense Department, the Air Force and the 
military who exercise and train in areas of the Gulf of Mexico tell us 
that east of the military mission line it would be disastrous for their 
training if we allowed drilling for oil or for gas.
  Congress spent a lot of time this last year on this very subject, and 
Mr. Peterson was part of the effort to come to a compromise. We came to 
a compromise finally. It wasn't easy.
  Mr. Peterson didn't really like the compromise, and I give him credit 
for standing up for that, but he agreed to it.
  Now, this amendment would undo the compromise that Congress worked so 
hard on last year. This amendment is not going to solve the problems 
that the introducer of this amendment suggests exists today, problems 
that we are all pretty much aware of.
  But this amendment could be a disaster for environmentally sensitive 
areas of the Gulf of Mexico and certainly would cause the degradation 
of necessary military training east of the military mission line in the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  So I think that while Mr. Peterson is very passionate, and he 
certainly understands the issue of natural gas, and the benefits of 
natural gas, I don't think that he really understands the need to 
protect certain areas from drilling for oil and for natural gas.
  So I would hope that the Congress would once again step up to the 
plate on this issue, defeat this amendment, and let's get on with this 
good bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have no doubt 
that the gentleman who has offered it is well intentioned, and he is 
clearly becoming a leader on moving our country to greater energy 
independence. But we will not get there by lifting the moratorium on 
drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We will, however, invite 
great harm to established fishing and tourism industries, as well as 
the environment.
  Off the coast of Virginia, we will interfere with the U.S. Navy's 
Virginia Cape Operations area in a way that the Department of Defense 
has warned us in unequivocal terms would be totally unacceptable and 
utterly incompatible with the operations that they are currently 
conducting. They could not conduct very sensitive essential operations 
off the coast of Virginia that are ongoing if we were to pass this 
amendment.
  While it's technically feasible to drill for natural gas, there are 
also some fundamental, legal and economic questions about whether any 
drilling offshore could be limited to just natural gas.
  But I want to focus particularly on the fact that this amendment 
can't possibly solve our energy problem.
  The natural gas and oil estimated to be recoverable from the outer 
continental shelf will not result in lower natural gas prices. It 
simply takes too long to develop a natural gas field to affect prices 
in the short term. We are talking 1 to 3 years at least to develop a 
field. Natural gas from areas currently off limits to drilling won't 
reduce prices in the long term either, since there is not enough gas 
there compared to either annual U.S. production or consumption.
  A Department of Energy study compared the price of natural gas with 
the OCS moratorium areas that are kept out of production, versus the 
price of natural gas, if all of the moratorium areas were opened for 
drilling in the 2007-2012 5-year plan.

                              {time}  1415

  With all of its supply and demand information, the Department of 
Energy's model modeling system predicted that the price of natural gas 
would be $3.26 per thousand cubic feet in the year 2020, without the 
gas under moratoria, and $3.22 per thousand if we eliminate the 
moratorium. In other words, we could only save 4 cents if this 
amendment were implemented.
  Moreover, the vast majority, over 80 percent of the Nation's 
undiscovered but technically recoverable Outer Continental Shelf gas is 
already located in areas that are open to drilling. And that's 
according to the Interior Department's 2006 report to Congress.
  According to the same report, there is an estimated 86 trillion cubic 
feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in all the 
Outer Continental Shelf areas that have been withdrawn from leasing, 
compared to 479 trillion cubic feet of reserve appreciation 
undiscovered technically recoverable resources within the total Outer 
Continental Shelf belonging the United States.
  These are technical words and statistics. What it says is that, at 
best, you can open up 20 percent, and the fact is, it wouldn't make but 
a pittance of difference in the cost of natural gas. Eighty percent of 
the Nation's undiscovered natural gas is already open to drilling.
  The other thing that we're very much concerned about is what the 
drilling operations do to our environment. They discharge hundreds of 
thousands of gallons of what's called ``produced water'' that contain a 
variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead, 
naphthalene, zinc and toluene, and can contain varying amounts of 
radioactive material. And tons of air pollutants are emitted. It will 
also trigger the uncontrolled release of methane hydrates, a greenhouse 
gas that's 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
  And then if you look at what drilling has done to the Gulf Coast, you 
will recognize that it's destroyed hundreds of miles of wetlands and 
sensitive coastal habitats. When they bring the channel transporting 
the oil or gas into the shore, it brings the saltwater into the fresh 
water and destroys the plant life which reduces erosion. Thus we lose 
several football fields of shoreline every day along the Gulf Coast.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a host of reasons this amendment is a bad 
amendment. It should be defeated. We should follow the lead of the 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate and respect, frankly, the passion 
and the consistent passion of the sponsor of this amendment. He's been 
very consistent and passionate to try to make sure that the United 
States is as independent from foreign sources of energy as possible.

[[Page H7116]]

  However, I think we can do that without this amendment because there 
are many areas that are available for oil and gas exploration without 
this amendment. And this amendment overturns a longstanding bipartisan 
moratorium on new natural gas drilling in areas, in certain areas that 
are too close to sensitive coastlines.
  Congress addressed this issue, as the gentleman from Florida had said 
a little while ago, Mr. Young, year after year, and last year we had a 
huge battle and, I think, a compromise, which none of us thought was 
great, but it was a compromise, which I think kind of hopefully settled 
this issue at least for a while in that compromise.
  This amendment would, unfortunately, allow for natural gas drilling 
way too close to our precious coastlines. It can potentially damage 
sensitive habitats. Just the byproducts of drilling itself can be 
potentially damaging, and it can be very damaging to the ecosystem and 
particularly, for example, to the economy of the State of Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, tourism alone accounts for $57 billion to the economy 
of the State of Florida. Imagine what an impact if we were to do 
something that jeopardizes that vital industry for Florida, but also 
for the national economy.
  And, again, there are many other areas that are available for oil and 
gas drilling without this amendment. So I would respectfully, and 
understanding the passion and where it comes, and obviously I 
understand that he's trying to do what he believes is right for the 
country, but I think we can do it in a way that also balances the 
coastlines' sensitivity to the environment that this will be close to.
  I think the bipartisan arrangement compromise that we did last year 
does that and therefore, very respectfully I would ask for a ``no'' 
vote on this amendment.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks, let me talk about some of 
the remarks and the comments that have been made. I know we've heard a 
study quoted about $3.50 natural gas. Right now if you can find $3.50 
natural gas anywhere, we ought to buy it because now it's $6 to $7 per 
million cubic feet for natural gas right now. And so whatever studies 
talk about $3, $3.30, whatever, is really not relevant.
  I represent a district that we actually have zero emitting natural 
gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Zero emitting for air pollution, zero 
emitting for water pollution. And I've offered many times to take 
colleagues who've never been to a natural gas offshore well to just 
come to the Gulf of Mexico, either off of Texas or Louisiana or maybe 
Mississippi or Alabama where folks also drill off the coast.
  Natural gas is one of the cleanest producing fuels we can use. I'm a 
strong supporter of this Peterson amendment to allow the Department of 
the Interior to issue new leases for offshore natural gas in areas 25 
miles off the coast. We're not talking about 3 miles off the coast. 
We're not talking about 10 miles. We're talking about 25 miles.
  This amendment has less to do with fossil fuels and everything to do 
with helping Congress address our climate change and transition America 
to a clean energy future. If you are for renewables, if you're for 
cleaner power, if you're for low-emitting vehicles, if you're for 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then you should be increasing the 
access to the domestic natural gas supplies.
  Demand for natural gas is already building across our economy, and 
proposals pushing cleaner energy will only accelerate the demand. 
That's because it takes a lot of natural gas to make the materials for 
our economy that make it more energy efficient. Insulation, 
weatherization materials, thermal windows, appliances, lightweight 
vehicle parts, low-resistance tires, compact fluorescent light bulbs, 
heat reflecting coatings, house wrap, the list goes on and on. All are 
made from materials that are directly made from natural gas.
  It also takes natural gas to make materials that make wind turbine 
blades and solar panels to run biomass facilities and to run cleaner 
burn power plants.
  One example is right here in the Capitol where our Speaker and 
majority leader directed the Chief Administrative Officer, our CAO of 
the House, to develop a green Capitol initiative. The CAO officer 
announced last week that his strategy to reduce CO2 
emissions from the Capitol power plant was to use natural gas instead 
of coal, which will lower CO2 emissions by 30 percent from 
2006 level. This is equivalent to taking 1,900 cars off the road each 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to back up their support for 
addressing both climate change and by supporting domestically produced 
natural gas in the environmentally responsible Peterson amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, this debate is a perfect example of 
why we have an energy crisis in the United States, a lot of people 
talking about energy and not using many facts.
  I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's 
amendment here to open up gas exploration and extraction of natural gas 
wells up to 25 miles, I guess would be the limit he proposes.
  Let's just go back in history. I was in the Florida legislature on 
the Select Energy Committee in the State House when we had gasoline 
shortages and cars lined up. I voted to drill in the Everglades. My 
opponents remind me about that all the time.
  Did you know we still drill in the Everglades? We do it safely, and 
we're taking oil out of the Everglades without any harmful effects on 
the Everglades or the environment.
  You hear fear, not facts, being proposed here. Damage to the economy. 
Well, back in the 1990s I participated in a 100-mile set off, and we 
set that as the policy. That's back in the 1990s.
  The technology we have today in extracting natural gas and oil, and 
this is about natural gas. It's not about oil, but the same holds true. 
We won't even go into the oil extraction.
  But we have technology today they didn't even dream about a decade 
ago. Off the coast of Scandinavia, they're taking out oil and natural 
gas. They're using technology. There's nothing above the surface of the 
water. Twenty-five miles, you won't see that.
  Some of the proposals for wind, I challenge you to go to Scandinavia, 
to some of the other places where they have these huge windmills and 
see the visual pollution that is created. So it can be done. We have 
the technology to extract it.
  Let me give you the irony of Florida and the history again. So we 
came back here, and this isn't just a Republican, Democrat issue, 
people talking about something they know nothing about. We had a 
Governor Bush, we had a President Bush, and they argued over it and we 
changed the areas that were eligible for extraction. When you drill for 
oil, or in this case, gas, it costs you hundreds of millions or 
billions of dollars to drill.
  Are you going to drill when you're playing this hokey-pokey, first we 
put our right foot out then we put our left foot out. It's going to be 
100, it's going to be a 120, it's going to be 150 or you can't do it.
  No. It's absolutely incredible that we have a vast supply of natural 
gas right off of Florida. We can do it; we have the technology to 
extract it. We built a billion-dollar pipeline, a billion-dollar 
pipeline. We can't hook up to it. We have the supply.
  The trade deficit, nobody's even talked about the trade deficit. Most 
of the trade deficit is importing oil. Look at the huge part of it. So 
we're bankrupting the United States, sending our resources overseas.
  We've got this in our back yard. It's clean. In Florida, during the 
1990s, the Clinton policy for the country was to go to natural gas for 
energy production for our power plants. Twenty-eight of 34 electrical 
power plants planned from Florida are designed for natural gas. Now 
we're switching back to coal and oil. What a crazy, mixed-up policy.
  And here the gentleman from Pennsylvania offers us an opportunity to 
tap into a clean resource that doesn't emit these gas emissions that 
are detrimental to the environment and, again, this nonsensical debate 
that takes place.
  Stop the politics. We had the gentleman from Florida a few minutes 
ago. Cuba, 90 miles. Within 45 miles the Chinese will soon be drilling 
for energy

[[Page H7117]]

resources. What a goofed-up debate and policy.
  Shame on us. And the American people are paying. Wait till they get 
their bills. It's not going to get better, folks.
  They said, well, we'll just wait for some other technology. We have 
this here. Solar and wind and all these other things are necessary, and 
we should use them. I'm a big fan of nuclear, but we have a proposal 
before us that makes sense. Let's adopt it.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment 
and in defense of Florida's economy and natural environment. New, off-
shore oil and gas drilling so close to the beautiful Florida coastline 
and all of our Nation's waters must be voted down today, as it 
threatens our economy, our natural environment, and our strategy for a 
new energy policy.
  Our economy, in Florida, and many of you know, Mr. Chairman, because 
so many take the time out of their vacation plans to come down to the 
State of Florida, enjoy their time away on our beautiful beaches. Our 
tourism economy in Florida is a multibillion dollar industry. It goes 
hand in hand with our multibillion dollar fishing industry. And it is 
absolutely worth protecting here today.
  Our beaches, our coastal environment, our marine resources, in 
addition to our fragile ecosystems, all of this will be put at risk by 
these amendments here today if they are successful.

                              {time}  1430

  I am fortunate in my district to have a wonderful Department of 
Oceanography located at the University of South Florida. Here is what 
those researchers have warned:
  It would only take 24 hours after a petroleum spill in the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico for oil to ``sully Florida's Panhandle beaches if the 
spill was swept up by the gulf's powerful Loop Current. This spill 
could travel around the Florida Keys and contaminate estuaries and 
beaches from the Everglades to Cape Canaveral.'' That is from the 
University of South Florida Department of Oceanography.
  In addition to that, one only has to look back a couple of years to 
know that it is completely unwise to put these types of facilities in 
hurricane alley. The gulf coast and the east coast, these are the two 
most coveted offshore areas by the oil and gas industry. That is where 
the threat of hurricanes is the greatest. It could wreak havoc on what 
they're trying to do there.
  In 2005, in that hurricane season, that was the first year in 
reported history that we had three category five storms: Katrina, Rita, 
and Wilma. In 2005 Hurricanes Rita and Katrina caused massive spills of 
oil and other pollutants that seriously affected production, refinery 
capacity, and the price of oil in the United States. The storms caused 
124 oil spills into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. During Hurricane 
Katrina alone, 233,000 gallons of oil were spilled. There were 508,000 
gallons of oil spilled during Hurricane Rita. And the U.S. Minerals 
Management Service reports that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 
115 petroleum production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The storms 
also damaged 457 pipelines, connecting production facilities in the 
gulf, and bringing oil and natural gas to shore. A full year after 
Katrina, BP admitted that a damaged oil well valve in the Gulf of 
Mexico was still leaking oil. The knee-jerk reaction to throw up more 
rigs offshore, especially in hurricane-prone waters like Florida's gulf 
coast and the eastern seaboard is precarious at best and not smart 
energy policy.
  As much as the oil and gas lobby would like us to believe that 
drilling near our beaches would be a panacea, the experts say that only 
a couple of weeks of oil and gas are available.
  Mr. Chairman, we can be smarter. We can be more strategic. Where is 
the commitment to conservation in this country?
  Just a minute ago, the Senate sent over its new energy bill. Well, it 
is time for this House to get to work on new alternative energies and 
not continue to fuel our addiction to oil and gas.
  Let's oppose these amendments.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, and I am glad to 
speak on this.
  I come from Odessa, Texas, an oil and gas province that produces an 
incredible amount of our country's natural gas and crude oil, and I 
make no apologies for that. My colleagues from Florida come from 
Florida and they defend their beaches, and they make no apologies for 
that, as they should not.
  But let me talk about a couple of things I have heard on the floor 
this afternoon. One of them was the effect of time to market. In other 
words, if we drill today, it will take 6, 7, 8, 9 years in order to get 
that production to our gas pumps. The moratorium that we are talking 
about, Mr. Chairman, is dated 1998, 9 years ago. Had we been drilling 
since then, then that production would have, in fact, come to market 
and would be available to reduce our demand for that product.
  We have also heard criticism on this floor this afternoon about oil 
company profits. They have been roundly criticized from both sides of 
the aisle in some instances, many times from the other side of the 
aisle. And the criticisms seem to be that those nasty, vicious, 
terrible oil companies are going to take those profits and drill, take 
those profits and try to produce additional crude oil and additional 
natural gas, as if somehow that is a negative in the way we do things.
  That is kind of the free market process. If I make money doing 
something, then I should be taking those profits and putting them back 
into the ground to produce additional crude oil and natural gas.
  We have also heard comments about the offshore facilities, the 
production facilities, drilling facilities, and what terrible things 
they are and the terrible things they do to the environment, on the 
shorelines and everything else. And that may or may not be true. But 
what I have not heard is the equal passion for the production 
facilities that take natural gas into those States. In other words, 
where is the passion against the gas pipelines, the roads, the 
infrastructure that takes that natural gas that is produced in Texas, 
produced in Louisiana, and puts it into your State? Where is that 
passion for all of that terrible infrastructure that benefits you?
  We have also heard an appeal to conservation. Well, okay. If those 
States who do not want this drilling off their shores would begin to 
commit today to eliminate their use of natural gas, just simply say, 
okay, if we are not going to drill off our shores, then we are not 
going to use it either. Let's see the passion for your commitment to 
conservation.
  We have also heard conversations about the importance of the tourism 
industry in Florida, and I don't doubt that. An incredible impact on 
that part of the world, a beneficial impact. How about those hotels 
that run their air conditioning programs off of natural gas? Where does 
that natural gas come from? Well, it comes from somewhere else. And 
what we are saying with the gentleman's amendment is that that vast 
bureaucracy that runs this process of leasing and coming to conclusions 
that it can be done safely would be unleashed.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of my colleague's 
amendment.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Peterson's 
amendment, which would end the longstanding moratorium of new drilling 
in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  For the past 25 years, bipartisan legislation and executive memoranda 
have kept this area off limits, preserving one of the most sensitive 
ecological areas off limits to oil and natural gas drilling. The 
Peterson amendment would open new areas to natural gas drilling.
  Although at first glance natural gas drilling may seem favorable to 
some, but I urge my colleagues not to be tempted by this fool's gold. 
There is no guarantee that natural gas drilling will only get natural 
gas. In fact, according to the American Association of Petroleum 
Geologists, when drilling for natural gas, ``There are a lot of times 
when you drill for oil and find gas instead, and the other way around. 
You

[[Page H7118]]

never for sure what you're going to find until you're in there.''
  And certainly I think we all understand very clearly what would 
happen if oil was found instead of natural gas.
  Mr. Chairman, as a representative with over 75 miles of coastline 
along South Florida's east coast, new drilling could be a death knell 
for our environment, for our economy, and our way of life.
  During my time in the Florida legislature, I worked with colleagues 
from both sides of the aisle to keep the moratorium in place. I pledged 
zero tolerance then, and I still pledge that same zero tolerance 
against any attempts to open up drilling off Florida's coast. And, of 
course, it is not only Florida's coast we are talking about. I said I 
would not compromise and I would not capitulate; so I am here today 
with my Florida colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  But, most importantly, now that I am here in Congress along with many 
others, this is a false choice. It is a false choice of saying either 
we have oil or gas to cool hotels or to provide energy or we do 
something different. I don't know about many of the other Members of 
this body, but I think there are a lot of people that have a lot of 
passion about this issue not only to stop drilling off the coasts but a 
passion to expand into alternative energy sources.
  As a matter of fact, this Congress has already taken steps to say 
instead of huge billion dollar subsidies for oil companies, let's focus 
those resources on our scientists, our universities, our business 
entrepreneurs, whether it is wave power or ethanol, wind power, solar 
power, coal liquefaction, nuclear power. There are a whole lot of 
ideas. I don't know if any of them are good and any of them necessarily 
are not the right answer. But it could be any combination of sources of 
alternative energy that will get us through this.
  So let's not put this as a question of it is either we drill off the 
coast or we don't have adequate energy for this country. We have the 
ingenuity. We have the innovation. We are very smart people. And there 
is nothing that Americans can't do if they put their nose to it.
  So I would suggest today that this amendment is not a good amendment 
and, rather, we should focus our attention, our passion, our science, 
our energy, and our resources toward alternative energy sources to take 
this country into the next generation.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment put forth 
about by my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), which would 
overturn a long-standing bipartisan moratorium on new gas drilling.
  Under Mr. Peterson's amendment, we could see drilling for natural gas 
as close as 25 miles from our precious coastlines. Despite claims by 
its supporters, the Peterson amendment is not a viable short-term nor 
long-term solution to our energy needs. Instead, this proposal could 
damage sensitive habitats and undermine the economic future of our 
coastal towns and cities.
  In my own congressional district, I am privileged to represent such 
underwater treasures as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the 
most extensive living coral reef system in the Continental United 
States.
  In addition to its aesthetic value, this marine ecosystem also 
supports tourism and commercial fishing, the economic livelihood of the 
Florida Keys. Any offshore oil drilling near this area could place 
thousands of rare and vulnerable marine plant species in harm's way and 
could potentially cripple the local economy.
  Furthermore, drilling structures along the gulf coast would be 
located in the middle of hurricane alley. Proponents of this amendment 
say that current production methods safeguard against any environmental 
damage resulting from a tropical storm or a hurricane. Mr. Chairman, as 
many of us know firsthand, sadly, there is no such thing as being 
hurricane proof. Given the scientific likelihood for stronger and more 
frequent storms in the gulf and along our Atlantic coast, offshore oil 
drilling presents a sizable risk of onshore damage and water pollution 
in the event of the next big one.
  I encourage my colleagues' help in making sure that we can protect 
Florida's coastline as well as our Nation's ecosystem by voting ``no'' 
on the Peterson amendment.
  My Florida colleague, my good friend (Mr. Mica), who, as he states, 
favors drilling even in the Everglades, says that it is fear versus 
facts. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Florida Keys depends on 
the 4 million tourists who come to the area every year for its economic 
livelihood. The debate is not about fear. It is about economic reality. 
Our coastal towns and cities will be devastated financially with the 
adoption of the Peterson amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peterson amendment.
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I have heard a lot of facts from both sides for and against. And from 
a State that has been producing oil and gas off its coast in its 
coastal waters, on land, and every place else that is possible for well 
over 50 years, and I think Pennsylvania may have been the only State 
produced before Louisiana started, if you go back those 50 years, there 
is a lot that we could see environmentally that should have been done 
back there that would have protected America's wetlands, the estuaries 
and the marshes of South Louisiana.
  That being said, now looking at today's technology, offshore drilling 
for oil or for gas is one of the cleanest that you will ever find. Yes, 
there are muds, there are liquids. But there are also liquids that are 
made from sugar. So my friends from Florida, we can keep that Florida 
industry healthy. It is biodegradable. It is something that can and is 
being used out there.
  The thing that scares me the most, as we talk about energy 
independence, and the information that has been brought to the floor, 
is that we had, in an energy bill, a 125-mile barrier from Florida in 
the Gulf of Mexico, if I recall, in an energy bill this past year. 
While if you go 45 miles off of Key West, where those important fragile 
areas are down in that area, we have got China and Cuba in control of 
the oil and gas production. And that scares me even more so. And if you 
look in the latest weekly news, Russia is basically becoming dominant 
in the world for energy production, as are the countries in the Middle 
East.

                              {time}  1445

  If you look at their offshore drilling, I don't hear about all the 
oil spills. As a matter of fact, I went through Katrina, I went through 
Rita. And I heard the numbers, and I respect where the Member got the 
numbers because it was provided by somebody. But the only real oil 
spills I know of were in Chalmette, Louisiana, at the Murphy Oil 
Refinery and at the Phillips Petroleum Refinery, which are on land in 
Plaquemines and St. Bernard. Yes, there were some small oil leaks. 
There was probably more diesel fuel out of the tanks of some of those 
rigs that collapsed, but far less than what came out of the gas tanks 
in the ground in Chalmette, in St. Bernard, in Plaquemines, in Orleans 
Parishes and probably over on the gulf coast. Far more fuel leaked into 
the waters that flooded those cities.
  As we move forward in this country and talk about energy 
independence, and when you pull up to that gas pump and you see that $3 
figure up there, just remember those folks back home that are on fixed 
incomes, on Social Security, that are worried about how they pay the 
utility bill, much less how they fill their gas tank, whether they can 
buy the loaf of bread and milk or whether they need to have the gas in 
their car to get to the doctor.
  We talk about tourism and fishing. The tourism in Louisiana has been 
better than it has ever been, particularly now that the industries have 
the technology. The fishing is phenomenal. Thirty percent of the 
seafood consumed in this country comes from the waters off Louisiana's 
coast, and we've been drilling for over 50 years. Deep water, shallow 
waters, coastal waters, inland waters, land-based, you name it. I 
implore everyone to think about this.
  I respect tremendously my colleagues that have the fear of the 
environmental concerns. That is something that I share with you. But 
I've seen these oil companies. I've seen them in the past when they 
were awful; I've seen them today when they do an excellent job. The 
technology gets better

[[Page H7119]]

by the day. The last oil spills that were of any consequence were done 
by ships hauling oil in from the Middle East, Venezuela and other 
locations. It wasn't by oil rigs offshore.
  We're talking about natural gas. You can perforate a drilling pipe at 
any point in time or elevation or depth that you want. You can drill 
through oil, you can drill through water, you can drill through rock, 
you can drill through whatever is below there and sample what's there 
before you open it up, and if it's not natural gas, then you keep 
drilling until you get to the sand that you're looking for, perforate, 
and, yes, bring only natural gas in.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity. I implore, if we're 
going to make this country energy independent, we have to find the 
means. And gas, this amendment, helps us.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in opposition to Mr. Peterson's amendment to allow exploration 
within 25 miles of the coast.
  It was just around this time last year when the Florida delegation 
finally, most of us agreed to go along with the negotiation that had 
been hammered out which protected the gulf coast.
  The gulf coast in the Tampa Bay area, which Mr. Young and I both 
represent, was protected some 230-some miles where there would not be 
any exploration for gas or oil. Why? Because of several issues. Number 
one, military mission line, where regularly they are doing military 
exercises. Very, very important area to protect. Then eventually some 
of us who are very, very reluctant, but who realize that our friends on 
the other side of the aisle and even some people on this side would 
never go for anything in ANWR, so we can't stick our heads in the sand, 
so we agreed to 230 miles out.
  But let me tell you that what we are asking for is a disaster here, a 
disaster in many ways. Will people ever believe us again? We said we 
came to an agreement that had protected the coast and given some 
protection to the east coast. Now we have an amendment here which 
shortens that area to 25 miles.
  I represent eight counties; four of them are coastal counties along 
the gulf coast. Many of them have been hit by hurricanes. To have this 
kind of exploration this close to the shore, not only in Florida, but 
along the gulf coast, is asking for trouble. It's a bait-and-switch. It 
absolutely is a bait-and-switch. Those of us who agreed last year to 
have some exploration did not agree to the 25-mile amendment. And I 
guess if you can't get 25 miles, they will try for 100 miles. That's 
not what we agreed to do our share of exploration for domestic energy 
sources.
  My colleague from south Florida was absolutely right about the 
tourism and fishing industry that would be affected, but also the very, 
very fragile habitat that exists, and one that we want to protect. Now, 
some would say Republicans aren't that concerned about the environment, 
but I, as somebody who received the Sierra Club award, I disagree. 
Republicans do care about the environment. That's one reason why we set 
up buffer zones that were certainly far greater than 25 miles.
  And let me express a great fear: if we do this for gas, oil certainly 
will follow. And, you know, I just don't remember there being a lot of 
tourism in ANWR. But you're affecting States where there is a lot of 
tourism.
  You know, the citizens' confidence in Congress is at an all-time low. 
If we do this bait-and-switch as suggested in Mr. Peterson's amendment, 
it will be down to zero.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Peterson amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Dicks wishes by this time that this 
moratorium would disappear as an issue because it keeps coming up.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will certainly yield.
  Mr. DICKS. It was in 1984 when the gentleman created the moratorium 
off the coast of Washington and Oregon. I hope it never goes away.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That may be, and that makes my point. I certainly 
was not among the ones to create it; but I'll tell you, had I been here 
in 1984, I probably would have voted for it. I voted for these kinds of 
things before without thinking much about it because it was an easy 
vote, it was an easy vote as to come and say, well, environmental 
groups, they all know all about this, why get crossways with them when 
you have a good environmental record. I've gotten my awards, too, not 
because of my bright perception, but because I voted the right way 
without thinking much about it.
  Why is this here in the Interior bill on appropriations? Why do we 
have members of the committee standing up ahead of time? I don't know 
that anybody on Appropriations knows more about it than the people on 
Resources or the Energy Committee. But why? Because we legislate on an 
appropriations bill, that's why.
  And we didn't break any agreements down here. If the agreement was 
what was being broken, why is this moratorium again being put into the 
bill this year? If we had an agreement last year, you wouldn't need the 
moratorium.
  Mr. DICKS. I have a parliamentary point. Limitations are appropriate 
on an appropriation bill. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman from 
Hawaii was reminded of that technical point.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And I quite agree on that technical point, that 
limitations are appropriate. We're trying to put some limitations on 
some of the fiction that's out here today. I can assure you of that.
  I think I know something about tourism. I know that in order to have 
tourists, you have to have people with jobs that have sufficient 
discretionary income to be able to come and spend their money. But if 
we're destroying the industrial structure of this country, which is 
what we're about right now, there won't be anybody having the jobs to 
be able to come and spend the money on tourism or anything else.
  And if you want them to arrive in automobiles, which we can't do yet 
because I haven't been able to get an earmark for that bridge from San 
Francisco to Hawaii, that's a bridge to somewhere, I can assure you, 
the question then would be, well, what are you going to be paying for 
your gasoline? You want to have a hybrid car, you're going to have 
natural gas. You have to have natural gas as the base. You want to have 
ethanol to be able to do it? You have to have natural gas for the 
fertilizer that's going to grow the feedstocks in order to create the 
ethanol.
  Natural gas is the natural energy bridge to a natural energy future, 
to an alternative energy future. If we don't have natural gas, let me 
tell you what's going to happen. It's happening right now, and there 
has been references to it already. Europe and Russia are now making a 
deal to promote natural gas exploration and extrication from Russia to 
the European economy, to the European Union in the hundreds of billions 
of gallons in order to be able to compete with us. It's not just 
mythology that the Chinese, using inferior technology, will be some 45 
miles off of Florida right now exploring natural gas, as the Canadians 
are already doing on the other side of the Great Lakes.
  Every single industrial country in this world is producing natural 
gas right now except us. We are the ones that destroying ourselves, 
committing suicide on this. This is what is happening; the rest of the 
world is going to have an industrial base and an industrial complex 
that's able to compete, and we're destroying ourselves.
  You're looking at a convert here. I went into the Resources Committee 
fully prepared to not only sustain the moratorium that's here, but to 
vote against Mr. Peterson when he first brought up the idea of drilling 
for natural gas. But when I listened to him and I read all the facts 
involved, I decided that I had the wrong position. And what's required 
of us now is to become energy independent. We have to produce the 
energy in this country that is going to allow us to be independent, 
sufficient to be able to back up that Defense Department that we're 
talking about. The Air Force right now is spending an enormous amount 
of money on fuel that we have to import. If we can take the natural gas 
base for the Air Force right now, we stand a chance of producing fuel 
that can sustain ourselves.
  We have to be energy independent in this country. And that means 
those of who us who have blindly supported, what were supposedly the 
right environmental proposals in the past have

[[Page H7120]]

to take an honest look at where we are today and what we can do to 
produce clean energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. I hope that when we get past 
this today, that we will deal with the bill that Mr. Peterson and I 
will be bringing forward to produce natural gas in this country to 
produce a free and independent America.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I rise in opposition to this and any amendment that proposes to lift 
the moratorium on oil and gas leasing off our coast.
  The moratorium has been a bipartisan, multi-State, bicoastal 
agreement for over 25 years, and as mentioned has been renewed annually 
since the 1980s.
  The north coast of California along my district, and I want to point 
out that my district has the longest run of coastline, the most miles 
of coastline of any district in the lower 48 States, I want you to know 
that people don't want this moratorium lifted. And the businesses that 
operate up there can't afford to have this moratorium lifted. An oil or 
a gas spill off my district's coast could devastate one of the most 
unique marine ecosystems in the world, as well as the economy that 
depends upon it.
  My north coast district is part of an upwelling zone found along the 
west coast. It's one of only four of these upwelling zones in the 
entire world. These upwelling zones bring nutrient-rich water to the 
surface, and they support an incredibly abundant and productive marine 
life, including fish. The ecosystem also supports some of the largest 
and the most economic fishing industries in the world. A spill in this 
area would be absolutely devastating.
  The north coast of California also supports a large tourism industry, 
and that industry is vital to our local economy, our State economy, and 
it contributes mightily to our national economy. It's dependent upon 
pristine coves, pristine beaches and spectacular views, all of which 
would be threatened if this moratorium were to be lifted.
  In addition, given the rural and rugged nature of my congressional 
district, an oil or a gas spill would be disastrous to an even greater 
extent because of the limited accessibility to get in and clean that 
up, as well as the limited resources that would be readily available 
for cleaning up a disaster of this magnitude.
  Mr. Chairman, the north coast waters provide economic and biological 
benefits to our entire country, and they must be protected. Lifting 
this moratorium, as pointed out by previous speakers, does nothing to 
lessen our dependency on oil and gas. And more important, it does 
nothing to increase the research and use of alternative energy sources.

                              {time}  1500

  This amendment, and all of the other amendments that are proposing to 
lift this moratorium, need to be rejected.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate so much my friend from Hawaii across the 
aisle pointing out what he did. I would like to pick up on that. We are 
not just talking about lower fuel costs. That is extremely important. 
We are talking about that.
  We are also talking about jobs. In my district alone, we have a huge 
plant there. Their feedstock is natural gas. They produce plastics. 
They produce all kinds of great things. If we did an actual test and 
checked, did a survey, I would bet you that most of the jobs there are 
held by Democrats. So even if you just looked at it politically, my 
goodness, we are losing Democrats' jobs by not bringing down the price 
of natural gas.
  On top of that, it does cost other jobs when you raise the price of 
natural gas. For a country like ours that has natural gas all up and 
down our coast, east, west, down around the Gulf, there is a tremendous 
supply west of Florida in the Caribbean. We have all this natural gas. 
Yet what breaks my heart is that I see we are building new liquid 
natural gas ports on our coast so we can bring it in and become more 
dependent on people who don't like us.
  It makes no sense at all. It is clean burning. It helps the 
environment. Yes, my friend indicated that we ought to be drilling in 
ANWR. Yes, we should. The caribou proliferate when we give them a good 
warm place to mate, like the pipelines, as has already been shown.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend, Mr. Peterson, bringing this 
amendment. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to him.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Several things have been said that I think must be responded to. Oil 
and gas spills. Could someone here show me a gas spill? A natural gas 
spill? There is no recorded history of one. Natural gas comes out of 
the ocean floor and bubbles into the air all over the ocean all the 
time. But there is no spill.
  The fact is you can't drill for gas without oil. I grew up around it. 
I have never made money in the oil business. I have never invested a 
dime in it. But I grew up around it. You drill a hole in the ground. 
You put a steel casing in the ground. You register every place you go 
through, coal, gas, oil, rocks. It is actually rocks that have oil and 
gas in them. Then you notch the pipe where you want to produce.
  In Pennsylvania, there were three or four oil sands, and the gas is 
way below the oil in most places. There was a little bit of gas in the 
oil, but not a lot. You notch the pipe where you want to produce it. So 
if you want to produce gas, you notch the pipe and you produce the gas, 
and that is sand.
  Natural gas is the future of America until we can grow our 
renewables. I am for wind. I am for solar. I am for biofuels. I am for 
hydrogen cars. But let me show you how small that is; 86 percent of our 
energy is fossil fuel; 40 oil, 23 gas, 23 coal. That is 86. Eight 
percent is nuclear. We are now at 94. Six is percent renewables. Listen 
closely, 6 percent renewables. Five percent is biomass and hydro. Wind, 
solar, hydrogen, and geothermal, our future, is 1 percent. If we can 
double it every 5 years, it will cost a lot, but I am for it. But we 
are still then at 2 percent.
  How do we fuel this economy that is growing a need for energy by 2 
percent, and we have countries like China and India that are growing at 
15 to 20 percent, and their energy consumption is sucking up the 
world's supply? When the moratorium was put on, we had $2 gas and $10 
oil. We were awash in it. It didn't matter.
  Oil and gas is scarce today. There is a world shortage. Right now, 
they are predicting $79 oil this summer, which will be $3.50 gas 
without a storm in the Gulf, without a country being upset. The Wall 
Street Journal on Friday reported that if we have a storm in the Gulf 
and we have a country that gets upset that produces a lot of oil, we 
could have $85 to $89 oil. Do you know what that will do to home 
heating this winter? Do you know what that will do to travel costs? 
Folks, it is crisis time. Clean, green natural gas is the best 
alternative for a healthy America.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate 
the gentleman's passion on this issue, but I do not agree that this is 
the time or the place to overturn the 25-year moratorium protecting our 
Nation's best ocean beaches and fishing areas. I agree that energy 
supply is vital to our Nation and our economy, but so is the natural 
environment.
  Our committee has looked at this issue closely. The President's 
budget request and this committee's bill maintains the existing 
drilling moratoria for oil and natural gas exploration. I want to say 
that again. The President, who has been the strongest advocate for oil 
and natural gas development in the history of the country, in his 
budget opposes lifting this moratorium. I think we ought to listen to 
him this time. This leaves substantial areas in the Gulf of Mexico and 
off of Alaska that are available for exploration.
  Our bill also continues the exploration and development of public 
resources onshore on our public lands. We really do not need to lift 
the moratorium now. The protected areas do not have substantial 
reserves. The total technically recoverable resources on the OCS are 
estimated to be about 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic 
feet of gas. The amount under moratoria, or Presidential withdrawal, 
after January 9, 2007, is estimated to be 17.8 billion barrels of oil 
and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of gas.

[[Page H7121]]

  I also point out, and maybe the gentleman from Pennsylvania disagrees 
with this, that the industry people I have talked to say it is 
impractical to pursue natural gas-only drilling, which does not involve 
oil. It simply is impractical to issue leases only for gas and not for 
oil, as well.
  I think it is important that we do not start major new developments 
in areas that are entirely lacking drilling and energy infrastructure. 
These are large areas which are already leased and are available for 
development. Before we open large, new and sensitive areas to 
development, we should focus our Nation's efforts in places that 
already have access to existing pipelines and distribution systems.
  Mr. Chairman, the Peterson amendment seems so very simple, but that 
is not a good approach to such a complicated issue. This amendment 
would not allow the various States to have meaningful input on drilling 
activities and the extensive development on-shore which would follow.
  Please join me and continue our protection of America's priceless 
coastlines. Please defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will ask for a vote on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIAHRT. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. 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. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       Page 49, line 25, insert ``and within 100 miles of the 
     coastline'' before ``in the areas of''.
       Page 50, line 7, insert ``and within 100 miles of the 
     coastline'' before ``in the Mid-Atlantic''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 20 minutes, to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with 
100 miles offshore. When we had the debate last year, I wanted to 
clarify something. Everybody kept talking about a compromise. We passed 
a major bill in the House that opened up the OCS for both gas and oil. 
The Senate passed what I call a little small bill in little pieces of 
the Gulf that President Clinton actually had in the 5-year plan, but 
never leased it.
  In my discussions with the other body, we were always hoping to have 
a compromise, but we never had one. We never had a conference 
committee. We reluctantly agreed to take the Senate bill because it was 
something, and America needs something, so we took this small piece in 
the Gulf because it is some additional energy for America.
  We will soon be 64 percent dependent on foreign, unstable countries. 
I hear on both sides of the aisle here that people are distressed about 
that. These are not our friends. These are countries that are not 
democracies. They are not real stable. We often lose energy when they 
just have their government topple or be out of favor for a while.
  We are dependent on undependable countries of the world who are not 
our friends. They now set the price. OPEC is back in charge. OPEC turns 
the spigot and lets big oil make a lot of money. I said to somebody one 
day, big oil's best friends are Congress and OPEC.

                              {time}  1515

  Collectively, we have slowed up the ability to produce oil and gas. 
And when we slow up the ability to produce oil and gas, the price 
rises. And if you owned it when it was worth $30 a barrel and were able 
to produce it and make money, and government restriction of supply and 
OPEC's restriction of supply raises the price to $70, are you going to 
make money? You betcha.
  If you want to drop prices down, open up supply. Wall Street traders 
run the price up. They set the price of gasoline, fuel oil, natural 
gas, oil. Wall Street. Why? Strategizing on it if they can buy it and 
sell it and make money today or tomorrow. We often pay 15 or 20 percent 
of our energy prices to Wall Street as they play with it because there 
are shortages. When it is plentiful, they don't monkey with it.
  Folks, we need a plentiful supply of gas and oil for this country. 
Cuba is going to be producing with China and other countries 35 to 40 
miles from the Keys, our most precious Florida parks. And we are going 
to stay completely 200 miles offshore.
  Folks, this is insanity for this country to not utilize its 
resources, to be dependent on undependable countries who control our 
destiny. And as we grow the renewables, as we get more wind and more 
solar and more geothermal, it is going to be years, if not decades, 
before we have in sufficient quantity, and in the meantime we are going 
to need fossil fuels, and we need to produce them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Washington for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to support my friend Mr. 
Peterson on this amendment.
  I indicated in the last amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I had become a 
convert, not to everything that has to do with it, to just stand up and 
say, well, if it is going to be oil drilled anywhere or gas drilled 
anywhere, that I could care less, that doesn't make any difference. 
That is not true, and it is not the case.
  In fact, what I have argued to the oil companies is, and I have said 
when I had the opportunity, why do you put these stupid ads in the 
paper that say we only make a return on investment the same as real 
estate agents? I said, there is a great way to go about saying why you 
got $30 billion in profits, that real estate agents are the opposition 
or the comparison.
  I say, why don't you get up and say oil is $60 and $70 a barrel. We 
are rolling in money. We got so much money we don't know what to do 
with it. I feel like Huey, Louie and Dewey jumping into the piles of 
money for Scrooge McDuck. We got so much money we can't even begin to 
figure out how to spend it.
  At that kind of money a barrel, what do you think the oil companies 
are going to make?
  We have to have an energy supply in this country, and 100 miles out 
that is what we are going to have to do, because the opposition keeps 
on coming here against our energy independence. If we don't have energy 
independence, we are finished. We are destroying ourselves. Every other 
country in the world with a natural gas reserve out there, let alone 
with an oil supply, especially in the Outer Continental Shelves of 
their respective continents, are taking it and doing it and providing 
for their industrial expansion. That is what we are up against.
  We are now in debt. You only have to go into the papers as recently 
as yesterday, the next globalization backlash. Wait until the Kremlin 
starts buying our stocks. We are in hock to the rest of the world, 
including Japan and China because they are owning this country because 
we have to import our energy. Energy independence is the key to 
freedom.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the 
gentleman yielding me the time.
  This amendment is aimed at the military mission line in the Gulf of 
Mexico. The only place that has a larger area of Outer Continental 
Shelf in the moratorium. Where the military mission line runs through 
the Gulf of Mexico.

[[Page H7122]]

  Mr. Moran spoke earlier of the flights that are training around 
Oceana in Virginia. I will speak to the training areas in the Gulf of 
Mexico that are used very, very effectively by the United States Air 
Force to train pilots in some of the newest, highest-technical aircraft 
that we have. That is what this amendment is about. It goes to violate 
the military mission line that we agreed on last year.
  I don't get offended very often, but I am a little offended by this, 
for this reason: many of us in this Chamber voted for that bill last 
year, and we voted for it because it protected the military mission 
line in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the environmentally sensitive 
areas. We voted for it because it provided a permanent solution to this 
issue of moratorium.
  Now if the Peterson amendment passes, it hasn't been very permanent. 
By the way, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Abercrombie, who is one of the 
architects of this agreement, agreed to this, and so we agreed to it as 
well because we thought that having a permanent solution was a good 
idea. But now this amendment goes back on the agreement.
  That does offend me somewhat. When I make an agreement, I keep it, 
and most everybody in this House Chamber, when they make an agreement, 
they keep it. But these two Peterson amendments violate the agreement 
that brought most of us to vote for this bill last year.
  Just one more point: if anybody thinks that drilling another well, 
and there are vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf still available 
for drilling for oil and for gas, if anybody thinks another oil well in 
The Gulf of Mexico is going to bring down the price of gasoline, drive 
up to your gas station. Mr. Peterson himself mentioned the fact that no 
matter what the supply would be, that the Wall Street traders control 
the price.
  What are you paying for a gallon of gasoline today? A lot more than 
we ought to be paying. One more well, two more wells, 10 more wells 
aren't going to make a difference in the price of gasoline at the pump.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This drilling will be conducted in an environmentally sound method. 
Any time you have got an industrial operation going on, you have got 
some risks, but these risks have been understood for years and years 
and years; and this industry is so much better today at drilling and 
producing crude oil and natural gas than they have ever been. And, 
quite frankly, they will get better tomorrow than they are today, and 
they will be better the day after tomorrow than they are today as well.
  It is inconsistent to say on the one hand that it is a national 
security interest for this country to be dependent on foreign sources 
of crude oil and natural gas, and I agree with that. The inconsistency 
comes, though, when we say let's do whatever we can to limit domestic 
production of crude oil and natural gas. That position is inconsistent 
with each other, and I would argue with my colleagues that they should 
examine that inconsistency.
  The time to market again has been mentioned again, as it was earlier. 
In 1998, when this moratorium was put in place 9 years ago, today all 
of that production that would have started in 1998 and 1999 when the 
price was low would be available to this country to use in hotels for 
air conditioning, in all of the multiple uses that the natural gas is 
used for.
  So I urge my colleagues to agree with the Peterson amendment and vote 
for it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  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 want to thank my 
Pennsylvania colleague for yielding to me.
  This is similar to the earlier amendment, although I rise in strong 
support of this because it is for new leases, offshore natural gas and 
oil, at least 100 miles of the U.S. coast.
  Supply and demand for our energy is out of control and our Nation 
needs more energy from all sources. Demand for natural gas is already 
building across the economy and proposals pushing cleaner energy will 
only accelerate this demand. Natural gas, again, is the most abundant 
clean-burning fuel to heat and cool our homes and businesses. We also 
need a lot of natural gas to make the materials that we make wind 
turbine blades out of and solar blades.
  Opening the OCS would save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20 
years for customers and manufacturers. High natural gas costs are 
sending manufacturing jobs overseas following the cheap gas. When I had 
the Shell CEO of Western Hemisphere two years ago sit in my office and 
say they transferred jobs from their chemical facilities in our country 
to the Netherlands because of the high cost of our natural gas, because 
the North Sea gas was so much cheaper, that is why we need the Peterson 
amendments.
  Environmentally conscious nations like Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan 
and the United Kingdom are safely producing natural gas in their 
coastal waters. Why can't we do it?
  No other country in the world can it do as responsibly as we can. I 
have been on oil and gas rigs and have seen so few discharges into the 
ocean. A medium-sized fishing boat will leak more in a year than we 
will see off some of our rigs.
  This amendment is a major opportunity for us to respond to today's 
energy crisis and the climate change with a national solution. I urge 
my colleagues to support the oil and gas production on the Outer 
Continental Shelf and support the Peterson amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is reminded that 
under the unanimous consent agreement, he need not remain standing 
after he yields during the debate.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this point, so 
I would like the gentleman to finish and then I will finish.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington has the right to 
close.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as we talk about the 
production of energy and as we talk about oil being so devastating and 
gas being so devastating, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Great Britain, 
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all known for being 
environmentally sensitive countries. They all produce offshore. All of 
them. We are the only nation in the world that has chosen to close up 
our energy supply. We are dependent on unstable, unfriendly countries 
who control our prices and control the future of our economy.
  The working people of America are counting on us to give them 
affordable energy that they can heat their homes with and drive their 
cars and have a decent competitive job. That is what this is about. And 
I wish we could do it with wind. I wish we could do it with solar. I 
wish all of those things were bigger and could grow faster.
  Folks, we need to produce energy if we want to compete in the new 
global economy.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, I want to 
point out to the gentleman that we really do not need to lift the 
moratorium now. The protected areas do not have substantial reserves. 
The total technically recoverable resources on the OCS, the areas where 
we are drilling off of Alaska and in the Gulf are estimated to be about 
86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas.
  The amount under moratoria, or Presidential withdrawal, after January 
9, 2007, is estimated to be 17.8 billion barrels of oil, which is about 
one-fifth, and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is about one-
eighth.
  So the reason we have the moratoria is because we think those areas 
are more important from an environmental perspective, that we need to 
protect our oceans and beaches. The gentleman from California was here 
and talked about the north coast of California. I represent the 
northern coast of Washington State, and I put this moratorium in place, 
I think, in 1984 for both Washington and Oregon. Mr. AuCoin and I did 
at the time.
  I have yet to have one citizen in my State ever come up to me and 
say, why don't you let us drill for oil and gas off the coast of 
Washington? Nobody has ever asked us to do that. They want it

[[Page H7123]]

protected. It has got fisheries. It is one of the most beautiful 
beaches and coasts in the entire Nation.
  I went up to see what happened with Exxon Valdez and see that oil 
spill and all that oil in and around the waters up there and how it 
destroyed the herring reproduction and all of the other species.
  I want to protect the coast of Washington. I want to protect the 
coast of Florida, the coast of Virginia. Yes, we will drill off of 
Alaska. We will drill off the areas where the oil and gas exists. And 
if the gentleman from Hawaii is so interested in this, I am sure we can 
work out something for him out in Hawaii.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania briefly.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Do you realize how long it has been 
since we have actually done a modern seismographic on the OCS? It has 
not been done in 40 years. We didn't have good seismographics then. We 
don't really know, but we know there is a lot out there. If we had 
modern seismographics, it is usually three to four times what we 
thought.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we should 
continue to work in the gulf and off of Alaska where most of the 
reserves exist.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Hall).
  I applaud the good work that you have done, Mr. Chairman, to bring 
this Interior appropriations bill to the floor. There is a provision in 
the Interior appropriations billing that I fear will do harm to our 
ability to smoothly transition our Nation's energy infrastructure to 
the clean domestic energy future that we all desire.
  In the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Mr. Hall introduced 
and shepherded through to enactment section 999, the Ultra-deepwater 
and Unconventional Natural Gas Research and Development Program. Today, 
more than 23 research universities and four not-for-profit research 
institutions are actively engaged in the implementation of this 
program.
  A draft annual plan of research has been submitted to the Secretary 
of Energy for review and should be finalized within the next few weeks. 
That program is designed to foster collaborative research and 
development work by the best scientists and technologists in the 
country to develop the technologies that are necessary to find and 
produce the more than 1,200 trillion cubic feet of technically 
recoverable, but mostly unconventional, natural gas resources in this 
country.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for 
those comments, and I would also point out this program will provide 
new technologies that will allow us to tap nearly 50 billion barrels of 
technically recoverable oil remaining in this country.
  The United States has 55 years of natural gas resources in the lower 
48, but much of it requires new technologies in order to produce it. 
Some 80 percent of these resources are on lands that are not subject to 
any access restrictions. New technologies will increase domestic energy 
supplies and increasing supplies will lower energy costs to consumers.

                              {time}  1530

  These technologies will enable less expensive, more efficient and 
more environmentally friendly domestic natural gas production. The 
universities and research institutions participating in this program 
are as follows: Colorado School of Mines; Florida International 
University; Jackson State University; Louisiana State University; MIT; 
Mississippi State University; New Mexico Institute of Mining and 
Technology; Penn State University; Rice University; Stanford; Texas 
A&M University of Alabama; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; University 
of Houston; University of Kansas; University of Michigan; University of 
Oklahoma; University of South Carolina; University of Southern 
California; University of Texas; University of Tulsa; University of 
Utah and West Virginia University.
  In addition, the following national labs are funded through this 
program: Idaho National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Los Alamos National 
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory.
  Mr. LAMPSON. The Energy Information Administration has observed that 
this program will materially increase domestic natural gas and oil 
production. That increased production will more than pay for this 
research and development program by generating more royalty revenue 
from increased production of natural gas and oil from Federal lands 
that are already available, already available to be developed.
  It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that as this Congress grapples 
with the issue of providing robust funding to move toward increased 
energy independence, our Nation's energy companies are also investing 
in these similar research activities. Achieving energy independence 
isn't an easy task. It is going to take a significant investment from 
both public and private entities to move our Nation forward.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. The House favorably voted on this provision in 
2001, 2003, and 2005 and again on the conference report in 2005. 
Additionally, the House overwhelmingly voted last year to uphold the 
program by voting against an amendment to strike it by a vote of 161-
255. These votes send a clear message that Congress supports this 
research and development program and all the benefits it will bring to 
the American public.
  Like my colleague, Mr. Lampson, I have deep admiration and respect 
for Chairman Norm Dicks, and accept his assurance to work with us in 
the future for the greatest good for the greatest number.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we in this House are working hard on 
energy legislation to provide the tools that will help the Nation 
transition to clean domestic energy resources and more efficient use of 
those resources. We are making progress, but we must not lose sight of 
the scale of this challenge. We are concerned that by deferring funding 
for this program in 2008 in this Interior appropriations bill, the work 
of the program will be jeopardized, the anticipated increases in 
domestic natural gas and oil production will not be realized, and we 
will become even more dependent on foreign sources of energy while we 
are transitioning our Nation's energy infrastructure for the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that will resolve this problem in 
the bill. However, in the spirit of comity, I will not move that 
amendment if I can have the commitment of the chairman to work to 
resolve this issue in conference so that this important program can 
move forward as it is authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the concerns you have raised. I commit to you 
to work with you to resolve this issue in conference so that this 
program can continue to be implemented as is authorized by the 
Congress.
  And I would also point out to my good friend from Texas, both of my 
good friends from Texas, that there is still $47 million in 2007 money 
that has not yet been obligated.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lampson was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman is concerned about 
that, and is working to see that that money is obligated as well. We 
will work with you on this. It is a very important issue. I appreciate 
your hard work and interest in this subject.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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


[[Page H7124]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
       Strike sections 104 and 105.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 20 minutes, to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reserving the right to object, if I may ask a 
question as to the form of the unanimous consent request, is it my 
understanding that this 20 minutes would apply to every amendment to be 
offered hereafter?
  Mr. DICKS. No, no, no, just for this one amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I withdraw my reservation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have heard an awful lot of debate already about both of these 
sections. My amendment is straightforward and simple. It will strike 
section 104 and section 105 from this bill.
  What the effect of that would be is to unleash the Interior 
Department's bureaucracy to begin running the leasing program that is 
provided throughout this legislation that is not related to what is 
being conducted today. This bureaucracy would make sure that the 
environment is protected and that these drilling operations are 
conducted in ways that will protect the military training lanes; and 
that these operations will be conducted in accordance with all of the 
vast array of regulations and rules that we have in place to protect 
the environment and protect the coastlines and produce this energy in a 
proper way.
  Reference was earlier made about the oil spill in Alaska, and I would 
remind my colleagues that was the Exxon Valdez, a ship that ran aground 
that caused that oil spill and not directly related to the drilling and 
production phase of finding that crude oil.
  As I said earlier, these operations can be conducted through 
environmentally sound methods. There is a significant amount of oil and 
gas to be found. I would prefer a 20 percent increase in anything, so 
to denigrate a 20 percent increase or 20 percent opportunity, I think, 
is misplaced in our arguments.
  Cuba and the Chinese governments, along with other folks, are going 
to be drilling within 45 miles of Florida. That is not necessarily an 
excuse for us to also drill, but it is in recognition that the risk 
associated to the folks in Florida with not drilling are out of our 
control, and if we can control the drilling within 45 miles in ways 
that are appropriate, then we ought to do that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Under your amendment, would you be able to drill in the 
Great Lakes or in the Chesapeake Bay or in Puget Sound or in the Long 
Island Sound?
  Mr. CONAWAY. Section 104 and section 105, I don't know that it does 
the Great Lakes. But Puget Sound, I think we would be able to drill 
there. It would remove the moratorium that is in place now that 
prevents drilling in those areas, but I don't know that the Great Lakes 
is included.
  Mr. DICKS. Okay. I knew that I opposed this amendment, but now I will 
oppose it with even greater fervor.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I can include the Great Lakes if that will get you over 
the hump to agree to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps) who has been a strong supporter of the 
moratorium throughout her career and has been a real leader on this 
issue.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to these amendments which 
eliminate, and I think we heard it clearly, eliminate the long-standing 
bipartisan moratorium that currently protects the Nation's most 
sensitive coastal and marine areas from new drilling.
  I support the current ban not just because I think our coasts are 
beautiful, and they are, and not just because I believe our coasts 
provide valuable environmental habitat, and they do, I support the ban 
because I know our coastlines are the economic engines of our 
communities and that is being threatened by new drilling.
  The people in these communities, I represent them. I know the value 
of their coastlines, and that is why they are so against new drilling 
in these areas. These amendments would mean drilling within 3 miles of 
the beaches of Florida, California, North Carolina, and other coastal 
States. It also means drilling where there isn't a whole lot of oil and 
gas, and where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear they 
don't want more drilling.
  Mr. Chairman, the congressional moratoria has been in place for 26 
years and reaffirmed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and 
George W. Bush, and every Congress since 1992. State officials have 
also endorsed the moratoria, including Republican Governors Charlie 
Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
  These actions have all been met with widespread acclaim by a public 
that knows how valuable, environmentally and economically, our 
coastlines are. I represent a district with over 20 oil and gas 
platforms off its coastline. I know that drilling has serious 
consequences for the environment. I see it every day.
  I know that drilling generates huge amounts of waste, and significant 
levels of air and water pollution. These pollutants are a real threat 
to our public health.
  These amendments are just a continuation of the backward thinking 
energy policies that have gotten us here in the first place. Last year, 
279 Members of Congress voted to protect the Outer Continental Shelf 
moratorium when we defeated a similar amendment to push for drilling 
off our coast.
  Votes against these amendments are the same thing: A vote to protect 
our coasts and a statement for new thinking on energy. And so I urge my 
colleagues with all the strength that I have to oppose these amendments 
and keep our coastline pristine, the economic engines that they are, 
and a stewardship we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I don't have any additional speakers, and I have the right 
to close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves the right 
to close.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, this moratorium has been in place for a long, long time, and 
the gentlewoman from California went through a litany of opportunities, 
and she has taken a different look at it.
  We have a growing continued dependence on foreign crude oil. So the 
old adage about the definition of insanity of doing the same thing over 
and over and expecting to get a different result might apply in this 
instance.
  This amendment would simply allow the Interior Department and its 
vast array of scientists and bureaucrats and technicians and others who 
look at this information day in and day out, who know the ins and out 
of it, to decide how the development of this resource should occur. 
They will protect the environment. They will protect the military lanes 
and make sure that all of our codes and rules and regulations are 
applied to these efforts throughout the time frame that this is 
conducted. I trust them to do it and do it correctly.
  I urge adoption of this amendment to set a new track to provide 
additional natural gas and crude oil resources, domestic production for 
our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I hope the House 
will defeat it resoundingly. This does not make any sense for our 
environmentally sensitive areas, particularly on the coast of 
California and Washington and Oregon on the West Coast, and the 
sensitive areas on the East Coast as well.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H7125]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Environmental and Hazardous 
Materials Subcommittee, I rise today in strong opposition to an 
amendment that was offered earlier today by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) to cut funding to the Superfund program. The Superfund 
program addresses public health and environmental threats from 
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances.
  According to the Center for Public Integrity's May 2007 report 
entitled ``Superfund Today,'' the Superfund program is desperately 
short of money to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, which has 
created a backlog of sites that continue to menace the environment and 
quite often the health of nearby residents.
  According to the EPA, one in four Americans live within 4 miles of a 
Superfund site.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. King's amendment introduced earlier today would decrease funding 
for the Superfund program by $160 million. This is reckless when 
previous EPA Inspector General reports have indicated a shortfall of at 
least $175 million for remedial action projects. EPA's rate of 
construction completions at National Priorities List sites has 
dramatically decreased in recent years, from an average level of 86 per 
year during the years 1997 to 2000, down to 40 sites per year during 
years 2002 to 2006, and most recently EPA projected only 24 cleanups in 
2007.
  These sites present a serious risk to human health and the 
environment. For example, at the Libby, Montana Superfund site, where a 
plume of asbestos from a nearby vermiculite mine has enveloped the 
town, more than 200 people have died from asbestos-related diseases, 
according to EPA estimates. Cleanup at this site, begun in 2000, has 
not yet been completed.
  Let me congratulate Chairman Obey and Chairman Dicks on their 
decision to reverse the years of budget shortfalls for the core EPA 
programs that protect public health. I thank them and their staff for 
working closely with the Energy and Commerce Committee to increase the 
funding for these programs that are badly in need of funding after 
years of inadequate budget requests from the Bush administration.
  This amendment by Mr. King is shortsighted. Every Member that has a 
Superfund site in his or her district or State that votes for this 
amendment could be voting to delay cleanup at that site. At many of 
these sites, citizens are exposed to uncontrolled hazardous substances. 
Rather than cutting the funding, we need to support the well-considered 
funding level in H.R. 2643 for the Superfund program to expedite 
cleanup of these sites, protect drinking water sources, and allow sites 
to be redeveloped to spur economic development and create jobs.
  I strongly urge all Members to vote against the King amendment later 
today.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               TITLE II--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         science and technology

       For science and technology, including research and 
     development activities, which shall include research and 
     development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs 
     and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate 
     payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project, 
     $788,269,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, we have seen the rise of a 
very disturbing trend on Federal lands: the creation of a billion-
dollar international drug trafficking ring. Organized criminal gangs, 
headquartered in Mexico, have illegally entered our country and have 
established large scale marijuana growing operations in our national 
forests and national parks.
  Gang members guarding these illegal ``pot gardens'' have been armed 
with automatic weapons and given orders to shoot to kill anyone who 
trespasses in the area. Hunters, recreators, and Federal employees in 
my district and others have been shot at when recreating or working on 
Federal lands. Eight of the Nation's 10 worst national forests in terms 
of illegal marijuana production are located in California. Three of 
those eight problem areas are located in my congressional district of 
northern California: the Shasta-Trinity, the Klamath, and the Mendocino 
National Forest.
  Our Nation's national parks are also victim to illegal occupation by 
Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Regrettably, my home State of 
California suffers the worst of the infestation on Park Service lands 
as well. This includes a very serious problem at the Whiskeytown 
National Recreation Area in my district where illegal marijuana grows 
have been discovered within a few hundred yards of popular boating and 
fishing areas.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. We want to work with the gentleman on this important 
issue. We are very concerned about this problem and think it deserves 
our complete attention.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank the chairman and greatly appreciate his efforts 
and the efforts of Ranking Member Tiahrt to improve public safety on 
Federal recreation lands.
  Is it the committee's intention in granting this increase to ensure 
that these funds should be used to help dismantle and eradicate Mexican 
drug trafficking organizations in our national forests and parks?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, that is the intention of this legislation.
  I completely agree with the gentleman. The increase is necessary in 
order to deal with this very serious problem. We will continue to work 
with the gentleman as we go to conference with the Senate. We will do 
the best we can to help on this important issue.
  Mr. HERGER. Again I thank the chairman for that clarification.
  Further, while I believe it would be inappropriate for those of us in 
Congress to micromanage the efforts of law enforcement as they work to 
dismantle these illegal drug networks by allocating funds only to 
specific areas, is the chairman able to clarify the committee's 
intention with regard to the distribution of funds throughout the 
Nation? Is it the committee's aim to ensure that the funds allocated 
are targeted to areas of the country that face the highest 
concentration of drug trafficking activity in the national forests?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, it is. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to 
our attention. We should focus the resources on those areas where the 
problem is the most severe. If we have any problem with this, I'll be 
glad to work with the gentleman with the agencies involved to make 
certain that that happens.
  Mr. HERGER. Again, I thank the gentleman from Washington and also the 
ranking member, Mr. Tiahrt.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. McHugh

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. McHugh:
       Page 55, line 22, after the second dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by complimenting the 
chairman and the ranking member. I have sat on this floor for the last 
several hours and listened to the very impassioned debate. I think if 
nothing

[[Page H7126]]

else it should underscore the fact that the committee and the 
subcommittee have faced some very difficult decisions. Unless you have 
had the opportunity, the honor of serving on the Appropriations 
Committee or perhaps being involved as a general Member of the House, 
it's difficult to understand how hard the choices are that they are 
forced to make year in and year out. I commend them for that.
  I have come today not to criticize any of the choices they have made 
but, rather, to offer what I believe, Mr. Chairman, is a very 
straightforward and relatively simple amendment. It is simply designed 
to maintain, not increase, not add to but maintain what is a 10-year 
record of level funding, a 10-year record of level funding to restore 
$1 million for the CASTNET program, which stands for the Clean Air 
Status and Trends Network, which would restore that money to allow this 
program to do some very important work.
  What is that work? It would allow the 80 monitoring stations that are 
maintained under CASTNET to continue operating at the level that they 
have, as I have said, with level funding over the past 10 years. These 
are monitoring stations for a very important issue associated with acid 
rain that operate in some 40 States, from California to Massachusetts, 
from Maine to Florida and many, many points in between.
  I think we can all agree, Mr. Chairman, that for all of the debate 
that occurs about global warming, for all the debate that occurs about 
what should be done, one of the critical issues we should engage upon 
is that of monitoring to make sure that our baseline data, our research 
is sufficient to make the wise decisions.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHUGH. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for bringing up this 
issue. Based on the additional information that has come to light 
concerning the impact of this 25 percent reduction to the Clean Air 
Status and Trends Network, CASTNET, and based on the gentleman's hard 
work and effort on this, we are prepared to accept his amendment.
  Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for restoring the cut that was 
proposed by the administration. I commend him and the gentleman from 
Kansas for their work.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHUGH. I would be honored to yield to the distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I want to thank the gentleman from New York. This is a 
very important monitoring program. The gentleman from New York has made 
a very reasonable request. I want to thank him. I know he's been very 
concerned about environmental issues all across the Nation as well as 
in New York. I thank him for his leadership. We have no objection to 
this amendment and thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for 
the purpose of a colloquy.
  I raise the issue today of Storm Lake, Iowa. It happens to be one of 
the southerly most glacial lakes in the country, and it's the 
shallowest one that we have. It has been under a process of removal of 
that silt for water quality and for environmental reasons. We've done a 
great job of protecting the siltation in the entire watershed area. 
There's always ongoing work there, and it's never perfect. But this is 
a project that has been engaged in with local money, and that means 
private money, city money, county money, State money and Federal. It's 
a five-way partnership that has been working here, and we have 700,000 
yards of silt to go.
  I direct my inquiry to Chairman Dicks. I requested funds to address 
this challenge through the EPA's EPM account. It is my understanding, 
Mr. Chairman, that these projects have not been earmarked at this time 
for that particular account.
  Would that be a correct assumption?
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, yes, that is correct. There 
are presently no Member projects within the EPA EPM account within this 
bill.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. Is it the chairman's 
expectation that these types of projects will be added in conference 
with the Senate?
  Mr. DICKS. While I can't predict the future of negotiations with the 
other body, I would be willing to take a closer look at the gentleman's 
specific concern at that time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for his attention to this 
matter and Ranking Member Tiahrt as well and look forward to those 
discussions as we move forward to conference.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, one approach might be for the 
gentleman to go to the EPA with the money that they get that is 
unearmarked and make a presentation there about the importance of this 
program. I'm not certain he's going to do that, but that's a suggestion 
we have from our staff.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate the 
chairman's recommendation and will happily follow through on that 
recommendation. I thank your staff as well.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 55, line 22, insert ``(reduced by $3,884,000) 
     (increased by $3,884,000)'' after the second dollar amount.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
offer this amendment.
  This amendment would reduce the EPA operations and administrations 
budget by $3.884 million and increase the EPA's science and technology 
homeland security water security initiative by that same amount. This 
area of the EPA program was decreased by $3.884 million below the 
President's request and $9 million below 2007 appropriations levels.
  The operations and administrative appropriations has been increased 
by $40.8 million from the 2007 level, although that's the 
administration's request and I commend the committee for meeting that 
request.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. We are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman 
recognizing the importance of this initiative. I thank him very much.
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia. I think it's 
a very important issue that we test our Nation's water and make sure 
that we do have a secure water system. This is very timely. We're a 
little behind schedule now, so I think it's a very appropriate 
amendment. We have no problems with it, either.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the 
individual's understanding and recognizing the importance of this 
initiative.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


         Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses necessary for support of the activities of the 
     Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation 
     established by this Act, $50,000,000, to remain available 
     until the termination of the Commission on September 30, 
     2009: Provided, That $5,000,000 shall be available to the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the 
     direct support of the Commission in reviewing science 
     challenges related to adaptation and mitigation strategies 
     necessitated by climate change, and for identification of 
     specific action steps to address these challenges: Provided 
     further, That funding allocated for direct support of 
     Commission activities shall include the salaries and expenses 
     of Commission staff, travel and related costs of Commission 
     members and for the contractual costs of the National Academy 
     of Sciences: Provided further, That, not later than July 1, 
     2008, the remaining

[[Page H7127]]

     $45,000,000 shall be transferred by the Administrator to 
     agencies or offices of the Federal Government with climate 
     science responsibilities for implementation of Commission 
     recommendations.


                Amendment En Bloc Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey:
       Strike page 56, lines 1 through 23.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that occur 
sequentially in the bill, and I would ask unanimous consent that my 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendments 
as one?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the other amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey:
       Strike page 56, line 24, through page 57, line 11.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Commission on 
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation from this appropriation bill. 
I offer this amendment not because I think an interagency climate 
change science program necessarily is a bad idea, but because it is 
clearly authorizing on an appropriation bill, and I object to this 
procedure.
  House rule XXI (2) prohibits changing existing law in an 
appropriations bill. Contrary to this rule, the language included in 
the EPA section of H.R. 2643 changes existing law by establishing this 
new Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation which is 
tasked with ``reviewing science challenges related to adaptation and 
mitigation strategies necessitated by climate change.''

                              {time}  1600

  An interagency climate change science program that reviews these 
questions already exists under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. 
The Office of the Parliamentarian confirms that this provision does 
violate rule XXI.
  Also, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall of the Science and 
Technology Committee sent a letter to the Rules Committee outlining 
these concerns requesting that the Rules Committee not waive points of 
order against this provision. Yet last night the Rules Committee 
reported out a rule that waives all points of order against provisions 
in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Again, I reiterate, I am not opposed to authorizing a strong 
interagency climate change science program. In fact, on Wednesday, 
Science and Technology Committee will take up a bill, H.R. 906, that 
does just that. I plan to vote for it.
  H.R. 906 reorients the U.S. Global Change Research Program to produce 
more policy relevant information about, among other things, adaptation 
and mitigation. It also emphasizes the need to develop information to 
help communities make themselves more resilient to climate and other 
environmental changes. This is nearly identical to the task given to 
the Commission on Climate Change in this bill, H.R. 2643.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I will be glad to.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's very constructive approach to 
this matter. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman knew that the 
distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. 
Gordon, and I had a colloquy at the start of the day in which I 
committed myself to work with him to align our approach with the work 
of the Science and Technology Committee when that legislation is 
enacted.
  I would hope that the gentleman might consider that in making his 
decision whether to go forward with this amendment, because I do 
believe we have a commitment to get this important work done.
  As the gentleman has mentioned, and I will give the gentleman 
additional time, if necessary, as the gentleman has mentioned, 
adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change are terribly 
important to the United States, to our wildlife, to our habitat. In 
fact, this is an issue that is worldwide in reach and scope.
  I would hope that the gentleman might reconsider his amendment to 
strike and allow us to go forward with a commitment that I have made to 
the chairman, and I make to you, that we will work this out in a way 
that is consistent with the authorizing legislation. That's why the 
chairman was willing to go along with me at this point.
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gingrey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee Chair. Mr. Dicks 
and Mr. Gordon are honorable Members, and I am aware of the colloquy 
that they have had in regard to this matter.
  But to me the point is, and I want to go forward with this amendment, 
because it's not just this authorizing committee that I am concerned 
with, the Science Committee that I sit in on or the Armed Services 
Committee, it's all the authorizing committees.
  This rule, I think, is very, very important. For the Rules Committee 
to just waive this, I know that the other side, us, in the 109th, 
probably did the same thing on occasion.
  But at some point we need to draw the line on this, and how do we 
know that this bill, H.R. 906, that we are going to consider tomorrow, 
will ever get through the other body, and then we have this bill that's 
basically an appropriations bill and legislating on that.
  I think we ought to, as we go back into our district and talk to 
middle school students, and explain how this Congress works and what's 
the purpose of authorizing committees and appropriations committees, so 
they can understand that. This is just a situation where I feel very 
strongly about standing for the process, not necessarily what's been 
worked out between Mr. Dicks and Mr. Gordon.
  I respect both of them, I trust them. I know they will try to work 
this out. But the more we do this, the more confusing it gets.
  With all due respect to the chairman, I will not withdraw my 
amendment, but have a vote on it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I believe the report language beginning on page 100 very adequately 
describes and justifies the new Commission on Climate Change, 
adaptation and mitigation. As I noted in my opening remarks, we have 
tried in this bill to move the climate change debate beyond talking 
about whether global warming exists and, instead, focus on what we must 
do to deal with this as a reality. The recent reports of the 
international panel on climate change make clear that warming will 
persist for many years irrespective of any regulatory actions or 
technology breakthroughs which may occur in the near future.
  Testimony before our subcommittee in April describes significant 
impacts already occurring. These impacts included increased wildfires, 
changing precipitation and water availability patterns, increasing 
presence of invasive species, changing migratory patterns for many 
animals and birds, and significant loss of habitat for many species. 
The 2-year Commission established in this bill is intended to help 
identify and jump start the science which can help our country and the 
world adapt to these changes.
  The Commission brings together a panel of 15 of this country's 
science leaders, and is headed by the president of the National Academy 
of Sciences, Dr. Ralph Cicerone. Dr. Cicerone, who I have met with 
personally on this proposal, is one of the world's leaders in climate 
change studies.
  While the use of advisory panels is common in guiding federally-
funded science, this panel is different in two ways. First, it cuts 
broadly across all areas of Federal science in looking at the climate 
problem. I make no apology for that. This is a national and worldwide 
problem, and I think we need to think beyond the traditional agency or 
subcommittee's stovepipe approaches.
  Second, the Commission has $45 million to begin implementation of its 
recommendations. Giving the commission implementation funds will make 
it both more credible and more effective.
  This is not a large amount of money, but we believe it could get a 
few of the

[[Page H7128]]

most critical science initiatives going without having to wait for the 
2009 funding cycle.
  Chairman Obey has asked our subcommittee to be aggressive and 
imaginative in approaching the climate change challenge this year. We 
think that the funding, provided in this bill for the climate change 
adaptation and mitigation science, responds to that need, and I urge 
the funds be preserved.
  The committee is aware, however, that a number of other committees 
are working on legislation in this area. Chairman Oberstar, from the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has written us in support 
of our Commission, which he believes can be supportive of efforts in 
his committee.
  We are also working closely with the Natural Resources Committee, and 
we understand how Science, as I mentioned earlier, will mark something 
up in July. I want to assure the Members that when we get to conference 
on this bill, presumably in September, I am going to try for July. We 
will give full consideration to any new legislation which may be 
adopted as we finalize fiscal year 2008 spending for climate research 
in our committee.
  I think it would be a real tragedy for this House, on the first major 
amendment this year on climate change, to have a negative vote, to show 
that we still don't get it, that we still don't realize that the planet 
is at risk here.
  So I urge the committee to stay with us. This was approved in the 
Appropriations Committee, and I think it's a very good Commission, and 
I think this thing will work and will help us adapt to the problems 
that we are going to face because of this. We have these problems on 
all of our Federal lands. We had a hearing on that.
  I think this is an important amendment. I urge everyone to defeat the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to stand up in support of my colleague from 
Georgia's amendment.
  I spent 12 years in the Georgia House in the minority. What I tried 
to do for that 12 years is change the process, because the process was 
broken. When the process is broken, the product is flawed.
  When I came to Congress, I came as a freshman in the majority, and 
found that the process was still broken. So I found myself going from 
being in the minority trying to change the process, to being in the 
majority trying to change the process that the majority was using.
  Now I find myself back in the minority still trying to change the 
process, because the process in Washington is broken.
  I think Mr. Gingrey's amendment highlights that, in that we adopted 
rules in this House on first day, but we keep waiving those rules when 
those rules don't fit what we want to do. Now this is not to say 
anything about a Commission on Climate Change. But when you let public 
opinion, and you let political winds determine public policy, then the 
taxpayers of this country pay for it.
  That's exactly what the majority party is doing. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, we used to have a majority party and a minority party. I 
think, now, some people in this body think they are a monarchy, that 
they control everything, that the process should just be overlooked.
  The gentleman's amendment talks about this process and who has 
authorization and who has oversight. If you will remember when we first 
opened up and we had the first 100 hours or 100 days or 100 amendments 
or 6 for '06 or whatever it was, we didn't go through any regular 
process, no regular order. So we have seen this body go from what the 
minority, now the majority, used to complain about us.
  You know, my momma used to say to me, Lynn, if your buddy jumped off 
the cliff, would you jump after him? Well, I am going to ask, I am 
going to ask the side over there, if we jumped off a cliff or no matter 
what we had done, are you saying, well, you all did it. That sounds 
like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox.
  We need to stop the things that are wrong with the process today, no 
matter who used to do them. No matter what's been done in the past, 
let's look at today. Let's see if we can't make a difference.
  That's what I ask, that we go through the normal process. I think the 
gentleman from Georgia's amendment gets us back to that place. It puts 
the Rules Committee, hopefully, back in a light to where they 
understand that we are not going to stand for the continual waiving of 
the rules that this House adopted.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I thank him 
for yielding some time to me to conclude.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman said it just as well as it can 
possibly be said. Again, I want the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) to know that it's not in opposition at all to the creation and 
the format of the committee. I think it's a grand design, a good idea. 
We all need to work toward climate change problems and solutions. I am 
just saying that this issue, and Mr. Westmoreland pointed out very 
well, that it's a process issue that we are opposed to, and I thank the 
gentleman for giving me the opportunity.
  In conclusion, I want to urge my colleagues to allow the suitable 
authorizing committee, the Science and Technology Committee, to 
complete its consideration of the best way to improve our inter-agency 
climate science programs by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I hope that this 
amendment, obviously, will not pass.
  In our subcommittee earlier this year, in testimony on the hearings 
that were held in relation to the park service and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the Forest Service and EPA, people spoke of the 
challenges to their stewardship, of our lands, basically our public 
lands, that were caused by climate change.
  Then toward the end of our hearing's process, we held a hearing 
specifically on the issue of climate change and had witnesses who were 
experts in that field to speak to the issues there, and they testified 
describing, for instance, how permanent ice coverage in the Arctic has 
shrunk dramatically at an ever-increasing rate.
  It's at an ever-increasing rate because, first of all, because ice 
coverage reflects sun's heat back to the atmosphere, back to space, 
whereas water and land absorbed that heat, so that heats, that raises 
the temperature.
  Because methane is released from permafrost, as you take the ice 
cover off, and the land heats up, ends up expanding the greenhouse gas 
blanket that is the very cause of global warming. So they are telling 
us by the year 2050, we will have no ice over a substantial piece of 
the north polar region that is then contributing to ever more greater 
global warming.

                              {time}  1615

  They tell us that the Everglades National Park is at risk from rising 
sea levels and more intense hurricanes. They tell us that the changing 
climate has allowed invasive species to move into new ecosystems where 
they have no predators and they can expand explosively, which they're 
doing, for example, the northern pine beetle in huge portions of the 
northern forests in the northern U.S. and in Canada over much of the 
central part of the continent, and increasing severity of droughts that 
will make our lands more vulnerable to forest fires and such. In any 
case, regardless of one's opinion on the need to regulate greenhouse 
gas emissions, it is irresponsible to ignore the impacts that we are 
witnessing.
  For the record, this commission that the amendment would eliminate 
does not create any new regulations with regard to carbon dioxide 
emissions or any other greenhouse gas emission. What the commission 
does would be to review and assess the scientific challenges to the 
available adaptation and mitigation strategies necessitated by the 
climate change and simply provide recommendations to the various 
Federal agencies on how to proceed.
  It seems to me that with the importance of this issue of global 
warming and the climate change that comes with that global warming, 
that it would be irresponsible for us not to look at those things that 
are particularly within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee and to 
seek the ways that

[[Page H7129]]

we might adapt and mitigate those climate changes.
  And so I hope that we will not be tempted here to take a shortcut 
that will cost us deeply in the future, and I hope this amendment will 
not be adopted.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I speak as the ranking member of the Science and Technology 
Committee, and I support Dr. Gingrey of Georgia. And the problem is the 
process.
  Actually, this committee oversees on some of the most exciting parts 
of the Federal Government. We hear from astronauts at NASA about new 
discoveries in space. We work with scientists at the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology to ensure that the best technology informs 
decisions, such as new materials, even for bulletproof vests, standards 
for the nanotechnology industry.
  At the Department of Energy, we support research and the technologies 
to make America energy independent. And I guess through the National 
Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, we 
oversee the $2 billion interagency climate change science program. In 
fact, on Wednesday, the Science and Technology Committee will consider 
a bill, H.R. 906, to reauthorize this very important research program.
  This is exactly why I was a little disturbed when I read H.R. 2643 
and saw the provision establishing a commission on climate change, 
which is supposed to review the science challenges associated with 
adapting to climate change. That mission is the same as already 
existing interagency climate change science program. Also, establishing 
an interagency commission clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI which 
prohibits changing existing law in an appropriations bill. The current 
interagency climate change science program was established by a Science 
Committee bill in 1990, the Global Change Research Act.
  Actually, climate change science falls clearly within the 
jurisdiction of the Science and Technology Committee, and this 
provision of H.R. 2643 clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. For these 
reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support the rules of the House and 
the jurisdiction of the committee and vote ``yes'' for the Gingrey 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       The Commission established and financed with this 
     appropriation shall consist of the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the National 
     Science Foundation, the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Director of the 
     United States Geological Survey, the Undersecretary for 
     Science of the Department of Energy, the Administrator of the 
     National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
     Chief of the United States Forest Service, the President of 
     the National Academy of Sciences, who shall serve as the 
     Commission's Chairman, the President of the National Academy 
     of Engineering, and six additional members with appropriate 
     expertise, to be selected by the Chairman.

                 environmental programs and management

       For environmental programs and management, including 
     necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel 
     and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5 
     U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; 
     library memberships in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members; construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; and not to 
     exceed $9,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $2,375,582,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009, including administrative costs of the brownfields 
     program under the Small Business Liability Relief and 
     Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 58, line 3, insert ``(reduced by $2,500,000) 
     (increased by $2,500,000)'' after the dollar amount.

  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, every summer an environmental phenomenon 
occurs off the coast of Louisiana, at times covering over 7,000 square 
miles off the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, or hypoxic zone, in the 
Gulf of Mexico is an expanse of oxygen-depleted waters that cannot 
sustain most marine life. This hypoxic zone is caused by excessive 
amounts of nitrogen pollution delivered to the gulf by the Mississippi 
River.
  The dead zone has become a serious threat to commercial fishing, 
shrimping and recreational industries. The gulf produces approximately 
40 percent of the United States commercial fish yield. The livelihoods 
of many thousands of people and their communities are at risk, as is 
the large marine ecosystem on which they depend.
  My amendment provides resources to combat the development of hypoxia 
by directing $2.5 million in additional funding for the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico program. These funds will go to the 
five Gulf of Mexico coastal States, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Alabama and Florida, local governments, colleges, interstate agencies, 
individuals and nonprofit agencies. They are used to develop the 
techniques and science needed to restore and protect the Gulf of Mexico 
ecosystem and included projects to develop solutions to the dead zone 
in the gulf, improve water quality, and restore coastal areas.
  The Gulf of Mexico program, with a recommended budget of $4.5 
million, has again been provided with much less funding than the other 
great water body programs, for example, the Chesapeake Bay at $30 
million, the Great Lakes at $25 million, the Puget Sound at $15 million 
and the Long Island Sound at $10 million.
  With the growth of the dead zone and the dramatic loss of coastal 
wetlands, my amendment will help to make up for this disparity at a 
time when funding to develop solutions is needed more than ever.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. We must develop the 
techniques to restore and protect the areas of our gulf coast.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate his hard work on 
this issue, and we're prepared to accept his amendment. And having had 
dead zones off the coast of Washington State, in Puget Sound and in 
Hood Canal, I can tell you this is a very serious problem, and I'm very 
pleased the gentleman is working so hard to deal with it and bring it 
to our attention.
  Mr. JINDAL. I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment and 
thank him for his support.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that shifts funding 
within the EPA environmental program and management account.
  Although the rules of the House prevent me from specifying in the 
amendment where the funding will go, it is my intention to increase by 
$2.5 million the funding for grants as part of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program. Grants awarded under this 
program go to the five Gulf of Mexico coastal states (Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida), local governments, colleges, 
interstate agencies, individuals, and nonprofit agencies. They are used 
to develop the techniques and science needed to restore and protect the 
Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. They have been used for projects working to 
develop solutions to the dead zone in the Gulf, improve water quality, 
restore coastal areas, and educate others about findings to allow 
better informed decision-making.
  The Gulf of Mexico Program, with a recommended budget of less than 
$4.5 million, has again been provided with much less funding than the 
other similar great water body programs. For example, the Committee has 
provided $30 million to the Chesapeake Bay program, $25 million to the 
Great Lakes program, and $15 million to the Puget Sound program. My 
amendment will help to make up for this disparity, at a time when 
grants to develop solutions in the Gulf are needed more than ever.

[[Page H7130]]

  For example, it is imperative that solutions are found to the Dead 
Zone problem in the Gulf that are consistent with the economic well-
being of the region and our inland states. The dead zone is an area off 
the Louisiana and Texas coasts in which water contains low amounts of 
oxygen. It is caused by excessive algal growth. The low oxygen causes 
fish and shrimp to leave the area, and it kills the marine life that 
cannot get away. Last year, the dead zone measured over 6,600 square 
miles, which is about the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island 
combined.
  Another important area where solutions are needed is with restoring 
our coastal wetlands. Since the 1930s, coastal Louisiana has lost over 
1.2 million acres, an area nearly the size of the state of Delaware. 
This area is critical to fish and wildlife, including endangered 
species, and to the people of Louisiana.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. The Gulf of Mexico 
produces approximately 40 percent of the U.S. commercial fish yield, 
and it provides critical habitats for 75 percent of migratory waterfowl 
traversing the United States.
  We must develop the techniques to restore and protect the areas off 
our Gulf Coast. Increasing the allocations for grants will help to do 
that.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 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 No. 9 offered by Mr. Conaway:
       Page 58, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2)'' .
       Page 58, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1)''.
       Page 60, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1)''.
       Page 61, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1)''.

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will be willing to withdraw the 
amendment, but would first ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with Mr. Dicks on the subject.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure you agree that all people deserve access to 
affordable drinking water and families in rural communities should not 
be required to spend thousands of additional dollars each year to 
comply with unfunded mandates from the EPA.
  Mr. DICKS. I certainly agree with the gentleman that rural 
communities are unfairly burdened by the high costs associated with 
Federal clean water regulations and that families in such communities 
are shouldering alarmingly high rates of increase.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, currently, small community water systems 
across America are being forced to increase rates to meet clean water 
regulations, and some of my constituents pay almost 800 percent more 
for their water than their urban counterparts. While the rules may be 
well-intentioned and promote public health, we must do a better job of 
addressing the restraint of small systems and their communities to 
raise the capital and afford water treatment technology. If we don't, 
rural, middle-income families will be forced to leave community water 
systems in favor of water sources they can afford, namely, unregulated 
shallow groundwater wells and dirt tanks, and that will not advance the 
cause of clean, safe water for everyone.
  I have proposed to take a symbolic $2 from the Office of Ground and 
Drinking Water, the office which oversees these water regulations, and 
direct the symbolic funds to two offices which may assist rural water 
systems comply with these unfunded mandates.
  First, the EPA is currently working on revising the Small Drinking 
Water System Variance Affordability Methodology, which, once completed, 
will redefine the EPA's definition of ``affordable'' to more accurately 
reflect the world in which rural America lives. My amendment would 
return $1 to the Office of Ground and Drinking Water to facilitate and 
urge the completion of this urgent report. Once completed, this report 
should help communities utilize the existing routes to afford more 
cost-effective technology.
  Second, I would have chosen to redirect $1 to the Drinking Water 
State Revolving Fund, which was established in the Safe Drinking Water 
Act Amendments of 1996 to highlight the shortfall in funds faced by 
small community water systems. Although loans are not an ideal way to 
support unfunded mandates on small water systems, I have been unable to 
find any other relevant program to build these funds.
  I would like to encourage the creation of a significant grant program 
for Small Community Water Systems using existing funds. I would like 
this fund to be modeled on the USDA Rural Utility Services and the 
Clean Water Hardship Grants program. There is an urgent need for some 
funding, as the Rural Utilities Service currently has a backlog of $3.3 
billion worth of program applications, and the EPA estimates that over 
the next 20 years small water systems will need $34 billion to continue 
to meet EPA mandates.
  To begin the discussion and move us in the direction of clean, safe 
and affordable rural drinking water, I have recently introduced H.R. 
2141, the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act. This bill 
would further assist rural communities in complying with the cost of 
clean water regulations by allowing not-for-profit water systems 
serving less than 10,000 people to request exemptions from the national 
drinking water standards that are too costly for them to implement. 
This would return decision-making power to our local communities who 
are best suited to understand their needs and resources and ensure that 
rural communities could provide clean enough water without forcing 
their citizens to completely unregulated water sources.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. 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 address the problems as this legislation moves forward to conference 
with the Senate.
  I might point out that we did put $16 million in the bill for the 
rural water. There's going to be a competition. This had been an 
earmark in the past, but it got thrown out in 2007.

                              {time}  1630

  I have been calling over there to Mr. Grumbles at the EPA to try to 
get this thing moving as fast as possible so that the money gets out to 
the rural communities. And I commend the gentleman. This is a major 
problem. I have a lot of rural areas in my district, and every single 
one of them is having a terrible time getting the money to do the clean 
water issues.
  Now, remember this too: When Christine Todd Whitman did her study, 
she came up with a backlog of $388 billion. So we are going to need a 
new authorization program. And I commend the gentleman for having one 
that focuses on the rural areas. And we have got to at least do that as 
a priority.
  So I commend the gentleman and we will continue to work with him.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Conaway was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas 
for his work on this issue.
  The need for rural water assistance needs continues to increase with 
the expansion of Federal water regulations. And because of limited 
local resources, small communities in my district face severe hardships 
as they comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water 
Act.
  We need to find ways to work to protect the public health without 
placing overbearing costs on small communities, and I look forward to 
the EPA's updates to the Small Drinking Water System Variance 
Affordability Methodology.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as

[[Page H7131]]

     amended, and for construction, alteration, repair, 
     rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed 
     $85,000 per project, $43,500,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009.

                        buildings and facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $34,801,000, to remain available until expended.

                     hazardous substance superfund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; 
     $1,272,008,000, to remain available until expended, 
     consisting of such sums as are available in the Trust Fund on 
     September 30, 2007, as authorized by section 517(a) of the 
     Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 
     and up to $1,272,008,000, as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as 
     authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated 
     to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) 
     of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be paid to the ``Office 
     of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009, and $26,126,000 shall be paid to 
     the ``Science and Technology'' appropriation, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009.

          leaking underground storage tank trust fund program

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by subtitle I of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of Environmental Protection Agency facilities, not 
     to exceed $85,000 per project, $117,961,000 to remain 
     available until expended, of which $82,461,000 shall be for 
     carrying out leaking underground storage tank cleanup 
     activities authorized by section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act, as amended; $35,500,000 shall be for carrying 
     out the other provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     specified in section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as 
     amended: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized to 
     use appropriations made available under this heading to 
     implement section 9013 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
     provide financial assistance to federally-recognized Indian 
     tribes for the development and implementation of programs to 
     manage underground storage tanks.

                           oil spill response

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $17,280,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.

                   state and tribal assistance grants

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $3,391,514,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,125,000,000 shall be 
     for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended (the ``Act''); of which up to 
     $75,000,000 shall be available for loans, including interest 
     free loans as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)(A), to 
     municipal, inter-municipal, interstate, or State agencies or 
     nonprofit entities for projects that provide treatment for or 
     that minimize sewage or stormwater discharges using one or 
     more approaches which include, but are not limited to, 
     decentralized or distributed stormwater controls, 
     decentralized wastewater treatment, low-impact development 
     practices, conservation easements, stream buffers, or 
     wetlands restoration; $842,167,000 shall be for 
     capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving 
     Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as 
     amended; $10,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering, 
     planning, design, construction and related activities in 
     connection with the construction of high priority water and 
     wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico 
     Border, after consultation with the appropriate border 
     commission; $10,500,000 shall be for grants to the State of 
     Alaska to address drinking water and waste infrastructure 
     needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages: Provided, That, of 
     these funds: (1) the State of Alaska shall provide a match of 
     25 percent; (2) no more than 5 percent of the funds may be 
     used for administrative and overhead expenses; and (3) not 
     later than October 1, 2005, the State of Alaska shall make 
     awards consistent with the State-wide priority list 
     established in 2004 for all water, sewer, waste disposal, and 
     similar projects carried out by the State of Alaska that are 
     funded under section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) or the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) which shall 
     allocate not less than 25 percent of the funds provided for 
     projects in regional hub communities; $140,000,000 shall be 
     for making special project grants for the construction of 
     drinking water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure and 
     for water quality protection, and, for purposes of these 
     grants, each grantee shall contribute not less than 45 
     percent of the cost of the project unless the grantee is 
     approved for a waiver by the Agency; $100,000,000 shall be to 
     carry out section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 
     as amended, including grants, interagency agreements, and 
     associated program support costs; $50,000,000 shall be for 
     grants under title VII, subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 2005, as amended; and $1,113,847,000 shall be for grants, 
     including associated program support costs, to States, 
     federally-recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal 
     consortia, and air pollution control agencies for multi-media 
     or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement 
     and related activities, including activities pursuant to the 
     provisions set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-
     134, and for making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air 
     Act for particulate matter monitoring and data collection 
     activities subject to terms and conditions specified by the 
     Administrator, of which $49,495,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, $10,000,000 shall be for 
     Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including 
     associated program support costs, $18,500,000 of the funds 
     available for grants under section 106 of the Act shall be 
     for water quality monitoring activities, $25,000,000 shall be 
     for making competitive targeted watershed grants, and, in 
     addition to funds appropriated under the heading ``Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program'' to carry out 
     the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in 
     section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code other than 
     section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 
     $2,500,000 shall be for financial assistance to States under 
     section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
     amended: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 
     603(d)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the 
     limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution control 
     revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the 
     fund shall not apply to amounts included as principal in 
     loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2008 and prior years 
     where such amounts represent costs of administering the fund 
     to the extent that such amounts are or were deemed reasonable 
     by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other 
     assets in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the 
     fund, including administration: Provided further, That for 
     fiscal year 2008, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the 
     Act, the Administrator is authorized to use the amounts 
     appropriated for any fiscal year under section 319 of that 
     Act to make grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes 
     pursuant to sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided 
     further, That for fiscal year 2008, notwithstanding the 
     limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the Act, up to a 
     total of 1\1/2\ percent of the funds appropriated for State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of that Act may be reserved by 
     the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of that 
     Act: Provided further, That no funds provided by this 
     appropriations Act to address the water, wastewater and other 
     critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United 
     States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made 
     available to a county or municipal government unless that 
     government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or 
     other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the 
     development or construction of any additional colonia areas, 
     or the development within an existing colonia the 
     construction of any new home, business, or other structure 
     which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary 
     infrastructure.

       administrative provisions, environmental protection agency


                    (including rescissions of funds)

       For fiscal year 2008, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and 
     6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement 
     directly Federal environmental programs required or 
     authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal 
     program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
     recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if 
     authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the 
     Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs 
     for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that 
     no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds 
     designated for State financial assistance agreements.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is 
     authorized to collect and obligate pesticide registration 
     service fees in accordance with section 33 of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (as added by 
     subsection (f)(2) of the Pesticide Registration Improvement 
     Act of 2003), as amended.
       None of the funds provided in this Act may be used, 
     directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       From unobligated balances to carry out projects and 
     activities authorized under section 206(a) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act, $5,000,000 are hereby rescinded.

[[Page H7132]]

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in 
     contravention of, or to delay the implementation of, 
     Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 
     7629; relating to Federal actions to address environmental 
     justice in minority populations and low-income populations).
       Of the funds provided in the Environmental Programs and 
     Management account, not less than $2,000,000 shall be 
     available to take such actions as are necessary for the 
     proposal of regulations requiring the reduction of greenhouse 
     gas emissions and to publish such proposed regulations.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some people on their way down here that 
wanted to talk about a very important issue related to the Department 
of Agriculture related to Payment in Lieu of Taxes, which is an issue 
that has been very important to many members of the committee, 
especially the Western Caucus. And in that problem we have seen several 
charts that have been brought forward. One of them showed all of the 
Federal lands that are in the Western States and because of those 
Federal lands, they are unable to assess taxes for their local 
communities and including their schools.
  So at this point in time, it seems like it is a very pertinent time 
for us to deal with the PILT issue. And I know, Mr. Chairman, when we 
heard testimony about Payment in Lieu of Taxes, it was a great hardship 
on the local communities, especially the schools.
  We should give our Members an opportunity to talk about their 
particular communities and the needs that they have. I think it is 
important for us to think about how we are going to make an equitable 
situation for these Western States where they have problems in those 
areas.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman has been urging me 
to try to figure out ways to reduce the size of this bill. We have 
already increased PILT by $43 million. I mean, when does this end?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 
concept is to not increase the amount of the bill but to rebalance it 
so that it is a more balanced bill that would take into consideration 
some of the needs of the people in the Western States, which I think is 
a fair debate for us to have on the floor. Some of these local 
communities have had very difficult times.
  But in order to move the bill along, I will yield back the balance of 
my time so that we can get on with the other issues.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to say that I am certainly not in favor of, Mr. Chairman, 
increasing this bill any more. In fact, I think we really need to look 
at where it is at. At $27.6 billion in discretionary funding, that is 
$1.9 billion or 7.5 percent more than the President requested, and it 
is $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2007. So it is about, I guess, $700 
million more than the President requested.
  We have been on this floor, Mr. Chairman, and have heard the majority 
brag about how they were spending less than the President requested and 
that they had actually cut it and it wasn't as much as the President 
had requested.
  Well, here is one that is more than the President requested. And it 
is adding money for the Climate Change Commission, the sense of 
Congress. We are looking at maybe not becoming dependent on our own oil 
supply and requiring and leaning more on the foreign oil supply.
  So I hope that we would not look at this as, I guess, doing something 
that needs to be done. It is a process of spending more money.
  If you look at the 302(b) allocations for fiscal year 2008, Mr. 
Chairman, $83 billion. And most Americans, including myself, don't 
really understand what $1 billion is. There are very few people in this 
country that are even worth $1 billion. This spends $83 billion more 
than the 2007 enacted budget levels.
  I have heard the majority say, well, we have got this increase 
because these programs were starved to death during the last 6 years. 
They were just starved to death. Well, the reality is domestic 
discretionary spending has increased 40 percent since 2001.
  Let me say this, and I spoke about it before in my last conversation, 
the process is broken and the product is flawed. Let's recognize that 
and don't pass another flawed product because the process is not 
breaking itself; we are breaking the process because we are the ones 
that the people elect to put in charge of the process to make it run 
correctly.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service

                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $295,937,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds provided, $62,329,000 
     is for the forest inventory and analysis program.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       On page 67, line 8, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
       On page 96, line 14 insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(decreased by $31,588,000)''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase the misquote of one 
of my heroes, Yogi Berra, this is ``deja vu all over again,'' this 
actually was the substance of an amendment that was offered earlier 
this morning. It was repealed because the numbers did not actually meet 
the necessities of some of our requirement. This now comes back to you 
with new numbers in there that I think will meet the necessity of the 
requirements for our accounting system that happens to be there.
  We did, obviously this morning, talk about the extreme necessity of 
dealing with border security with our public land system. We talked a 
lot about immigration, but we don't also indicate how this plays a part 
with our public lands.
  We talked about the 1,900 acres that was burned. We suspect it was 
coming from a campfire by illegals. The gentleman from Iowa has used 
some of my pictures to show the amount of trash that was left behind in 
this critical habitat area, once again by illegal immigrants. We have 
talked about areas in which it is unsafe. One-third of the national 
monument has been closed down because it is unsafe to go in there by 
the Park Service personnel without armed guards accompanying them.
  In testimony given to the Appropriations Committee, I know last year 
and perhaps it was replicated again this year, there was a discussion 
about the national forest area along the 60 miles contiguous with the 
Mexican border known as the Coronado National Forest. Once again, it 
has 12 different mountain systems, 203 threatened and endangered and 
sensitive species, eight wilderness areas that are in this particular 
area, and they were literally begging for the resources sufficient to 
address the adverse impact due to illegal border traffic. That is what 
this amendment tries to do.
  I appreciate earlier this morning the many comments, especially from 
the ranking member, of how significant this issue actually is. It is 
true we are moving money from a program, in this case, the National 
Endowment For the Arts, to border security. I would point out that we 
are not taking, as some amendments have and I am certainly not 
proposing that, all of the money from NEA to move into helping with 
border security. We are still leaving a $4 million increase above and 
beyond what was last year in the appropriated budget for the NEA. So we 
are trying to do that. Even though this program hasn't been 
reauthorized since 1992, we are still allowing that type of an 
increase.
  But what our comment is basically saying is whenever we have these 
budgets, we have to make some kind of prioritization. And my contention 
is that the committee misprioritized when they put some money opposite 
others and that this has a higher and more significant need at this 
particular time.
  Perhaps if we were starting over again, both these programs could be 
funded adequately. But at this stage of the game, there are only 
certain pots from which the money can be taken,

[[Page H7133]]

and I still think that this is the effective way of making sure there 
is still an increase, once again to a program that hasn't been 
reauthorized since 1992, and at the same time putting a significant 
amount of resources to our land managers who desperately need those 
resources to do their job in protecting our southern borders and 
protecting the land that we have set aside for its sensitive nature and 
its specific qualities. That has to be there.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, that is the specific element of this 
particular amendment, to try to reprioritize to meet the needs of our 
southern border, which at this time, when we are talking about 
immigration, is such a significant issue.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The principal purpose of this amendment is to block the long overdue 
increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts provided in 
the bill.
  The gentleman is correct that the bill reported by the committee 
provides $160 million for the NEA, an increase of $35 million over the 
2007 enacted level. I am very proud of that increase, which I think is 
fully justified and broadly supported by Members of this body.
  It is important for Members to realize, as they consider the 
committee's action, that the $160 million recommended only partially 
restores cuts made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in 
this bill is just $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After 
adjusting for inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below 
the level in 1993 as displayed on the chart in front of the Members.
  As we debate this amendment, Members should also note the National 
Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts' funding 
debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the NEA 
into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivy, appointed by Bill 
Clinton, negotiated, then implemented bipartisan reforms in NEA's grant 
structure to ensure that funds go to activities for which public 
funding is appropriate. Dana Gioia, the current chairman, then 
energized the agency with many new programs and a commitment to reach 
beyond the culture centers of our major cities.
  Last year, every single congressional district received NEA support 
through innovative programs such as American Masterpieces, Operation 
Homecoming and the Big Read. Today, NEA is truly a national program 
with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of 
our society.
  Each of us has different reasons to support the arts. Some will 
describe their support in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a 
personally enriching experience. Others support the arts as an engine 
of job development and economic growth. It is equally important to 
emphasize that here in the House we've had votes on this issue year 
after year after year. In fact, in the last 2 years, the votes on the 
Slaughter-Dicks amendment have been accepted on voice vote.
  As far as I'm concerned, one of the things that I'm proudest of is 
the fact that we had a hearing this year and brought in artists from 
all across our country to testify about the arts and what it means not 
only in terms of educating our youth, but also what it means to the 
American people.
  I'm always surprised that there are some on the other side of the 
aisle who always want to beat up on the National Endowment for the 
Arts. In fact, when Mr. Regula was chairman of the committee, an 
outstanding chairman, he put into place some very significant reforms 
which I supported. And what we emphasized was quality, that we don't 
have enough money to fund every single project, that we must emphasize 
quality. And that's what Mr. Ivy has done; that's what Mr. Gioia has 
done. And I want you to know the endowment is thrilled about this 
increase. They think they can spend this money wisely and effectively.
  I just urge the gentleman to reconsider his amendment. I wish he 
would withdraw it and recognize and join all of us who support the arts 
here in the United States. I'd like to see us have a bipartisan 
approval of this bill, and particularly this particular increase for 
the Endowment for the Arts. And we also increase funding for the 
National Endowment for the Humanities. The humanities are very 
important to our country as well.
  So I urge that we oppose this amendment and keep moving along.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard regarding 
the amendment by the gentleman from Utah?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York was on the 
floor asking for recognition.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I move to strike the requisite words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  Mr. DICKS. I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady be recognized.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  Without objection, the voice vote is vacated.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I do have a request before you 
actually officially announce the voice vote. Does this UC prohibit me 
from making a request for a recorded vote?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No. Another voice vote will be taken.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. And so do I.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that will 
strip $31.5 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Nearly 12 years ago, the Republicans slashed the 1988 budget nearly 
in half. In 1992, funding for the NEA reached an all-time high of $176 
million. However, 4 years later, just 4 years later, they cut the 
funding to $99 million. Despite obstacles posed by a lack of adequate 
funding, the NEA persevered, and under the leadership of Chairman 
Gioia, instituted national programs to engage all Americans in the 
arts.
  Recognizing its accomplishments, Congress began to support it once 
more and has approved funding increases by voice vote for the last 2 
years. That support could not be more deserved, from Shakespeare in 
American communities to the NEA Jazz Masters, from American 
Masterpieces to the Big Read, the NEA has made art programs accessible 
to Americans in every congressional district.
  Its programs enrich our culture by inspiring provocative community 
discussions and energizing the Nation's creative spirit. And every 
year, we hear more good news from the NEA.
  Innovative programs are bringing arts to our schools, our community 
leaders and even our military bases, with Great American Voices, and 
are appreciated. This popular program has brought about 24 professional 
opera companies to 39 military bases across the country.
  In 2004, the NEA initiated another program directed to military 
families called Operation Homecoming. It helped our troops and their 
families to write about their wartime experiences. The anthology of 
contributions was published by Random House in September 2006, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to read it. The stories of patriotism 
and courage are truly inspiring.
  What's more, the arts are improving our economy. This is terribly 
important. Americans for the Arts has just released a study on the 
economic impact of nonprofit art organizations. In 2002, the second 
Arts and Economic Impact Study told us that nonprofit arts 
organizations created $134 billion annually in economic activity. Just 
5 years later, that number has gone up 24 percent to $166 billion. For 
the small investment we make, we bring back into the Federal Treasury 
$166 billion a year. That means that while they pump $63 billion into 
community economies, audiences are spending an additional $103 billion 
on local hotels, restaurants, parking, souvenirs, refreshments and 
other associated costs. And these numbers likely underestimate the 
total economic impact of the arts. New York City and Los Angeles were 
not even included so as to avoid skewing the national estimates.
  So what do these figures mean for us? That $166 billion in economic 
activity

[[Page H7134]]

means $104.2 billion in resident economic income. It means $7.9 billion 
in local government tax revenues. It means $9.1 billion in State 
government tax revenues. It means $12.6 billion in Federal Government 
tax revenues, and 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs.
  To put that in perspective, over 1 percent of the American workforce 
is employed in an arts-related industry. That is a greater percentage 
than the number of Americans who are police officers, accountants, 
lawyers, firefighters, telemarketers, computer programmers, mail 
carriers or professional athletes. What community in America could 
afford to lose those jobs?
  A generous estimate of the total Federal investment in the arts is 
$1.4 billion, yet we earn about $12.6 billion. That is a 12-1 return on 
the Federal investment. No place else, Mr. Chairman, do we see a return 
like that.
  Simply put, in every way, investment in the arts is sound public 
policy. Cutting funding would ignore everything positive we know about 
it, and it is the wrong policy.
  I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt 
for funding the National Endowment of the Arts at a level that reflects 
its important role in fostering creativity and making art accessible to 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, your leadership and enduring commitment to this issue 
has been instrumental in keeping arts part of our national priorities. 
Thank you, and I thank the staff.
  Mr. SHAYS. I wonder if the gentlelady would yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Of course I will yield.
  Mr. SHAYS. Not to take another 5 minutes, the statistics that you 
present are what I would want to share. As cochair of the NEA, I want 
to say how proud I am to be able to vote for a budget that finally is 
beginning to pay attention to the arts.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady have 1 
additional minute.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can have 1 additional minute or 
can conclude her time, and the gentleman from Connecticut can be 
recognized on his own time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much for that. I won't take that much 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Already?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just asked unanimous consent for the 
gentlelady to have 1 additional minute.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. And I stated that the gentlewoman could have 1 
additional minute or could complete her time, and the gentleman from 
Connecticut should have his own time. I asked the gentlewoman from New 
York what is her preference.
  Mr. DICKS. What's the difference? I'm the chairman of the committee. 
I can ask unanimous consent any time I want.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for the gentlelady 
from New York.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank everybody, but I certainly want to thank Mike 
Stevens and Pete Modaff for their work on the decade-long fight to 
restore funding for the NEA. I encourage my colleagues to support the 
progress we've made in restoring funding to the NEA.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will yield.
  Mr. DICKS. I was somewhat mystified by the gentleman's amendment. He 
was talking about the border. As we understand it, the money for this 
amendment would go to Forest Service research, which is, as we 
understand it, $15.5 million over the old 2007 level, and $33 million 
over the President's level in our budget. We don't need any more money 
for the forest research. We've already very adequately and generously 
taken care of it.
  I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding and for her great leadership 
over many years. I have always enjoyed being your partner on this 
important amendment, and now we're close to getting back to where we 
need to get.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 Utah will be 
postponed.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the chair, (Mr. Davis of Alabama) 
Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________