[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7135-H7152]
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 514 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2643.
{time} 1706
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2643) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Davis of Alabama
(Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) had been postponed.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of
the House of today, which is at the desk.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
state and private forestry
For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing
technical and financial assistance to States, territories,
possessions, and others, and for forest health management,
including treatments of pests, pathogens, and invasive or
noxious plants and for restoring and rehabilitating forests
damaged by pests or invasive plants, cooperative forestry,
and education and land conservation activities and conducting
an international program as authorized, $280,602,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by law; of
which $8,000,000 is for the International Program; and of
which $56,336,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
national forest system
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and
utilization of the National Forest System, $1,506,502,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall include 50
percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as
fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances
under this heading available at the start of fiscal year 2008
shall be displayed by budget line item in the fiscal year
2009 budget justification.
capital improvement and maintenance
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $480,197,000, to remain available until
expended, for construction, capital improvement, maintenance
and acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and
infrastructure; and for construction, capital improvement,
decommissioning, and maintenance of forest roads and trails
by the Forest Service as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and
23 U.S.C. 101 and 205; and in addition $40,000,000 to be
transferred from the timber roads purchaser election fund and
merged with this account, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That $65,000,000 shall be designated for urgently
needed road decommissioning, road and trail repair and
maintenance and associated activities, and removal of fish
passage barriers, especially in areas where Forest Service
roads may be contributing to water quality problems in
streams and water bodies which support threatened, endangered
or sensitive species or community water sources and for
urgently needed road repairs required due to recent storm
events: Provided further, That up to $65,000,000 of the funds
[[Page H7136]]
provided herein for road maintenance shall be available for
the decommissioning of roads, including unauthorized roads
not part of the transportation system, which are no longer
needed: Provided further, That the decommissioning of
unauthorized roads not part of the official transportation
system shall be expedited in response to threats to public
safety, water quality, or natural resources: Provided
further, That funds becoming available in fiscal year 2008
under the Act of March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. 501) shall be
transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury and shall not
be available for transfer or obligation for any other purpose
unless the funds are appropriated.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses,
and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein,
in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the
Forest Service, $44,485,000, to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until
expended.
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts
For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,053,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.
acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges
For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities,
and for authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-
Federal parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts,
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended. (16 U.S.C.
4601-516-617a, 555a; Public Law 96-586; Public Law 76-589,
76-591; and 78-310.)
range betterment fund
For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6
percent shall be available for administrative expenses
associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.
gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research
For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $56,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.
management of national forest lands for subsistence uses
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage
Federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), $5,053,000, to remain available until
expended.
wildland fire management
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuels reduction on
or adjacent to such lands, and for emergency rehabilitation
of burned-over National Forest System lands and water,
$1,974,648,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such funds including unobligated balances under this
heading, are available for repayment of advances from other
appropriations accounts previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That such funds shall be
available to reimburse State and other cooperating entities
for services provided in response to wildfire and other
emergencies or disasters to the extent such reimbursements by
the Forest Service for non-fire emergencies are fully repaid
by the responsible emergency management agency: Provided
further, That not less than 50 percent of any unobligated
balances remaining (exclusive of amounts for hazardous fuels
reduction) at the end of fiscal year 2007 shall be
transferred to the fund established pursuant to section 3 of
Public Law 71-319 (16 U.S.C. 576 et seq.) if necessary to
reimburse the fund for unpaid past advances: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$8,000,000 of funds appropriated under this appropriation
shall be used for Fire Science Research in support of the
Joint Fire Science Program: Provided further, That all
authorities for the use of funds, including the use of
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, available to
execute the Forest and Rangeland Research appropriation, are
also available in the utilization of these funds for Fire
Science Research: Provided further, That funds provided shall
be available for emergency rehabilitation and restoration,
hazardous fuels reduction activities in the urban-wildland
interface, support to Federal emergency response, and
wildfire suppression activities of the Forest Service:
Provided further, That of the funds provided, $310,258,000 is
for hazardous fuels reduction activities, $18,000,000 is for
rehabilitation and restoration, $23,500,000 is for research
activities and to make competitive research grants pursuant
to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $46,221,000 is for State
fire assistance, $10,000,000 is for volunteer fire
assistance, $14,252,000 is for forest health activities on
Federal lands and $10,014,000 is for forest health activities
on State and private lands: Provided further, That amounts in
this paragraph may be transferred to the ``State and Private
Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', and ``Forest and
Rangeland Research'' accounts to fund State fire assistance,
volunteer fire assistance, forest health management, forest
and rangeland research, joint fire sciences, vegetation and
watershed management, heritage site rehabilitation, and
wildlife and fish habitat management and restoration:
Provided further, That transfers of any amounts in excess of
those authorized in this paragraph, shall require approval of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in
compliance with reprogramming procedures contained in the
report accompanying this Act: Provided further, That the
costs of implementing any cooperative agreement between the
Federal Government and any non-Federal entity may be shared,
as mutually agreed on by the affected parties: Provided
further, That in addition to funds provided for State Fire
Assistance programs, and subject to all authorities available
to the Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry
Appropriation, up to $10,000,000 may be used on adjacent non-
Federal lands for the purpose of protecting communities when
hazard reduction activities are planned on national forest
lands that have the potential to place such communities at
risk: Provided further, That included in funding for
hazardous fuel reduction is $5,000,000 for implementing the
Community Forest Restoration Act, Public Law 106-393, title
VI, and any portion of such funds shall be available for use
on non-Federal lands in accordance with authorities available
to the Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry
Appropriation: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the
transfer of funds appropriated for wildland fire management,
in an aggregate amount not to exceed $9,000,000, between the
Departments when such transfers would facilitate and expedite
jointly funded wildland fire management programs and
projects: Provided further, That of the funds provided for
hazardous fuels reduction, not to exceed $7,000,000, may be
used to make grants, using any authorities available to the
Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry
appropriation, for the purpose of creating incentives for
increased use of biomass from national forest lands: Provided
further, That funds designated for wildfire suppression shall
be assessed for cost pools on the same basis as such
assessments are calculated against other agency programs.
administrative provisions, forest service
Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of passenger motor
vehicles; acquisition of passenger motor vehicles from excess
sources, and hire of such vehicles; purchase, lease,
operation, maintenance, and acquisition of aircraft from
excess sources to maintain the operable fleet for use in
Forest Service wildland fire programs and other Forest
Service programs; notwithstanding other provisions of law,
existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with proceeds
derived or trade-in value used to offset the purchase price
for the replacement aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7
U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed $100,000 for employment under
5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) purchase, erection, and alteration of
buildings and other public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4)
acquisition of land, waters, and interests therein pursuant
to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers
in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and
558a note); (6) the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (7) for debt collection contracts in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions upon notification of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and if and only if all
previously appropriated emergency contingent funds under the
heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' have been released by
the President and apportioned and all wildfire suppression
funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' are
obligated.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development in connection with forest and rangeland research,
technical information, and assistance in foreign countries,
and shall be available to support forestry and related
natural resource activities outside the United States and its
territories and possessions, including technical assistance,
education and training, and cooperation with United States
and international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service in
this Act or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year
shall be subject to transfer under the provisions of section
702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
[[Page H7137]]
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257), section 442 of Public
Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C. 7772), or section 10417(b) of Public
Law 107-107 (7 U.S.C. 8316(b)).
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying
this Act.
Not more than $73,285,000 of funds available to the Forest
Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund of
the Department of Agriculture and not more than $24,021,000
of funds available to the Forest Service shall be transferred
to the Department of Agriculture for Department Reimbursable
Programs, commonly referred to as Greenbook charges. Nothing
in this paragraph shall prohibit or limit the use of
reimbursable agreements requested by the Forest Service in
order to obtain services from the Department of Agriculture's
National Information Technology Center.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $5,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps or
the Public Lands Corps (Public Law 109-154).
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, $3,000,000
may be advanced in a lump sum to the National Forest
Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in
support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when
the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative expenses
or projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or
related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That of the
Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no more than
$100,000 shall be available for administrative expenses:
Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, by the
end of the period of Federal financial assistance, private
contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis funds
made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, That
the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-Federal
recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient
has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: Provided
further, That authorized investments of Federal funds held by
the Foundation may be made only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed
as to both principal and interest by the United States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244,
$2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall
be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a
lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without
regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting
National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service
programs: Provided, That such funds shall be matched on at
least a one-for-one basis by the Foundation or its sub-
recipients: Provided further, That the Foundation may
transfer Federal funds to a Federal or non-Federal recipient
for a project at the same rate that the recipient has
obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
{time} 1715
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas
(Mrs. Boyda).
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a
colloquy with my colleague from Kansas, Ranking Member Tiahrt, and
Chairman Dicks.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to light an issue of great
importance to southeast Kansas, and I think we have a visual down here
that we can point to in a minute.
Treece, Kansas, is a small town of about 150 people. It is part of
the Tri-State mining district of southwest Missouri, southeast Kansas
and northwest Oklahoma, producing lead, zinc and coal. Much of the lead
and zinc that was used in ammunition and equipment to win World War II
came from this area. However, this mining has led to incredible
environmental problems, to include significant subsidence and health
problems from chat piles, otherwise known as mining waste. The
photograph that we have here on the easel, those are the chat piles we
are talking about.
This problem has been under study for years. In 2004, Senator Inhofe
from Oklahoma arranged for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a
subsidence risk study for northern Oklahoma towns similar to Treece.
The results of this study lead to a voluntary buyout program allowing
Picher, Oklahoma, residents to move.
The Kansas Geological Survey did a stability study and hazard
evaluation of southeast Kansas mining areas in 1983. The report
indicated that Treece is ``located within the Picher field and is
surrounded on all sides by abandoned mine workings and is extensively
undermined.''
In a letter to me dated March 30 of this year from the EPA in D.C.,
they note that, ``The Treece sub-site is part of the former Picher
mining field centered near the town of Picher, Oklahoma.'' In fact,
Treece was originally platted as part of Picher, Oklahoma. It sits
right on the Kansas-Oklahoma border and is separated from the town of
Picher only by a political boundary. Treece receives its electricity
and emergency services from Picher, Oklahoma.
The geology of Treece and mining techniques that were used are the
same as in Picher. In fact, and this is the point I would like to make,
Treece, Kansas, and Picher, Oklahoma, are in fact the same minefield.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points: First, if we must, we
will ask the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a study similar to the
one done in Picher. But we should not have to. The Treece community
should be treated the same as Picher.
Second, while Treece is designated as part of the EPA Superfund site,
EPA has yet to approve a request for funding that would remove the chat
from Treece and other sites along the Kansas-Oklahoma border. This
requested funding would allow removal of this dangerous material over a
10-year period.
Addressing both of these issues for the good people of Treece,
Kansas, is long overdue, and we certainly appreciate this committee's
attention.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Washington will
yield, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for bringing this to the
attention of the House. This is a very important issue.
The community of Treece has been trying to bring this issue to
resolution for years. In fact, it was over a decade ago when it first
came to my attention, and I had a staff member working on it for some
time. I am pleased that the gentlewoman is carrying on the work of her
predecessor, Congressman Jim Ryun, and other Kansas officials. Earlier
this year, State Representative Gatewood came to my office and asked
for some help with the Office of Surface Mining, and we still have the
request pending from them as well.
According to the estimates for the State of Kansas, it will cost
approximately $8 million to conduct a buyout program, which is not a
lot of money in the scheme of things. While we understand that the bill
which we are debating today cannot address the buyout program, we both
hope that the EPA will speed its approval of the funding to remove the
chat and hope that other Federal resources will come to bear to help
the people of Treece find relief through a similar buyout program.
I am also hopeful that the OSM and the Army Corps of Engineers will
also help the residents in their struggle to improve their communities.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank my
colleague from Kansas for working on this issue. I understand Treece's
frustration and look forward to working with you to see what the
agencies within our subcommittee's jurisdiction can do to help. We
appreciate your bringing this to our attention.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would say thank you to both of
the gentlemen. The good people of Treece are very deeply appreciative.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
An eligible individual who is employed in any project
funded under title V of the Older American Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service
shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
Any funds appropriated to the Forest Service may be used to
meet the non-Federal share requirement in section 502(c) of
the Older American Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)).
Funds available to the Forest Service, not to exceed
$45,000,000, shall be assessed for the
[[Page H7138]]
purpose of performing facilities maintenance. Such
assessments shall occur using a square foot rate charged on
the same basis the agency uses to assess programs for payment
of rent, utilities, and other support services.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
indian health services
For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $3,023,532,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009, except as otherwise provided herein,
together with payments received during the fiscal year
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) for services furnished by the
Indian Health Service: Provided, That funds made available to
tribes and tribal organizations through contracts, grant
agreements, or any other agreements or compacts authorized by
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of
1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the
time of the grant or contract award and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation: Provided further, That up to
$18,000,000 shall remain available until expended, for the
Indian Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund: Provided further,
That not less than $561,515,000 shall be for contract medical
care: Provided further, That of the funds provided, up to
$32,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be
used to carry out the loan repayment program under section
108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided
further, That funds provided in this Act may be used for one-
year contracts and grants which are to be performed in two
fiscal years, so long as the total obligation is recorded in
the year for which the funds are appropriated: Provided
further, That the amounts collected by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under the authority of title IV of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall remain available
until expended for the purpose of achieving compliance with
the applicable conditions and requirements of titles XVIII
and XIX of the Social Security Act (exclusive of planning,
design, or construction of new facilities): Provided further,
That funding contained herein, and in any earlier
appropriations Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613), shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That amounts
received by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be reported and
accounted for and available to the receiving tribes and
tribal organizations until expended: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts
provided herein, not to exceed $274,638,000 shall be for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract or
grant support costs associated with contracts, grants, self-
governance compacts or annual funding agreements between the
Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal organization
pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as
amended, prior to or during fiscal year 2008, of which not to
exceed $5,000,000 may be used for contract support costs
associated with new or expanded self-determination contracts,
grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding
agreements: Provided further, That the Bureau of Indian
Affairs may collect from the Indian Health Service and tribes
and tribal organizations operating health facilities pursuant
to Public Law 93-638 such individually identifiable health
information relating to disabled children as may be necessary
for the purpose of carrying out its functions under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400,
et seq.
indian health facilities
For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $360,895,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of a
federally-recognized Indian tribe or tribes may be used to
purchase land for sites to construct, improve, or enlarge
health or related facilities: Provided further, That not to
exceed $500,000 shall be used by the Indian Health Service to
purchase TRANSAM equipment from the Department of Defense for
distribution to the Indian Health Service and tribal
facilities: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for
sanitation facilities construction for new homes funded with
grants by the housing programs of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided
further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 from this account and
the ``Indian Health Services'' account shall be used by the
Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian
Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an
existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health
Service and the General Services Administration: Provided
further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be placed in a
Demolition Fund, available until expended, to be used by the
Indian Health Service for demolition of Federal buildings.
administrative provisions, indian health service
Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates 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 and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefor as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities.
In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health
care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service
facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with
funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the
facility providing the service and shall be available without
fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be
administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation
Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this
Act, except those used for administrative and program
direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations
directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used for any assessments or
charges by the Department of Health and Human Services unless
identified in the budget justification and provided in this
Act, or approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations through the reprogramming process.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal
organization through a contract, grant, or agreement
authorized by title I or title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
determination contract under title I, or a self-governance
agreement under title V of such Act and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by
the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the
eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health
Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a
budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with
the proposed final rule, and such request has been included
in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health
Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health
Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those
entities, on a reimbursable basis, including payment in
advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements
received therefrom, along with the funds received from those
entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may
be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account
which provided the funding. Such amounts shall remain
available until expended.
Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance.
The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service
may not be altered without advance notification to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
National Institutes of Health
national institute of environmental health sciences
For necessary expenses for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set
forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended, and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, $79,117,000.
[[Page H7139]]
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
toxic substances and environmental public health
For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set
forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), as amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, $75,212,000, of which up to
$1,500,000, to remain available until expended, is for
Individual Learning Accounts for full-time equivalent
employees of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, in lieu of performing a health assessment under
section 104(i)(6) of CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may
conduct other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or
activities, including, without limitation, biomedical
testing, clinical evaluations, medical monitoring, and
referral to accredited health care providers: Provided
further, That in performing any such health assessment or
health study, evaluation, or activity, the Administrator of
ATSDR shall not be bound by the deadlines in section
104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Lo Biondo
Mr. LoBIONDO. 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. 24 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
Page 89, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point
of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support this
amendment. This amendment would simply put in $1 million and then take
back out $1 million for the purpose of directing the administrator of
the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Research to use these funds
to conduct initial long-term testing of children exposed to mercury
from mercury-contaminated industrial sites.
Last July, I learned that a daycare center in my district had been
opened mistakenly on a site that was previously used by a thermometer
manufacturer. The manufacturer had a history of mercury contamination
and had not properly cleaned up the site.
The mercury contamination of this site was so egregious that parents
spoke of their children coming home from the daycare center with
bubbles of mercury clinging to their backpacks. As a result of this,
the children who innocently played on the grounds of the daycare center
were diagnosed with mercury levels much higher than normal and suffered
symptoms of mercury poisoning, such as headaches, sleeping problems and
rashes.
As you may know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can affect the
nervous system.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am prepared
to accept the amendment. We want to work with the gentleman on this a
little bit to improve it as we get to conference. But we are prepared
to accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to
thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking an issue that is so
important to his district and really important to the kids in that area
that have been exposed to mercury and would join with the chairman in
supporting your amendment.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman
and Mr. Tiahrt.
I would just like to point out that this incident demonstrated that
children can, unfortunately, be exposed to mercury from contaminated
industrial sites. The amendment will help ensure that funding will be
available for any Member in any district that this may take place.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
Executive Office of the President
council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality
For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to
exceed $750 for official reception and representation
expenses, $2,703,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section
202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the
Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and
duties of the Council.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant
to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
including hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376, $9,549,000: Provided, That the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board shall have not more than three
career Senior Executive Service positions: Provided further,
that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
individual appointed to the position of Inspector General of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall, by virtue of
such appointment, also hold the position of Inspector General
of the Board: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Inspector General of the Board
shall utilize personnel of the Office of Inspector General of
EPA in performing the duties of the Inspector General of the
Board, and shall not appoint any individuals to positions
within the Board.
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$9,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development
payment to the institute
For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A),
$7,297,000.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings,
facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five
replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for employees, $536,295,000, of which
$1,578,000 for fellowships and scholarly awards shall remain
available until September 30, 2009, including such funds as
may be necessary to support American overseas research
centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are
available for advance payments to independent contractors
performing research services or participating in official
Smithsonian presentations.
[[Page H7140]]
facilities capital
For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and
alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian
Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by
section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and
for construction, including necessary personnel,
$116,100,000, to remain available until expended, of which
not to exceed $10,000 is for services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109.
National Gallery of Art
salaries and expenses
For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $101,850,000,
of which not to exceed $3,239,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.
repair, restoration and renovation of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized, $18,017,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
operations and maintenance
For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $20,200,000.
capital repair and restoration
For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $23,150,000, to
remain available until expended.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $10,000,000.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$160,000,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the
arts, including arts education and public outreach
activities, through assistance to organizations and
individuals pursuant to section 5 of the Act, for program
support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
appropriated herein shall be expended in accordance with
sections 309 and 311 of Public Law 108-447.
National Endowment for the Humanities
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$145,500,000, shall be available to the National Endowment
for the Humanities for support of activities in the
humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $14,500,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $9,500,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.
administrative provisions
None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may
be used as necessary for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That the
Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may
approve grants up to $10,000, if in the aggregate this amount
does not exceed 5 percent of the sums appropriated for grant-
making purposes per year: Provided further, That such small
grant actions are taken pursuant to the terms of an expressed
and direct delegation of authority from the National Council
on the Arts to the Chairperson: Provided further, That
section 309(1) of division E, Public Law 108-447, is amended
by inserting ``National Opera Fellowship,'' after ``National
Heritage Fellowship''.
Commission of Fine Arts
salaries and expenses
For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $2,092,000:
Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to
cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall
be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to
remain available until expended without further
appropriation.
national capital arts and cultural affairs
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956a), as amended, $10,000,000: Provided, That no
organization shall receive a grant in excess of $650,000 in a
single year.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $5,348,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for
compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher
positions.
National Capital Planning Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $8,265,000:
Provided, That one-quarter of 1 percent of the funds provided
under this heading may be used for official reception and
representational expenses associated with hosting
international visitors engaged in the planning and physical
development of world capitals.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
holocaust memorial museum
For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as
authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310),
$44,996,000, of which $515,000 for the equipment replacement
program shall remain available until September 30, 2009; and
$1,900,000 for the museum's repair and rehabilitation program
and $1,264,000 for the museum's exhibition design and
production program shall remain available until expended.
Presidio Trust
presidio trust fund
For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $22,400,000
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended.
White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the White House Commission on the
National Moment of Remembrance, $200,000, which shall be
transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
``Departmental Administration, General Operating Expenses''
account and be administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 402. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which Congressional action is not complete other than to
communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C.
1913.
Sec. 403. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 404. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal
[[Page H7141]]
cook, chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of such department or agency except as otherwise
provided by law.
Sec. 405. Estimated overhead charges, deductions, reserves
or holdbacks from programs, projects, activities and
subactivities to support government-wide, departmental,
agency or bureau administrative functions or headquarters,
regional or central operations shall be presented in annual
budget justifications and subject to approval by the
Committees on Appropriations. Changes to such estimates shall
be presented to the Committees on Appropriations for
approval.
Sec. 406. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer provided in, this Act or any other Act.
Sec. 407. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 408. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for
the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with
the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 2008, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the
Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section
314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 409. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated in committee reports for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by Public Laws
103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-277, 106-113,
106-291, 107-63, 108-7, 108-108, 108-447, 109-54, 109-289,
division B and Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007
(division B of Public Law 109-289, as amended by Public Law
110-5) for payments for contract support costs associated
with self-determination or self-governance contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service as funded by such
Acts, are the total amounts available for fiscal years 1994
through 2007 for such purposes, except that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and federally-recognized tribes may use their
tribal priority allocations for unmet contract support costs
of ongoing contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or
annual funding agreements.
Sec. 410. Prior to October 1, 2008, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of
subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A))
solely because more than 15 years have passed without
revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest
System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary from
any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or any other
law: Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting
expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding
available, to revise a plan for a unit of the National Forest
System, this section shall be void with respect to such plan
and a court of proper jurisdiction may order completion of
the plan on an accelerated basis.
Sec. 411. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to
conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under
either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)
within the boundaries of a National Monument established
pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where
such activities are allowed under the Presidential
proclamation establishing such monument.
Sec. 412. In entering into agreements with foreign
countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior are authorized to enter into
reciprocal agreements in which the individuals furnished
under said agreements to provide wildfire services are
considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the
country receiving said services when the individuals are
engaged in fire suppression: Provided, That the Secretary of
Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior shall not enter
into any agreement under this provision unless the foreign
country (either directly or through its fire organization)
agrees to assume any and all liability for the acts or
omissions of American firefighters engaged in firefighting in
a foreign country: Provided further, That when an agreement
is reached for furnishing fire fighting services, the only
remedies for acts or omissions committed while fighting fires
shall be those provided under the laws of the host country,
and those remedies shall be the exclusive remedies for any
claim arising out of fighting fires in a foreign country:
Provided further, That neither the sending country nor any
legal organization associated with the firefighter shall be
subject to any legal action whatsoever pertaining to or
arising out of the firefighter's role in fire suppression.
Sec. 413. In awarding a Federal contract with funds made
available by this Act, notwithstanding Federal Government
procurement and contracting laws, the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (the
``Secretaries'') may, in evaluating bids and proposals, give
consideration to local contractors who are from, and who
provide employment and training for, dislocated and displaced
workers in an economically disadvantaged rural community,
including those historically timber-dependent areas that have
been affected by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands
and other forest-dependent rural communities isolated from
significant alternative employment opportunities: Provided,
That notwithstanding Federal Government procurement and
contracting laws the Secretaries may award contracts, grants
or cooperative agreements to local non-profit entities, Youth
Conservation Corps or related partnerships with State, local
or non-profit youth groups, or small or micro-business or
disadvantaged business: Provided further, That the contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement is for forest hazardous fuels
reduction, watershed or water quality monitoring or
restoration, wildlife or fish population monitoring, or
habitat restoration or management: Provided further, That the
terms ``rural community'' and ``economically disadvantaged''
shall have the same meanings as in section 2374 of Public Law
101-624: Provided further, That the Secretaries shall develop
guidance to implement this section: Provided further, That
nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the
Secretaries of any duty under applicable procurement laws,
except as provided in this section.
Sec. 414. (a) Limitation on Competitive Sourcing Studies.--
(1) Of the funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Department of the Interior for fiscal year 2008, not more
than $3,450,000 may be used by the Secretary of the Interior
to initiate or continue competitive sourcing studies in
fiscal year 2008 for programs, projects, and activities for
which funds are appropriated by this Act.
(2) None of the funds available to the Forest Service may
be used in fiscal year 2008 for competitive sourcing studies
and related activities.
(b) Competitive Sourcing Study Defined.--In this section,
the term ``competitive sourcing study'' means a study on
subjecting work performed by Federal Government employees or
private contractors to public-private competition or on
converting the Federal Government employees or the work
performed by such employees to private contractor performance
under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or
any other administrative regulation, directive, or policy.
(c) In preparing any reports to the Committees on
Appropriations on competitive sourcing activities, agencies
funded in this Act shall include the incremental cost
directly attributable to conducting the competitive sourcing
competitions, including costs attributable to paying outside
consultants and contractors and, in accordance with full cost
accounting principles, all costs attributable to developing,
implementing, supporting, managing, monitoring, and reporting
on competitive sourcing, including personnel, consultant,
travel, and training costs associated with program
management.
(d) In carrying out any competitive sourcing study
involving Department of the Interior employees, the Secretary
of the Interior shall--
(1) determine whether any of the employees concerned are
also qualified to participate in wildland fire management
activities; and
(2) take into consideration the effect that contracting
with a private sector source would have on the ability of the
Department of the Interior to effectively and efficiently
fight and manage wildfires.
Sec. 415. Section 331 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, regarding the
pilot program to enhance Forest Service administration of
rights-of-way (as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(3) of
Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501A-196; 16 U.S.C. 497 note),
as amended, is amended--
[[Page H7142]]
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2012''; and
(2) in subsection (b) by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2012''.
Sec. 416. Section 321 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, regarding Forest
Service cooperative agreements with third parties that are of
mutually significant benefit (division F of Public Law 108-7;
117 Stat. 274; 16 U.S.C. 565a-1 note) is amended by striking
``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 2010''.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms.
Shea-Porter) for a colloquy.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your
leadership on this bill, in particular for your strong support of
increased funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System which
protects our valuable natural resources and wildlife and maintains more
than 96 million acres of land across the country.
I also want to thank ranking member Tiahrt and the entire Interior
and Environment Subcommittee for their tireless work on this bill and,
importantly, for including language and funding to help address some of
the most pressing problems facing our National Wildlife Refuge System.
Mr. Chairman, the staffing shortages plaguing our wildlife refuges
have been brought on by years of underfunding and a lack of commitment
to ensuring that these pristine lands are kept safe, secure and
properly maintained. The language included in the bill before us is a
big step in the right direction, but I think you would agree it is only
a first step.
We will need to do more if we want to alleviate the strain put on our
refuges, like the Great Bay Wildlife Refuge along the eastern shore of
New Hampshire. Great Bay protects a number of both Federal- and State-
protected species, including the symbol of our American freedom, the
Bald Eagle. However, funding shortages have caused the refuge system to
severely cut back on staff at Great Bay over the past few years.
{time} 1730
What once was a staff of four has been reduced to one, and now the
refuge system has announced that they will be eliminating that position
as early as next month. This will leave a major wildlife refuge with no
full-time staff and totally unprotected for the large majority of the
time. With over 60,000 visitors a year, this lack of staffing could
pose a serious threat to the wildlife and ecosystem protected in Great
Bay.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is strong language in your bill
regarding the staffing shortages at refuges across the country. May I
clarify that the increased funding provided to the wildlife refuge
system through the operations and management accounts is meant to help
the system address these shortfalls and ensure that staff is placed
where needed to protect these environments?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, that is correct. As written in the committee record,
the committee believes it is important to address the shortfalls in
staffing around the Nation, and we have provided the largest
operational increase in the history of the refuge system to do so.
We have also included language directing consideration to those
areas, like Great Bay, that have pressing shortfalls and needs.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee has also
included language addressing the problem of complexes. Would the
chairman clarify the committee intent to reduce the number of complexes
where refuges are consolidated into groups with staff overseeing
multiple sites, sometimes with great distances between them?
Mr. DICKS. That is also correct. The committee includes language in
our report directing the system to reduce the number of complexes. The
increased funding is to be used to address staffing shortfalls, and the
committee does not view the use of complexes as a sufficient means for
managing refuges.
These complexes move the staff too far from the communities and
resources that they serve, and we have asked that the number of
complexes be reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his strong
position on protecting these national treasures.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you for your good work on this. Protecting our
national wildlife refuges was one of our major priorities in the
subcommittee. We are pleased to have your support for the bill and this
effort.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V--GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Sec. 501. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are
causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the
range of natural variability and are posing a substantial
risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric
and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity
of floods, droughts, and wildfires;
(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human
activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas
accumulation in the atmosphere; and
(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the
growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
(b) It is the sense of the Congress that there should be
enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of
mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of
greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of
such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not
significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will
encourage comparable action by other nations that are major
trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sullivan
Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. Sullivan:
Page 110, begining on line 20, strike section 501 and
insert the following:
Sec. 501. It is the sense of the Congress that no
Federally-mandated steps should be taken to mitigate global
climate change if those steps would harm American consumers,
workers, or businesses in any way.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point
of order against the amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. Any
thoughtful legislation must ensure four things: That the lights stay
on, that driving a car stays affordable, energy prices stay
competitive, and that we protect people's jobs. If we think that we can
achieve these goals without a continuing role for domestic fossil
fuels, we're kidding ourselves.
We are addressing global warming, but we are not doing it in a
vacuum. We are also charged with making sure that people in America
have energy that power our jobs, and through them, our people's
opportunity to succeed. If we do our jobs, people will keep their jobs.
I accept that the science on this matter is uneven, uncertain and
evolving. That certainty hasn't changed, but now we seem to be
pressuring ourselves, or someone is pressuring us, to legislate first
and get the facts later. I hope we don't do that. I want to make sure
that we get the best information available so we have a full and
accurate definition of the problem before we start making decisions.
We have to be clear about the issues before us. Discussion of
mandatory steps to cap CO2 often misses the essential fact.
Carbon dioxide, unlike carbon monoxide, and other compounds ending in
``oxide'' is not toxic. It is not a pollutant. Not only is it natural,
it is indispensable for life on this planet.
What we need to understand is how does CO2 fit into the
atmospheric mix? I am told all CO2 is only 0.038 percent of
the atmospheric gases.
How does the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion fit into the
total annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere? I am told it is
only 0.4 percent of this amount.
How does U.S. fossil fuel consumption fit into mankind's overall
share of fossil fuel energy use? I am told it is 22 percent and
shrinking. That means if we shut down 100 percent of all fossil fuels
in the United States, we would
[[Page H7143]]
only reduce CO2 growth in the atmosphere by 0.088 percent.
That is 0.0003 percent of atmospheric gases, and China will be filling
in the gap and then some.
How much will any legislation we consider actually change the total
U.S. emissions and, in turn, change total human emissions and, in turn,
affect global greenhouse gas concentrations?
What will it cost? The people who will pay for our policy decisions
are taxpayers and consumers and workers. What amount is the right
amount to take from them and their families for our policies?
And we need to understand whether well-meaning steps to cap
CO2 here and now will simply drive industry offshore where
control of actual pollution such SOX, NOX,
mercury and particulate is far more lax.
Whether we like it or not, CO2 correlates to national
economic activity. That means jobs and the ability of working families
to thrive is defined by jobs. Despite impressive gains in energy
intensity over the past few years, a basic reality is that with the
technology mix deployed today, to cap CO2 emissions
constraints economic output, jeopardizes economic growth, and
eliminates people's jobs.
It is imperative that we reach rational conclusions, based on real
evidence, about the reliability of our knowledge that CO2
has the sort of impact on planetary temperature as people say.
At an Energy and Commerce hearing earlier this year, we learned that
a cap-and-trade program added 40 percent to the wholesale cost of
electricity in Germany. A cap-and-trade program could lead to real rate
shock for electric consumers. High electricity costs will only drive
manufacturers overseas, and American jobs will go along with them.
This cap-and-trade approach has been proven unworkable in countries
that signed the Kyoto Protocol, and it would be unworkable in the
United States. Few participants in the protocol are on track to achieve
the international targets for carbon emissions reduction. An increasing
number of the countries are unwilling to strangle economic growth
through stricter carbon caps in the future.
Another fundamental flaw with the Kyoto agreement is the exclusion of
India and China from its reach, particularly when China is soon to
claim the distinction of being the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in
the world.
The United States cap-and-trade program would fall the same failed
trajectory as Kyoto. Its artificially high energy costs would cripple
the United States manufacturing base and suppress job creation for
working American families. And that's not all. Two of our greatest
economic competitors in the world market, India and China, won't have
to cap emissions and pay a premium for energy. Those two countries will
laugh all of the way to the bank, and the joke will be on us. They will
use it as an economic weapon.
What is very important when we look at this very important matter, we
need to take our time, we need to gather the facts, and we need to
educate other Members. The decisions we make will impact Americans for
a long time in the future.
Point of Order
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington wish to be
heard on his point of order?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized on
his point of order.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill; and, therefore, violates clause
2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think to strike this because it
authorizes on an appropriations bill would be duplicative of what the
current language does. It also authorizes on an appropriations bill, so
I think the amendment should be made in order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The amendment proposes additional legislation to that permitted to
remain in section 501 by addressing efforts to mitigate climate change
beyond those contained in that section. Such additional legislation
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas
Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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. Barton of Texas:
Strike section 501 (relating to global climate change).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that we just had that
point of order offered by my good friend, Mr. Dicks. Under the Armey
rule, the former majority leader, the chairmen of the authorizing
committees could send letters to the Rules Committee on appropriation
bills and any part of the appropriation bill that was actually
legislating on an appropriation bill, there was a standing point of
order made in order that you could strike it.
So we wouldn't have had the Sullivan amendment and we would not have
the amendment that I am about to offer if the current chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, had sent such a letter to
the Rules Committee asking to reserve the point of order on this
section 501. But Chairman Dingell didn't do that, and so it is in the
bill and Mr. Dicks can make a point of order that an amendment to it
should be struck because it is legislating on an appropriation bill.
What a great place this body is that we work in.
So what my amendment does is pretty straightforward. It strikes
section 501. That cannot be ruled out of order. It can be voted down,
and we will have a vote on this. But the Davis amendment that I am
offering on his behalf can't be struck on a point of order.
What is it about this section 501 that is so onerous? Let me briefly
synthesize what it says. I think it says some things that are factually
incorrect.
It says that the Congress finds that greenhouse gases accumulating in
the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate
outside the range of natural variability. I think that a factually
incorrect statement. It is a true statement that the temperature
apparently is rising compared to what it was 150 years ago. In the late
1840s and early 1850s, temperature averages at most places that kept
temperature records at that time were 1 to 2 degrees cooler than they
are now. And the temperature appears to be going up. That is a true
statement.
But I don't think that it is true that the temperature rate increase
is outside the range of natural variability. The one thing about
climate that is constant is that it is constantly changing.
The second incorrect statement is subparagraph 2 where it says there
is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial
cause of greenhouse gas accumulation.
Now I think it is indisputable that as we burn many of the
hydrocarbons, obviously they are releasing CO2 which is a
greenhouse gas and that is accumulating in the atmosphere. That is a
true statement. But whether that is a substantial cause is yet to be
determined.
I would point out that the largest greenhouse gas by far is
H2O, water vapor. When you see a cloud in the sky, you are
seeing a greenhouse gas accumulation in the sky. And water vapor is
over 90 percent of all greenhouse gases. CO2, carbon
dioxide, is less than \3/10\ of 1 percent. So how could something that
is such a small percentage be the cause of this temperature increase?
It is an interesting theory, but it is yet to be proven.
In any event, because of these first two paragraphs, we get to the
meat of the issue in section 501, and that is mandatory steps are
required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
Mandatory. Coercive. You have to do it whether you want to or not. You
have to do it whether it makes sense or not.
[[Page H7144]]
We are far from a place, in my opinion, where we need to begin to
legislate mandatory approaches, and that's what is so bad about this
section 501. Now you may argue it is a sense of the Congress what is it
going to do. It is just to show where we are. Well, I would point out
that in the late 1970s, early 1980s, you begin to have these temporary
1-year moratoriums on drilling off the coast of various parts of our
country. They seemed relatively harmless at the time. What could be
wrong with that?
{time} 1745
That has grown into such a significant part that it's almost
impossible right now to drill anywhere in the United States that we
haven't already been drilling for the last hundred years. There's a
limit to how many holes we can drill in Texas. We've drilled over 2
million since 1901. We've found a lot of oil and gas, but at some point
in time, we've got to drill where we haven't drilled before. In any
event, section 501 is bad public policy and this amendment would strike
it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Becerra). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I appreciate that.
The language in title V of this bill is identical to language added
by the Appropriations Committee last year to the FY 2007 Interior bill
when the Appropriations Committee was being run by the minority party
of today. Since that time, this sense of the Congress has been
supported by both an international scientific body and the United
States Supreme Court.
First, the sense of Congress states that ``there is a growing
scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of
greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.'' So far this year, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group consisting of
hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, has issued two reports on
the science of climate change, with a third report to be issued later
this year. The panel's first report, issued in February, concluded that
there is an overwhelming probability, at least 90 percent certainty,
that human activities are warming the planet at a dangerous rate, with
consequences that could take decades or centuries to reverse. The
panel's second report on the consequences of global warming concluded
``with high confidence'' that greenhouse gases produced by human
activity has already triggered changes in ecosystems on both land and
sea. As evidence, the report cited longer growing seasons, earlier
leaf-unfolding and earlier egg-laying by birds, traceable to human
activity. The report estimates that 20 to 30 percent of the world's
species could be in danger of extinction.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, who I think did a
good job as chairman of the Commerce Committee, but this is a sense of
Congress. It's the authorizing committees that will enact the
legislation. What this does is express concern that this problem must
be addressed.
Clearly, the sense of Congress correctly captures the state of global
change science.
Second, the sense of Congress states that mandatory steps will be
required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into
the atmosphere. In April of this year, the United States Supreme Court
ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases from
automobiles. The court also held that EPA has the discretion not to
regulate only under very limited scenarios. This decision has been
widely interpreted to force the administration to propose regulations
to control greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the Supreme Court agrees
with what I would consider our sense of Congress resolution.
Again, I state my opposition to the gentleman's amendment and urge a
``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. I just wanted to mention to the chairman and to the House
that even though this is a sense of Congress, I think that it is
opposed enough in the way it is worded that the amendment should be
agreed to and the language should be stricken. For example, in the very
beginning, where, number one, it says, ``greenhouse gases accumulating
in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate
outside the range of natural variability,'' we had a lot of testimony
in this Subcommittee of Interior about this very issue. It was very
clear that the scientists that study this say that we have large gaps
in the scientific data, and it is still inconclusive.
One of the great examples of this is the ocean itself. The ocean
itself is a carbon bank. It retains carbon sometimes. When it gets
warmer, it actually allows carbon to go up into the atmosphere in the
form of CO2. That in itself brings the question whether
carbon in our atmosphere is a cause of heat or whether heat is a cause
of carbon in the air. If you look at the core samples that are found in
the Antarctic which have been drilled down to go back and date what our
environment was like hundreds of thousands of years ago, we find that
there is a high carbon content in our atmosphere when our earth was
warmer. And we do know that our earth is getting warmer. In fact,
10,000 years ago, Kansas was covered by a sheet of ice.
Just a weekend ago or so, I was back there playing golf, and I can
tell you for sure, there is no ice covering the State of Kansas today.
Why? Because the earth is getting warmer. But for us to say that the
cause is human-induced raises the question. Even the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change when they looked at it this year, revised their
estimate of the ocean going up because of climate change, from going up
to 36 inches. They revised it downward to only going up 17 inches. So
that means that they were half off.
They said that, as far as climate change, it's human-induced, and
they have a 90 percent confidence level. Well, if that's based on their
estimate of what the water level is going to be 10 years or 50 years
from now, then they are admittedly 50 percent off, so that means
they've only got a 45 percent confidence level. That means less than
half.
My point is that there is no growing scientific consensus on the
cause of climate change. In fact, it may be a normal cycle that we're
going through. And, in fact, it may be a cycle that is moving us into a
cooler climate rather than a warmer climate. So this language, I think,
makes assumptions that are based on data that is inconclusive. The
scientists tell us there are gaps in the data. It certainly isn't a
consensus of Congress from my view. So I would think that we should
adopt the gentleman's amendment.
I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to comment briefly on what Chairman Dicks said about this
being in the bill last year. He is factually correct. We reserved a
point of order on it last year. And the member of the committee that I
chaired at the time who was supposed to make the point of order was
caught in the cloakroom eating a candy bar, and the crafty
appropriators closed the title before we could make the point of order.
So it was in the bill last year only because we were asleep at the
switch when it was our turn to raise the point of order. At least I'm
not asleep at the switch this year.
Mr. DICKS. I would hope we're not asleep at the switch again, as the
planet is heating up, and climate change is occurring.
Mr. TIAHRT. I agree that the temperature is going up. It's the cause
that is a concern for me. The wording here says that we already know
what the cause is and we should move forward and try to do something to
stop it, and that includes some very drastic types of actions,
including caps and market-based limits on incentives, mandatory market-
based limits, I might say. It's my view that those things have not been
successful in the past. In fact, when we did mandatory limits, I
thought we ended up with gas lines and higher gas prices. That's my
view.
I would ask that my colleagues here in the House accept this
amendment and vote for it.
[[Page H7145]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. Bishop of Utah:
At the end of the bill, before the long title, add the
following new section:
``Sec. __. No funds made available by this Act shall be
used to condemn land.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in my short time as the ranking
member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
I have already heard a number of stories from property owners who have
been threatened or bullied with the hammer of eminent domain. Thousands
of acres each year are taken from private citizens and against their
will in order to expand our national parks and our national forests.
This is done in spite of the fact that the Federal Government has so
much land it cannot possibly manage what it already has.
Landowners, when faced with the possibility of a long, protracted war
against bureaucrats, land managers and legions of Federal lawyers,
often choose simply to walk away. What is most outrageous then is the
fact that these people are then labeled by us as willing sellers.
This has happened to landowners across our Nation. We've had examples
from people living near the Everglades in Florida, to the Cape Cod
National Seashore in Massachusetts, to Voyageurs National Park in
Minnesota, just a few places where there has been, in my estimation,
egregious abuse by the Federal Government.
I have letters from a family in Maine who endured 20 years in a
battle with the Federal Government. They wrote that the negotiations
between my family and the Park Service over what could have been a
simple land donation exceeded 20 years and had a serious, long-term
detrimental effect on my family, the ski area they owned, the
surrounding community. Eventually, after millions of dollars were lost
and countless hours of time from high-ranking State and Federal
officials were consumed, strained professional careers of an entire at-
risk community and the negative health and financial repercussions of
my family members, this issue was finally resolved. For now.
Here is another example of a Franciscan friar who talked about the
threats of eminent domain that hanged over his ministry for years and
years and years. In his words, again, simply over 118 acres of the
friar's property: We offered the National Park Service the opportunity
to switch back the trail to the original setting, so that not only the
trail could be maintained, but there would be a natural environment for
it. But the National Park Service refused this option and threatened to
proceed with eminent domain. There is no reason that that friar and his
ministry should have had that hanging over his head for years and years
and years.
Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Interior has the power in statute for
using this hammer of eminent domain. Even today, when we do
authorization bills, we don't even have the sense to try and limit that
kind of authority or power. Even in those situations where it is
clearly said in the testimony and in the hearings that they do not want
to use eminent domain, we do nothing to try and stop that potential
authority. If we really say that we don't want to use eminent domain to
acquire these lands, we ought as well use the logical step of saying
so.
In light of the Kelo decision, so many people are now aware of the
potential abuse by government entities on private property through the
use of eminent domain, now is the time for us clearly to say that
private property is important, and it should be respected by the
Federal Government. That's exactly what this amendment tries to do, is
to clarify that we do respect private property; we respect it, and we
will not use eminent domain to take land away from private citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
We will accept the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on that
last motion.
Mr. DICKS. I think the time has expired, Mr. Chairman. This was not
done in a timely way.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is correct. The
gentleman from Utah's request was not timely.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try one thing here. I will ask under
unanimous consent.
Mr. DICKS. I object.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. 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. 7 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas:
Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to promulgate or implement the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed regulations published in the
Federal Register on January 3, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 69).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
{time} 1800
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I
would like to commend the gentleman from Washington and Chairman Dicks
and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for their good work on this
underlying bill.
The amendment I offered today stems directly from concerns I have
over a recently proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency
that could radically alter the current interpretation of the Clean Air
Act and adversely impact public health.
On December 21 last year, 4 days before Christmas, EPA introduced a
cleverly timed proposal that would essentially weaken hazardous air
pollutant emission standards for major sources of pollution as defined
by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. My amendment would prohibit the
use of fiscal year 2008 funds by EPA to promulgate this ill-advised and
environmentally dangerous proposal.
Currently, major sources, major source polluters, facilities that
emit 10 tons per year of a single air toxin or 25 tons per year of any
combination of toxic pollutants are required to comply with the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology standards, called MACT, permanently, a
policy adopted in 1995 known as Once In, Always In.''
MACT standards are technology-based area emission standards
established under title 3 of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment.
Compliance with MACT standards can require facility owners and
operators to meet emission limits, install emission control
technologies, monitor emissions and/or operating parameters and use
specified work practices.
These public safeguard standards have proven most effective in
reducing
[[Page H7146]]
toxic, harmful, cancer-causing eye pollutants such as mercury,
chlorine, benzene, methanol and asbestos. If EPA's proposed rule were
to take effect, industrial facilities could emit hazardous air
pollutants at levels just below 10/25 major source thresholds and not
be subject to the MACT standards.
This move has been criticized by the State clean air agencies, our
regional officers, our major metropolitan leaders, as well as the
county leaders and environmental groups. A majority of EPA's own
regional offices initially excluded from viewing and providing input on
the proposed policy have been highly critical of the proposed rule
citing health and emission concerns.
EPA has done very little to justify such a dramatic shift in
congressional intent or the agency's own long-standing interpretation.
Moreover, the Agency has performed very little, if any, substantive
emissions analysis, and they have performed no public health analysis
for any industrial sector. In my view the Agency's proposed rule
represents another installment of regulatory attacks designed to gut
the Clean Air Act.
The public health of this Nation should not be forced to take the
back seat to the interest of big polluters. The congressional
authorities captured in section 112 of Clean Air Act are intended to
ensure that major source emitters of hazardous air pollutants are
required to comply with MACT standards permanently to ensure that the
elimination of air toxics are achieved and maintained in the interest
of public health.
In 1995, upon adoption of the ``once in, always in'' policy, EPA
stated the following:
``EPA believes that this once in, always in policy follows most
naturally from the language and structure of the [Clean Air Act]
statute. In many cases, application of MACT will reduce a major
emitter's emissions to levels substantially below the major thresholds.
``Without a once in, always in policy, these facilities could
'backslide' from MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit
limits, escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing
emissions to the major source threshold.
``Thus, the maximum achievable emission reductions that Congress
mandated from major sources would not be achieved.
``A once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emission reductions
are permanent, and that the health and environment protection provided
by MACT standards is not undermined.''
In the Federal Register, the Agency raged on and on about how great
the proposed rule is for major source polluters, because it will create
incentives for industry to reduce emissions.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. When it comes to quantifying the
implications of this proposal on the environment and public health of
this Nation, the Agency is silent.
The burden of proof regarding soundness of this proposed rule rests
squarely on the shoulders of EPA. Thus far, the Agency has failed, at
best, to make even a lackluster case.
My constituents in Dallas and the surrounding area are already
burdened by the scarlet letter of nonattainment. I refuse to let their
public health be subject to another further deterioration from a
proposal laced with tortured assumptions. This is an unsound policy
that should be stopped.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting clean air, a healthy
environment, and a strong Clean Air Act. Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson
amendment and the Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill.
While I appreciate the vigor of the opposing side's view on this
matter, it is my respectful view that they are simply wrong on this
matter.
I would like to amplify an area of concern raised by EPA's own
regional offices regarding enforcement should the once in, always in
policy be negated.
In a 2005 Regional Memorandum to EPA Headquarters, the regions assert
the following:
A related concern with regard to the draft changes as
written is that a facility, by changing from a major source
to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid
regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against
them.
Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT
standard, and has 3 years from the date the rule is
promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and
just before the end of that time period, the facility
announces its area source status.
If an area source regulation exists, there may also be some
equivalent waiting period before the facility is required to
comply with the area source requirements.
If the facility later announces that it is after all, a
major source, then it may again enter a grace period,
possibly up to another 3 years, before it is subject to the
MACT standard requirements.
Thus, by continually going back and forth between major and
area source status, a facility could be a major source
[polluter] for most of its operating life and never have to
comply with the MACT standard requirements.
Again Mr. Chairman, these are not my words but those of EPA's own
regional offices.
Mr. Chairman, my congressional district lies within the heart of EPA
Region 6. Throughout Region 6 there are approximately 3,000 major
source polluters according to EPA data.
If EPA's rule were to take effect, based on the guidance of EPA's own
regional offices I just referenced, 3,000 major source polluters could
continually backslide on a public health safeguard meant to minimize my
constituent's exposure to toxic, cancer causing air pollutants.
Clearly, this was not the intent of Congress as reflected in Section
112 of the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a memorandum dated December
13, 2005, from Michael S. Bandrowski, Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and
Indoor Air Office, Region IX, of the Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX.
San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2005.
Regional Comments on Draft OIAI Policy Revisions
David Cozzie,
Group Leader, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Thank you for allowing the Regional Offices the opportunity
to comment on the draft proposed changes to the General
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, intended to replace EPA's Once-
in-Always-In (OIAI) policy established in a May 16, 1995,
memorandum entitled, ``Potential to Emit for MACT standards--
Guidance on Timing Issues,'' from John S. Seitz to the
Regional Air Directors. A draft copy of the proposed changes,
dated November 16, 2005, was received by Region IX on
November 30, 2005, and we shared this copy with the Regional
Offices. As sub-lead Region for air toxics, we have
summarized and consolidated the feedback received from the
Regional Offices, and are forwarding these Regional comments
and concerns through this memo. Eight Regions provided
comments. For your convenience, the original comments from
each Regional Office are included as attachments to this
memo.
Over the years, many questions and implementation issues
have arisen that have initiated the reconsideration of the
OIAI policy. The new revisions being planned by OAQPS would
essentially negate the original policy, and this change would
be codified in the 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions. This
change in policy would have major implications for
implementation and enforcement of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards. The Regional Offices,
therefore, appreciate the opportunity to review and comment
on HQ drafts before the revisions are proposed in the Federal
Register for public comment. However, we are disappointed
that OAQPS formulated revisions to the OIAI policy without
seeking Regional input and was reluctant to share the draft
policy with the Regional Offices. This trend of excluding the
Regional Offices from involvement in rule and policy
development efforts is disturbing. We are requesting that
OAQPS establish a means for Regional input during the
development of future policies and rules.
With regard to the OIAI policy, all the Regional Offices
that submitted comments acknowledged the need for a change
from the 1995 guidance in limited circumstances. For example,
if EPA finalizes the delisting of methyl ethyl ketone as a
hazardous air pollutant (HAP), it would be logical for EPA to
allow existing major sources of HAPs to reevaluate their PTE,
excluding emissions of methyl ethyl ketone. Likewise, if a
source eliminates, or significantly reduces their use of
HAPs, then it would be reasonable for EPA to allow such a
source to reevaluate MACT standard applicability. In
addition, certain pollution prevention benefits may follow in
circumstances where a source has an incentive to obtain
actual reductions in emissions of HAPs equivalent to or
greater than the level required by the MACT standard with
less burden and cost. Overall, the Regions support the intent
behind the draft proposed amendments to provide incentive to
companies for engaging in emission-reducing activities.
Several Regions also explicitly stated their support of
revising the policy through a public rulemaking process and
encouraging sources to explore different control technologies
and pollution prevention
[[Page H7147]]
options to reduce emissions and potential to emit (PTE). One
Region was supportive of the change in policy as drafted.
However, all other Regional Offices expressed varying degrees
of concern about allowing any source to take synthetic minor
limits at any time, for any reason. The concerns are
described below, followed by suggestions for addressing these
concerns while still encouraging existing MACT sources to
take actions towards pollution prevention. Our comments are
organized as follows:
Health and Emissions Concerns
1. Reversal of Position with Inadequate Justification
The May 16, 1995, Seitz memo regarding potential to emit
for MACT standards states: EPA believes that this once in,
always in policy follows most naturally from the language and
structure of the statute. In many cases, application of MACT
will reduce a major emitter's emissions to levels
substantially below the major thresholds. Without a once in,
always in policy, these facilities could ``backslide'' from
MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit limits,
escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing
emissions to the major-source threshold (10/25 tons per
year).
Thus, the maximum achievable emissions reductions that
Congress mandated for major sources would not be achieved. A
once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emissions
reductions are permanent, and that the health and
environmental protection provided by MACT standards is not
undermined. (See page 9)
Elsewhere, the Seitz memo states: In the absence of a
rulemaking record supporting a different result, EPA believes
that once a source is required to install controls or take
other measures to comply with a MACT standard, it should not
be able to substitute different controls of measures that
happen to bring the source below major source levels. (See
page 5)
While it is true that policy is not set in stone, and that
policy decisions may be reversed, the preamble, as currently
drafted, does not set forth an adequate rulemaking record to
justify this drastic change in interpretation. In 1995, EPA
believed that the OIAI policy follows ``most naturally'' from
the language and structure of the statute, and that allowing
facilities to backslide would undermine the maximum
achievable emissions reductions mandated by Congress. Now, in
2005, EPA is claiming that ``there is nothing in the statute
which compels the conclusion that a source cannot attain area
source status after the first compliance date of a MACT
standard'' (see page 15 of the draft proposed changes). In
order to provide an adequate rulemaking record, the preamble
should more clearly articulate why EPA no longer believes
that the OIAI policy flows naturally from the statute.
2. Increased HAP Emissions Resulting from Abandoning MACT
Control Levels
The Clean Air Act requires the maximum degree of reduction
in emissions of HAPs from sources subject to the MACT
standards. The reductions anticipated through the MACT
program will not be achieved through the strategy described
in the draft rule proposal. A key concern is that the draft
proposal allows facilities to obtain synthetic minor permits
after the MACT standard compliance date by taking potentially
less protective requirements than the MACT standard would
otherwise require them to install. The proposal, as written,
would be detrimental to the environment and undermine the
intent of the MACT program.
Many MACT standards require affected facilities to reduce
their HAP levels at a control efficiency of 95% and higher.
In many instances, the MACT requirements could lead to
greater reductions when compared to sources accepting
synthetic minor limits of 24 tons per year (tpy) for a
combination of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. Clearly, the
intent in promulgating MACT standards was to reduce emissions
to the extent feasible, not just to the minor source level.
However, under the current draft proposal, the reductions
that were intended to be achieved through the MACT standards
would be offset by synthetic minor limits that allow sources
to emit HAPs at levels higher than those allowed by the MACT
standard. The cost of the increased HAP emissions would be
borne by the communities surrounding the sources. On pages 15
and 16 of the draft preamble, EPA states:
``A concern has been raised that sources that are currently
well below the major source threshold will increase emissions
to a point just below the threshold. We believe these
concerns are unfounded. While this may occur in some
instances, it is more likely that sources will adopt PTE
limitations at or near their current levels to avoid negative
publicity and to maintain their appearance as responsible
businesses.''
This statement is unfounded and overly optimistic. Regional
experience indicates that sources requesting synthetic minor
limits to avoid a MACT standard typicaI1y request, and are
frequently given, limits of at least 24 tpy for a combination
of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. The Regional Offices
anticipate that many sources would take limits less stringent
than MACT requirements, if allowed. Thus, the cumulative
impact of many ``area'' sources whose status is derived after
the MACT compliance date could be significant. This change in
policy would offset the intended environmental benefits of
the MACT standards. Although the draft changes could serve to
alleviate some possible inequity under the current OIAI
policy, or encourage some sources to further reduce emissions
to achieve area source status, EPA should look closely at
this issue to determine whether the likely benefits would be
greater than the potential environmental costs. This analysis
should occur before the proposal is put forth for public
comment. One Region suggested that EPA should not enact a
policy allowing facilities to qualify out of the MACT
standards until a strong area source toxics program is in
place, or until state, local and tribal air quality agencies
have programs that can provide an equivalent level of
protection.
A related concern with regard to the draft changes as
written is that a facility, by changing from a major source
to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid
regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against
them. Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT
standard, and has three years from the date that the rule is
promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and
just before the end of that time period, the facility
announces its area source status. If an area source
regulation exists, there may also be some equivalent waiting
period before the facility is required to comply with the
area source requirements. If the facility later announces
that it is, after all, a major source, then it may again
enter a grace period, possibly up to another 3 years, before
it is subject to the MACT standard requirements. Thus, by
continually going back and forth between major and area
source status, a facility could be a major source for most of
its operating life and never have to comply with the MACT
standard requirements. The 1995 OIAI policy recognizes this
and states, ``The EPA believes the structure of section 112
strongly suggests certain outer limits for when a source may
avoid a standard through a limit on its potential to emit.''
This type of problem must be addressed if the OIAI policy is
changed.
Michael S. Bandrowski,
Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and Indoor Air Office, Region
IX.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlelady's
amendment. EPA's proposed rule would weaken almost every air toxic rule
issued since 1990 by allowing some air pollution sources to increase
their emissions. EPA purports that the proposed changes would encourage
more sources to strive for additional reductions of toxic air
pollution. Yet the EPA cannot provide concrete data to support this
assumption and has avoided quantifying the environmental impacts of
this proposal.
In fact, when given the opportunity to comment on the proposal, EPA's
own regional office expressed significant concerns about the increase
in emissions that will likely occur from the revisions to the existing
policy.
I congratulate the gentlelady on her amendment and urge that the
committee accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The
administration proposed the rule, and the reason for it is simple, and
it is to provide incentives and to encourage industry to lower
emissions. It reminds me of the story when the Kansan went over across
the river to visit Missouri.
The story goes that he took the ferry across, and he was picked up by
a gentleman who had a cart with a mule in front of it. The gentleman
was dangling a carrot in front of the mule. The mule would move
forward, and that incentive got the mule to move.
So he went down to the courthouse in Saint Joseph, and he conducted
his business. Then he went back out to get a ride back to the ferry,
and there was another gentleman with a cart and a mule. So he hopped in
the back of the cart and he said, I would like to go back to the ferry.
And the mule skinner said, ``Giddyap,'' and the mule did not move. So
he got out of the car and he pulled out a 2 by 4, and he whacked the
mule in the head. The guy from Kansas said, ``well, why'd you do
that.'' He said, ``well, I had to get the mule's attention.'' He got
back in the cart, and he said, ``Giddyap.''
The man from Kansas said, ``Wouldn't it have been better if you gave
the mule an incentive, like a carrot,'' and he explained the whole
story.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the companies have no incentives under the old
Clinton policy to reduce pollution, because once designated as a major
source, they are always designated as a major source. As a result,
companies are stuck at certain levels of pollution and
[[Page H7148]]
not provided with any incentive, no carrot whatsoever to lower their
emissions below that level.
Over the last decade, pollution prevention methods have changed, and
many companies are now embracing the economics of environmental
protection. EPA is currently reviewing the public comments on this
proposed rule, and we should allow that process to move forward.
The bottom line is, if there is even a chance that this proposed rule
would encourage more sources to strive for additional reductions of
toxic air pollution with these new incentives, then we should encourage
that action.
I therefore urge a ``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
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes 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 gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. Bishop of Utah:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
``Sec.__. No funds made available by this Act may be made
available through a grant to any Internal Revenue Code
501(c)(3) organization who is a party to a lawsuit against
the dispensing agency.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington's reservation is
not timely.
The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, there is something that is
happening in the Department of Interior that is disturbing. So-called
nonprofits, many of them financed by wealthy individuals, are lining up
with their hands extended, requesting and accepting government handouts
in the form of grants.
Then what do these nonprofits do with the taxpayers' money? They come
back and they sue the same agents that wrote them a check.
At the same time, these 501(c)(3)s complain that the agencies are
then underfunded. Now it's difficult to see how land management
agencies are ever going to have enough money to take care of their
responsibilities and appease the nonprofits when a good chunk of their
budget is siphoned off yearly by defending themselves against endless
lawsuits.
501(c)(3)s have a great system. It's a very efficient business model
for them. It does defy logic except in what we call the bureaucracy of
the Federal Government. These nonprofits bite the hand that feeds them,
and the hand simply can't stop itself from feeding them even more.
After biting the hand, they then go out and find more money to continue
the assault, line their pockets, all along touting their advocacies on
behalf of the hand they had just bitten.
My amendment provides a potential remedy to this disturbing and
increasing trend. It would prohibit funds in this bill from being
dispersed to 501(c)(3)s that are party to litigation against the
dispensing agency. In other words, if you are suing the Department of
the Interior, you are not eligible to receive money from the Department
of the Interior.
I believe, as everyone does, in the right to sue, but it defies logic
that we would ask taxpayers to finance litigation against themselves.
The taxpayer ends up paying twice, first in the form of the handouts to
the nonprofit, and then when the government's attorney needs to be paid
for defending it.
Keep in mind, this also diverts money from critical needs on our
public land. The maintenance backlog on our lands is well documented,
reaches into billions of dollars, and we can't even say the taxpayers
are even hit a third time when they try to access these multiple-use
public lands only to find out that the particular activity is currently
off limits due to ongoing litigation brought on by so-called nonprofit
advocacy groups generously financed by the taxpayers.
Now some may say that there are legitimate reasons to take the
government to court. I would agree with that statement. But I would not
agree that it's the government's responsibility to fund that complaint,
especially the same government entity you are at the same time suing.
This amendment is very simple. If a nonprofit organization can afford
to finance elaborate fundraising campaigns to enrich themselves,
certainly they can afford to sue the government on their own dime.
Don't let these organizations sell you underchronic underfunding of
agency X, Y and Z when they, themselves, are draining that agency from
resources by the millions. This two-faced scheme must be stopped. It's
time for us to show the taxpayers some respect and stop playing this
type of a game with their money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while straightforward is not
what it seems. While it seems logical that we should not issue grants
to any group that is in litigation with the agency issuing the grant,
that could result in far-reaching consequences. Even the gentleman, I
don't think, could predict accurately all of the implications of this.
For instance, this amendment could very well impact programs in
Indian country. Many tribes choose to create, through separate
organizing documents, an entity separate from the tribe that does not
have sovereign powers and is organized exclusively for purposes
described under IRC section 501(c)(3).
{time} 1815
Here are some examples of non-profit groups within Indian Country:
United Tribes Technical College, the Inter-tribal Bison Council, the
Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest, the Native American Chamber of
Commerce, the National Congress of American Indians.
If organizations such as these were involved in any litigation
against the Department of the Interior, they would be ineligible to
receive grants. Now, I remind the Chair that many tribal organizations
across the Nation are in litigation with the Department of the
Interior. Are we to deny the services these groups provide to Indian
Country because they have longstanding legal disputes with the U.S.
Government?
In addition to Indian Country, there are many wildlife conservation
groups whose grassroots members provide thousands of hours of services
to agencies in this bill. Groups that help the agencies with natural
resource education, wildlife and habitat management, maintenance and
upkeep of our national wildlife refuges and parks, and many other
important efforts. These groups would be denied grants to provide those
services because their parent organizations are involved in litigation
regarding a legitimate difference in policy with the United States.
I think this is an ill-advised amendment, and I strongly urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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. 20 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
[[Page H7149]]
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to eliminate or restrict programs that are for the
reforestation of urban areas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, and
it sends a very important message to the United States Congress. As I
do that, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the
chairman of the subcommittee and all of those who are prepared to work
in a bipartisan manner. I can see that the tone has changed on this
particular bill because this is an amendment that was accepted last
year.
My amendment is simple, as I said. It emphasizes the importance of
urban forests and preserves our ability to return urban areas to
healthy and safe living environments for our children. An identical
amendment was offered to last year's appropriations bill, H.R. 5386,
and was adopted by voice vote.
This amendment emphasizes surveys that indicate that some urban
forests are in serious danger. In the past 30 years alone, we have lost
30 percent of all our urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees.
Some of it has been lost to devastating natural disasters. For example,
in my travels to New Orleans, as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
huge numbers of trees, maybe thousands, were seen either strewn around
or laying upon piles of debris.
Eighty percent of the American population lives in dense quarters of
a city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete
area that can help remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and
agricultural waste in water and save communities millions of dollars in
storm water management costs. I have certainly seen neighborhoods in
Houston benefit from urban reforestation, as it would across the
Nation.
In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have a
beneficial effect on a community's health, both physical and
psychological, as well as increase property values of the surrounding
real estate.
Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban
sprawl and/or deterioration. In this age of climate change and global
warming, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves both
the protection of existing natural resources and active support for
restoration improvement projects.
In 1999, American Forests, a conservation group, estimated that the
tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973
to 1997 resulted in additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water
runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm
water control facilities to manage.
For those of us who live in areas 50 feet below sea level, as I do,
in the gulf region, we know how important it is for trees to be amongst
us.
This amendment is very simple. It is an encouragement based upon
existing legislation that indicates that trees are important to clean
air, it is important to prevent extreme flooding, storm water runoff,
and certainly, it is a cooling factor in these days when temperatures
are rising enormously high.
I would hope my colleagues would be sensitive to the bipartisan
commitment to reforestation and move this amendment forward so that we
as a Nation can stand on the record for the greening of America,
treeing of America, all over, no matter what region you're in.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to
H.R. 2643, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act of 2008, and
to commend Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for their
leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative process.
Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service,
the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which
operates our national museums including the National Zoo.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important
message from the Congress of the United States. My amendment emphasizes
the importance of urban forests, and preserves our ability to return
urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children.
An identical amendment was offered to last year's appropriations bill,
H.R. 5386, and was adopted by voice vote.
Mr. Chairman, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious
danger. In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our
urban trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.
Eighty percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters
of a city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete
area that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and
agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars
in storm water management costs. I have certainly seen neighborhoods in
Houston benefit from urban reforestation.
In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have
beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and
psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real
estate.
Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban
sprawl and/or deterioration. In this age of climate change and global
warming, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves both
the protection of existing natural resources and active support for
restoration and improvement projects.
In 1999, American Forests, a conservation group, estimated that the
tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973
to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water
runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm
water control facilities to manage.
Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen. People breathe
in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. A typical person consumes about 38
lbs of oxygen per year. A healthy tree, say a 32-ft tall ash tree, can
produce about 260 lbs of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen
needs of a person for a year!
Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and
pollen with their leaves. A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 lbs of
the small particles and gases of air pollution. They help combat the
effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased carbon dioxide produced
from burning fossil fuels that is causing our atmosphere to ``heat
up.''
Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt,
concrete and metal surfaces. Buildings and paving in city centers
create a heat-island effect. A mature tree canopy reduces air
temperatures by about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit. A 25-foot tree reduces
annual heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by 8 to 12
percent, producing an average $10 savings per American household.
Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and
reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.
Mr. Chairman, trees play a vital role in making our cities more
sustainable and more liveable. My amendment simply provides for
continued support to programs that reforest our urban areas.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment
and thank Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for their
courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together this
excellent legislation.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Texas if this is
the same language that she offered last year.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. To the ranking member, yes. The amendment
is the same language. It is a limitation, the same language that was
offered last year.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to accept the amendment.
[[Page H7150]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Dent
Mr. DENT. 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. 13 offered by Mr. Dent:
H.R. 2643
Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce section 20(b)(1)
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to make four points about this
amendment that I'm offering here today. First, the expansion of Indian
or tribal gambling, particularly off-reservation casino gambling, has
gone far beyond what was intended by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
of 1988.
Twenty years ago, there were no tribal casinos. Today, there are
approximately 406 Indian casinos in 29 States.
Revenue from Indian gambling has gone from $0 to $19 billion in 20
years. These extraordinary profits have caused casino interests to form
alliances with tribes in order to establish more profitable casinos in
locations far removed from existing reservations.
The second point I want to make, and there are very specific examples
of ``reservation shopping,'' as we like to refer to this. One, the St.
Regis Bank of Mohawk Indians is trying to build a casino 350 miles from
its reservation.
The Bad River Band of Lake Superior and St. Croix Chippewa Indians of
Wisconsin are trying to build a casino in Michigan, over 300 miles from
its existing reservation.
The Pueblo of Jemez of New Mexico are trying to build a casino in
Anthony, New Mexico, over 290 miles from its reservation.
The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, along with the Menominee Tribe of
Wisconsin, is trying to build the largest casino between New Jersey and
Las Vegas in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over 1,000 miles from the Mohegan
lands in Connecticut.
As of May 2006, there were some 40 applications to approve new casino
operations pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, casinos that are,
for the most part, destined for off-reservation sites.
The third point I want to make is that the expansion of tribal
gambling has had a corrupting influence on the political system and has
forced local municipalities and homeowners to go to court to
essentially protect their properties from casino interests anxious to
seize their lands.
Tribal casino profits are high, and regulation of tribal gaming
profits is minimal. As a result, Jack Abramoff was able to take an
estimated $85 million from the Mississippi Choctaw and other tribes. He
was able to use some of this money to bribe entities within the
political system, sometimes to further the interest of one client as
against those of another.
Casino interests have also allied with local Indian tribes to sue
municipalities and landowners. In the 15th District of Pennsylvania,
which I represent, the Delaware Nation, which is actually based in
Oklahoma, filed in Federal court to establish title to a 315-acre tract
of land in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, near Easton, so that it
could build a gambling facility. Its claim was based in part on a
conveyance that ostensibly occurred in 1737, well before the
establishment of our country.
More than 25 families live on this property, and it is also home of
the Crayola Company, which makes the much beloved Crayola crayons that
our children all enjoy.
Although the suit was ultimately resolved in favor of the homeowners
and the plaintiffs lost in every courtroom, the deep-pocketed interests
behind this lawsuit were able to fund this litigation all the way to
the United States Supreme Court, causing no small amount of
apprehension among the innocent home owners and business owners here.
Tribal organizations do recognize that there are problems with this
expansion. Several support meaningful limitations on off-reservation
tribal gambling.
And the fourth and final point that I would like to make about this
amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that the time has come for Congress to step
in. This amendment is the first step towards reforming a system that
has simply spun out of control.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs published proposed regulations on
October 5, 2006, but these regulations are weak and do not adopt
meaningful criteria or standards.
The Congress must step in and reassert its regulatory authority over
off-reservation gambling by enacting comprehensive reform of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Until that's done, we need to have a
moratorium on off-reservation gambling, which this amendment will, in
effect, accomplish.
The amendment directs specifically that no funds shall be expended to
process any applications for off-reservation casinos under section
20(b)(1) of IGRA of fiscal year 2008.
The amendment will have no impact, and let me repeat this: The
amendment will have no impact on existing on-or off-reservation casino
operations, as they have already gone through the BIA approval process.
This will not impact any tribal casino that is currently operating on-
or off-reservation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I understand the gentleman's concern on this complex
issue. And I also withdraw my point of order.
I understand the gentleman's concern on this complex issue, but the
Bureau of Indian Affairs has a process for putting land into trust. We
should not interfere with that process.
When an American tribe decides it wants to engage in gaming
activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on a parcel of land
that is not already into trust, it must go through an exhaustive
application process that determines if a gaming establishment on newly
acquired land will be in the best interest of the tribe and its
members, and not detrimental to the surrounding community.
Additionally, the Department is currently drafting regulations that
will implement section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by
articulating standards that the Department will follow in interpreting
the various exceptions to the gaming prohibition on after-acquired
trust lands. We need to let that process go forward.
Even if the Department approves a tribe's request, the Governor of
the State must also agree. To interfere with this process circumvents
the Gaming Regulatory Act, interferes with an established process in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and should not be included in an
appropriations bill.
And I want to say that again. This should be in an authorization
bill. And if the gentleman is concerned, take it to the Natural
Resources Committee or the committee of jurisdiction. That's where this
should be worked out, not here on this appropriations bill.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out the fact that this
problem has simply spun out of control in this country. Last session,
we attempted to deal with this in a bill that would restrict off-site.
Off-reservation tribal gambling was defeated. I think we need to try
this again.
The regulations that were mentioned are simply weak and not
meaningful enough, in my view, and I think we need the proposed
regulations.
{time} 1830
I would strongly urge that Congress reassert itself and take control
over
[[Page H7151]]
this issue. I don't believe that the authors of the Indian Gaming Act
of 1988 intended that we would have a situation in this country today
where 29 States would now have casinos, 406 tribal casinos in 29
States. I don't think that was the intent. I haven't met anybody who
voted for that law who thought that was what they were voting for at
the time, but that is what we have now.
In my district, there has been great hardship. I mean, a 1737 land
conveyance, a 1737 land conveyance, going back to William Penn and the
Walking Purchase. That is what we are talking about here, taking land
of homeowners, a crayon factory, a much beloved crayon factory, and I
think it is time for us to act. It is time for this Congress to act. We
have had a lot of time to deal with this issue. We have not done so.
And with that, again, I respectfully ask all my colleagues, and I
understand the process that we are engaged in here, but we need this
type of a moratorium. It is absolutely essential. I think it will send
a message to the authorizing committees, to the Department of Interior
that we are serious about this issue, that we have had enough. Enough
is enough. Too many people are being displaced or potentially
displaced, clouds over the properties to their titles, again, in my
case, over a 1737 land conveyance. Again, these were big developers
working in concert with the tribes and spending enormous amounts of
money and people having to defend themselves. And it really has gotten
to the point of being outrageous, and I think we need to act once
again. And I respectfully ask for the support of everyone here.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the Dent
amendment concerning off-reservation casino applications.
Two proposals are currently under consideration in southern Wisconsin
on which I have taken a neutral position.
Voting in affirmative on this amendment would violate my position of
neutrality. Therefore, I will vote no and remain neutral on these
pending applications.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DENT. 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 No. 23 Offered by Mr. Kingston
Mr. KINGSTON. 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. 23 offered by Mr. Kingston:
H.R. 2643
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with an entity that does not
participate in the basic pilot program described in section
403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee and
the ranking member for the opportunity to offer this for consideration.
And I do realized that the chairman has reserved a point of order. I
hope he doesn't insist upon it, but if he does, I certainly understand,
as we share, I think, the same goal of cracking down on illegal aliens.
What this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is say that if you sell or
contract or do business with the Federal Government, then you need to
be part of the Social Security verification project known as the Basic
Pilot. And the Basic Pilot program is a tool for employers to verify
the Social Security numbers of employees.
We all know that the Federal Government is one of the worst offenders
of hiring contractors and subcontractors who in turn hire illegal
aliens and do a lot of government work. We also know that since the
inception of ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Julie
Myers, the head of it, has stated that there have been hundreds and
hundreds of arrests at military installations, power plants, chemical
plants, sensitive facilities, and truly this would include a lot of the
agencies and a lot of the contractors in work that is done in the
Department of Interior for work on our national parks and other land
areas.
There was one very high-profile case where a defense contractor had
hired illegal aliens to work in a shipyard in Mississippi, another one
at an Air Force base in North Carolina, and another one at a Marine
base in Virginia. Those are more defense oriented, but this would
certainly apply to all Federal agencies.
The success of this program, though, is that 92 percent of the
prospective employees have their Social Security number verified within
seconds of the work authorization. So this isn't requiring that
employers have some cumbersome, unworkable paperwork requirement. In
fact, 50 percent of the employers who use this program surveyed have
said that it is an excellent, good, to very good program. And 98
percent say that they are likely to continue to use this program. It is
a very good tool, I think to crack down on Social Security
verification. And as we know, right now the U.S. Senate is debating an
enormously unpopular bill which seeks comprehensive immigration reform.
This is a step. The American people have sent a clear signal that
they want immigration reform but they would like it in the form of
steps rather than comprehensive.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is with a very heavy heart, but I must
insist on my point of order.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation
bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say as a member of the
Appropriations Committee now going on 14 years, I remember several
years ago when Congressman David Skaggs of Boulder, Colorado, offered
an amendment in the committee which reinstituted the War Powers Act,
because at that time we were concerned that President Clinton was
getting us involved in a war in Bosnia; so we put it on that bill. And
I believe last session we put on the continuation of government on an
appropriation bill, and I am a firm believer that we do routinely
authorize on appropriation bills. We just need to agree with the
authorization.
So I want to say to my friend I have seen things accepted and things
rejected.
Mr. DICKS. Is this a discussion on the point of order, Mr. Chairman,
or are we wandering around?
Mr. KINGSTON. This is a speech and it is a very good speech.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members will refrain from arguing beyond the
point of order.
Mr. KINGSTON. In any case, Mr. Chairman, I understand where the
distinguished chairman of this committee is coming from and we will
continue to work with him, the Appropriations Committee, and all
Members of Congress to try to get Social Security verification done by
businesses that contract with the Federal Government.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member seek recognition on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment would require a determination of whether an entity does
or does not participate in a given pilot program under immigration law.
This determination is not currently required of the relevant Federal
contracting officials. As such, the amendment constitutes legislation
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
[[Page H7152]]
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Becerra, 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.
____________________