Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 104 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7177-H7188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

The Committee resumed its sitting.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS. 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 offered by Mr. Andrews:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to plan, design, study, or construct, for the purpose
of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals, a
forest development road in the Tongass National Forest.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, who no doubt
will oppose this amendment, is a principled and fierce advocate for his
constituents. And over the years, the taxpayers of the country have
financed the construction of 5,000 miles of roads

[[Page H7178]]

which facilitate industrial and community activity in his district
which he strongly and understandably believes in.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have financed this
enough. Since 1982, the taxpayers of the country have expended over $1
billion to finance the construction and maintenance of these 5,000
miles of roads. The economic result of this investment has been an
average annual net loss of $40 million a year. I believe that this is
not sustainable. Yes, jobs have been created, and this is very
important for anyone in anyone's district. But the average cost of this
job creation has been $200,000 per job.
Now, this amendment does not say that the existing roads cannot be
used. It does not say that the existing roads cannot be maintained. It
does not say that the existing roads cannot be used for the purposes
for which they were originally intended, for development and commerce.
What this amendment does say, Mr. Chairman, is that we will not invest
more money in more roads. We will not invest more money at a rate of
$40 million a year to extend this system.
For reasons of fiscal good sense, for reasons of environmental good
sense, for a precious national resource, I believe that this House
should revert to the language which is included in last year's bill and
prevent the expenditure of more funds for the extension of this 5,000-
mile road system in order to save the public money and in order to
preserve this important national treasure.
This is a bipartisan amendment. I am pleased that my friend from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot) is my cosponsor. It has received bipartisan support in the
past. I would respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, speaking to my point of order,
this amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI because it will impose substantial
new duties on the Secretary of Agriculture. Under Deschler's
Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 50, where an amendment seeks
to impose on a Federal official substantial duties that are different
from or in addition to those already contemplated in law, then it is
considered legislative in nature and violates clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
Moreover, under Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence or
make judgments or determinations not otherwise required of them by law,
then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point
of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
This amendment will require the Secretary of Agriculture to make
investigations and compile evidence not otherwise required under
existing law, as well as make a substantive determination not required
by any law applicable to his authority. See 8 Deschler's Precedents,
chapter 26, section 52.38.
The amendment bars planning and studying of certain roads, those used
for timber harvesting by individuals or private entities in the Tongass
National Forest. Roads used for other purposes and by other entities
are not affected. In addition, the amendment bars the use of funds to
``construct'' such a road. Under volume 23 of the U.S. Code, section
101(a)(c), ``construction'' is defined to include reconstruction of
roads. This definition is reflected in the Forest Service budget, which
differentiates between construction/reconstruction of roads and
maintenance of roads. This is also reflected in the road provisions
affecting all roads, including those in the Tongass National Forest. I
cite pages 7-36, 7-33 and 4-115, ``Road and Bridge Construction/
Reconstruction,'' of the draft proposed Tongass Forest Plan relating to
roads to reflect this understanding. Therefore, this amendment will
apply to not only proposed roads but also to the 3,653 miles of
permanent roads already in the Tongass National Forest. Some of these
roads are not currently used for timber harvesting but could be in the
future.
Under the National Forests Roads and Trails Act (16 U.S.C. 532-538),
the U.S. Forest Service constructs forest development roads ``within
and near'' national forests that ``will permit maximum economy in
harvesting timber from such lands tributary to such roads and at the
same time meet the requirements for protection, development and
management thereof, and for the utilization of the other resources
thereof.''
Under the current Forest Service Transportation Planning Handbook and
the Tongass Forest Plan, the Secretary does not identify or track roads
by the character of their use nor is such a determination required for
reconstruction of existing roads. A road in a national forest may have
multiple purposes, including recreation access, subsistence hunting
access, vehicle use for emergencies, travel routes, utility maintenance
or egress to Forest Service ranger stations or other structures.
Moreover, a road could be used for timbering operations by multiple
participants, including the Forest Service itself, the State of Alaska,
local governments, mining corporations with mining permits, private
contractors or Native Alaskan tribal entities. According to the Forest
Service, these landowners take between 80 million and 100 million board
feet of timber from their lands in a year.

{time} 2000

Some of these users would not be barred by the Chabot amendment. No
current law requires the Secretary to differentiate between users of
Forest Service roads. In support of this assertion, I quote from a
recent letter from Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources
and the Environment: ``Because the Forest Service does not distinguish
roads on the basis of who uses them, implementation of the proposed
Chabot amendment on the Tongass National Forest would require new
processes, policies and additional work to ensure that, if the Forest
Service is spending funding on roads, such roads are not utilized by
individuals or private entities in support of harvesting timber on
Federal or nonFederal lands.''
Under the terms of the amendment, the Forest Service would have to
make an initial determination that the road proposed for construction
or reconstruction would not be used for impermissible uses by
impermissible people. For existing roads proposed for reconstruction,
this would mean first monitoring the road to see how it is used and by
whom over some period of time.
In addition, the Secretary would also have to monitor and enforce
compliance with the limitation after the road is built or
reconstructed. Enforcing this restriction would be burdensome. The
Tongass National Forest, and the Nation's largest public forest, is
16.7 million acres, approximately the size of the State of West
Virginia. It is comprised of scattered lands located along the
mountains of Alaska's southeastern coast, and portions are remote and
difficult to get to.
Within the forest are approximately 128,000 acres of State, Alaska
Native Corporation and private land are accessed only through the
Tongass National Forest roads. According to the Forest Service, 3,653
miles of permanent miles of roads have been constructed in the Forest,
and these roads are used for travel, forest management, recreation,
subsistence access, remote community connections, as well as the timber
harvest.
Only 570 Forest Service personnel are assigned to the forest, one
employee for every 45,000 acres. The majority of these employees do
office work and are not out in the field, so the Secretary would have
to make substantial hires and reassign these personnel to patrol roads.
I cite eight Deschler's Precedents, Chapter 26, section 52.22 regarding
the imposition of duty to monitor actions of recipients as transforming
a limitation amendment into legislation.
For those reasons, I ask you to sustain my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this
point of order?
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. ANDREWS. I would simply urge the Chair to overrule to the point
of order on the grounds that precedent, that identical language was
found to be in order in the last Congress.

[[Page H7179]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on this
point of order?
The Chair will rule.
The amendment turns on the purpose of the Forest Service in preparing
for or building a road. If the justification for the road includes the
harvest of timber by private entities, the limitation would apply. If
not, the limitation would not apply. Nothing on the face of the
amendment would require the Forest Service to monitor continuing use of
the road.
As noted in volume 8 of Deschler's Precedents, section 51.13, a
limitation may deny the availability of funds even if resulting in
circumstances suggesting a change in applicability of law. It is also
possible to restrict funds even if contracts may be left unsatisfied as
a result.
The fact that this amendment requires those who would plan a road to
know the purposes for which they are doing so is not a new duty or
determination but, rather, a mere incident of the limitation. Second-
order consequences do not render the amendment a violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is overruled.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment the
gentleman from New Jersey, and the gentleman, Mr. Chabot, of Ohio. This
was sprung on me 2 years ago, and I was quite upset, and I'm still
upset, but you are being gentlemen about it.
I will return that favor. Last time, it was very unhappy and very
ugly.
But, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this. Let's be clear
about this amendment. This amendment is not about fiscal
responsibility, in all due respects. It's a giveaway to the radical and
environmental groups that want to treat the Tongass and all southeast
Alaska as their taxpayer subsidized playground.
The problem with the timber harvest program is that environmental
groups have purposely driven up the costs of managing it by filing
multiple, multiple frivolous lawsuits and appeals. Now that they have
successfully created the problem, they're offering a solution: target a
Member of Congress unfamiliar with Alaska and the Tongass, and express
concern that the Tongass timber program has become uneconomical and
should not be funded by the taxpayer, request that they offer an
amendment, threaten Members with negative score on their annual report
cards for failing to support the amendment.
This is like a personal injury lawyer who sues lawyers over living,
and then complains to Congress about the high cost of medical care. As
long as you are talking about taxpayer dollars and fiscal conservatism,
it should be noted that the lawsuits and appeals responsible for the
high cost of doing business in the Tongass are all funded by the
American taxpayer under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which says if
you are an environmental fundraising group in the ninth circuit, you
file lawsuits by piece work and get your money back for every one you
file.
This is the ``taxpayer waste'' we should be discussing here today,
taxpayers waste. If not for the never-ending onslaught of frivolous,
taxpayer-funded lawsuits and appeals, the U.S. Forest Service could be
managing a timber program at a net profit.
In addition to putting a Federal stamp of approval on these groups'
antics, a ``yes'' vote on this amendment will cripple what's left,
what's left of the several hundred Alaskan jobs. At one time, I had
15,000 jobs in my State that's been taken away. You have outsourced
them.
The timber industry supports the best-paying year-found jobs in
southeast Alaska, or they did. Even though environmentalists have
already succeeded locking up over 96 percent of the Tongass, and
eliminating most of these jobs, they are now after the remaining 4
percent, the last few hundred jobs, 15,000 versus 400, and this is
America? This is nothing economic. This is economic terrorism. What's
worse, the American taxpayer has been paying for it.
If supporters of this amendment would like to join me in restricting
the frivolous timber appeals and lawsuits filed by the environmental
trial lawyers against every timber sale and every road in the Tongass,
we could lower the cost of timber harvest and return the profit to the
taxpayer.
Very frankly, I believe this amendment is a job-killing bill,
supposedly protecting taxpayers, but it's about fooling them. It's
about forcing my constituents out of work and removing people from the
Tongass so the environmentalists have a 17 million acre taxpayer
subsidized playground for themselves.
I want to remind people, I have been through this in 1980. This
Congress took away 16.5 million acres of Tongass. They took it all away
but 10 percent. We were told there would be peace in the valley, yet
same groups, same trial lawyers, same environmental groups are trying
to take that last 4 percent away, 400 jobs, out the drain.
Each one of you were talking about how bad the economy is in the
United States, how you outsourced your jobs, you and your industrial
States, and yet you are doing this to the State of Alaska, the jobs
that Alaskans have. It's a disservice to this body to continue to
pander to a group that knows nothing about it other than the fact they
want their playground. It's the wrong thing to do to us.
I know the why the two gentlemen are introducing this amendment. I
understand it. But think of what you are doing to your Americans. The
workers are left. Let us manage the timber. We would have had a
profitable area, but asked by your supporters of this amendment have
stopped our ability to manage the forest in a profitable way and driven
those jobs overseas, into Canada, into South America, where they
defoliated the forests.
We have done a disservice to a renewable resource, a terrible
disservice to a renewable resource. This Congress has not managed its
force, because they want to supposedly protect the trees, and those
trees are dead trees, my good friends, they are dead. They should be
harvested.
All I am asking is not to impose this on them so we can get that
little, final 4 percent available for the Alaskan workers and for this
Nation. That's not asking much. I am urging my colleagues to vote, very
strongly, a no on this amendment. It's the wrong thing to do. It's the
wrong thing to do for this Nation, wrong thing to do for the State of
Alaska, but it's the wrong thing to do for the Americans of this great
Nation.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I first appreciate the very respectful
manner which our friend from Alaska carried on the debate.
I yield the balance of our time to my friend from Ohio, who is the
cosponsor of this amendment, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. I want to once again commend the gentleman for offering
his leadership on offering this amendment this year.
Mr. Chairman, since 1982, the Forest Service has lost nearly $1
billion subsidizing private timber in the Tongass National Forest.
That's a $40 million loss every year. If anyone wonders why our
national debt is as large as it is, and it's currently about $8.8
trillion, yes, that's with a ``T,'' trillion, one needs to look knew
further than taxpayer boondoggles like this one. They add up.
There are thousands of miles of roads in the Tongass. The Forest
Service acknowledges that existing roads are ``sufficient to satisfy
local demand for roaded recreation, substance, and community
connectivity needs and demands in most districts.'' Yet year after
year, the Forest Service spends millions of tax dollars building roads
for private timber companies that, by the Agency's own admission,
aren't really necessary.
To make matters worse, the Forest Service has a nationwide road and
maintenance backlog of about $10 billion, tens of millions of which are
in the Tongass. Incredibly, the Forest Service isn't maintaining
existing roads, yet they want to build more, even though they admit
that there are already enough. Does that make any sense? Of course not.
This is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would simply prohibit

[[Page H7180]]

the Forest Service from building logging roads for timber companies
subsidized by the American taxpayer in the Tongass. It does not stop
timber companies from building their own roads.
I know that there are some who want you to believe differently, but
this amendment has nothing to do with the roadless rule or interfering
with the Tongass land management plan. It is everything to do with good
government.
Opponents of this amendment will argue that the massive losses in the
Tongass are due to litigation. Taxpayer dollars are ending up in the
pockets of trial lawyers. I am not usually accused of being a darling
of the trial lawyers but they did a study to find out how much of the
appeals and litigation cost was a factor. Only 2 percent of cost was
because of litigation.
Opponents of this amendment have argued many things in the past. The
fact is that there are now only 200 jobs, and every single job, as the
gentleman from New Jersey mentioned, is costing the taxpayer $200,000
in subsidies for each one of these. It makes absolutely no sense.
That's why groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, the National
Taxpayers Union are strongly in favor of this amendment, because they
know that it makes no sense anymore to have tax dollars going in the
amounts that they have been going. We spent almost $1 billion now
subsidizing the building of roads in the Tongass.
Again, I am not opposed to logging when it's done on the timber
company's dime. But in this case, they are using the American taxpayer
to subsidize these 200 jobs at the tune of $200,000 per job. That just
makes no sense, and that's why I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
I want to once again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his
leadership on this amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield
back the balance of our time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I am also a fiscal
conservative, but I think this amendment is misdirected. We should not
limit the funds to do proper forest management on the Tongass.
Some limited road building is needed to take care of the land. The
Tongass National Forest is, indeed, a wonderful place. But under the
existing forest management, approximately 90 percent of the 16.8
million acre forest, over 15 million acres is roadless and undeveloped.
Only 4 percent of the forest is suitable for commercial timber
harvest, and only half of that area is within the inventoried roadless
areas.
The amendment would prevent the Forest Service from doing road
maintenance on a large area of southeast Alaska. Most of these
communities have no road access to the outside world, but they need the
Forest Service roads to get around during their daily activities.
This amendment would also harm a variety of forestry, recreation and
wildlife conservation activities by preventing the proper road
maintenance. The existing forest plan allows timber harvest on only
300,000 acres, only about 2 percent of the more than 15 million total
acres of roadless area on the forest.
I have a letter here from the United States Department of
Agriculture, and it's from a person called the forest supervisor up in
Tongass. He said we have heard the figure today that there was $40
million lost each year. He says from fiscal year 2005 to 2006, the
Tongass spent $2.4 million less on roads, reducing the level from $10
million to $7.8 million; from 2006 to 2007, the program reduced further
to $6.1 million. All told, over the past 3 years, the forest has cut
spending by $4.1 million to less than 50 percent.
So I don't know where the $40 million per year figure came from when
they are only spending $6.1 million this year on the roads. In
addition, when you add up all the jobs, according to the Forest
Service, it's about 1,000 jobs that are at risk with this legislation.
This, by also prohibiting roads, also makes the forest more
vulnerable to forest fires. So if you love the forest, if you love the
bounty, if you love the beauty, then oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I would ask the authors of this amendment if they would respond to
the question.
Will you respond, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Andrews?
I am going to introduce legislation to allow the forest to be sold to
the State of Alaska. If you are fiscally conservative, we will raise
about $4.5 billion, we will pay you for it.
Then we can manage it as we should manage it, because right now it's
not being managed. When I introduce that bill, are you willing to get
on my bill to sell that forest to the State of Alaska so we could
manage it as it should be managed.
Would you be willing to sponsor that bill?

{time} 2015

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I, of course, could not
commit to a bill I haven't read. But I will say this. If there are
sound management environment principles, it's an issue I'd have to take
under consideration.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I appreciate that because it's very simple to
say the Tongass will be sold at fair market value to the State of
Alaska. And I think that would solve our problem.
Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I would certainly have an
open mind to his idea should he introduce such a bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Alaska has so many years of
distinguished work and experience in this House that he if he offered a
bill like that, I would certainly be willing to closely read that bill
and seriously consider cosponsoring it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, I just hope you understand, this is a
national forest. It only has 4 percent available. A national forest
that has 4 percent. And the gentleman, the ranking member, has
mentioned the fact that there's no $40 million being spent.
And by the way, this is on national land because the comment was made
about the roads could be built by the persons that's doing the logging.
That's true. But if it's built by that person, those roads are no
longer available to the general public. And what has happened, we've
built a network of roads on Prince Wales Island primarily that provide,
for all the local communities, communications capability that tie in
with the ferries. Those roads still belong to the United States, just
not the State of Alaska. They're part of the United States road system.
And so I'm just suggesting that these roads, if it was done by just a
contractor, then that right wouldn't be there. Those roads would have
to be pulled up, put to rest back to the original contour.
So, again, I know who's asking you to do this. I understand it. But
it's really being a little disingenuous. In fact, the roads themselves
are in a different area that was on private land. This is on Federal
land, not private land.
And so I respectfully again ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment
because it's the wrong thing to do for the State of Alaska and for the
United States.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I also would request my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California

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

[[Page H7181]]

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

TITLE VI -- ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an
amendment to restrict funding in this bill from being used to conduct
the San Gabriel River Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study in
certain cities within my Congressional district and one neighboring
city.
The difference between my amendment and the other amendments,
everybody's been trying to strike funding in somebody else's district.
I'm saying, don't spend it in my district.
This amendment is simple. It only affects communities within my
district who do not want to be subject to a Federal National Park
Service study.
I appreciated Mr. Dicks' support of this amendment last year when the
House passed it by voice vote and urge the House continued support of
this amendment.
In 2003, Congress authorized the National Park Service Watershed and
Mountains Special Resource Study to survey the San Gabriel River and
its tributaries and the San Gabriel Mountains, north of and including
the city of Santa Fe Springs to determine if any resources are
available to National Park Service designation.
Let me be clear. My district is not in the San Gabriel Mountains nor
does it contain tributaries, and it is not north of Santa Fe Springs.
It is east of this area that is authorized to be studied.
I did not oppose the original authorization of this study because,
according to my interpretation of the language, my district would not
be affected. However, it appears that the NPS has interpreted this
language too broadly.
I strongly believe that the inclusion of cities in my district in the
NPS study went beyond the scope of the Congressional authorization.
Several cities have contacted me and the National Park Service in
extreme opposition to their inclusion in this special resource study. I
have reached out to the NPS on numerous occasions to ask them to remove
these cities from the study. They have refused.
I come to the floor today to ask that you support efforts to ensure
that cities are not forced to be part of a study that was not intended
to include them.
This amendment does not affect any other city in the study other than
those in my district (plus the City of Industry) that have asked to be
excluded. If other Members want their cities to continue to be included
in the study, then the amendment will not affect them.
The bottom line is that I represent these cities, and they have told
me they do not want to be included in this study.
The cities in the 42nd Congressional District, which I represent,
have worked hard to address the challenges associated with rapid pace
of growth in our region, including finding innovative solutions to
manage future development, alleviate traffic congestion and preserve
open space.
These cities are in the best position to make decisions regarding
land use within their boundaries, and I am opposed to any Federal
action that may compromise the local authority in the future.
The results of the study could ultimately be used to compromise the
ability of local governments to decide what is best for their
communities. Land management responsibilities and decision making
should be made at the local level where officials have a clear
understanding of community needs.
Existing land-use management by local municipalities is preferable to
Federal involvement in a rapidly growing region.
I urge my colleagues to support my efforts to protect the communities
that I represent by removing them from this study. A vote in favor of
this amendment is a vote for local control and against Federal
intervention where it is not welcomed or needed.
Once again, I ask my colleagues to support this simple,
straightforward amendment to ensure the Federal Government does not
reach beyond congressional intent.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is correct. Last year, when Mr. Taylor was
chairman and I was the ranking member, Mr. Taylor wanted to accept this
amendment, and I went along with Mr. Taylor.
However, this year, I am the chairman, and the Congresswoman, Ms.
Solis, is concerned about this amendment and is opposed to it.
And let me just give you a little text of what she said. This
amendment is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the study
process incorporated in the legislation which she authored, which was
signed into law on July 1, 2003, and would result in a change in the
study design.
The San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act was signed into law on July
1, 2003, after a lengthy effort to build consensus, an effort which
included outreach to and coordination with all the members of the San
Gabriel Valley delegation, including representatives of Diamond Bar, La
Habra, Industry, Chino Hills and the unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County and the community of Rowland Heights. As a result of
this effort, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives
with broad support.
Congressman Radanovich noted in a letter to the editor on August 4,
2002, that, ``legislative process works best when those with differing
views get together to resolve those differences and arrive at solutions
that are responsible, workable and widely acceptable. That is what
happened in this instance.'' The process by which this legislation was
drafted and enacted was iterative and compromising. In fact, upon
passage, Representative Pombo noted that this bill enjoys the broad
support of both the majority and the minority and urged his colleagues
to support it.
During this process, the boundaries of the study were clearly
defined. According to the legislative text, the Secretary of the
Interior shall conduct a special resource study of the following areas:
the San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and including the
City of Santa Fe Springs, and the San Gabriel Mountains within the
territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy, as defined in section 32603 (c)(1)(c) of the State of
California Public Resource Code.
This study was directed to be done in consultation with Federal,
State and local governments, including the San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles River and Mountain Conservancy and other appropriate Federal,
State and local government entities. These areas were chosen for their
importance in the regional watershed.
During consideration of this legislation, the Department of Interior
recognized the need for this study. It noted that:
``The watershed of the San Gabriel River contains important natural
resources which are disappearing throughout Los Angeles County.
Continuous greenbelt corridors provided by the river serve as a habitat
for breeding, feeding, resting or migration birds and mammals, which
allows migration to take place throughout developed areas. The rugged
terrain of the higher reaches of the watershed contain different
vegetations, including rock outcroppings and vegetation native to the
Pacific Coast foothills. This area also has a rich cultural heritage,
which is evident by the large number of historically significant
properties within the proposed study area. Among them is the Mission
San Gabriel Archangel, founded in 1771 by the Spanish missionaries who
were moving up the coast of California.''

[[Page H7182]]

The Department of the Interior also noted that this study would have
to examine a number of alternatives for protecting resources in the
area. Specifically, the Department of the Interior stated:
``Alternatives to Federal management of resources are often
considered in a special resource study for this type of area including
national trail designations, national heritage area designations, and
the provision of technical assistance to State and local governments
for conservation of rivers, trails, natural areas and cultural
resources. A study of an area where land ownership and jurisdictional
boundaries are as complex as they are in the San Gabriel River
Watershed would likely emphasize public-private partnerships.''
What I can't do here, because the gentleman and the gentlelady from
California have not been able to work this out, I can't accept this
amendment when the gentlelady is in opposition to it. And I think what
she's basically saying is that you should not be able to take out all
of your jurisdictions from this study because they need to be in there
to do a comprehensive study. That's how I view it.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Just so that we make sure the
record is straight, and I appreciate your courtesy and your time and I
do understand the situation you're in.
When Mr. Pombo made that statement, it was accurate because he came
to me and I said, is my district included in this area; and they said,
no, it would not be. And based on that understanding I said, well,
then, I support what she's doing because if she wants to do it in her
district, I have no problem with that. Then after the fact, when the
amendment came last year and we agreed to it, Mr. Pombo also said that
he did not believe my district should have been in there originally.
But I understand your situation. I understand your courtesy, and all
I can do is ask for support of my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. 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 Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert
the following:

TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for
``National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities--
National Endowment for the Arts--grants and administration''
is reduced by $32,000,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer this
amendment today to cut the pay raise that is included in the bill for
the National Endowment For the Arts.
Mr. Chairman, we have many problems facing us in Congress today. We
have a Federal deficit of $8.8 trillion. We still haven't built the
fence along the border, and we still don't have enough people out there
protecting our borders. Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are pushing forward bills that would amount to the largest tax
increase for Americans in American history.
As a matter of fact, in my district, in Florida, it will mean about a
$2,400 tax increase, not this year, but in the future years, in 2
years, when some of the tax breaks expire. That's $2,400 more that my
constituents will have to pay.
And now we hear that they want to fluff up the National Endowment For
the Arts by almost $36 million more. That's more than last year. This
is the same public tax dollar funded National Endowment of the Arts
that boasts that they are the largest funding organization for arts in
the United States, using our tax dollars, of course.
This is the same NEA that provided a grant for the production of the
Dinner Party, which is a 140-foot triangle depicting the imagined
genitalia of 39 historically important women, including Susan B.
Anthony and Georgia O'Keefe.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the same NEA that provided a grant for a
program entitled, ``Not For Republicans,'' which addressed several
topics, including sex with Newt Gingrich's mom. To the average American
taxpayer, this is not art. This is smut.
The National Endowment of the Arts has funded works of art, and I put
``art'' in quotes, that are so controversial, offending and downright
disgusting that, quite honestly, I could not mention them on the House
floor.

{time} 2030

And for their work in promoting this smut, the leadership, the
Democrat leadership, now wants to reward the NEA by giving them a $36
million raise over last year and a $32 million raise over what the
President has requested. That's right. The NEA was funded at $125
million last year, the President requested $128 million dollars; yet in
this bill, in the Interior Appropriations bill, we see that the NEA
will be funded at $160 million dollars.
How many Americans get almost a 40 percent pay raise for offending
most of the Nation? This is the case of rewarding bad behavior with tax
dollars.
My amendment strikes only the increase included in this bill and
brings the funding back in line with the President's request of $128
million. Again, let me remind my colleagues that this is a $3 million
increase if we go back to the President's level.
Mr. Chairman, Americans need art in their lives and I recognize art
is subjective enjoyment. Whenever possible, back in my district, I
support the arts, but I do it with my dollars, not with tax dollars,
where the average American does not agree with some of the ``art'' that
is being funded with their tax dollars. Americans are tired of wasteful
Washington spending and are unwilling to pay for this so-called art
with their tax dollars.
Don't reward the National Endowment for polishing trash and call it
art. Vote in favor of my amendment to bring NEA funding back to the
President's level of $128 million. Again, that is even $3 million more
than last year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I love the introducer of this amendment, but
I don't love her amendment. It would reduce a much-needed funding
increase for the National Endowment for the Arts from $160 million in
the bill to the President's requested level of $128 million.
I first want to compliment the chairman and ranking member again for
putting together a good bill that adequately funds our key priorities.
Our national parks, the environment, and the arts receive strong
support, and the bill takes a critical step to addressing climate
change and global warming.
We owe both of you a debt of gratitude for your good work here.
The NEA has been shortchanged for too long, and it is time to ensure
that it has the resources necessary to carry out its mission of
supporting excellence in the arts, bringing the arts to all Americans,
and providing leadership in arts education. With much-needed
incremental increases since 2001, the NEA has developed widely popular
programs, including the Big Read and Shakespeare in American
communities, to encourage Americans to participate in cultural
experiences. What is impressive is that it is in every community
practically in the country: large communities, small communities, urban
communities, rural communities.
The arts improve the lives of so many people including children, the
elderly, and those on limited budgets who might otherwise not have the
opportunity to see some very beautiful, spiritual, and enriching
performances. Federal funding helps enable talented

[[Page H7183]]

individuals to pursue careers in the arts.
Besides the obvious cultural benefit, the economic impact of the arts
is real and impressive. As of January, 2007, there were 2.7 million
people employed by over 546,000 arts-centric businesses, which
represent 2 percent of our Nation's total employment.
In Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, there are 2,841 arts
businesses that employ 14,711 individuals. Last year all 435
congressional districts received at least one grant. For every dollar
of Federal investment, each grant typically leveraged $7 of State and
private investment.
I grew up in an arts family. My parents, both performing actors, met
in the theater. Listening to my father play the piano each night and
hearing stories from their days on the stage gave me a profound
appreciation for creative expression, an appreciation that I know so
many of my constituents and I share and love.
With that I would urge defeat of this amendment. We are spending a
meager amount, candidly, on the arts on the Federal level. This is a
noble attempt by the chairman of the committee to do what needs to be
done, and I hope that we maintain what is in the budget.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Connecticut for his strong statement in support of the funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts.
I would point out to my colleagues that in 1993 we had a $176 million
budget for the NEA. That was cut by almost 50 percent, and over time
this budget has been built back up. We have had many votes on this. The
Slaughter-Dicks amendment has been voted on many times by the Congress
and in strong support of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Now, we didn't do this frivolously. Mr. Regula, when he was chairman,
and I worked together and came up with some guidelines for the NEA. And
I think the NEA has done a better job under Bill Ivey, Dana Joya, Jane
Alexander, who have all been outstanding leaders of the Endowment.
This is important for the education of our children. This is also
important because, as the gentleman from Connecticut mentioned, all 435
districts received a project. And when I was first on the committee, it
was the big cities that got funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts. That is no longer the case.
Also, it is a very major economic tool. The gentlewoman from New York
has pointed out many times how the funding for the arts has caused a
tremendous economic expansion in the country. And I think it is a very
important point.
So let's continue to support the National Endowment for the Arts. I
wouldn't want you all to go home and have to explain why you made this
terrible, outrageously big cut on the arts.
But I just wanted to say that this is an important amendment. These
groups all over the country are excited about Congress stepping up and
increasing the funding.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I believe that our constituents would much rather support the arts
with their dollars instead of channeling this additional increase
through Washington where Lord only knows of that dollar that gets up
sent up here how much actually goes back into the District for the
arts. Yes, my district has received some funds. But, additionally, they
don't want to have the concurrent tax increase that goes along with the
increase in spending.
The amount that the President has requested certainly is sufficient
for the National Endowment for the Arts, and I encourage the Members'
support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, this seems a familiar job for both Mr.
Dicks and me and certainly for our cochair, Mr. Shays.
For a while, we thought we were over the years of mugwumpery when
people thought the National Endowment for the Arts was something that
they could kill without any cause. And as has been pointed out several
times, the last 2 years, it has passed by voice vote, but it has
certainly come back with a vengeance this year.
Let me talk about something for a minute that I don't believe has
been discussed today, and that is the effect on our school children of
art. We know for a fact that every school child in secondary school
that has art for 4 years goes up 57 points on their verbal SATs, and we
know it is attributable to art. We know that the days that art is in
the schools that there is no absenteeism. We know that children that
learn to create don't destroy. We know that in developing minds, the
effect that art and dance and movement have on that. As a matter of
fact, I think the University of California Davis has done extensive
study showing the correlation between studying a keyboard and
computers, between studying modern dance and math. We have all seen it
over and over again. And we worry all the time about, one, how are we
going to keep our children in school and, second, how are we going to
make better students of them? This is cheap at the price, Mr. Chairman.
And Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite was saying that her district didn't get
much back. I happen to have the figures here. As of January, 2007, her
district is home to 967 arts-related businesses that employ 2,565
people who will be really sorry if she is successful here tonight.
Let me repeat again what we have said today because it has gone up
exponentially every year. In 1992, we had $36.8 billion coming back
into the Treasury. In the year 2000, we had $53.2 billion, with an
audience expenditure of $80.8 billion. In 2005, which are the last
figures we have, $63.1 billion organization expenditures and $1.31
billion audience expenditures. And if somebody can tell me one other
thing that we do in this Congress that costs us less than $200 million
that brings that kind of return back into the Federal Treasury, I will
be astonished. I have been asking that for years. Nobody has ever come
up with anything that is even close.
It is so important that we maintain these programs. It is so
important that in the small communities that the regional theatres are
kept alive. It is seriously important that children in all parts of
this country are exposed to education through music and dance, that
they are able to develop their own talents. But, moreover, I want to go
back to what I said at the beginning. We know the effect of art on the
developing brain. It is so important that many governors make sure that
babies born in their States go home from the hospital with a CD of
Mozart. We should try to make sure that we can continue this. It is
important. Even to this day, even with this increase, we will not be up
to the amount of money that we had in this budget when I came here in
1987.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if we were just at a cost-of-living
increase, we would be at $259.2 million. We are at 160. We are fighting
to get back to where we were, but we have got a long ways to go.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. And, reclaiming my time, the return we get on it is
enormous, Mr. Chairman, not just in money to the Treasury, which, of
course, is important; not just in the myriad of jobs that it creates in
every single district because that is terribly important too; but it is
important because it says who we are. We work in a work of art,
frankly, but it is the artists that have gone before us that tell us
who we were, and it is the artists who will tell us who we are now, who
we are going to be.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the
gentlewoman from New York did not mean to misquote me. I did not say my
district did not receive very much money. I said my district does
receive some money, but I did not say that they did not receive very
much money. I just wanted to make sure that the record was corrected on
that.

[[Page H7184]]

And, yes, thankfully, I do have an arts community that is alive and
well. And I have communities that will support that arts community. But
what we don't want to see is digging ourselves further in the ``let's
just pile more money on various agencies'' model, which only will drive
up our deficit. That was the point that I was trying to make.
If my constituents have a choice of maybe encouraging their friends
and neighbors to go to an event to increase the revenue, but we are
sending the money up here to Washington only to have it sent back with
this increase. They would prefer to have that money generated at the
local level.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
would like to thank Representative Dicks for providing over $320
million for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment
for the Humanities.
Our contributions to the arts and humanities are the standard by
which our history as a society will be measured. A strong public
commitment to the arts and humanities, along with a dedication to
freedom, is the hallmark of great civilizations. History has shown that
religious and political freedoms go hand in hand with greater artistic
and literary activity, and that the societies that flourish and have a
lasting influence on humanity are those that encourage free expression
in all of its forms. This is a lesson that resonates with people of
every age, background, and belief, and one that we can guarantee our
children learn.
Our support for the arts and humanities also has a profound impact on
our economy. In my Congressional District, there are close to 2,000
arts-related businesses, providing more than 9,000 jobs. This creates a
substantial economic impact. Nationally, the arts industry generates
$134 billion in economic activity, sustaining over 5.7 million jobs.
Even more significant is the return on the investment for the
American taxpayer. While the federal government spent just over $250
million on the NEA and NEH in Fiscal Year 2007, it collected over $24.4
billion in tax revenue related to the arts industry. Federal funding
for the NEA and NEH is crucial to the arts community, helping leverage
more state, local, and private funds. Clearly, the numbers show that
investment in the arts is important not only to our national identity,
but also to our national economy.
Mr. Chairman, we must act decisively to commit ourselves to our
national heritage and culture, by voting to properly fund the NEA and
NEH. I urge my colleagues to support creativity and reflection, to
support our economy, and to support the continued growth and expression
of democracy in its fullest form by rejecting this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. 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 Florida will
be postponed.

{time} 2045

Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Campbell of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. 51 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
None of the funds in this Act may be used for Wetzel County
Courthouse, New Martinsville, West Virginia.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is dealing
with an earmark for $140,000 for the Wetzel County Courthouse in New
Martinsville, West Virginia.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I actually looked up on a Web site to see the
Wetzel County Courthouse, and it is a building that was built sometime
between 1900 and 1902, and it looks like a very fine historic building.
I actually am personally into historic preservation. I personally
support, through charitable contributions, the preservation of various
historic buildings around California, actually, and around the Nation.
I believe that we ought to keep our historic buildings and keep them
up and appreciate them and treasure that history that we, as a fairly
young country, are just beginning to build. So that's not why I am
proposing to strike this earmark from this bill.
It's not that this isn't a historic building; it clearly is. It's not
that perhaps it requires some renovation; I don't know, but perhaps it
does. But the question is, is this really the sort of thing upon which
we should be spending our scarce Federal tax dollars?
Let me point out again that this is a county courthouse. It's not a
Federal courthouse; it is a county courthouse in West Virginia. Now,
I'm sure that there are taxes, property taxes, whatever, in that
county, and perhaps those tax dollars, if the local magistrates felt it
was appropriate, could be used for this, or perhaps city dollars in
that city or that area, or perhaps State dollars, or perhaps charitable
dollars, a preservation society is set up or becomes set up, or
whatever, to support this courthouse.
But it just seems completely inappropriate to me, Mr. Chairman, that
we are spending scarce Federal dollars on this sort of thing. Now, I
have a county courthouse in my county; it was built around the same
time. It's old also. I'm sure we could use $140,000 for it. I'm sure we
could use $140,000 for any number of county courthouses that are old
and historic across this country. Are we going to fund them all? Is it
the Federal taxpayers' responsibility to restore them all or to make
some contribution to them all? I really don't think so.
And it's not, as I say, that perhaps this isn't a need, but I just
don't think it's appropriate to spend Federal tax dollars on this sort
of very local objective and local project that has no Federal nexus.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle spent a lot of time
the last few days talking about PAYGO. But one of the things to point
out is that this bill is not subject, the entire bill basically, all of
the spending in the budget is not subject to PAYGO because there is a
4.5 percent increase in total spending in this appropriations bill that
we're debating tonight. And there is no offset for that 4.5 percent.
There is no other spending that is reduced by 4.5 percent. So every
dollar we spend on this bill tonight is a dollar that adds to the
deficit. Every single dollar contributes to further raiding the Social
Security surplus.
So the question is, is this $140,000 that we believe we should
increase the Federal deficit by $140,000 for this courthouse, should we
raid the Social Security surplus by an additional $140,000 for this
courthouse, or should we not spend the taxpayers' money on something
like this local project?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity the gentleman offering the
amendment gives me to speak in favor of the funding for the Wetzel
County Courthouse.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would strike funding needed to repair
the Wetzel County Courthouse, a very valuable historic structure in
that community. It was built, Mr. Chairman, in the first decade of the
20th century. This courthouse is listed on the National Historic
Register, and this courthouse serves as the centerpiece for New
Martinsville's efforts to preserve its legacy and expand new tourism
opportunities.
Wetzel County, Mr. Chairman, is one of the smallest counties in my
district, and the county has very limited funds available for capital
improvements and repairs to its structures. They need this grant to
help protect this important historic property.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it's important to note that the Wetzel County
Courthouse is not just a historic building, however historic and what a
grand legacy it has in the county; it still

[[Page H7185]]

functions as a courthouse and a county office complex.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman's
project. Our committee looked at it very carefully. We think it is an
outstanding project and one that deserves to be funded.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Campbell amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Tiahrt both for your
careful review of this project and the opportunity to input it in the
process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how
much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may continue, then. I appreciate the comments from the gentleman
from West Virginia. And I frankly don't dispute or have any basis upon
which to dispute anything the gentleman said, but that wasn't my point.
My point was that it is not appropriate to use Federal funds for this
sort of thing, regardless of how great the local community may find
this to be a local need.
The Federal tax dollars cannot support every little local project,
every local need, every historic building everywhere that we need.
To close, I would like to quote, if I could, Mr. Chairman, Thomas
Jefferson, just to let people know that this is not a new issue. And he
said, ``Have you considered all the consequences of our proposition
respecting post roads? I view it as a source of boundless patronage to
the executive, jobbing to Members of Congress and their friends, and a
bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating
the surplus of post office revenues, but other revenues will soon be
called into their aid. And it will be a scene of eternal scramble among
the Members as to who can get the most money wasted in their State. And
they will always get the most who are the meanest.''
Thomas Jefferson is right. I would ask you to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Harman

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf
of Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina and me.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Harman:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISION

Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have
the ``ENERGY STAR'' or ``Federal Energy Management Program''
designation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski,
Mr. Inglis and me. We've offered it to every appropriations bill so far
and it's been accepted by voice vote to every appropriations bill so
far. We're hopeful that the excellent chairman of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee will accept it in this case.
I do want to commend him, by the way, for putting a superb bill on
the House floor, especially in support of the arts and several other
projects that I consider very significant.
At any rate, our amendment, bipartisan amendment, asks the government
to set an example for the rest of the country by purchasing energy-
efficient light bulbs. Existing law requires Federal agencies to buy
products that meet Department of Energy, Energy Star or Federal Energy
Management Program standards. This amendment adds teeth and says that
no fund shall be expended unless this occurs.
Mr. Chairman, it takes about 18 seconds to change a light bulb. In 18
seconds, each of us can change our energy future by changing that light
bulb to one of these Energy Star or energy-efficient light bulbs. I'm
sure that my co-author, Mr. Upton, will offer more specifics on this
right now.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield to Mr. Upton.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I might say that, as the gentlelady said,
we've offered this amendment that has passed on every appropriation
bill thus far.
We know the Federal Government is the largest purchaser of light
bulbs in the world. By requiring that only Energy Star light bulbs are
purchased, beginning October 1, in fact, we know that we will save the
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars this next year in terms of
energy savings.
We also know that if every home did what the Federal Government is
going to do, based on the testimony that we had in the Energy and Air
Quality Subcommittee, we would save as a Nation $65 billion, billion,
B-as-in-big, kilowatt hours of electricity, which is the equivalent of
80 coal-fire electric plants every single year.
This is a good amendment. It has been bipartisan. We've appreciated
the relationship that we've had with the chairman and ranking members
of not only the full committee but the subcommittee. I would like to
think that we would be able to pass this amendment again by a voice
vote and make a stand that in fact the entire government is going to be
saving billions of dollars at the end of the day based on the amendment
that we're offering today.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady from California yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
Mr. DICKS. We are prepared to accept this amendment. We spent $52
million in EPA's budget for the Energy Star Program, so we agree with
you that this is a worthy cause. Energy conservation is a big part of
our initial effort on climate change and global warming. I appreciate
your leadership on this important issue, and we're prepared to accept
the amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. TIAHRT. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California
and the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this amendment here. The
Energy Star Program has been a very successful program, and it has
saved the American taxpayers many, many dollars already. I think this
program, again, will get into the billions. It's something that we need
to have as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan.
So I commend them on their amendment and encourage the passage of it
by voice.
Ms. HARMAN. Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank both the
chairman and the ranking minority member and my partner, Mr. Upton, for
our work together. This is a good example of the Federal Government
setting a good example and a bipartisanship working in this House. I'm
very pleased to be a part of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. Campbell of California:

[[Page H7186]]

At the end of the bill (before the short title). insert the
following:
None of the funds in this Act may be used for the Conte
Anadromous Fish Laboratory.

{time} 2100

But my point instead is with limited tax dollars, limited to $3
trillion, but limited nonetheless, of Federal tax dollars, with a
deficit that we have that all of these appropriations bills will
increase, not decrease, with the fact that we are still raiding Social
Security surplus, is buying equipment for this study in this place
something that should command $150,000 of taxpayers' money?
Again, as I mentioned before, I have heard Members on the other side
of the aisle constantly refer to their PAYGO as how they are attempting
to be fiscally responsible. But yet this bill increases spending by 4.5
percent over last year. There is no PAYGO there. There is no other
appropriations bill that is reduced by 4.5 percent to save this money.
There are no structural reforms in the entitlement programs, which we
all know are scheduled for disaster, to save this money.
So this $150,000 is not just an amorphous $150,000 in a gigantic
budget that means nothing. It is a real $150,000 that is using
taxpayers' money but will increase the deficit and further raid the
Social Security surplus by $150,000.
So the question before the body is not whether this research is
interesting, or even whether it is useful to some people. But the
question is, is it worth increasing the deficit by $150,000 to fund
this? Is this sort of research the sort of thing the Federal Government
should be involved in? If we are involved in this, why are we not
involved in many, many other forms of research that are going on in my
district or the district of every other Member who is here? The reason
is because we can't afford to do that.
So I would respectfully suggest that we strike this money.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the
gentleman from California that would cut valuable research at the
Silvio Conte Anadromous Fisheries Laboratory. It is a Federal fisheries
laboratory now under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Geological Survey,
though when it was built a couple of decades ago, it was under the
aegis of the Fish and Wildlife Service. So it is a Federal function in
the first place.
This research benefits commercial fisheries and sports fishermen
across the Nation. As we now know, the word ``anadromous'' describes
any fish species, such as the Atlantic salmon, that is spawned in fresh
water but spends the majority of its adult life in salt water before
returning to fresh water streams or lakes to spawn and then die.
In the Northeast, as in many other areas of the United States, during
the 1800s, dams which altered the stream flow sometimes completely
stopped the process of spawning, and pollution degraded the water
quality and ended up virtually destroying this fish species that must
navigate hundreds of miles of man-made obstructions in order to reach
their spawning grounds.
That is exactly what happened to the Atlantic salmon, which was a
major sports fishery and commercial fishery in Colonial times in all of
the rivers from the Hudson River northward along the coast which
included the Housatonic, the Connecticut, the Kennebunk, the
Androscoggin and the Merrimac Rivers, those being probably the more
major rivers up that way.
Ironically, the Silvio Conte Anadromous Fish Research Lab was
established by Congressman Silvio Conte. For those who served with
Congressman Conte, he was a Republican ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee for all of the years of the 1980s and well
into the 1990s, at least a couple of years into the 1990s. He was
remembered as quite a remarkable gentleman and quite a remarkable and
colorful figure within the Republican Party.
This fisheries research laboratory was created in response to the
disappearance of the Atlantic salmon in these Northeastern rivers and
the strong regional desire to see a restoration of those salmon runs as
a great sports fishery.
The premier laboratory for research on Atlantic salmon and other
anadromous fish in the eastern part of this country, at least, I am not
sure how one deals with that on the western coast, but on the eastern
coast, has been this laboratory in Turners Falls, Massachusetts.
The lab performed the basic and applied research for the improvement
of fish passages, for the health and preservation of endangered fish
species, and ultimately for the economy and the environment of the
Connecticut River watershed, and by connection to the other watersheds
where the restoration of the Atlantic salmon has been attempted.
It has been somewhat successful, not wholly successful. The salmon
runs are not what they were. A few hundred salmon return to each of
these rivers each year. But that is how the thing got started.
The research at the Silvio Conte Fisheries Laboratory improves the
understanding of the impact of dams, the effect of the altered flows in
the water quality, the various effects of pollution, contaminants on
the ecology and migration success of anadromous fish species, and also
on the genetics of all those species.
The research includes testing of fish passage designs to facilitate
the movement of migratory fish over major dams. And the research is
valuable to the region.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Massachusetts. He said that
so beautifully. I want to hear more.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the research is valuable to regional
professionals and policy makers who are involved in the management of
sport and commercial fisheries and are attempting to stop and reverse
declines in those commercial fish populations across the country.
By the way, the $150,000 that is involved in this amendment is for
the acquisition of scientific equipment necessary to this research,
which has impacts up and down the eastern coast of the United States
for all of the anadromous fisheries. But it was centered in the
Atlantic salmon by Congressman Conte.
So I urge the rejection of the amendment by the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to add
that I served with Silvio Conte. He was the ranking Republican member
of the Appropriations Committee. I had the chance to pursue anadromous
fish in Alaska in Mr. Young's district with Mr. Conte. There was no
more avid fisherman than Silvio Conte. But he wasn't just a fisherman
who liked to catch fish. He was also someone who cared about the
resource and wanted to see the resource restored in the Atlantic
States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) would remember that Silvio Conte has a very plush hunting
lodge

[[Page H7187]]

named for him somewhere in the Kodiak, I think it is, that I am sure
you have visited, Mr. Young.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wanted Mr. Campbell to
know all this history so that tonight he will just say, how could I
have done it? How could I have done it to old Silvio? Let's have a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

{time} 2115

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
from Massachusetts' reasoned defense of this. We are just going to have
to disagree. He said in part of his comments that this is something
which is of great interest to commercial fishermen and sports
fishermen, so it begs the question of, is that what we are in the
business of doing with Federal tax dollars, in increasing the deficit,
et cetera, in order to provide research and information for sports
fishermen and commercial fishermen? I happen to think we are not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, except for 15 seconds,
to my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I remember serving
with Silvio Conte, and he did love fish, but he also didn't like some
of the boondoggle subsidies. You will recall he used to go to the floor
with a pig's nose on every year and talk about the subsidy to
beekeepers. So he saw some things that weren't supposed to be utilized
for Federal funding, and the gentleman understands that.
I would just say, if we are worried about endangered species in the
Northeast, maybe we could restore at least one Republican in
Massachusetts in the name of Silvio Conte.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Reclaiming my time, I guess perhaps
Silvio Conte might have said this same thing, but in 1822, President
James Monroe said that Federal money should be limited to ``great
national works only, since if it were unlimited, it would be liable to
abuse and might be productive of evil.''
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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 California
will be postponed.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to Mr. Fossella.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
would like to engage Mr. Dicks in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking
member, Mr. Tiahrt, for their willingness to work on an important issue
to my district in Staten Island.
In recent years, forests in Staten Island and other parts of New
York, yes, New York City does have forests, have been under attack by
the Asian Longhorned Beetle. The beetle has already eliminated 8,400
trees and, according to a recent New York Times article, Federal and
State officials are expecting to eliminate 10,000 trees on Staten
Island and Pralls Island due to the infestation of this invasive
species. This does not include the additional 13,000 trees that are
going to be sprayed with pesticides. In the United States, 35 percent
of all urban trees are at risk, at a combined replacement value of $669
billion.
An infested silver maple tree located on a private wooded lot in
Bloomfield in Staten Island is the first evidence of Asian Longhorned
Beetle found. It was detected on March 22nd of this year. Thankfully,
its early detection gives hope that the threat can be contained before
it spreads to the nearby Staten Island Greenbelt Forest. However,
without having the proper control mechanism in place by the July
hatching period, Staten Island's 2,800 acre Greenbelt is in peril.
In May of this year, after the discovery of this on Staten Island, I
wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture urging him to direct the U.S.
Forest Service to develop a plan to address the Asian Longhorned Beetle
in New York City.
The Greenbelt is one of the largest natural areas within the five
boroughs of New York City and provides the most extensive system of
connected trails within it. In contrast to other parks, such as Central
Park and Prospect Park, the Greenbelt is maintained in a more natural
state, both in the forested hills and the low-lying wetlands, and
provides New York City residents a place to camp without having to
drive 2 hours or more upstate.
In 2001, the United States Department of Agriculture forecast that
the Asian Longhorned Beetle would be eliminated by 2009, but,
unfortunately, due to a lack of funding, the Department of Agriculture
now estimates it will take at least until 2033 to eradicate this 1\1/2\
inch beast. These funding setbacks reveal that the beetle will not only
stick around in areas in which they currently reside, but they will
also spread to new urban forest areas.
The bill before us today increases the Cooperative Lands Forest
Health Management program by $9 million over the President's request of
$47 million. With these additional funds, it is my hope that the United
States Forest Service will dedicate some of these additional resources
to fighting the beetle and eventually eliminate it from our forests.
Mr. Chairman, this is an urgent and serious problem for Staten Island
and the rest of New York City's forests. I look forward to working with
you to make sure the Forest Service has the necessary funding to
eliminate this beetle and protect the trees that have thus far survived
the beetle but may not be able to live much longer.
I would like you to be willing to work on this issue.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank
Mr. Fossella for joining with me in this colloquy today and for
bringing up this issue of national importance. The Asian Longhorned
Beetle not only impacts forests in the northeast but also has been
discovered until several cities, like Chicago. Invasive species like
the Asian Longhorned Beetle are a serious problem, and I will urge the
Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service to develop a plan to
control the beetle. I also recommend using portions of the additional
funding in the development of this plan.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Conaway:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. It is the sense of the House of Representatives
that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act
achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House
should be dedicated to deficit reduction.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order against
the amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to be mercifully brief. My
amendment would simply do this: Our rules and the way we function here
would prevent all of the hard work that goes on in attempting to reduce
spending. All of the efforts on behalf of many of my colleagues to
actually trim things out of this spending plan really, they labored in
vain. Because the mechanics of the system are that should we prevail in
any of these votes later on tonight or tomorrow to actually reduce
spending, then that money stays within the 302(b) category and is
reallocated at some other point in the future and does not really
reduce spending.
I understand this is a futile effort and the point of order will be
sustained, so I don't intend to push it further than this, simply to
use this time to bring my colleagues' attention to a failure in our
system to in effect protect us from ourselves.

[[Page H7188]]

I have a standalone bill that would mechanically allow that any
reductions in the spending that occur as a result of the hard work here
in this Chamber on this bill that would go against the deficit to
reduce the deficit, or should we ever get back into a surplus
circumstance, would actually increase that surplus.
So, Mr. Chairman, I bring this to the attention of my colleagues. I
do not intend to push it to a vote.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

____________________