[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7213-H7270]
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} 1044
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, with Mr. Watt (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page
111, line 17.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry, Greene County
Pennsylvania.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair for recognition.
This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry, Greene County,
Pennsylvania.''
The three-sentence certification letter for this project states that
the purpose for this funding is to restore the machine shop at the
foundry to its original likeness.
Once again, it's important to note that the certification letters
that we get from the Appropriations Committee are not the request
letters that Members give to the Appropriations Committee to request
their earmark. So we really don't know all that much about what the
earmarks are for, other than a three-sentence or a four-sentence
certification letter. So I would have hoped to have had more
information, but we were unable to get from the Appropriations
Committee the actual request letters. So we are at a bit of a loss to
find out what the earmark is really for, but we did our best to do a
little research.
The W.A. Foundry is a factory that opened in 1900 and closed in 1965.
The Web site that we found claimed that the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry
is a prime example of America's industrial heritage. My question for
the sponsor of the earmark would be: What factory in the United States
would not be a prime example of America's industrial heritage? That's
the problem that I think we have with a lot of these earmarks,
particularly those that are to promote tourism or industry. How do you
choose winners and losers in this game? How do we say, well, hey, this
old factory is deserving of renovation, is deserving to draw tourists
and is deserving of taxpayer dollars, while that one down the road is
not? It seems to me a rather arbitrary decision based on one, perhaps,
powerful Member of Congress who is able to slip in a provision to get
an earmark. It doesn't seem to be very fair to other Members or to the
taxpayers as a whole.
Furthermore, if any of our constituents who may want to take their
families on a tour of America's industrial heritage, for any of them,
for wanting to, they may have a hard time getting to see the W.A. Young
& Sons Foundry. It's only open for the public 2 days a year, just 2
days a year. $150,000 to the taxpayer for 2 days a year open to the
public. Other than that, you will have to get a private tour.
I simply don't understand why we are spending taxpayer money to
promote tourism, why we choose one group over another, why we are
picking winners and losers here. That's what I would ask the sponsor of
the earmark if the sponsor of the earmark is here. I don't believe that
he is, but I would be glad to hear some answers to these questions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is truly an
American treasure. This remarkably well-preserved shop is an example of
the once-common, shaft-driven job shop which played an important role
in maintaining and repairing the machines that built early industrial
America.
This rare industrial facility contains machining and foundry
equipment dating back to the mid-to-late 1800s. When the shop doors
were shuttered more than four decades ago, everything, the tools,
drills, nails, presses, lathes, wooden molds and patterns were left
behind, creating a priceless time capsule from the turn of the century.
The machine shop and foundry are still able to operate, but the
structure of the facility has severely deteriorated and is in desperate
need of repair and restoration in order to preserve the
[[Page H7214]]
facility and the historic equipment within. And I would assume that's
why it hasn't been open; they're waiting to do the repairs.
The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is documented by the
National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record and listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
I would also point out to my colleagues that in approaching this
task, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I, and our staffs
collectively, reviewed all of these projects. There were 10 requests
for every project that was put in the bill. And when we added it up, at
the end of the day, it is four-tenths of 1 percent. Now, that is still
significant, but I think it's important for us to realize that we are
dramatically reducing the number of overall earmarks in this bill, a
much greater reduction than when the other party was in charge. From
1994 to 2006, it went from approximately 1,000 earmarks up to 13,000
earmarks; 13,000 earmarks. We have cut this back dramatically. I think
we've done a good job.
I was hoping that the gentleman would be here today to praise us,
saying you have met the standard that the administration said. You cut
the 50 percent that Pelosi said you were going to cut. I was hoping the
gentleman would be here saying, ``Well done,'' and yet we have another
amendment.
So, I'm in opposition to this. I think we should keep moving. We have
other legislation to do. I know a lot of people in this body want to
get home on Friday, so I hope we can move expeditiously.
I appreciate the gentleman's even-handedness in making selections,
though I didn't notice that he had a reduction of the President's
request.
And again, I want to point out to the gentleman, you know, remember,
the power of the purse is one of Congress' most important powers. And I
think we should be very careful when we start undermining that
important legislative tool that separates us from the executive branch.
So, this is Mr. Murtha's project from Pennsylvania, a very senior
member of the Appropriations Committee. I urge all of my Members to
support Mr. Murtha's project and to oppose the Flake amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TIAHRT. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, is it possible for a gentleman who has an
amendment before the Committee of the Whole under the current unanimous
consent to reserve part of their time?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is. Under the order of the House, time
for debate is controlled.
Mr. TIAHRT. The gentleman from Arizona wasn't aware of that. So for
the purposes of debate, I will move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House a manager may do
that.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad to learn
that. That will make it much better. It's much better to have more of a
colloquy.
I would have liked to have had a colloquy with the sponsor of the
earmark, but the sponsor of the earmark is not here. It makes it
difficult to know exactly what this is for.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would.
Mr. DICKS. I can get you his phone number.
Mr. FLAKE. Maybe that's safer.
What I would like to ask, for example, I mention that this foundry is
only open 2 days a year. It has been open for private tours for quite a
while for a number of years. There is no indication with this earmark,
certainly because we don't get the request letter, we only get the
certification letter, that it will be open for any more than that.
And I don't know about you, but it's a tough sell. I can tell you, I
have five kids. It would be tough to say, Do you want to go to
Disneyland or W.A. Young & Sons Foundry?
I can see why anybody would want an earmark to renovate something or
to promote tourism in a particular area, but virtually every district
in the country would like that as well. How do we decide this one is
worthy and this one is not? Just because we have a Member who is a
powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or not. We shouldn't be
doing it this way.
The gentleman made a good point, that the President has his own
earmarks. The administration does earmark funds, but it's typically
with accounts that we've given them. We say, here's an amount of money
and for this program. For example, there is the Save America's
Treasures account that the President, or the administration through a
competitive grant process, decides this site is worthy of historic
preservation or worthy of receiving funds. What we're doing with
earmarking frequently is circumventing that process and saying, I don't
think they're going to do it right, so I'm just going to earmark my own
project and get that funding for my own project. That's no way to do
business. If we don't like the way the administration is doing
something, that's what the oversight process is about, and we should go
back in and stipulate and mandate.
I have mentioned many times, particularly with Homeland Security
grants, there are projects in my own district that I think are a waste
of Federal taxpayer dollars or not an appropriate use of Federal
taxpayer dollars, and I would like to go in. And I will, through this
process, if I can, seek to strike some of the President's own requests.
We should be doing that. But we shouldn't say because they do it and
because they misuse Federal taxpayer dollars that we should as well.
That's not what our power of the purse should be about.
So that's why we're here today, to say what is an appropriate use of
Federal taxpayer dollars. Is it appropriate, in this case, and we can
talk about what the Republicans did versus what the Democrats did. You
won't find me defending what Republicans did in terms of ramping up
earmarks. We went from some 1,400 to 14,000 over a decade, and it's a
pox on our House. It's part of the reason I think we lost in November.
I hope the minority, now majority learn a lesson from us.
I am glad to see the number of earmarks and the whole dollar value
come down, but it should come down much lower. We not only need to
change the level of spending, but the type of spending as well. And
with earmarking, it was way out of control. It's still out of control
with this legislation, in my view.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken, and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available for this Act may
be used for the Columbus Fire Fighters Union in Columbus,
Ohio.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman.
This amendment would prohibit funding from going to the Columbus
Firefighters Union, which is an AFL-CIO-affiliated union.
The certification letter for this project is quite vague. Remember
that
[[Page H7215]]
these are not request letters, so we don't know a lot about these
earmarks. These are only certifications that are made, usually three or
four sentences long. The certification letter says that the earmark
money is for the Columbus Firefighters Hall. The letter also states
that the entity to receive this funding is the Columbus Firefighters
Union. The earmark list accompanying the bill calls the project
``Firefighters Hall.''
According to the certification, the funding would be used to renovate
and expand the Toledo & Ohio Railway Depot. Suffice to say, this
information wasn't much to go on to learn about the earmark, so I had
my staff e-mail the Appropriations Committee for further details, which
they did provide.
The committee informed us that the Toledo and Ohio Central Railway
station at 379 West Broad Street in Columbus, Ohio is the largest
remaining 19th century railroad palace in central Ohio. Today it serves
as local headquarters for the Volunteers of America, a national
organization with a variety of charitable and service programs.
The committee also stated that the depot has been adapted to serve
the modern needs of the Volunteers of America, while also preserving
much of the 100-year-old architecture. The decorative ``grand lobby''
may be rented for parties, receptions and meetings.
It's a little unclear whether this is to renovate an old building. It
seems to me there are already tenants in the building. And one of the
tenants in the building I believe will be, or the entity that is
receiving the earmark to renovate is the AFL-CIO-affiliated
Firefighters Union Local 67.
Again, this is a question of there are a lot of firefighters halls
around the country, there are a lot of buildings that need to be
renovated. We give the administration money under programs to allocate
on a competitive basis to do historic preservation. This, seems to me,
is circumventing that process again. And again, why is it proper to say
that this one is worthy of funding and this one isn't?
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment and in support of the provision in question.
Let me first say that I admire the gentleman from Arizona's
dedication to ensure that waste, fraud and abuse is rooted out of the
Federal Government.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that all earmarks in
appropriations bills should be able to be publicly defended. That is
why I welcome this opportunity to explain this project and assure this
body that it is absolutely appropriate.
To begin with, let me talk about the Save America's Treasures account
in which this earmark has been designated for funding. Save America's
Treasures is a public-private partnership between the National Park
Service and the National Trust For Historic Preservation. The program
has preserved for future generations such important historical
treasures as Montpelier, the home of President James Madison; Fort
Ticonderoga; and the USS Constitution Museum.
So for anyone who has been to Independence Hall in Philadelphia, or
the Old North Church in Boston, or Monticello, or anywhere of
historical significance to this country, we should be able to
understand the importance of experiencing history firsthand at the
sites that history was indeed made. We can also imagine the tragic loss
we would feel if these sites were not preserved.
Therefore, I can say that it is, without a doubt, that the Federal
Government should take an interest in preserving sites, artifacts and
monuments that carry special historic significance in American history.
In order to be considered for funding under this account, Mr. Chairman,
a building must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
This is not a simple designation to acquire. It is very difficult.
After extensive State scrutiny and nomination, there also is a
stringent criteria applied by the National Parks Service.
Specifically, this project will preserve the Toledo and Ohio Central
Railway Depot in my hometown of Columbus and specifically in the
community of Franklinton. Constructed in 1896, the T&OC depot was
listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. It is a
very unique, pagoda-style building, designed by noted architect Frank
Packard. Its location is in the very historic Franklinton neighborhood
of Columbus. That is also significant, as this was the site of the
first settlement of all in Central Ohio. In recent years, this building
became abandoned and risked being demolished. To protect this important
structure, the City sought proposals to renovate and preserve it.
Mr. Chairman, the Columbus Firefighters came to the rescue. They
proposed renovation of the historic structure in order to preserve it
and to include a public exhibit honoring the history and contribution
of firefighting in our country.
While the total cost of this entire project is $2.7 million, the
small $100,000 Federal investment through this earmark will only be
used to renovate the historic sections of this building to its original
glory and preserve for future generations. I can think of no better use
of such a significant historic building than by those who maintain the
time-honored American tradition of service and sacrifice to one's
neighbors and one's community.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this amendment deserves to be opposed by
all Members of the House who value the history of our country, the
preservation of historic sites and the contribution of firefighters to
our communities.
Save America's Treasures is a valuable program and it is a worthwhile
project that should be preserved. The combination of preserving the
tradition of our Nation's rail history and honoring our Nation's brave
firefighters is worthy of this body's support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. If the gentlewoman will respond, I have a question. The
earmark states that it is for Firefighter's Hall in Columbus, but the
certification letter says the money is to go to the firefighters'
union. Why does the union get the money?
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. The union provided the contract to do the
renovation. The money proposed in this earmark is only for the
historical renovation. The firefighters are the ones who took on the
task of coming to the rescue of this very historic site and had the
best bid.
Mr. FLAKE. Is there another firefighters' museum in Columbus?
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Not that I know of.
Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say, again, the gentlewoman mentioned that we
have this program for historic preservation, the Saving America's
Treasures, and that it is tough to get on the list for that. As I
understand it, grants are given out and those grants are announced in
late summer. If you receive one of those grants, then you are named an
historic site or an official recipient. You can also make a
contribution. If you are a local entity looking to have your own
facility designated, you can make a contribution to Save America's
Treasures and earmark that for the project that you want it to go to.
There are other ways to receive recognition.
It just seems to me that it would be more appropriate for the local
entities to bear responsibility for this and not the Federal
Government.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, this is a $2.7
million project. The Federal Government's contribution is $100,000. It
is truly a public-private partnership in which the firefighters and the
local government and the State government are participating fully.
Mr. FLAKE. That is understood. There are a lot of State and local
governments everywhere, I would submit, that would like to have this
kind of participation. But we simply can't do it. We simply cannot fund
every project out there. So it seems to me that if we are going to have
a project, or we are going to have an account that we set up with the
Federal agency, we allow that to take its course.
[[Page H7216]]
If we don't like the way it is run, it is our obligation as Members
of Congress to stipulate that it should be done differently. But we
shouldn't go in and circumvent that process and say, all right, I am
going to earmark these projects because I fear that they might not
receive designation or they might not be chosen by this Federal agency.
If we don't like how that is set up, let's change that process. But
let's not move in, as Members of Congress, and designate specific
funds.
I have a lot of respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio and count her
as a friend. I am not questioning anything here but the wisdom of using
Federal taxpayer money to do this type of thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I would be glad to yield to the ranking member.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for this. I
want to point out that we did a joint review process of each of these
earmarks to make sure that they were within the guidelines of what we
have done in past precedence in the House. This particular earmark,
like the other earmarks, passed this process. This is part of the Save
America's Treasures program, authorized by the Save America's Treasures
Act. It is a 50/50 match on a small portion of a larger project. It is
also on the National Registry of Historic Places.
I think the fundamental question that we have is, do we think it is
proper for Federal dollars to be part of this effort? I think that is
what Members should base their vote on, whether we think that this
should be a part of the Federal effort to save a historic place like
this.
The gentleman from Arizona brought up a very good point. He said that
we can't fund every request. That is true. I think that some requests
we have had were culled from this because they didn't meet the past
precedent or the standards that we had left in place before. Just by
sheer limits on the number of amendments and the dollar amounts
available, we have also created limits for this process of selecting
these treasures that are part of our history and to save them.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding
time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the gentleman that the
precedent on this Save America's Treasures has been to split the money
50/50; 50 percent would go to the administration and they would then
make decisions on a competitive basis. The other 50 percent would be
earmarked by the Members of Congress.
I think that process works well. Congress has the right to do this
under the power of the purse. This is one of our most important
constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with it. The Supreme
Court has never questioned it. It is part of our constitutional
history.
I just want to also join my friend from Kansas and say that I support
this project. I urge that the Flake amendment be rejected and that we
support this project. It has been carefully vetted. I think we could
have straightened out the name of the title here and helped ourselves,
but that is a lesson learned for next year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
{time} 1115
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
would like to thank the subcommittee, the chairman, and the ranking
member for their support of the existing program to eradicate nutria.
It is Public Law 108-16. It is called the Nutria Eradication and
Control Act. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for
the amount of money that they have put into the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
This particular program, the Nutria Eradication and Control Act, has
spent over the last 10 years over $1 million to eradicate this invasive
species on a National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Maryland which
involves 27,000 acres. It also has been helped by the USDA APHIS
program.
This program to eradicate nutria on 27,000 acres in the State of
Maryland and surrounding private lands has been one of the best
invasive species eradication programs in the United States. There are
16 other States where nutria pose a problem. So the precedent where we
have eradicated this nutria on 27,000 acres at the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge and surrounding areas shows that the project is a
success.
The Interior appropriation bills we are considering today includes
generous increases in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and I
support all of this money. But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some
type of dialogue and colloquy now that, as we move this process through
the House and through the Senate, there is a recognition that this
program has been successful, that it needs to continue in other areas
around the Blackwater Refuge so that other States, 16 more, understand
how this program, how it works in difficult terrain, in marshland, in
swampland, can be successful in their areas.
So I would ask that the chairman, I know there are difficult choices,
there are budget problems, but as we move this process through, that
the nominal funding, this small amount of funding that we will need to
continue this program in the State of Maryland, be considered.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments and his interest in addressing the threat posed by
invasive species to our natural resources. I will certainly work with
the gentleman to help address this pressing need as we go through this
process.
I know how important this invasive species issue is. Out in my area
we have a major problem with Spartina, and we have had to fight it in
the Willapa Bay area and Grays Harbor area. So I am very sympathetic to
this. Also with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I guess there is an
interagency group that is working on invasive species. So let's look at
existing programs, and we will try our best to find a way to help the
gentleman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and look forward
to working with him.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be for the Philadelphia Art Museum Exterior Facade in
Philadelphia, PA.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding in
the bill from going to the Philadelphia Art Museum for their exterior
facade work. The Philadelphia Art Museum is receiving $100,000 in
taxpayer funds in this bill.
The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee in
this project is a little vague again. It simply states that the money
is to be used for a comprehensive exterior renovation and preservation
project of the main building historic facade. I should note again the
certification letters that we get as Members tell us a lot less than
the actual request letters do. That certainly is the case here.
[[Page H7217]]
When my staff looked at the museum Web site, it is clear that the
museum has plans for expansion by creating a ``skylit galleria, a
spacious gallery extending along Pennsylvania Avenue in Philadelphia.''
The skylit galleria would be some 35 feet high, 200 feet long, and
join the lobby and new cafe. The Web site says that with its terrazzo
floor and tilted corbelled wall, this new space connects the old
building to the new extension along the length of the preexisting north
exterior facade.
I understand the main building is historic. But the question is, if
the certification letter says it is for the historic facade and you are
talking about flooring and other things, it seems to me that the money
is going to the new extension.
Again, I would simply make the same point here that I have made
before. There are a lot of worthy projects. Certainly renovation and
historic preservation is a good thing and a lot of good people
contribute their own money to it, as they should. But the question is,
should Federal taxpayer dollars be used in this way, particularly given
the financial situation we are in as a Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Philadelphia Art Museum is an historic location,
well-known throughout the world, with over 1 million visitors a year,
78 years in existence.
The project for the modernization and renovation of the museum is one
of note. It is important this year over $130 million will be spent.
This $100,000 will be less than 1 percent of that. But it is an
important effort for the Federal Government to participate and support
the renovation of the exterior.
This multiyear program of over half a billion dollars to renovate and
modernize the Philadelphia Art Museum is an important linchpin to an
expansion along the parkway in Philadelphia's role in the world in
terms of a world-class art collection. The Barnes Museum will be built
and the Rodin Museum.
The collection will bring more visitors, twice as many visitors, to
Philadelphia, as if we would have the Super Bowl in Philadelphia, and
these visitors will spend three times as much money. Many of them are
international travelers and art collectors and people who appreciate
art.
I know that the House, notwithstanding the views of one Member who
has offered this amendment, I am certain that a majority of the Members
of this House will speak clearly that when we are talking about
America's treasures, that the very well known but very old and in need
of repair Philadelphia Art Museum deserves support under the program,
the Saving America's Treasures program, which was designed exactly for
this purpose and in which it has been the practice that the Congress
would select about half of the projects.
So I ask that we oppose this amendment, and I ask that we support the
Philadelphia Art Museum in this effort in this city and Philadelphia
region. Many of our Members and families have visited, and we encourage
all to visit, including the gentleman who is the sponsor of the
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's
project. We have looked at this carefully. As we understand it, it
deals with the historic facade, and this is an important project. I
think it is a very modest amount of money, which has to be matched by
the locals. They are putting up a huge amount of additional money so
there won't be any problem with that.
I congratulate the gentleman on his project and urge a ``no'' vote on
this amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman would explain, I am still a little
confused. The earmark states it is for Philadelphia Art Museum exterior
facade, but then we are talking about an extension or expansion as
well. Is this for the historic facade or for an expansion?
Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield, this grant would be to
assist in the project related to repair of the historic facade of the
existing museum.
Mr. FLAKE. So not to the new expansion.
Mr. FATTAH. I think you would say ``asked and answered'' at this
moment, right?
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for Payne Gallery, Moravian College in Pennsylvania.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any of the
funds in the bill from going to the Payne Art Gallery at Moravian
College at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The certification letter submitted
by the Member sponsoring the project stated the money would go to the
restoration and preservation of the Payne Art Gallery at the college.
The funding would be used for exterior restoration, rehabilitation, and
conservation of Payne Gallery.
Payne Art Gallery is a small art gallery at a college. The college
underwent a renovation in 2001 to achieve Smithsonian exhibit
standards. It currently hosts about five to six exhibits a year. This
small art gallery is to receive $150,000 in Federal funding from the
U.S. taxpayer.
Again, I would simply ask, there are a lot of small colleges around
the country, hundreds of them, thousands of them. Many have art
galleries. Where do we say this is worthy and this is not? Why are we
using U.S. Federal taxpayer dollars for this purpose when we are in the
fix that we are in financially?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also do want to thank my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and he is
indeed a friend, but I also want to thank him for giving me this
opportunity to fully vet and disclose this particular project on the
campus of Moravian College in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, specifically on
the Priscilla Payne Hurd campus, and we are speaking today about the
Payne Gallery. I think it is very important that we have this kind of
discourse in a very open and transparent manner.
But let's first understand and explain the purpose of the Saving
America's Treasures program. The purpose is to preserve nationally
significant, historic properties that are threatened or endangered. The
projects must mitigate the threat, have a clear public benefit, and
there has to be a non-Federal match. That is certainly the case here.
I should let everybody know too the historic significance of Moravian
College. It is America's sixth oldest college, sixth oldest. It is
located within the City of Bethlehem, which is really the site, and it
is perhaps arguable, but we claim where I live in the Lehigh Valley of
Pennsylvania, it is really the birthplace of the America Industrial
Revolution, and the Moravians were a key driver in that
industrialization process in the 18th century.
There is a very strong industrial and cultural heritage. The
Moravians were
[[Page H7218]]
not only industrialists; they were people of faith. They came from
Germany and other parts of Central Europe.
The Priscilla Payne Hurd campus is significant to the story of the
City of Bethlehem and to the college. The Payne Gallery is nationally
significant. It exhibits collections from the Smithsonian National
Museum of American History and the Smithsonian Institute of Libraries.
This historic property is certainly threatened. This funding will
mitigate the threat. There is a clear public benefit. This gallery will
be used and enjoyed by countless visitors to Bethlehem, the Christmas
City. We enjoy numerous visitors from around the world every year to be
in Bethlehem during Christmas to participate in the Moravian tradition,
culture and heritage of the community.
There is certainly a non-Federal match. It will be $205,000. The
total project cost is $350,000. The amount of funding in the bill is
$150,000 of Federal money.
Just coincidentally, there was an article today in one of the local
newspapers back home: ``Moravian College gets $130,000 historic grant.
The Getty Foundation cash focuses on preserving classic architecture.''
I am just going to restate and read briefly a few things said in the
local paper today about this campus about which I am speaking. Moravian
College again is the sixth oldest college in the country. It has 11
buildings in the National Register of Historic Places, all of the them
in the Priscilla Payne Hurd campus downtown. They include the Brethren
House, built in 1748, which the Getty Foundation called ``one of the
best examples of colonial German architecture in the country.''
That is what a group of philanthropists in California said about this
particular campus in the City of Bethlehem. This is historically
significant, and this grant will support a comprehensive evaluation of
the college's buildings and form the basis of an historic preservation
plan.
One of the stated goals of the project is to ``develop strategies for
using, preserving, and enhancing historic structures.''
The president of the college just said today that he is proud of the
continuous use of its oldest structures: ``Our students study music and
practice Bach in the very rooms in which so many remarkable young
students did nearly two centuries ago. Moravian's historic structures
are alive and vital, the past in the continuous present.''
That is what the president of the college said.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the
gentleman's projects and congratulate him on the hard work that he has
demonstrated and his very comprehensive knowledge of this project. I
urge a ``no'' vote on the Flake amendment.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
I did want to say that, again, this campus, this gallery, and by the
way, Priscilla Payne Hurd is alive and well, she is in her eighties, a
wonderful matriarch of the community, philanthropist, has contributed
so much to this community in preserving the culture and the heritage of
America. This is not simply about my hometown. This is about American
history and culture and, frankly, faith. Faith. The Moravians were
people of great faith.
Again, every year people come to Bethlehem in great numbers to hear
Bach. They come here to hear Bach. Moravian is such a integral part of
that. You really can't separate the Moravians from the City of
Bethlehem, again, the Christmas City. We are very proud of what they do
there.
I believe this project fits precisely into the definition of the
Saving America's Treasures program. You couldn't find a better fit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I will simply make the point, this sounds
like a great gallery, a lot of history, certainly something that
tourism and other things can pay for, that can carry its own load
locally. Why do we need the Federal Government to be involved, that is
my question.
Given the priorities and the situation we are in with the Federal
Government, the last time I checked we were some $8 trillion in debt,
why are we doing this? Where does it end? When do we say enough is
enough?
We can't afford to fund projects like this around the country that
have a local program that can support it. We simply can't go on doing
this. That is the point that I would like to make.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
{time} 1130
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
mention an amendment I was going to offer but did not for fear it would
not garner the appropriate number of votes, and that was to dam up
Yosemite Valley. It is about time that we dam up that valley, let it
flood now because Los Angeles and southern California is in dire need
of water. We are talking about global warming and we are talking about
the need for water for our people.
Now that would be a ridiculous amendment; but yet we didn't even get
a chance to have $7 million as requested by the administration to look
at the possibility of restoring Yosemite Valley's twin, the Hetch
Hetchy.
Eighty-four years ago the Hetch Hetchy Valley, the smaller twin to
Yosemite Valley that is completely contained within the boundaries of
Yosemite National Park, the only instance in which we dammed up a river
to cover up a valley inside a national park took place.
What did John Muir say about it? He said: ``Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well
dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier
temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.''
This is one of the beautiful natural resources in this country, and
the administration said give us $7 million to study whether we could
get rid of O'Shaughnessy Dam that has been there for 84 years, restore
this valley and show that we can provide that water supply to the city
of San Francisco so we can give our children and grandchildren this
great natural resource.
Now I will admit I am biased. I met my wife in Yosemite on the banks
of the Merced River in the beautiful Yosemite Valley. But let me just
ask you, we talk about all these things, preserve this museum and
preserve this art gallery and so forth. Can you imagine if we can give
back to the American people another Yosemite Valley? And yet we cannot
even get the committee $7 million to study the possibilities. Why are
people afraid of this?
We talk about preserving nature and concern for our national parks.
This is a desecration of one of the most beautiful natural parks in the
history of this Nation, Yosemite Valley. Most people don't know that
there is a twin valley just north of it called the Hetch Hetchy because
it is underwater. The city of San Francisco pays $50,000 a year to
cover up one of the great, beautiful natural wonders of this Nation.
And yet we couldn't even get $7 million to study, not to do it, to
study if it is feasible.
The governor has just completed a study in which he said it was
feasible, and said we need the Federal Government, since it is Federal
land, to look at it and it will cost about $7 million. And this
committee said no, we can't. The Speaker doesn't want it. Senators who
happen to be in and around San Francisco don't want it.
I don't know what is more environmentally important than saving one
of the great wonders of the world that is underwater.
John Muir said this is the greatest desecration, the greatest
desecration of natural resources in this Nation. John Muir, not usually
noted as a Republican, but one of the great conservationists in the
history of the United States. And we couldn't even get $7 million. I am
very disappointed. I am extremely disappointed.
If anybody wants to look at this, go to Yosemite Valley, go to that
national
[[Page H7219]]
park and say you want to look at the Hetch Hetchy which John Muir said
is one of the great cathedrals of nature in this country. It is kind of
tough to see it because it is underwater.
Now I'm not saying stop the water from going to San Francisco, I am
saying there are alternatives that would restore this beautiful,
fantastic, feature of nature; and yet in this bill, we can't even allow
$7 million.
Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I just would
like to ask the gentleman from California, does he have an estimate of
what the cost of doing this would be?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. That is the whole purpose of
having a study for $7 million to estimate the cost and to make sure
that the city of San Francisco and the other water districts receive
that money.
Mr. DICKS. It may have been in the governor's study or one of the
other studies that have been done.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas' time has expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
As I understand it, some of the cost estimates that have come in,
this would be up to $10 billion. I think one of the reasons why the
committee took the action it did take was because of this great big $10
billion bill and not having any kind of a plan for how that would be
financed.
But I am sensitive to what the gentleman has said in terms of the
importance of this. We will take this very seriously, and we will look
and see what the Senate does and we will continue to work with our
friend from California who is a valued Member of the House.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. As you may recall, this first
came up during the Reagan administration when then-Secretary Don Hodel
was surprised when a staff member came into his office and said, Mr.
Secretary, how would you like to give us another Yosemite Valley?
He said, What are you talking about?
The staff member said there is a twin to Yosemite Valley sitting
under, I forget how many feet of water. He said, Well, that water goes
to San Francisco, doesn't it?
And he said, Yes, but we think there are alternatives that would
allow San Francisco to still get that water, that pristine water, as it
has for 80-some years, and yet restore the Hetch Hetchy. The estimates
I have seen, it may cost upwards of $2 billion. Now that is a lot of
money, but I would ask you: How much would it cost us to build a
Yosemite Valley if we could possibly build it? It is priceless, as they
say in the commercial.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's obvious
sincerity and passion, and we will continue to look at this.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana for a statement.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to introduce an amendment
and I chose not to do that, and I will explain why.
But my amendment would have sought to reduce by $2.6 million the
salaries and expense account of the Smithsonian Institute, an account
in which there is a history of well-documented, wasteful spending of
taxpayer dollars.
Though I called for a freeze in the funding for the Smithsonian's
administrative account, this amendment should not be mistaken for
opposition to this important institution. For more than 150 years, the
Smithsonian has made significant contributions to the cultural
enrichment of the United States. Through its 18 museums, 144 affiliate
museums, the National Zoo, and nine research centers around the world,
the Smithsonian has contributed to the education of millions of people.
In fact, officials estimate that 24 million people visited the
Smithsonian in 2006 and almost 21 million visited affiliate museums
across the world. There is no doubt that the Smithsonian reaches across
America and the world to offer a rich experience for both children and
adults alike.
I think I speak for most of my colleagues in expressing a deep
appreciation for the excellent work the Smithsonian does, but I also
agree with the Appropriations Committee that the institution has
recently exhibited a ``crisis of leadership, governance and
principle.''
As was well-documented in the press and here in Congress, some of the
Smithsonian's top officials received exorbitant salaries and housing
allowances, traveled lavishly, and made otherwise egregious
expenditures on the taxpayers' dime.
My constituents, like many of yours, sent me to Washington to ensure
that their tax dollars were spent wisely. They believe, as I do, that
Congress should not reward waste, fraud or abuse with more taxpayer
dollars. This amendment would have called for the Smithsonian to enact
steps to get its spending practices under control. It was meant to send
the message that until the Smithsonian can demonstrate it can
responsibly spend taxpayer dollars, it should not receive increased
funding.
I would like to thank Chairman Dicks for allowing me to talk about
this amendment that I believe would have taken a real step in
addressing waste, fraud and abuse in the Smithsonian. However, after
discussion with several of my colleagues who serve on the Smithsonian
Board of Regents, I have been assured that this institute has begun to
enact measures that will lead to real reform in the institute. We
should all continue to observe this, as well as all institutions under
our control.
Mr. DICKS. I would like to say to the gentleman that I believe the
committee has, in essence, enacted the spirit of your amendment. We
have reduced the Smithsonian's budget by $35 million. The salaries and
expenses level has come down to where it was in 2007. And we didn't do
this as a punitive measure, we did this to send a very strong message,
as the gentleman has in his very eloquent floor statement, and that
message is we want the Smithsonian Board of Regents to reform the
Smithsonian.
We all respect and admire and love the institution ourselves. We want
to, and I personally hope we can in conference restore funding after
they have made the appropriate changes that the committee has talked to
them about. I think that is happening as we speak.
I have had a chance to talk to a number of the regents and Members of
the House who serve as regents, and I am confident that they are on the
right track. We hope by the time we get to conference, we will all be
satisfied that they have reached the goal of reforming and changing so
that the House and the other body can feel confident in funding them at
the appropriate level.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is why I did not offer
the amendment because I am confident that we will watch this.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana
for bringing up this important issue. There were problems that were
occurring at the Smithsonian, and it was evident in the press and it
was evident in the dialogue we had here on the Hill and in committee. I
want to commend the chairman for his leadership in trying to focus our
resources on the problem.
When the studies are complete, I think we will all be satisfied that
we can move forward. The Smithsonian is a great institution and it
needs powerful leadership, and we need to have strong checks and
balances in place. I believe those are being put in place.
So thank you for bringing the issue to the floor of the House. And I
thank the chairman for helping us get a strong institution in the
Smithsonian that will last for years.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
[[Page H7220]]
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage
Preservation Commission in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania; the
Westsylvania Heritage Corporation in Hollidaysburg,
Pennsylvania; and the Progress Fund in Greensburg,
Pennsylvania.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from
going to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission
in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. This is one of the most expensive
earmarks in the bill. The commission is to receive an earmark of $1.2
million. The Web site for this commission states that the southwestern
region of Pennsylvania was hard hit when a lot of manufacturing jobs
left the region. The Web site also states that it was a ``tough
transition for hundreds of steelworkers, coal miners, railroaders and
other workers who now find themselves without a job.'' I certainly, and
any Member in this body, can sympathize with in their own district.
But the Web site goes on to say that ``An idea emerged that the very
industries that were struggling in the 1980's had transformed America
once before. Could the proud history of southwestern Pennsylvania once
again lead America through the next economic transition? With that, the
Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission was born.''
A bill creating the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage
Route, or Path to Progress National Heritage Area, was approved in
Congress in 1988. The heritage area is managed by the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. If this is confusing to
listeners, it is to all of us.
The Commission's Web site states that the law created the new
heritage area to ``make it possible for millions of Federal dollars to
flow into southwestern Pennsylvania.'' No doubt.
All of these funds are to be managed by the Commission.
The Commission's Web site states the Commission has ``created
organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities,
commissions, councils, and new businesses.'' No doubt.
The site goes on to explain that the committee ``spent money,
borrowed money, loaned money, earned money, granted money, and accepted
money.'' Nobody doubts that either.
The Web site explains that the Commission legislative mandate was
renewed by Congress and it was to begin transferring its
responsibilities to a public foundation.
I quote, ``several entities were created by the commission to achieve
this--the Allegheny Heritage Development Corporation which then evolved
in the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation and the Progress Fund, which
would serve as a Community Development Financial Institution, providing
gap and equity financing to an increasing number of tourism-oriented
businesses.''
I should note that I have added language in this amendment to prevent
Federal funding from going to the other two nonprofit entities that
were created by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Commission.
My point in offering this amendment is to highlight the concept of
earmark incubators, or entities created by Members of Congress through
the legislative process that exist for the sole purpose of receiving
more earmarks.
In this case, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation
Commission seems to be just that, an earmark incubator. It has spawned
at least two other nonprofit entities, each with the sole purpose of
fostering economic growth and tourism development in southwestern
Pennsylvania with Federal taxpayer dollars.
{time} 1145
It is no surprise that the CEO of the Westsylvania Heritage
Corporation is also the executive director of the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. He is also a former
Interior Department employee of 32 years.
Keeping track of all these entities that have been created based on
this one national heritage area almost boggles the mind. The point of
this amendment is to prevent funding from going to one entity, you have
to go after all three.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
One of the benefits of reviewing these publicly is to help get some
facts on the table with regard to what these projects are. This project
of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation program is one
of 37 heritage sites around the Nation. It includes such other projects
as the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields Area, Mississippi Gulf Coast Area, the National Aviation
Area and, of course, the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area in
Arizona.
This one in Pennsylvania involves nine counties in four congressional
districts. It was something that started in 1988 at that time, signed
into law by President Reagan. The purpose of this was to help promote
some of the heritage of the industries of iron, steel, coal and
transportation that were an important part of Pennsylvania's history
and our Nation's history. Thus, designation as one of these national
historic areas.
It has had an impact that goes far beyond the money that has been
invested in it, and, that is, a construction boom has come out of this.
Also, it has spawned other projects such as dealing with acid mine
drainage remediation projects, river conservation projects, county
heritage plans, the creation of growth of trail development groups.
More than 65 local preservation, conservation, and community
organizations have significantly expanded their missions in recognition
of their role in developing a heritage resource for the region. All in
all it has helped leverage some $90 million of grants from other
sources to help promote these programs with this.
We recognize that as we look at these projects around the Nation,
those of us who are in Pennsylvania may understand best those projects
in Pennsylvania as those in some of these other areas. Mississippi, I
may not know as much about those or the ones in Virginia or Arizona or
Georgia, wherever these other projects are. But this is important to
Pennsylvanians and it's important to our Nation, to a large extent
because Pennsylvania and the region was the area that built the world
literally with steel, with our coal. We are a State that has lost
manufacturing jobs. In fact, tourism and agriculture are our two
highest sources of income in Pennsylvania, and it is important that we
understand that tourism is a source of jobs in Pennsylvania like many
other States. It draws visitors in not only from our Nation but from
around the world and it is worthy of working on ways to continue these
jobs with some growth.
The vast majority of funding for these programs has come from other
sources. But what it has done, also, is help preserve some of that
heritage. Understanding the history of our Nation is important to
understanding the future of our Nation. Thus, we need to learn the
lessons from history to fund these things to understand how it is
important and how to promote this.
This is not just something for my district, but it is important to
several districts; and it is important to our Nation and the start-up
tourism-related businesses that are otherwise unable to secure loans
from other programs.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his very thorough and
comprehensive statement, and I want to join him in support of this
project.
As the gentleman said, this project was authorized, signed by
President Reagan, a very conservative President. This is historic
activity that has been very productive. And so I urge that the project
be supported and that the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona be
defeated.
[[Page H7221]]
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I would like to
add a couple of other things that relate to some Federal overlap with
this particular project. This whole area of the heritage preservation
group for southwestern Pennsylvania also overlaps with 218 nationally
registered properties, 16 national historic landmarks, two national
park units and one other national landmark all recognized by the
Federal Government as a way of linking these things together. It is a
way of helping to promote these things for jobs and for understanding
the heritage of our Nation.
Someone once said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history
are doomed to repeat them. Indeed, where we stand now with an
importance of understanding what our economic heritage was, our
industrial and manufacturing heritage, are important to the people of
southwestern Pennsylvania and are important to the people of the
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this so that we
can preserve that heritage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. How much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman.
If the gentleman will indulge me, I am still confused, maybe even
further now. Looking at the list, it says here, Southwestern
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, $1.2 million, and the
sponsor is Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. Who is the sponsor?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. But as was mentioned by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, there are four congressional districts
involved in this. I don't know if people from the other districts, I
guess they didn't request it or else it would be listed because we've
tried to list it where there were multiple names involved.
Mr. Murtha is a former member of this subcommittee and this project
has been funded for many years. When your party was in the majority,
there were a number of years in which this project was funded. The
previous chairman, Mr. Taylor, and others have been supportive of this
project.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.
Reclaiming my time, I don't doubt that it was funded in the previous
Congress. The question is with economic development. It is said that
this helps promote tourism. It helps development. No doubt. You cannot
spend money without creating economic activity by its very nature. But
if we take economic development as the criteria, what project anywhere
in the country is not worthy of that? And why is this project and all
of these entities created, and I quote again from their own Web site.
The commission Web site says: ``This organization created
organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities,
commissions, councils, new businesses,'' many of which are also
eligible for earmark funding.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I'll be very brief.
The point I would make is that we only funded one out of 10 requests.
So there was a lot of judgment made by both sides of the aisle working
together to pick those projects that had a history, that were
authorized in many cases. So I think there was a very careful vetting
of this process. There are a lot of Members who are mad at me because
they didn't get their project. This one met the test and was funded.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. 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. Stupak:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Division of Criminal Investigation of the Environmental
Protection Agency may be used in contravention of the
criminal investigator requirements of the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-593).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require the Environmental Protection
Agency to hire the appropriate number and amount of criminal
investigators as required by law. EPA's criminal investigators play a
critical role in protecting public health and the environment from the
most serious offenders. That is why the Pollution Prosecution Act of
1990 (P.L. 101-593) specifically requires that not less than 200
special agents be assigned to environmental criminal enforcement. This
requirement helps ensure that EPA has the number of investigators and
adequate resources necessary to enforce the criminal provisions of our
environmental law.
EPA's criminal investigation division, CID, is currently at less than
200 special agents. Already understaffed, seven agents from CID are
permanently assigned to the EPA's administrator's personal security and
do not conduct any investigation work. Additional agents are assigned
to provide security when the administrator travels outside Washington,
DC, requiring them to abandon any investigation work during that
period.
The assignment of the EPA's criminal investigators to provide
personal security to the EPA administrator diverts resources from the
investigation of environmental crimes. While I understand the desire to
protect a member of the President's Cabinet, criminal investigators at
EPA are doing so at the cost of protecting public health. Because of
the additional strain that using CID criminal investigator agents for
security has on EPA's ability to investigate criminal violations, it is
extremely important that CID be properly staffed.
The underlying bill, the bill before us today, provides an increase
of $11.8 million for enforcement compared to fiscal year '07. The EPA
should have no difficulty in meeting the requirement of 200 criminal
investigative agents, which is the standard that was set in 1990. My
amendment would not reduce the security provided by the EPA
administrator. It would only make certain that the EPA uses this
funding provided in the bill to meet their requirements under the
Pollution Prosecution Act and their responsibility to the American
people.
I want to thank Chairman Dicks for consideration of this amendment
along with Ranking Member Tiahrt. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman has
discussed this amendment with all of us. The bill includes an increase
of $11.8 million, as you have mentioned, above the President's request
for EPA enforcement. That is enough money to bring the EPA's
enforcement level back to levels that we saw earlier in this decade.
The majority has no objection and accepts the amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. I think the gentleman from Michigan has done his research
and prepared this well. I think this is a part of the EPA that needs
attention
[[Page H7222]]
and needs a little reinforcement. I congratulate him on his amendment
and I have no objection to it.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Dicks for their words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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. 22 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced
by 4.3 percent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the Chair and the Members who are present
here.
This is the fourth time I've offered this amendment to an
appropriations bill. I don't do it to be a pain in the neck. In fact, I
appreciate the work of the chairman, I appreciate the work of the
ranking member, and I appreciate the work of the committee and staff. I
know they look at these line items, look at these programs, go through
and do the hard work that all committees do. I appreciate all that
work. I simply bring the amendment forward because I believe government
is too big and that government spends too much.
This amendment doesn't cut spending. This amendment, like the
previous ones I have offered, simply says we're going to hold the line.
We're going to spend the same amount we spent in the last fiscal year.
Nothing more than that. That's all the amendment does. It allows the
committee who understands these programs, who does the work and puts
this bill together, to go back and look and figure out where those cuts
should happen using their expertise that they've developed in this
committee to do that. It simply says, it's not too much to ask
government to do what millions of families have to do across this
country, live on last year's spending levels, live on last year's
budget.
It is important we do this, in my judgment, for two reasons. Again I
have articulated these each time I've brought this amendment forward
for the body to consider. The first is there are financial problems,
financial concerns, some would even say crisis looming for America if
we don't get a handle on the spending. $3 trillion budget. This bill
increases spending by over a billion dollars in this one area. The more
we run up deficits, the more that leads to debt, the more that leads to
less saving, the more that leads to less economic growth, the tougher
it makes it in the future to deal with the economic crisis that is in
fact coming.
Again, you don't have to take my word for it. All kinds of experts
have talked about this, whether it's entitlement programs,
discretionary spending, it's government spending and there are problems
looming if we don't begin to get a handle on the spending levels that
we appropriate. There is no better place to start than right now,
saying, let's just do what we did last year. Let's just hold the line
on spending.
The second reason that this is so important: whenever you start to
spend and spend and spend and have these kinds of things take place, it
inevitably leads to greater taxes. I've often heard the phrase tax-and-
spend politicians. It's actually more appropriate to say spend and tax.
Spending drives the equation. The more you spend, that leads to taxes
in the future. If you went out and asked the American people, Mr.
Chairman, is government too big or too small, my guess is the vast
majority of Americans would say it's too big.
Think about this: government spends on average $23,000 per household.
We've got a $3 trillion annual budget that we spend on. Many of those
things are appropriate, but overall if you ask the American people is
government too big or too small, they would say it's too big. If you
asked them the same question, are Americans overtaxed or undertaxed, my
guess is the vast majority of Americans would say we're overtaxed. In
fact, a typical family, 50 cents of every dollar they spend goes to
some level of government in the form of taxes. It's not too much to ask
government to hold the line on spending, to live on what we did last
year, to live on the same amount.
{time} 1200
That's what this amendment does. I bring it forward, not to be a pain
to the committee, I appreciate their work, but simply to point out it's
time we get a handle on spending if we are going to be able to let or
help America have the economic growth that we need to see happen in
this country in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington State is
recognized for up to 20 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Am going to be brief here. This would be a devastating cut on this
bill. I want to say something to the gentleman. These bills do have
consequences.
Over the last 7 years, since this administration took power, the
Interior Department's budget has been cut in real terms by 16 percent.
The EPA's budget has been cut in real terms by 29 percent, and the
Forest Service budget has been cut in real terms, taking fire out, by
35 percent. This is one of the few bills that has been devastated by
this administration, and it's a regrettable fact.
All our bill does is stop this downward trend in our national parks,
our downward trend in our national wildlife refuges, and our downward
trend in enforcement and clean water and clean air in the environmental
protection area, and the reduction in personnel, not covering fixed
costs until Mr. Kempthorne came in, and he is only covering the fixed
costs for the Interior Department. This is a devastating cut that would
reverse all the good work in this bill.
I just think it's totally irresponsible, and I urge a ``no'' vote on
this. We need the money for the firefighters, there is a huge fire out
there in Lake Tahoe right now. We need to get this bill passed.
This kind of across-the-board meat-ax approach will not be
successful, I predict. I just tell the gentleman that his amendment
goes way too far and would have devastating consequences. It would
undermine the President's Centennial Challenge that Mr. Kempthorne has
worked so hard to create.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no''
vote on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, before recognizing the gentlelady
from Tennessee, I would just point out this, we always hear this,
devastating cut. This not a cut. This is simply saying we are going to
spend what we spent last year.
In fact, last week we had this big debate on the legislative branch
bill and on other appropriations bills, and the majority party was
pointing to the President's request. What we spent last year is
actually more than what the President requested in this budget.
Devastating cut, I mean, we always hear, it's interesting,
politicians who spend the tax dollars of families and individual
taxpayers across this country, always say the sky is going to fall if
we can't get more of your money and spend it on things we think are
important.
All we're saying is you know what, it's not too much to ask that
government do what families do all the time, and that is spend on last
year's level.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee
(Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank Mr. Jordan for the good work that he is doing
right here. He is exactly right in the amendment that he is bringing
forward, hold constant, hold it level.
[[Page H7223]]
Mr. Chairman, we hear this from our constituents every single day. We
all know that the American people are certainly frustrated with the way
they see Washington spend money, and the amount of money that they
spend.
What our amendments are doing is just to say, just pare it down a
little bit. Let's require the bureaucracy to institute some
efficiencies. Let's require them to get their House in order.
Now, quite frankly, I don't think it's a bad thing. I think that it
is a very positive step to look forward and say let's hold the
bureaucracy accountable. Should they be able to move forward and not
put best practices in place? Should they be able to just every year get
an increase when we have men and women who go to work every single day?
They may work for a period of 2 or 3 or 4 years and not see an increase
in their salary.
We may have families that look at their budget and say that they are
not seeing an increase. To say, you know, to not increase spending puts
us on a downward trend.
I truly take exception with that. It is our constituents who are
saying you need to start putting some accountability measures in place,
you need to reduce what this Federal Government is going to spend
because they tax too much and certainly, in order to pay for all of
this increase in spending, and this is an increase, it exceeds the
President's request by $1.9 billion, which is a 7.6 percent increase.
In order to pay for this, they are willing to push forward the single
largest tax increase in history because they spend too much money.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, the majority party
has yielded all their time back?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes, the other side has yielded back.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
I haven't been on the floor to hear much of the debate on this bill,
but a couple of things have caught my attention. One is that the
chairman said we don't want across-the-board cuts.
Well, as I understand, they don't want cuts to individual programs or
specific programs either, so I guess that means we don't want cuts,
period. I remember hearing the debate on this floor about raising the
minimum wage, and that has resonated in my memory in relationship to
the debate on not making any cuts for this bill also.
There were raving comments made about how people who were living on
the minimum wage hadn't received an increase for years and years and
years, and yet Members of Congress had received pay raises.
Well, it seems to me that if we're concerned about people who are
getting minimum wage, we definitely should be concerned about
increasing spending for this bill or any other government program, for
that matter. We are raising spending by billions of dollars, and where
is that money coming from? That money is coming from the very people
that were supposed to be helping those people making the minimum wage.
In just 6 months, the new Democrat majority has passed or paved the
way for $103.4 billion in increased spending.
Now, what that means is, again, that we are taking that money away
from the American citizens. By doing that, they have raised the
national debt limit by $850 billion, which they said they would never
do, or $2,812 for every single man, woman and child alive in the United
States today, the second largest increase in the national debt in
American history, and the largest single tax increase in American
history they have passed.
So we don't need to be doing this. We need to be helping average
working Americans, by letting them keep more of the money. The
government doesn't know how to spend your money better than you know
how to spend it.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining
on the Republican side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield as much time he may consume to the
distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank
him for his leadership. He is one of the outstanding freshmen Members
that we have on this side of the aisle. His leadership in helping
protect the family budget from the Federal budget is noted. It is noted
in this body, and certainly noted in his district and increasingly
being noted nationwide. So I thank him for his leadership in bringing
this amendment to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very, very important amendment, and I
listened carefully to chairman of the committee and his words. I think
again, as I said yesterday on this House floor, that much good work has
been done on this legislation.
But I do take exception when he uses the term that this amendment
amounts to a devastating cut. Again, people are entitled to their own
opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. This amendment
simply says this appropriations bill will be funded at last year's
level.
Now, last I looked at Webster's, and looked up the definition of cut,
it means to reduce an amount. We are simply asking, in extraordinary
times, that government somehow not increase its budget. We are not
talking about a decrease here. We are simply saying try to live on the
same budget that you lived on last year.
Now, I do believe there is a place where the phrase ``devastating
cut'' is applicable.
As the gentleman from Ohio aptly pointed out, more spending fueled
more taxes. Again, that is a very simple nexus, but more spending will
fuel more taxes. It's one of the reasons that we have seen within the
Democrat budget the single largest tax increase in American history.
Now, that tax increase, when fully implemented over 5 years, is going
to amount to roughly $3,000 for every American family. That is a
devastating cut. That is a devastating cut to the family budget.
I hear from these families. I hear from families in my district, the
Fifth District of Texas, that I have the honor and pleasure of
representing. I hear from people like Bruce in Garland who writes,
``Congressman, in my particular case, additional taxes would cut into
the finances I used to pay for my son's college education. I really
believe that given more money, Congress will simply spend more money.
That is not the answer.''
I hear from Joy in Dallas, ``Congressman, I could not pay for a
semester of college for my daughter if I had to send $2,200 more to the
government.''
I hear from Linda, also, in the City of Garland that I represent,
``If we had to pay an additional $2,200 each year, it would make us
have to decide between food or medicine.''
The list goes on and on and on. That is a devastating cut, the
largest tax increase in American history fueled by more spending, some
of which is contained in this bill, those are devastating cuts. Those
are devastating cuts to hard-working American families. It's cutting
their education program, it's cutting their health care program, it's
cutting their American dream.
I certainly commend the chairman. Relative to some of these bills,
this is a more reasonable approach.
But when we look at the largest tax increase in history, when we look
at the looming entitlement crisis, and I was very grateful to hear the
chairman acknowledge its existence in debate yesterday, but given all
of those facts, can't we somehow raise the bar on how much we are going
to spend on this Federal legislation and protect the family budget from
the onslaught of the Federal budget?
There are two paths we can go down. One path leads us to an extra
$3,000 of tax increases on the American family.
The other path tells the Federal budget, live with as much as you
have lived with last year, and we will protect the American family from
devastating cuts in their budget.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Republican
leader, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding, and
let me thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor.
All this amendment says is that we are going to reduce the level of
spending in this bill to last year's level. It's overdoing. We are not
whacking away
[[Page H7224]]
at everything, and I think that the gentleman has a very good point. I
do that because excessive spending makes it more difficult for us to
balance the Federal budget.
{time} 1215
It takes money away from our children and our grandchildren. An
across-the-board cut is another way of being fair and simple, but it
gets us back to last year's level.
Now, the spending in these appropriations bills is one issue. But
let's make sure we review the bidding on what's happened here thus far
this year. In February, when the supplemental spending bill came
through, the CR to fund the government for this year came through here,
it had $6 billion of spending over and above the President's level.
And then we had the budget come through with an additional $20
billion worth of domestic discretionary spending included in it.
And then just last month we had the supplemental spending bill for
Iraq and Katrina that had an additional $17 billion over and above what
the President has asked for.
If you look at all of that, $1.1 billion in the Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill that's already passed, another $1.9 billion in this
bill, you begin to add all this up, and it's real money. And at some
point, somebody has to pay for it. And that's the real crux of the
issue here.
Most of us came here to make sure that we had a government that was
affordable, so that we could keep the American Dream alive for our kids
and theirs. And the more that we spend and the more that we mortgage
their future, the harder it is for them to have the same chances in
life that many of us have had.
And if the spending that we've talked about isn't bad enough, if you
look at the budget that my friends across the aisle passed last spring,
there's no entitlement reform. My colleague, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, will soon rise and talk about the
$4 billion or $4 trillion worth of debt that's accumulated over the
last 6 years.
We know that we have to deal with entitlements. I'm trying to help
you give your speech, Mr. Obey. We have to deal with entitlements. Over
the course of the 12 years that Republicans ran the House, we dealt
with entitlements some three times, not as often as we should have, not
as aggressively as we should have.
But we have made promises to ourselves, those of us who are baby
boomers, promises that our kids and our grandkids can't afford. And at
some point we, as responsible stewards of our government, need to grab
a hold of these entitlements and begin to change them.
Several years ago we made a modest effort, some $40 billion in
entitlement reductions over 5 years, a step in the right direction. But
to bring a budget out here that says we're not going to deal with
entitlements for the next 5 years, I think, is totally irresponsible.
And so if we're serious about making sure that our kids and their kids
have a real chance at the American Dream, we've got to say no.
The American people sent us here to make decisions about how to best
spend their money. And if we just keep adding more money, guess what?
We never have to make a decision. That's not what the American people
expect of us. They expect of us to have a government that's affordable,
that's accountable, and something that they can afford in their family
budget.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, Members of this House have often heard me
refer to my old friend, Archie the Cockroach, who is the philosopher I
rely upon. And one of the things Archie said once is that ``an old
stomach reforms more whiskey drinkers than does a new resolve.'' And I
think we have a perfect example of that in this case.
We have seen the minority party, for the past 6 years, zealously and
delightedly borrow over $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts on the cuff.
We've seen them support this year providing $57 billion in tax cuts for
people who make a million bucks or more a year. We've seen them blindly
and blithely support a misguided war, 600 billion bucks, all borrowed.
And now, coming in from a 3-day or 6-year jag, all of a sudden people
are sobering up. So they're saying, ``Good gravy, look at the record
we've built.''
Mr. Chairman, they have destroyed their credibility with their own
conservative base with their profligate borrowing to pay for their pet
projects. And then they say, ``Well, how can we cover up that and cover
our tracks and pretend that we are taking up the old time religion
again of fiscal responsibility?
And so what they do is they say, ``Well why don't we attack the
appropriations bills and try to create the impression that they are
runaway spending.''
Well, let me give you some facts. By the time this House finishes
passing each of the appropriation bills that we're bringing to the
floor, this House will have cut over 250 programs, saving almost $6
billion.
I would also point out that if you take a look at the President's
budget, if you take a look at the domestic appropriation bills which
he's recommended under his budget, you would see these domestic
appropriations shrink from 39 percent of the budget to 36 percent.
Under the bills that we're bringing to the floor, they will still
shrink from 39 percent to 38 percent.
Bob Greenstein, who is probably the most objective budget analyst in
this town, respected former OMB official, points out that these
domestic appropriations bills, when adjusted for inflation, represent a
1.4 percent increase. I invite you to compare that to the 8, 9, 10
percent increases that we have in the war budgets which the President
has asked us to pass.
This bill commits the cardinal sin of trying to restore two-thirds of
the cuts that have taken place since fiscal year 2001 in crucial
programs that defend the cleanliness of our air, that defend the
cleanliness of our water, that protect the public health and protect
the publicly owned natural resources of this country.
And they try to divert attention from their miserable record of
fiscal irresponsibility the last 6 years by suggesting that somehow
these actions have anything to do with the deficits that they've
presented the country, turning a surplus when Bill Clinton left office
into the largest deficits in the history of man.
Now, you know, I generally prefer to read nonfiction. But I am so
used to hearing fiction on this House floor that I guess the next time
I want to read a fiction novel I'm not going to go to The Washington
Post Book Review or the New York Book Review. I'm simply going to ask
my friends on the other side of the aisle, ``What's the best piece of
fiction that you've been reading and been peddling this week, because I
sure would like to take some lessons from you when it comes to peddling
fiction.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire the amount of time we
have left.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Before yielding to the gentleman from Georgia, I
would just point out, I love the majority party's logic: because the
Republicans spent too much, we're going to spend more. How does that
help the American family? It just makes no sense to me.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I just heard some great news down
here. We have cut 250 programs. I'm excited because, you know, I used
to be in the construction business, and one time we had a
superintendent that was not getting his job done, not performing, not
getting the houses built on time. And the gentleman we worked for went
in one day and he said, Jerry, I want you to go out there and I want
you to fire somebody. And Jerry said, Who do you want me to fire? And
he said, I don't care. Just fire somebody so they will know who's in
charge.
We need to fire somebody. We need to cut something somewhere. And I
am excited to hear that we have cut 250 programs at a savings to the
taxpayers of $6 billion because, what that means to the taxpayers, Mr.
Chairman, is that now we've only spent $80 billion more than we did in
2007. So we took the
[[Page H7225]]
first step in a long, long journey to get down to where we get back to
the level of 2007.
I hope that the chairman, Mr. Chairman, of appropriations, the full
Appropriations Committee, will supply every Member in this body a list
of the 250 programs that have been cut, because I want to see that. I
want to be able to take that back home to my constituents and say, You
know what? We are cutting the size of government. And here are the 250
programs that we've cut.
Now, what I would also like for him to bring me when he brings me the
250 programs that we have cut, I hope that he will bring me a list of
the other programs in the other expansion of government that we have
done to spend another $80 billion.
Now, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people may not understand how much a
billion dollars is. If you spent a dollar a day, no, if you spent a
dollar a second, a dollar a second, it would take you 31\1/2\ years to
spend a billion dollars; 31\1/2\ years to spend a billion dollars if
you spent a dollar a second.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the people of America know that we have spent
$80 billion more than we did last year. That scares me. That scares me
not only for me. It scares me for my children. It scares me for my
grandchildren. And it scares me for my great grandchildren.
And so I hope that somewhere we'll fire somebody, just one person,
one cut that we can make and let the people of America see it.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio
for his leadership on this issue and for bringing important
distinctions to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question, though, of the body, and it's
curious what's going on here. The chairman of the subcommittee yielded
back his time, didn't even want to engage.
Can you hear it, Mr. Chairman? That's silence. That's silence on the
part of the majority party because they aren't even interested in
defending the spending that is in their bill.
Before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I knew that I needed to
listen to patients in order to make the right diagnosis.
Well, the right diagnosis, Mr. Chairman, here, is that Washington
doesn't have a revenue problem; it's got a spending problem. And the
ways that the Democrats are moving forward with their spending spree of
2007 are very frightening, as the gentleman before me spoke.
There are a couple of ways to pay for it. One, you can charge it. And
so they've increased the debt ceiling. They've increased the debt
ceiling to over $9 trillion for the first time ever in the history of
this Nation.
The other way you can pay for it is to tax folks. Mandatory
withholding, tax increases. And already we've seen the largest tax
increase in the history of our Nation adopted by this majority party.
Mr. Chairman, if that were my record, I wouldn't want to talk about
it either. I wouldn't want to talk about it either.
So I want to commend my friend from Ohio who is standing tall for
fiscal responsibility. It's clear that there's a distinction between
the majority party and the minority party. And the minority party says,
the Republicans say, we believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe
that we can hold the line on spending to holding it to where it was
last year.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. And I will say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland) we are, I have already explained, Mr. Obey's already
explained why this amendment is not going to be passed by the House
today, because it's too big a cut. And I would just say, again, and I
want to say this to every Member: This administration has cut the
Interior Department budget over the last 6 to 7 years by 16 percent.
{time} 1230
It has cut EPA by 29 percent. It has cut the Forest Service by 35
percent. It is devastating these agencies, and this amendment would add
to that devastation.
What we are doing is adding 4.3 percent to try to turn the corner, to
try to bring these agencies back. And we are not laying back here. We
are just waiting to move on to more important business.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague on the committee, a
distinguished member from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman from Ohio has offered an amendment which is a 4.3
percent across-the-board cut, across all of the agencies here in this
bill. And that is about the final desperate or thoughtless way of
balancing a budget or of approaching the process of budgeting. After
all, the amendments that we have been debating for the last day have
been defeated, to throw up your hands, but I suppose that is really
progress. At least it is better than trying to reduce the budget down
to the level of the President's request in the first place, which was
hundreds of millions of dollars even below what the last year's budget
was.
But I think you need to look at the core programs. The core programs
here are the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Forest Service. Those are the major programs in this
budget. The budget for 2007 was a very small increase but not as much
as an increase up to the inflationary amount from the previous year's
budget, the 2006 budget. So we would have had at least 3 years of
budgeting below the inflationary level.
The gentleman's amendment would force all those agencies that cover
Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, which are the places where
our Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service serve most of the
public, the millions of people of this country who use those
facilities, and it would force them to eat the inflation of that, as of
now, over a 2-year period, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
What really is happening is that we are having to try to cover for
the enormous reductions in the budget from fiscal 2004 to 2005 and from
fiscal 2005 to 2006. That is where the major budget cuts have occurred
over the last several years. And this budget only partially, partially,
replaces for that enormous cut that occurred in those 2 years, way
below inflation, serious, real cuts in dollars way below inflation.
Now, I just want to look at a couple of other things not just 3 or 4
years back but a little bit farther. When President Carter left office,
the debt of this country was $1 trillion. Twelve years later, after the
presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the debt of the country
was $4.3 trillion, $3.3 trillion more. When President Clinton left
office 8 years later, it was $1.2 trillion above that.
Now, in only 6 years, with you folks on the other side having been in
the majority throughout those 6 years, the debt is now up to $8.8
trillion, another $3.5 trillion. Think of it. Under 8 years of
President Clinton, the total debt increase was $1.2 trillion, about
one-third of the debt increase in just 6 years under the present
President and all of that coming under your leadership. The debt
increased to that time is all under your majority's leadership.
So I just want to say in the final analysis when you take into
account inflation, with this bill, the Department of Interior would
still be 11 percent below what the budget was in 2001, when President
Bush took office. For the EPA, it would be 16 percent, still below the
2001 budget. And for the Forest Service, it would still be 19 percent
below. Those key core programs would still be 19 percent below the
budget in 2001.
I oppose this amendment and hope it will not be adopted.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to know which is it? We just heard from the distinguished
chairman from Washington that Republicans spent too much; so we are
going to spend more. We heard about
[[Page H7226]]
the spending by the Republicans. And we just heard from the other
gentleman that we cut, cut, cut. I want to know which is it?
All I know is this, what is in the bill, and in the bill it says
this: The Commission on Climate Change, $50 million of taxpayer money
for this new Commission. National Park Service, a $199 million
increase, 10.8 percent above last year. The National Endowment for the
Arts, a 29 percent increase. We heard a debate about this yesterday, an
agency that many Americans find offensive using their tax dollars: $160
million, a 29 percent increase. National Endowment for the Humanities,
$19 million, an increase of 13 percent.
Which is it? Did we cut all the time or did we spend too much? I want
to know which it is.
What I do know is that in the bill, there are all kinds of excessive
spending. That is why we just want to say hold the line, let's keep it
where it is right now.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGovern). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. 29 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby
reduced in the amount of $276,330,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment
is what became affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. Mr. Hefley
was a former Member of the House and offered a 1 percent decrease in
the reduction of the increase on appropriations bills routinely. And he
no longer serves with us; so many of us believe that it is an
appropriate way to try to bring about some kind of fiscal restraint and
fiscal responsibility here in the United States Congress.
I think it is important to look at the big picture, and the big
picture is that we always have to remind ourselves whose money this is.
And there is a sense in this Chamber and in Washington that this money
is the government's money, that the government somehow makes it and
discovers it and that it ought to just spend it willy-nilly.
Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this isn't the government's money;
it is the people's money. This money comes to Washington through the
hard work of the American taxpayer. And it is imperative that we
remember that because only when we remember that will we have that
touchstone to make certain we spend it responsibly.
What are the big numbers here that we are talking about in the
Interior, Environment Appropriations bill? Last year, fiscal year 2007,
this bill appropriated $26.4 billion. This year the proposal is to
spend $27.6 billion. That is an increase of $1.2 billion, an increase
of 9.5 percent, an increase three times the rate of inflation.
This amendment would decrease that increase by 1 percent. It would
decrease that increase by $276 million. It would trim one penny out of
every dollar spent in this appropriations bill. It is the kind of thing
that American families all across our Nation do when they find
themselves in times when they are spending more than they are taking
in, which is what the Federal Government is doing, spending more than
we are taking in.
This is a responsible amendment. It starts us down that road of being
fiscally responsible. It tells the American people that we care about
their budget and in caring about their budget, we will be responsible
with the Federal budget. It will begin to restore some of that trust
that the American people have lost in Washington's ability to restrain
spending.
So I offer this amendment in good faith. I believe it is an
appropriate way to begin the process of gaining back fiscal
responsibility here in Washington. I encourage my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my good friend
from Washington if he has any speakers on this amendment?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, we have speakers. How many speakers do you have?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have got more than my 20 minutes will be able
to fill.
Mr. DICKS. I am not going to yield you any time; so you might go
ahead and start.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the silence persists. The silence
persists on the majority side because they are loathe to defend the
spending that is going on here in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I find that
particularly offensive to the American people. This is not government's
money. It is the American taxpayers' money. It is incumbent upon the
party that is proposing to spend billions and billions of dollars to
increase the debt ceiling in this Nation over $9 trillion for the first
time, to ignore the entitlement spending, to ignore $50 trillion in
liability. This is the majority party that is silent, silent when it
comes to this kind of spending.
So I would urge my colleagues to reconsider their desire not to
defend their spending.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from
California (Mr. Campbell), who is a leader on fiscal responsibility
here in the House.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia for yielding.
As I listened to the arguments, what arguments that are presented,
from the majority Democrats, I hear some things that don't quite ring
true. They talk a lot about their pay-as-you-go rules and that their
great fiscal accomplishment of this Congress is that they are going to
pay for spending as you go. Yet this bill increases spending by $1.2
billion, and it is not paid for. There is no $1.2 billion cut somewhere
else. They are simply going to increase the deficit by $1.2 billion
more because they have decided they want to spend it.
They say that they are not raising taxes. But yet their budget
increases spending every single year for 5 years and then miraculously
says they are going to balance the budget. How do they do that? Because
they did have in their budget the largest tax increase in American
history.
You just heard them recently just decry the former deficits. Oh, my
gosh, Republicans drove up these deficits. And, in fact, we did. And we
agree that that was not the right thing to do. So what is their
response? Make the deficits bigger. Take the spending that we had while
we were in charge and increase it by more.
{time} 1245
And then they have one other thing they continue to do which is to
call something like this bill a ``cut.'' You heard the gentleman from
Washington on the last proposal say that it was a devastating cut, when
in fact all this does, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, is
take what's already a 4.5 percent increase and reduce it.
Now, what I want to do is, since they're having a hard time
understanding this, I want to put this up graphically so that maybe
they will understand better.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here are 100 donkeys. I figured that donkeys were
[[Page H7227]]
something that Democrats would be able to relate to. So we have 100
donkeys here. Imagine that this is 100 donkeys of spending. Here's what
this bill will do. There, Mr. Chairman, are 99 donkeys; 100 donkeys
here, 99 donkeys there. Probably having a hard time, I would imagine,
Mr. Chairman, people in the gallery are probably having a hard time
telling the difference. That's because there isn't much difference.
That's because it isn't a big cut, it isn't a big reduction. If you
have a million-dollar program, all we're asking is for that program to
get by on $90,000. If it's $100 million, we're asking them to get by on
a mere $99 million. If it's a billion-dollar program, do you think that
some government agencies can squeak by on $990 million rather than a
billion?
But here's the big point: It doesn't look like a lot of difference in
donkeys, but if we do that, if we spend the 99 instead of 100 on every
single government program, we save $30 billion. That is real money. And
this is how you save it: a little bit at a time. Ask a million-dollar
program to get by on $990,000, ask a billion-dollar program to get by
on 1 percent less. And when you do that with every single program in
government, you save $30 billion a year. That, Mr. Chairman, is how we
can get to a balanced budget without not only the largest tax increase
in American history, without raising taxes on the hardworking people in
America at all simply by asking government day by day, get by on 1
percent less. I think we can do it. I think we should vote for this
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, again, the former ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Conte, when he was here in the House of
Representatives, used to say that this is the ``meat-ax approach.'' An
across-the-board amendment doesn't make any selectivity between the
national parks and other issues. It's just an across-the-board cut.
Again, I must say that the reason we object on this particular bill
is because over the last 7 years the administration has cut the
Interior Department by 16 percent in real terms. And the cut for EPA is
29 percent and that cuts the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. I
mean, it's hard to believe that this administration wanted to cut the
Clean Water Revolving Fund by $670 million. How do you do that and go
to bed at night and actually get sleep? I mean, it's shocking to me,
these cuts.
The Forest Service funds all the programs for taking care of our
multiple-use Forest Service land. More recreation is provided by the
Forest Service than actually the Park Service, and they cut that by 35
percent since 2001.
This is a crisis. These agencies are headed down a devastating path,
not having enough staff to do their work. The refuges didn't have
enough staff. The Park Service didn't have enough staff. Every one of
these agencies were losing people year after year because their fixed
costs weren't covered. So this was a crisis situation.
I think everything we've done in this budget is totally responsible.
And I reject the idea of any across-the-board meat-ax approach, using
the language of the former ranking member, Mr. Conte from
Massachusetts. And I just hope that we can move on here and get to the
rest of these amendments.
There are a lot of people on the other side who told me they would
like to go home on Friday morning, they would like to see us get done
on Thursday night. So I don't want anybody to think that we're not in
opposition to all these things. I just want them to know that we're
trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get the job of this committee
done as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a
member of the committee (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished chairman.
I took note of the gentleman's $30 billion in donkeys. I would like
to commend to the gentleman's attention $3 trillion in elephants, which
is $3 trillion in debt that the other side built up while they were in
control of this Congress; $3 trillion elephants rampaging through the
Federal Treasury, crushing our future, strangling them with debt.
Now, the other side has said that they want to cut and we want to
spend. Absolutely not true. We've cut these programs. We're being
stewards with the people's money. We have eliminated over 200 programs
in this project. The real issue is not cutting versus spending; it's
priorities. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand priorities.
The other side had no problem finding the money to give Halliburton,
in no-bid contracts, unlimited amounts of money to big corporations
like Halliburton in no-bid contracts. What we're saying is let's
instead invest that money in the Clean Air Act.
The other side had no problem bulldozing to passage billions and
billions of dollars in tax cuts for the richest oil company executives
on the face of the planet who have made more profits than any company
has ever made in the course of human history. What we're saying is
let's prioritize differently. Instead of using that money for tax cuts
to oil company executives, let's invest it in the Clean Water Act.
Let's invest it in the Environmental Protection Agency.
So this isn't just about cutting and spending. This is about
priorities that the American people want us to pursue. The same choices
that they make at their kitchen tables, in their living rooms, in their
dining rooms, in their small businesses are the choices that we're
suggesting. Instead of the wasteful spending on the special interests,
the pharmaceutical companies, the big oil companies, we're saying let's
return some of that money in investments on clean air and clean water.
Mr. DICKS. And I would just add, if the gentlemen are so confident of
their position, why don't we just have a vote on this and move along
and get the committee's work done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the attempt at defending the
remarkable increased spending on the part of the majority party. To
describe this amendment as a devastating cut is curious. Only in
Washington is a decrease in the increase a cut.
It's important that the American people appreciate that the proposal
of the majority party is to spend in this bill $27.6 billion. This
amendment, if enacted would provide for the spending of $27.4 billion,
hardly, Mr. Chairman, a devastating cut.
I would also ask my good friend from Washington to simply read the
amendment. It talks about an across-the-board cut. The amendment states
that ``appropriations made by this Act are hereby reduced in the amount
of $276 million.'' That's not an across-the-board cut. That's a 1
percent reduction in the total allocation in this bill. So it is
disingenuous of my good friend to make those kinds of comments.
I would also say that he says that we need to move quickly. I would
say, Mr. Chairman, that any time we spend defending the American
taxpayer is time well spent.
And then they talk about priorities. Mr. Chairman, the correct
priority we have is defending the American taxpayer.
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Colorado (Mr.
Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for
yielding 1 minute.
The distinguished colleague who just spoke from New York made a good
point about the deficit being too large. I agree with him 100 percent
on that. But now is the chance to step up to the plate. Now is the
chance we can do something about adding to the deficit.
The bill in front of us goes $1.9 billion more than what the
President has requested and $1.2 billion more than last year's amount.
So we have a chance now to do something about building up the deficit.
So if we're sincere about being concerned about it, now is the chance
to actually do something.
A 1 percent cut allows the committee to do the work of prioritizing
and making sure that the money goes to the most critical programs and
has the chance to reprioritize and take away some of the fat. And I
would suggest that we do not need for the National Endowment of the
Arts an increase of $35 million, or 29 percent; 29 percent more than
last year. We have a lot of room to cut this bill.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time
remaining on each side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 9 minutes remaining and
[[Page H7228]]
the gentleman from Washington has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to my good friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I was listening to my good friend and colleague from New York who
just spoke about the debt that we built up under the Republican
leadership; I think he mentioned the number $3 trillion. And I don't
think that's admirable on our part.
I want to say that I think most Members know that I'm a big fan of
country music and one of my favorite singers is Randy Travis, and one
of my favorite songs is ``Diggin Up Bones.'' The American people don't
want us to be digging up bones and saying, well, you did this, or he
hit me back first. I think what our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle need to remember, the fact that we are now in the minority is not
so much about the miscreant action of a couple of Members on our side
who violated the public trust or the difficult slog in Iraq. That slog
has been difficult. But more importantly, it's this debt that has been
built up, this fiscal irresponsibility.
This Republican Study Committee, the majority of the minority, and
I'm proud of my Members on this side of the aisle that said enough is
enough, the American people want us to stop spending their money.
I support this amendment, a 1 percent cut across the board. It's not
specifically so much about this particular appropriations bill, but
it's about all of them. We have got to stop this nonsense spending once
and for all. This is the time to draw the line in the sand, just like
our colleague from Colorado, the esteemed Representative Mr. Hefley,
did every year, 1 percent across-the-board cut. I'm embarrassed that I
didn't vote for all those amendments, but I strongly support my
colleague from Georgia in this amendment.
And as my other colleague from Georgia said, to spend just $1
billion, you could spend $1 a second for the next 31 years to get to
this expenditure of $1 billion.
Support the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the subcommittee (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman from the subcommittee for yielding
me the time.
I'm interested by the amendment. Now, as the gentleman from Georgia
has explained it, I, of course, had thought that without instruction
the amendment would end up being an across-the-board amendment. But
what in fact has happened here is that the gentleman's amendment,
without instruction, allows the executive to decide exactly where those
$276 million would be cut.
Now, I would consider that a total abrogation of our responsibility
for budgeting in article I of the Constitution, where we have taken an
oath of office to the Constitution, and where our responsibility is to
define where the budgeting for the country will go.
So I think that's, in fact, a far worse thing than it would be if it
were a strictly across-the-board kind of budget, senseless as though
that would be.
I often find it necessary to be a little bit repetitious. I just want
to go back to something that I had pointed out, and that is, that at
the end of the Carter administration, when President Carter left office
in January of 1981, the debt of this country was $1 trillion. Twelve
years later, after 8 years of President Reagan and four of President
Bush, father, the debt of the country was $4.3 trillion, more than four
times as large in 12 years, but $3.3 trillion increase. In 8 years of
President Clinton, the debt was increased by an additional $1.2
trillion to $5.5 trillion.
{time} 1300
After now 6 years of Bush, the son, as President, the debt, at
present, is at $8.8 trillion, an additional $3\1/2\ trillion in just 6
years
Now, I don't know, the gentlemen and women on the other side of the
aisle were in the majority through all of those 6 years in this House
of Representatives which starts all the budgets. They can't claim that
they were out to lunch at all because, in fact, they were here voting
for those budgets that increased the debt by $3\1/2\ trillion over the
last 6 years. So if there is fiscal responsibility, it certainly cannot
be claimed either then or now for what is now the minority in this
House of Representatives.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the Chair
of the Republican Study Committee and the champion of fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
I thank him for his leadership in the Republican Study Committee and
his leadership for fiscal sanity in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that the chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee is no longer on the floor. I have listened to his comments
carefully. He alluded to some of the debate being part fiction. Well, I
must admit, when I have my Democrat colleagues come to the floor and
lecture on the subject of fiscal responsibility, I do feel like we are
in the midst of a chapter in ``Alice in Wonderland.'' We hear our
friends from this side of the aisle lecture us, well, it was you
Republicans who voted for these budgets that increased spending.
Well, Mr. Chairman, again, you are entitled to your own opinions. You
are not entitled to your own facts. Look at the record. Every time that
the Republicans offered a budget that spent more money, Democrats
offered a budget that spent even more. It spent even more. Look at the
record. You have Democrats come to the floor, Mr. Chairman, and say,
well, the Republicans are responsible for this very expensive
prescription drug benefit program.
Well, they are right. But guess what? Their program cost even more.
It cost even more. Then they say, well, under your watch, the national
debt went up by $3 trillion. Well, the unfunded obligations, the debt
that will be imposed on our children and grandchildren for their
refusal to do anything about out-of-control entitlement spending, is
$50 trillion. $50 trillion.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to take responsibility
for $3 trillion when my friends from the other side of the aisle will
take responsibility for the $50 trillion. They had nothing, absolutely
nothing, stone-cold silence on entitlement spending in their budget,
something that the Comptroller General says we are on the verge of
being the first generation of American history to leave the next
generation with a lower standard of living. When will the madness stop?
Then I hear about these devastating cuts. How about the devastating
cuts to the American family when their largest tax increase in American
history is imposed? How about those devastating cuts? Then we hear
about this meat-cleaver approach of an across-the-board cut. Well, my
friends from the other side of the aisle didn't have any problem with a
meat-cleaver cut of the American family budget of $3,000 per American
family. How about that meat-cleaver cut?
What I am essentially hearing here, and I know much good work has
been done on this bill, but I am hearing ``NIMBY.'' Sure, maybe there
is a big entitlement crisis here, but ``not in my backyard.'' It needs
to begin today.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think people should understand that the
views that are being enunciated here are not the views of the
bipartisan appropriations subcommittee that I serve on. Mr. Tiahrt and
Mr. Dicks have worked very hard to produce a bill that I think is an
excellent product. It really answers the question these gentlemen have
raised earlier: What is this bill about? Because what they are talking
about cutting, folks, is cutting to the heart of what the American
people love.
Let's talk a little bit about that. They want to talk about 1
percent, 4 percent and all of that. But they don't want to talk about
what they are really cutting.
Now, the National Wildlife Refuges, the American people love. This
administration is talking about closing down 200 National Wildlife
Refuges because we don't have any personnel in them. So you want to
continue that. The speakers here today want to continue
[[Page H7229]]
those cuts and close down National Wildlife Refuges.
If you ask the American people, do they love their American parks and
do they want rangers to be there to service them? The American people
are going to say, yes, of course, they do. Well, these gentlemen want
to cut them. That is what is going on here. They want to cut the parks
and cut park personnel. There is a huge backlog in the parks. They
don't want to do anything about it. They want to cut further.
The other part of this bill which is very, very important, is we are
always hearing about local communities needing water and sewer. Your
side always talks about mandates. Well, this bill is about giving local
communities water and sewer grants through the EPA so that they can
clean up so that cities don't have to be polluters.
So, we ought to get a little question in reality here when it comes
to the fringe element that is coming out here, not the bipartisan
subcommittee that put this together.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time
available on each side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 4 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, given the discrepancy in the
times, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate a couple of points, because we
seem to be having this debate every week. It seems to be on the same
issues we have always been talking about. But I find it not necessarily
enjoyable, but an obligation, to get up and communicate to the American
taxpayer and the citizens of this country that over the last 6 years,
the Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House,
borrowed $3 trillion. They asked the Treasury Department to raise the
debt limit five or six times to allow them to go out and borrow more
money.
You borrowed it from China. You borrowed it from Japan. You borrowed
it from OPEC countries. On and on and on and on. All of a sudden, 5 or
6 months into this year, before we have even passed a budget, you are
lecturing us on fiscal responsibility.
I want the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, to keep their forms from this
year and compare them to their tax forms next year. They will see
absolutely no increase in their taxes whatsoever. None. Zero. So, there
is not a tax increase in this 2008 budget.
Now, let's talk about what you are proposing to cut with this
amendment.
Superfund sites. Okay, you want to cut the Superfund site program
that is going to clean up the most toxic sites. In many of the old
industrial areas like mine, the gentleman knows very well, they were
polluted in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We can't develop the local
economy because where we have water lines and where we have sewer
lines, they are contaminated.
Quite frankly, the city of Youngstown and the city of Warren do not
have millions of dollars to put into this because their tax base has
eroded. If you want us to contribute to the tax base like we did in the
1930s, 1940s and 1950s when, quite frankly, a lot of that money that
was taken out of Youngstown, Ohio, was used to develop the West and to
develop new water lines and sewer lines in the South in many of your
districts, all we are asking is for a little bit of help.
{time} 1315
Help us clean up the brownfield sites.
How about your cutting the methamphetamine prevention and treatment
program? I am sure you can't wait to get back to your districts and
tell that to your constituents. How about those of you in the West
fighting wildfires? You are going to cut that program.
Mr. Chairman, many will say there are not any cuts in this bill.
There are cuts in this bill: $193 million cut from construction
account, it eliminates $31 million for landowner incentives; $39
million cut for the EPA Mexican border program; $24 million cut from
the EPA Alaska Village setaside; $24 million cut from the Indiana land
consolidation. There are cuts in here. We are not raising taxes. We are
making investments into our community.
Just because, Mr. Chairman, the minority party raised the debt $3
trillion, just because the minority party is ashamed, quite frankly, of
their behavior over the past 6 years doesn't mean that they can
displace all of their shamefulness on the new Democratic majority. I
wouldn't want to admit that I borrowed $3 trillion from Japan and China
either. I would run from it as fast as I could. But that doesn't change
the facts.
So I think we should vote down this amendment. There are great
investments for local communities all over the country in this bill,
and I think we should keep it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a champion
for fiscal responsibility and fiscal reform in Washington.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a real test here. We all campaign every
2 years, and we put out campaign literature. We go speak at town halls
and other events. And I would venture to guess that not one person in
this body said, Reelect me because we need to spend more on Interior
appropriations. We need to spend more. We need to spend 4 percent more
than we did last year. I am going to go back to Washington and spend
$1.2 billion more than we did last year.
I venture that nobody said that. Virtually everybody said we need to
rein in spending. We need to promote fiscal responsibility.
I am the first to concede we didn't do a good job of it over here.
For the past several years we have grown government far too big. That
is part of the reason we are now in the minority. But the majority
comes now and says, don't lecture us, we are going to increase that
spending.
This bill spends $1.2 billion more than last year. Last year spent
too much. This year spends too much too much again.
So, please, we know we did wrong. That is why we are in the minority.
But when you are in the majority now, let's exercise some fiscal
discipline. There are plenty of areas that can receive cuts. We have
outlined several of them over the past several hours with amendments.
Museum funding, part of the reason the gentleman from New Mexico
mentioned that we have a backlog at the National Parks, he is right.
But yet in the authorizing committee, we have created several more
National Heritage Areas and earmarked a lot more money for them. There
are earmarks in this bill for National Heritage Areas. That is money
that will come out of the National Parks budget. They will tell you if
you spend money here on this new area, this National Heritage Area, you
can't spend money maintaining the parks that we already have. Many of
us have fought to stop that. We have said don't keep creating these
National Heritage Areas. Yet with the new majority, we are creating
them at a faster rate than we ever have.
I would say, let's promote fiscal discipline. Let's pass this
amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak to the gentleman
who has just spoken. I commend the gentleman who has just spoken. I
think he has taken a very responsible, very serious approach to
budgeting over the last several sessions, and I appreciate that sort of
thing very much.
But I would say that here we are in this instance with an amendment
that takes an approach not quite across-the-board, but gives the total
responsibility off to the President of the United States to decide
where to make any cuts he wishes to make, which, I repeat, is an
abrogation of our responsibility under the Constitution that we take an
oath to.
I would say that also this is a bad approach because after 40
amendments, each of which has been defeated, and 40 amendments which
have had so little merit to them that they have been defeated, many of
them by roll call votes, by roll call votes, and the sum total of all
those amendments was considerably more than the $276 million, to now
throw up your hands and try to do it in
[[Page H7230]]
a different way, in that kind of a meat-ax approach, to use those
words, is not a good thing to do. It is not an appropriate budgeting
thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend my friend, not only for his
athletic ability and his talents on the basketball court, but also for
his focus and discipline in regards to this issue.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I have three amendments
that have not been voted on yet, so I invite the gentleman to support
them.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in the city of
Akron, which I represent a part of, their obligation for the EPA is
$400 million in the city of Akron. Our friends on the other side are
saying that there is no role for the Federal Government to play.
You have communities like Akron, you have communities like Youngstown
that have lost significant industry over the past 20 or 30 years; and
if we want to bring industry back, if we want to grow industry, we
can't have brownfields all over our cities.
This is an investment. This is going to clean the site up. This is an
opportunity for us to redevelop sites in our communities.
Now, 30 years ago when the steel mills were pumping, when the rubber
industry was pumping, a lot of our tax dollars were going to many of
your communities to help lay down roads, build the interstate, rail
lines, water infrastructure, all of these things. What this bill does
is it tries to reinvest back into some of these communities. We want to
be self-sufficient, but we don't have the local tax base. There is a
role here for the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my friends, why would you want to prevent us from
cleaning up brownfield sites in the old industrial areas? We don't need
it forever. We just need to clean them up, and then we will have a tax
base there and have more taxpayers to pay taxes and keep the tax rates
low for everybody, because we will have more. But if we can't develop
these sites, it becomes very, very difficult for us to grow our local
economy.
We need the Federal Government to make these investments, and that is
exactly what this bill does.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each
side, if I may?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
I just would point out to my good friend from Ohio that no specific
programs are identified in this decrease in the increase. So to
identify specific programs is a spurious argument, truly.
I would also say that this points out fundamentally the difference
between the two parties. We believe fundamentally that individuals
spend their money more wisely than the government. It is clear that the
majority party does not believe that. They believe that they spend the
taxpayer money much more wisely. We just think that is a fundamental
difference.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my good
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), on this
appropriate amendment of fiscal responsibility.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just walked in a moment
ago. I was on the streets of Washington, D.C. where the heat is truly
on this Nation's Capital in the high nineties and the humidity is also
in the high nineties, and here we come to the inside of Chambers, where
the heat is being put on, on the American taxpayer and the American
family; but this time it is being placed on them by the Democrats and
majority party.
Six months into control by the Democrats, and what have they wrought
for this Nation? The largest tax increase in U.S. history; an attempt
to change the rules on the American public going back to 1820; and last
week, of course, we saw as well the idea by the Democrats that they
should have some sort of slush fund where your tax dollars go unequated
for.
When you look at the basic math I was trying to do here, look at the
equation, what they give us is this: a tax increase plus a spending
increase leads to an answer of an increased burden on the American
taxpayer.
I have had the opportunity now to serve on the Budget Committee for 4
years; and during that time the Democrats, when they were in the
minority, railed against us time after time saying we were spending too
much. I thought that railing would stop once they were in the majority
and they had the opportunity to go in the other direction. But as we
have seen here, the railing has not stopped. They continue to point to
the past about increased spending, but they then at the same token, out
of their same mouths, what do they do? They increase spending on the
American public again.
If the problem in the past was that the U.S. Government was spending
too much, you would think that the simple solution to that, the simple
answer to that math equation, would be spend less. But this budget does
not do that. This spending bill does not do that. That is why I support
the gentleman from Georgia's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington
resumes control of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the
gentleman from Georgia who said the individual taxpayers can spend
their money better than government. The taxpayers in my district can't
clean a brownfield, go out with 50 bucks and clean a brownfield. This
is something we need to do collectively as a community and as a
country, to clean that up. Individuals can't do that.
Individuals couldn't build the interstate highways and the railroads
and the Panama Canal and all the great infrastructure projects that we
have had. We need help to do this in some communities so we can be
self-sufficient, and individuals can't do that.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, again I want to say to my colleagues, the reason we
have to make this increase in the Interior appropriations budget is
because over the last 6 or 7 years the budgets for these agencies have
been reduced dramatically. The Interior Department has been cut by 16
percent. We have lost rangers at every national park in the Nation. The
summer workers have been cut back. The services there are not as good
as they used to be.
This was a crisis. The National Parks Conservation Association had a
pamphlet, ``The Endangered Ranger.'' Here it was, our national parks,
our national treasure, in decline.
I am no extremist. I am a moderate in this House, and I always have
been. But this was a true crisis. And what we had to do was stop this
decline, this downward trend of our national wildlife refuges, our
national parks, and we put a little extra money in to get it turned up,
so we could hire a few more people, so we could cover the fixed costs
of the rangers and the people running these wildlife refuges.
That is why we had to do this. It was a crisis. And it is going to
take us a number of years to get back. We only increased this budget by
4.3 percent. With a 16-percent cut, it would take 4 years to get back
to where we were in 2001. With EPA, it would take about 7 years to get
back to where we were. And with a 35-percent cut in the Forest Service,
it would take about 8 years to get back. So we have a long ways to go,
and I don't want to have any downward direction here.
I do say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is right, the 1
percent could be taken anywhere, and that might mean that all of the
projects of interest to the Members would be eliminated by the
administration. Now, I hope they wouldn't do that. I hope they wouldn't
fall into that trap. But that is one possibility.
So, again, I resent the gentleman from Georgia even suggesting that
we aren't over here fighting against your amendments. We just looked at
the
[[Page H7231]]
Record last night and how the votes went, and we thought maybe some of
the Members would like to get home on Thursday.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I can
guarantee I think that this amendment will be treated properly by the
membership.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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. 27 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
Page 110, after line 18, insert the following new section:
Sec. 417. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 0.5 percent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the overall
funding of this bill by .5 percent, one-half of 1 percent. We already
know that the increased funding in this bill over the last year's
appropriations is an additional $1.2 billion, 4.5 percent. So my
amendment would take a 4.5 percent increase to a 4 percent increase.
That is not a cut. If you look up the word ``cut'' in the dictionary,
this is still an increase in spending of 4 percent.
We have a national debt that is at an all-time high, $8.8 trillion. I
walk around in the Longworth House Office Building where my office is
and I see these charts on easels out in front of Members' offices and
they are decrying the national debt. I look at my children and my
grandchildren and I am very concerned about this $8.8 trillion. I think
we are leaving a terrible legacy to our children and our grandchildren.
I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I want to say
that you are right when you decry the spending levels that the
Republicans reached while we were in the majority.
But I want to take it back to a time when I was a teacher, and
someone in the class would do something and you would try to correct
this student and they would say, But he is doing it too. And you would
say, It is still wrong. You are doing it. You stop it. And then you
deal with this person over here.
Republicans spent too much. Democrats want to spend even more, Mr.
Chairman. But as we are standing here today debating these amendments,
and some people think we need to hurry up and go home, I think the
American people need to hear this debate.
I heard the distinguished chairman talking about a meat-ax approach
that a Republican chairman had alluded to before years ago. I would say
that the Musgrave amendment is just a shave, Mr. Chairman. It is a
shave that won't even give you a rash. It is 50 cents on $100. That is
very appropriate.
When we look at this bill, we hear things that are very worthy of
taxpayer spending in this bill. But we also hear other things.
This bill contains $204 million for land acquisition. If you take a
map of the United States, Mr. Chairman, and you look and see how much
land the government already owns west of the Mississippi, if you look
at that map, it is staggering. I am very concerned about how the
Federal Government already owns too much land.
Again, in this bill there is $204 million for land acquisition. I
have friends in the Western Caucus, and I am a member of it, and we
talk about what happens to communities when this property is owned by
the Federal Government, what happens to the revenue stream.
This bill also has something else that is especially egregious to me,
$160 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, a 29
percent increase over the amount that was appropriated last year. I
love the arts and I know that these things are noble. But, do you know
what? When I talk to a family in Sterling, Colorado, a farming
community out there in northeastern Colorado, I would have a very hard
time convincing them that they need to be taxed at a higher rate, to
send their hard-earned dollars to Washington, D.C. so that money can be
handed out for theater productions in Sitka, Alaska. I don't think the
family in Sterling, Colorado, would get that.
{time} 1330
So I think when we talk about the good things in this bill, we also
have to look at these egregious things and talk about choices we should
make.
So again, I want to trim this. I want to give this a shave of one-
half of 1 percent, which, by the way, in dollar amounts, ends up being
$138 million, just a shave off of this bill, to exercise discipline in
our spending just like the families back home have to do to meet their
budgets.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I just want to say a couple of things. I know, Mr. Chairman, people
watching this on TV probably think they are in the Twilight Zone or
caught up in the middle of Alice in Wonderland because you don't know
which side to believe.
The chairman of the subcommittee said people couldn't sleep or
wouldn't be able to sleep worrying about these cuts. Nobody in
Grantville, Georgia, will be staying up worrying about the government
cutting its own size.
We are talking about saving time. We have been debating for about 14
hours $28 billion. I don't know about anybody on the other side of the
aisle, but I know that when me and my family sit down and discuss a
budget, it took a lot longer for us to discuss our little pittance of a
budget than 14 hours to discuss $27 billion.
The other thing, we are hearing all of this whining about we borrowed
$3 trillion in the last 6 years. We ran up the deficit. And then we
hear about we cut the budget $16 billion. Now listen, where I come
from, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. We were either wrong in
borrowing the money, or we were wrong in not spending the money, but
you can't be wrong in both of them. Somebody has to make up their mind.
We talked the other night that you can fool some of the people some
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
I would like to say that I think the majority is running out of time,
because pretty soon, the gig is going to be up. We tried pinpointing,
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Flake, we tried pinpointing, doing some accurate
bombing or cutting on this bill; but that didn't work.
Now it's being talked about using the meat-cleaver approach. When I
get those 250 programs that have been cut and the $6 billion that has
been saved, and the list of the $80 billion that we are spending more,
could you send me maybe a method to do some cutting? Because if we
can't pinpoint, we can't use a scalpel, and we can't use a meat
cleaver, how can we do it? I think that is what the taxpayers want to
know. Who is going to stand up for them?
We call each other ``my good friend'' and ``my good buddy'' and ``my
colleague'' and this and that. What we need to be doing is being a good
friend to the taxpayer. We are not being a good friend to the taxpayer.
We talk about national parks being closed down, and yet we spend
another $7 million expanding the Carl Sandburg property.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would cut a total of $138 million from environmental
conservation and Native American programs. It makes no choice based on
need or merit of the program, but it cuts 0.5 percent in this bill.
This is not merely an accounting change on a table. Cutting $138
million from the bill will have very serious consequences.
[[Page H7232]]
All of us have been listening on television about the big wild fire
at Lake Tahoe. This bill would reduce overall funding for firefighting
by $14 million at a time when we are facing what is potentially one of
the worst fire seasons in history. It cuts 125 firefighters, shuts down
firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It
would decimate preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical
support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 80 more
wildfires to escalate. This would lead to larger, more damaging and
much more expensive fires, costing in excess of $20 million to
extinguish.
This amendment halts hazardous fuel reduction projects without which
there is little hope for reducing long-term fire costs and harmful
impacts.
In our national parks, it cuts overall National Park Service funding
by $13 million, includes a $6 million reduction below the President's
request for the basic operational cost of the 391 units of the national
park system.
It drastically impacts the President's proposal to hire 3,000
seasonal and 600 full-time park ranger positions.
For Native American programs, it rejects $29 million for programs
that have received bipartisan support. By cutting $16 million out of
Indian health care programs, this proposal would deny service to
thousands of Native Americans.
It takes 4 percent out of the already struggling Indian education
programs leaving even more Indian children without adequate education
programs.
For the Environmental Protection Agency, it reduces a total of $40
million for EPA. Funding for efforts to help local communities with
repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure, would be
reduced by almost $10 million from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels.
This would mean that many communities would not receive the financial
assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer
infrastructure.
Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a
toxic waste site, the amendment cuts almost $8 million from programs to
clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces
the amount for restoration and protection of America's great water
bodies, including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Puget Sound, and
others. It would especially jeopardize the cleanup of toxic sediments
in the lakes, and community efforts across this Nation to protect 28
estuaries.
For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the cuts here would be $7
million for an agency which has already lost 600 staff positions since
2004. And means that many of our wildlife refuges today have no staff
whatsoever because of the devastating cuts that have been imposed over
the last 7 years.
It would perpetuate staffing shortfall trends and reduce public
service by taking funding out of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Forest Service. This amendment reduces funding for the non-fire
portion of the Forest Service by $13 million. Forces up to 100 employee
layoffs and closures of more than 10 campgrounds while reducing fire
improvement activities on several thousand acres.
It diminishes cooperative land conservation and forestry actions
which serve thousands of nonindustrial private forest landowners.
It freezes research efforts and compels the closure of at least four
labs.
So these are, I think, very substantial and important reductions that
would adversely affect this bill. I have a great regard for the
gentlelady. As much as I enjoy and appreciate her, I can't accept this
amendment. I want her to know it is nothing personal, it is just that
we have to do the job.
We are in a recovery mode here. That is what I tried to explain. The
gentleman who talked about the $16 billion, it wasn't $16 billion, it
was a 16 percent reduction in the funding for the Department of the
Interior. This has had a devastating impact. We also had a 29 percent
reduction in EPA and a 35 percent reduction in the Forest Service
budget. All of these budgets have been hit hard. Only the Department of
Labor has been hit worse.
What we are trying to do is stop this downward trend in the personnel
in these agencies. The Park Service budget, 80 to 90 percent of the
budget are for people. That is why we are so concerned about this.
Without the people, the American people when they go to the parks are
not going to have the kind of experience that they should have. That's
why we have tried to stop this.
The Secretary of the Interior, he got it. I told him, I said you
cannot succeed, Mr. Secretary, unless you get 100 percent of fixed
costs covered in your budget for the Park Service, for the Fish and
Wildlife Service, for the Bureau of Land Management, the Mineral
Management Agency, and he did that. But we have to recover over a
period of time.
Unfortunately, to make further reductions will take us longer before
we can restore the services at our national parks, and restore service
at our national wildlife refuges. This is a very well put-together
bill. I just regret that these cuts are being offered. I think this
bill should be accepted as it is. We have to go to conference,
obviously we know that. So I rise in very strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding
me this time, and for bringing this fine amendment forward and for her
work on fiscal responsibility in her time here in the United States
Congress.
I want to make a couple of quick points here. First, the list that
the chairman just went through, he kept using the term ``cut.'' Let's
be clear to the American people in particular that the gentlelady's
amendment is not a cut, it is an increase of 4 percent. What the
gentleman was referring to was the spending levels at 4.5 percent which
the bill contains within it. All she is saying is let's increase 4
percent instead of 4.5 percent. Again, only in government-speak, only
in Washington can that be termed a cut. She is not cutting at all. She
is just saying let's not increase it quite as much.
A couple of other things we have heard in the course of the debate
this afternoon which I think has been healthy. The chairman indicated
that he wants to move on, we need to limit debate and get out of here.
Look, 40 minutes on three amendments, 2 hours total on debate, on the
most fundamental question, the most fundamental issue the United States
Congress deals with: How we spend the taxpayers' money. So 2 hours
debate on what level that should be is not too much debate. Frankly, we
should have more on this fundamental question.
The other point that the majority party makes is, and again, I find
this logic fascinating. Republicans spent too much, so we are going to
spend even more. It is amazing that is the logic that the other size
entails and brings forward in each of these appropriations bills.
Talking about the spending contained within this bill, let me just
cite a couple of things.
The Commission on Climate Change, a brand new commission, $50 million
on the Commission on Climate Change, adaptation and mitigation, a new,
additional study on global warming, as if we haven't had enough studies
on that already. So $50 million on that.
The National Park Service, $199 million increase, 10.8 percent above
last year.
National Endowment for the Humanities, $19 million increase, 13
percent above last year.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency that the gentleman said
that if it didn't get the right amount of funding, people would lose
sleep over, $361 million, or a 4.7 percent increase above last year.
And of course, my favorite, and I am sure the favorite of the
American taxpayer, National Endowment for the Arts, a $35 million
increase, 29 percent above last year.
There is all kinds of additional government contained in this
legislation. I am reminded of the old statement by our third President,
Thomas Jefferson. He said: ``When government fears the people, there is
liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny.'' Now keep
that statement in mind and ask yourself the question: If next week when
we are back home on break and you are at some friend's business and
someone walks up to the
[[Page H7233]]
door and knocks on the door and the individual identifies himself, I'm
Mr. Smith and I am from the EPA, the Agency that gets a 4.7-percent
increase in this bill. If you are that individual who owns that
business, is your first response, oh, joy, one of my government's
servants is about here to help me today.
That is what this debate is about, and 2 hours debate on the most
fundamental question that the United States Congress deals with, how we
spend taxpayer dollars, is not too much debate.
We should debate this long and hard and we should support the
amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado. It simply slows down the
rate of government growth, slows down that government that Jefferson
warned us about in his statement. I certainly support the gentlelady's
amendment, and thank her for bringing it forward.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give my friend from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) 2 minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who
supports the protection of our national parks and as an individual from
the very crowded State of New Jersey who is seeking to make sure that
we preserve the open space of this country as best we can, I rise in
support of the gentlelady from Colorado's amendment which would
increase spending on these worthwhile causes by 4 percent.
You know, the American public who watches this debate right now might
wonder sometimes, do we have a schizophrenic state of mind by the
majority party in control today? Out of their mouths come one thing now
and something else later on. What is white is black, what is day is
night. One moment we are railing against and saying spending, spending,
spending is the problem and it's been the problem of the Republican
Party for years and years and it still is their problem. Just a moment
later, we hear that spending is not the problem from the other side.
The problem all these years has been cuts, cuts, cuts. The problem that
we have now is that we've been cutting too much in the past. Which is
it?
The American public must do as I do sometimes when they hear the
debate from the other side of the aisle and scratch their head. Which
are the facts that they want to go by today? Is it the problem that
we've been spending too much, as the other side of the aisle says? Or
is the problem, as the gentleman just recently said, that we were
cutting too much?
I would argue that the problem has been that we've been spending too
much of the taxpayers' dollars in an unaccountable manner. And the
budget that has come before us would give the American taxpayer the
largest tax increase in U.S. history.
The amendment from the gentlelady from Colorado would try to do
things on an even and moderate manner. It would still increase spending
by 4 percent so that all the worthwhile programs in the bill that's
before us would be able to be continued to be fully funded at the
necessary levels. But at the same time, the gentlelady from Colorado
takes in mind the efforts of the American taxpayers to make sure that
we will not have the largest tax increase in American history on that
family.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the committee chairman if he
has any more speakers.
Mr. DICKS. I may have one more speaker. I think I have the right to
close, don't I?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGovern). The gentleman from Washington has
the right to close.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining for both sides.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining and
the gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes remaining.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
You know, we have heard a lot today from the majority party whenever
we talk about this amendment, this bill, this spending, they want to
bring up last year's bills, last year's spending. We acknowledge, last
year's spending was too much. Last year's bills were too much. That's
not what we're talking about. It's like the baseball team wanting to
play last year's season again. Look what we did last year. Look what
happened last year. No, we're in the middle of this year. We're in the
middle of this season. It doesn't matter who won the World Series last
year. It matters who's in first place this year. What matters is this
year. How much are we going to spend this year? That's what we're
voting on. How much are we going to increase the deficit this year? How
much further are we going to raid the Social Security surplus this
year? That's the question before us. And we think we ought to have the
deficit increase a little less and that we should raid the Social
Security surplus a little less and that we shouldn't set up a situation
where you're going to raise taxes on all of the American people.
The previous amendment, I showed a couple of charts. The previous
amendment was to reduce spending by 1 percent. I tried to point out to
the majority that it's like this. Here are 100 donkeys, something they
can understand. If we reduce that by 1 percent, we have 99 donkeys. Not
that big a difference in donkeys. And so we proposed an amendment last
time, which the majority party defeated on voice vote, will undoubtedly
defeat later, that said, let's just get by on 99 donkeys, money,
instead of 100 donkeys, money. Well, they said they couldn't do it.
So the gentlelady from Colorado offers an alternative, which is get
by on 99\1/2\ donkeys. If I had a half donkey, I would stick it up
there. You can pick whichever end of the donkey you want, but put
another half a donkey on that chart. And so we're saying rather than
100 donkeys, get by with 99\1/2\. It's just saying if you have a
million-dollar program, we said, well, get by on 999,000. They're
saying, no. Okay. How about $999,500? If you have a $100 million
program, we're saying can you get by on $99 million. They said, no.
We're saying, okay, how about $99\1/2\ million.
That's what this argument is about. Just asking for a half a percent,
each government agency, each government program to deal with a half a
percent less. People at home make these kinds of decisions with way
bigger percentages than that all the time, Mr. Chairman. And if we do
it, if we reduce it by 1 percent, we would save $30 billion if we did
every program every year. If it's a half a percent, it's still $15
billion. That is real money, Mr. Chairman. Real money no matter how you
cut it. And that is the way we can balance this budget without raising
taxes.
There, Mr. Chairman, is the big difference between the majority
Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We're saying, get by on 99
donkeys or 99\1/2\ donkeys instead of 100. Tell government bureaucrats
that we can balance this budget without raising taxes. They, however,
want to give the bureaucrats 100 donkeys of spending every time and
raise taxes on the American people to make up the difference. That's
what we're talking about here. That's the difference in this debate.
That's the difference between these parties.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members to vote to make government
bureaucrats deal with a tiny bit less and let people save and keep
their own money.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 3 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Washington State has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I come in support of my friend from Colorado's amendment that would
reduce this by one-half of 1 percent below the spending levels of last
year.
Over the last 6 months, the new majority has passed or paved the way
for $103.5 billion of increased spending. I
[[Page H7234]]
guess actually, to be technically correct, it's $103.4 billion. While
$0.1 billion may not matter here, it sure matters in America. $103.4
billion in new spending.
We have already enacted over a $6 billion increase in the continuing
resolution for this year. We added $17 billion in unrequested funding
to spend in the supplemental for this year. And now we're beginning
this process of moving toward the additional $80.3 billion added to
spending on this year's budget.
$100 billion is a huge amount of money. Today we're considering the
Interior and Environment appropriations bill that really makes a good
portion of that increase happen right here. This bill increases
spending by almost 5 percent over last year's level, $1.2 billion of
new spending.
And here, if you look at this spending thermometer, we're halfway up
to what may be the taxpayer's boiling point. Somebody has to pay the
bill. Somebody has to produce the revenue. Some American family is
going to have to have a little less take-home pay because government
wanted just a little bit more here, a little bit more there, a little
bit more everywhere else.
And all my good friend from Colorado's amendment does is say, let's
reduce spending here by one-half of 1 percent. Let's reduce spending by
$138 million and still see if we can't do the things that need to be
done in this appropriations bill in the right way. If you add this
increase to the increases already proposed and passed over the past 2
weeks, we're spending $23.8 billion more than last year.
I rise in strong support of this amendment. I respect both the
chairman and the ranking member of the committee and believe that
they've done a good job with this bill, but I believe you could do that
same job, I think you could do the same job, produce the same results
with asking the American taxpayers not to have to carry a burden of
4\1/2\ percent new spending in this part of the budget. And so I
strongly recommend that we take this, what may seem like a slight
reduction here, but when families have to start paying that $138
million in additional taxes, it's a big deal for American families. It
should be a big deal for us.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. I would like to make a few comments on the remarks of my
friend from Missouri. We've just heard an expression of deep concern
about the so-called runaway spending in this bill and other
appropriation bills. And we've heard deep concern expressed about how
this is going to hurt the average taxpayer.
Well, I would like to compare priorities. They've talked about our
budget. I would like to talk about theirs, although I must admit that
in 3 of the last 6 years, they couldn't even pass one. We passed a
budget. In 3 out of the last 6 years, they couldn't even pass their own
budget because of internal squabbles between themselves. But I want to
talk about the budget that they attempted to pass. The budget that
we're operating under was signed by the President, passed by a
Republican Congress, and this year will give over $50 billion in tax
cuts to people who make over a million bucks a year. That seems to be
the top priority of folks on the other side of the aisle, to preserve
that high-roller tax cut above all else.
Well, let me tell you what we think should be higher priorities.
They've attacked us because of what we did in the continuing resolution
last year and they attack us for what we're trying to do in this bill
today. I plead fully guilty of trying to add, in fact we did add almost
$4 billion of additional funding for veterans health care. I see no
sense of shared sacrifice in this country when it comes to the war.
Only military families are being asked to pay a price. We decided that
we ought to at least see to it that veterans are taken care of when
they come home. So we added $4 billion.
Then you bet! We added some more so-called ``runaway spending,'' so
that middle-class kids could get more help to go to college by raising
the Pell Grants. Now, I've never had anybody in my district say, ``Why
don't you guys get your act together and cut cancer research?'' But
that's exactly what the Republican-controlled Congress did in the last
2 years. They cut health grants, research grants at the NIH, over 500
grants. So we put $610 million back into that continuing resolution to
wipe out those cuts, because we think it's more important to save
people's lives from cancer and Parkinson's and heart disease than it is
to wear a green eye shade that says ``Mr. Perfect'' on it.
Then we added additional funding for community health care. 1.2
million additional Americans are going to be able to access community
health centers and get health care without begging.
{time} 1400
I do not apologize for that. Nobody does on this side of the aisle.
When it comes to this bill, we make no apology of the fact that we are
trying to restore funds which were cut out of this Interior budget for
the last 3 years, cut out of the EPA budget, for the clean water
revolving fund. There isn't a bigger need in rural America than clean
water and decent sewer systems.
I represent all kinds of communities of less than 2,000 people. At
least half of the families are headed either by women or people over
65. They do not have the tax-paying capacity on the property tax to
meet the standards required of them to clean up their water and their
sewer problems. Mr. Dicks has tried to deal with that. We do not
apologize for that one iota.
We've got some other priorities too. We're going to try to provide
additional funding for energy. We have added, in the three bills that
have passed this House so far, and including this bill, we will have
added more than $1 billion in an effort to increase and strengthen our
energy research so that we aren't the prisoners of gas and oil
companies and so that we aren't the prisoners of Middle East oil. We
make no apologies for that.
Admittedly, there are some people in this House who know the cost of
everything and the value of nothing. I'm looking at a few of them right
now.
But the fact is that we recognize that it is important to make long-
term investments so that 10 years from now, we can have the kind of
country we want it to be, rather than having the kind of country we
don't want it to be.
I would suggest I will compare our priorities to yours any time. You
can defend those $57 billion in tax cuts for millionaires until the
cows come home. I would rather defend increased service at our national
parks, increased educational opportunity, increased health care,
increased clean water and clean air opportunities. I think the public
will take those priorities any time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a healthy
debate.
I appreciate my good friend from Colorado for yielding. I want to
commend as well my friend from Washington, the subcommittee chairman,
for the work that he has done and the ranking member for work that they
have done. The subcommittee chairman said that there was nothing
personal in his opposition to this amendment, and that's true. There is
absolutely nothing personal here in this Chamber.
But this discussion is personal to the American taxpayer, and it's
all about priorities. We have offered today a series of amendments. One
amendment said we ought to spend exactly what we spent last year, tens
of billions of dollars in this area of the government. The majority
party declined to accept that amendment.
Then we offered an amendment that said instead of increasing spending
by 9.5 percent, we ought to increase spending by 8.5 percent, and they
said, no, they weren't interested in that.
So the gentlelady from Colorado says, well, if you can't save $1 out
of every $100, how about 50 cents? How about 50 cents out of every
$100?
What Congress is spending in this appropriations bill and in every
appropriations bill, because of the increase in spending, is money that
we don't have. It's money that the Congress doesn't have. This money
represents the debt that Congress is burdening on future generations,
our children, and our grandchildren. It is simply time, it's time for
Washington to stop finding ways to spend more money.
[[Page H7235]]
I commend the gentlelady from Colorado for her amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support her amendment by decreasing by one half of 1
percent the increase in this appropriations bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as I think about this amendment again, I
have heard from the distinguished chairman, and I do applaud his work
and the work of the ranking member on this appropriations bill, but I
heard, I believe it was Representative Contee talk about a meat-ax
approach to reducing spending.
I would just like to say again that this .5 percent is just a gentle
shave. We need to look at the trajectory when we look at appropriations
bills and see where they are going. We need to ask the American family,
are you guaranteed a 4.5 percent increase in your income every year?
I think we need to think of that American family, particularly moms
and dads with children that are trying to figure out how long they are
going to have to work in the year before they reach tax freedom day.
How many days do they have to work before they have earned enough money
to pay the government to spend like this with increases every year?
I am hoping we can look out for the American taxpayer, we can look
out for hard-working Americans and say we are going to exercise fiscal
responsibility, and we are going to start out with a very small step,
reducing spending in this Interior appropriations bill by .5 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the
amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania the designee
for Mr. Doolittle?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Yes.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new title:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act are
revised by reducing the amounts under the following headings
``Bureau of Land Management--management of lands and
resources'' by $34,341,000, ``Bureau of Land Management--land
acquisition'' by $17,015,000, ``United States Fish and
Wildlife Service--land acquisition'' by $25,035,000, ``United
States Fish and Wildlife Service--multinational species
conservation funds'' by $4,655,000, ``United States Fish and
Wildlife Service--state and tribal wildlife grants'' by
$17,508,000, ``National Park Service--land acquisition'' by
$76,873,000, ``National Park Service--centennial challenge''
by $22,721,000, ``Environmental Protection Agency--
environmental programs and management'' by $37,660,000,
``National Park Service--office of inspector general'' by
$6,328,000, ``Forest Service--forest and rangeland research''
by $7,500,000, ``Forest Service--state and private forestry''
by $13,476,000, ``Forest Service--national forest system'' by
$53,773,000, ``Forest Service--capital improvement and
maintenance'' by $25,000,000, ``Forest Service--land
acquisition'' by $28,782,000, ``National Endowment for the
Arts--grants and administration'' by $35,438,000, and
``National Endowment for the Humanities--grants and
administration'' by $18,895,000, and $425,000,000 shall be
available for payments during fiscal year 2008 under sections
102 and 103 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500
note), as reauthorized by section 2201 of Public Law 110-28.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I rise to support the Secure Rural
Schools Act. My district in Pennsylvania is affected by this and many
districts in the west are affected by this Act.
Over the years, timber harvesting and other mineral resources
harvesting provided a huge resource for local governments, and,
specifically, schools.
When those who chose not to continue the wise management of our
forest by allowing the mature trees to be harvested, America's most
renewable resource, we had school districts and governments in
tremendous financial crisis. Several years ago, Congress had the wisdom
to pass the Secure Rural Schools Act that helped stabilize the ability
to educate our young people and give them the chances of an adequate,
good education, because these rural communities did not have the
infrastructure, because most of the property and land and resources was
owned by the Federal Government. This Act has helped in immense ways,
and this chance, this amendment, will continue that funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the most critical crisis in rural
America, where there are large tracts of public forest land, is to deal
with this issue of funding for the Secure Rural Schools.
The funding did finally come this year, but it came too late, at
least for my district, and I think for many. Our State law requires
that if you are going to give layoff notices to teachers, they have to
go out in the month of March. All the layoff notices already went out.
Most of the teachers already left the schools to find other employment.
The funding for this finally came through in late May, as I recall, in
the supplemental, but by that time the damage had been done.
We have to find a solution. This amendment that Mr. Peterson and I
are offering is an approach. I know there is a point of order that has
been reserved, but we have to have timely funding for our rural
schools. If we put it in this bill, it doesn't actually increase the
deficit as it would if it went as a new mandatory program, or if it
went in the supplemental. By the way, this is important enough, I would
certainly support either of those other approaches.
But the fact of the matter is, we need to assure timely funding so
that we don't have the situation where the funding comes in, but it
comes in too late in order to really matter for the schools and the
students.
Plumas County, for example, one county in my district, issued layoff
notices to 55 personnel earlier this year, and most of them are gone,
even though the funding ultimately came through. So this is timely
funding. It does it in a way that's least detrimental to the whole
budget picture. I have worked, I have tried to work on every possible
solution that I could think of. This is really a critical situation for
all of rural America, where there are tracts of public forest land, and
I really strongly hope that the Members will support us on this, help
us to get a resolution to this crisis so that we can meet the needs of
the people that we represent.
Point of Order
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, with deep regret, I insist on my point of
order.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an
appropriation for an unauthorized program, and, therefore, violates
clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part,
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
The amendment proposes to appropriate funds for the rural school
program that has not been reauthorized. The amendment, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I am sorry that I have to raise a
point of order, but the payments for the Secure Rural Schools Act of
2000 are not authorized.
[[Page H7236]]
This is a reachback appropriation for an unauthorized program and,
therefore, I am sorry I must insist on my point of order. I will also
point out that it would be irresponsible to cut this budget bill by
$425 million.
Public Law 110-28 did not reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. TIAHRT. I appreciate the chairman and his accuracy on what he is
reserving a point of order on.
However, I would like to point out that we have other issues pending
that are also subject to a point of order. It seems arbitrary to me
that we do not let the House work its will on Mr. Doolittle's efforts,
and yet we move forward on other areas which are under the same point
of order, and we expect some comity.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the gentleman is addressing
the point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear any Member on the point of
order.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is an arbitrary
reservation on a point of order, and because other similar issues are
pending, that it should be withdrawn so that we can move on and let the
House work its will.
Mr. DICKS. I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is pending. The gentleman may
not strike the last word.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of
persuasion on the question whether it is supported by an authorization
in law.
Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of
appropriation contained in the amendment is authorized in law.
Under the precedents of July 12, 1995, as recorded in House Practice
at page 145, and July 16, 1997, an amendment adding matter at the
pending portion of the bill to effect an indirect increase in an
unauthorized amount permitted to remain in a portion of the bill
already passed in the reading is not ``merely perfecting'' for purposes
of clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I want to say how badly I feel about this because this
Secure Rural Schools program is a very important program in the
northwest, as well as in California. But I just could not allow this
amendment to come for a vote because it would have cut $425 million out
of this bill.
{time} 1415
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we have an issue pending which is going to
come up, I think, rather quickly, from the gentleman from Oregon who is
worried about the very same issue, and he's coming at it from a
slightly different angle.
And, yes, the gentleman from California was having offsets for his
cuts, but I see no ill will in allowing the House to work its will on
Mr. Doolittle's amendment, which affects Western States deeply. It's
very similar to what the gentleman from Oregon is also trying to do, so
why don't we just let both of them go, let the House work its will?
Mr. DICKS. I regret that I can't take that chance. If this amendment
were enacted, it would have a devastating consequence on this bill. And
it was subject to a point of order, and I had to insist on it. I regret
that we have this controversy, but that's the reality of the situation
we're in.
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'd like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to express my deep
disappointment that we're not able to move forward on the gentleman's
amendment from California, and the peril that it may put the next
amendment in.
If you want to talk about cuts in crisis, you come out to rural
Oregon, rural Washington, rural Northern California, the areas that my
friend and colleague from Washington knows all too well.
The largest county in my district had 15 or 16 libraries, all of
which are now shuttered and closed because this Congress and the last
failed to reauthorize the Secure County Roads and Schools legislation
that the Congress before, in 2000, put into law.
The effect of all that, and the effect of this not going forward is
those counties have a 1-year stay of execution because in the emergency
supplemental there was legislation that funded them for one more year.
But as the good gentleman from Washington State knows, with the
decline in the timber industry, the decline in harvest on Federal
lands, these rural counties have been devastated. They have no tax base
in some cases, or very little; 70, 80 percent of land mass is Federal
lands. There's been a commitment for 100 years by this Congress to
share revenues, and then those revenues went away. Law enforcement is
going away. Basic services. You all would throw a fit if they went away
in Washington, D.C. or any other urban area.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. The point I'd like to make, this is an authorization
problem. This isn't supposed to be handled on the appropriations bill.
We had an agreement that we would help you do this for 1 year, but then
you would go back to the Natural Resources Committee and find the
mandatory spending to offset this. This is not an appropriations
matter.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, I understand, and I
appreciate what the gentleman has done to assist us in the past. My
frustration is the one I have to share, because when I go home, people
don't understand why we can keep funding all these other things and
can't take care of sort of an organic funding issue that affects them
deeply.
The first bill I cosponsored in this Congress with my colleague from
Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, and many others was to reauthorize this program. I
believe the first letter I sent was to the new chairman of the
Resources Committee begging for a hearing to reauthorize this program.
The folks at home don't understand this process, and sometimes
neither do I. But if we have to bring down the House to try and get
help to people who deserve it, then that's what we'll have to do.
It's really unfortunate that we would abrogate this commitment to
these people in rural areas and not allow us at least to move forward,
and certainly with the next amendment, which merely fixes a technical
correction, allows the Resource advisory committees to go forward, but
spends no money.
Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I just want to point out to the
chairman that we're now picking winners and losers, and it's an
arbitrary decision. And if we allowed the House to work its will, I
think the gentleman would be successful and his worries would be
abated.
But right now we've gone into this selection process of who's going
to win and who's going to lose. The gentleman from California loses,
the other gentleman from Oregon wins. And I don't think that's right. I
think we ought to have a consistent manner to move forward.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. The only thing I would say here is that you can raise a
point of
[[Page H7237]]
order against the gentleman from Oregon's amendment, but that is going
to hurt the other gentleman from Oregon. I mean, this is a partial help
as a place holder in this bill.
And the distinguished chairman and I were just talking about we put
$425 million in the supplemental to take care of this problem. Now,
you've got to go get this done in the authorization committee. And I'm
not going to risk this bill, which we fought so hard to create, on a
chance that we might pass this amendment and cut all this other
spending that's important in the bill to my constituents.
Mr. TIAHRT. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that
we're being inconsistent here. And I would hope for some consistency in
the way we administer these areas where we have a point of order that
can be reserved or can't be reserved. I think you should let the House
work its will.
And when we make some winners that are chosen on your side, and then
we arbitrarily choose not to allow Republicans to have the same
opportunity, I think it's unfair. I would like some consistency in all
the appropriations bills and not just this one.
And here we have a very critical need that affects both Republicans
and Democrats. It's a critical need in these areas. And as the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) can tell you, it's going to be a
big problem for him as well. So I just want some consistency here and
allow the gentleman from California to have the House work its will.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas' time has expired.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if somebody could call the Attending
Physician's office. I'm getting a bad case of whiplash here just
listening to these arguments that run in opposite directions.
I just heard the gentleman say a minute ago, and I must say, I'm
sympathetic to his problem, but I just heard him say a minute ago that
he's frustrated. Well, I'm frustrated too because, what I'd like to
point out, as the President of the United States pointed out just a few
weeks ago, is that the gentleman's knocking on the wrong door.
And with all due respect, when Mr. Lewis was chairman of the
Appropriations Committee last year, it wasn't his job to reauthorize
this program. And as chairman of the committee this year, it isn't my
job to reauthorize this program. You need to go to the authorizing
committee.
We have gotten dozens of lectures through the last month from Members
on your side of the aisle who fuss and fume about individual earmarks
that they say are not ``authorized.''
Well, this is a case where we on the committee are saying the
following: you came to us last year. You said you couldn't get the
authorizing committee off its duff, and so you wanted some help to
sustain this program until you could get them to reauthorize it. So
even against the strong objection of the President of the United
States, and the last time I looked, he was a Republican, even in the
light of his objection, we put in over $400 million to create a bridge
for you until you could get this problem resolved.
Now, I'm sorry that this has not been reauthorized. You need to take
that up with another committee. All I can tell you is that we're taking
time on this bill, on this amendment because you think somebody else,
in some other committee, didn't do their job.
Well, you can't have it both ways, and neither can we. So I would
simply ask the gentleman to please go to the right committee. And I'd
be happy to send them a letter. The fact is you're taking up this
committee's time, and we're getting squawks from Members on both sides
of the aisle saying, ``Why are you appropriators taking so blessed much
time.''
Well, with all due respect, it's not the appropriators trying to take
the time. It's people who are not on the Appropriations Committee who
are aiming at the wrong committee in their search of solution to a
problem.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to yield to my tire-changing friend from
Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, a real crisis in the
rural areas, and I do not blame the Members for using every means
available to them to try to solve the problems in their districts. And
I know it's not your responsibility to do it, but we've come through
for these folks in the past, and I would just ask consideration in the
future.
Mr. OBEY. I understand. All I can say is, we did respond. We've just
heard umpteen speakers on your side of the aisle kick the blazes out of
us because they're saying we're spending too much money. And now you're
telling us that you're unhappy because we're not spending enough money
on this program, and we're not even authorized to spend it. I have a
difficult time following that logic.
Mr. TIAHRT. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Sure.
Mr. TIAHRT. I understand the difficulty in it, but it was off-set.
And the chairman of the Interior Committee did not like the offsets,
and that's why he pushed the point of order. But it's just a different
priority. And I have to say that is a pretty high priority.
I yield back.
Mr. OBEY. I understand. And I'm more than willing to cooperate
because, unlike some people in this Congress, I recognize this is all
one country. And we've got an obligation to recognize different needs
and different demands in different districts. I wish we had the same
courtesy extended to us by certain other Members of the body.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank the chairman, and I've commended him
before for his work in our behalf in this very difficult problem we
face in the rural areas. And you've been terrific to work with. You've
been most generous, not only with your time, but with your assistance.
And I supported you and that bill when it came before, in opposition to
my own President, and would continue to do so, because I know who sent
me here, and I know what they want. And you may have missed my earlier
comments.
Mr. OBEY. No, I have been watching them on television.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I'm sorry you've had to put up with me there.
The point is, I've done everything I can to try and get the committee
that I served on for 8 years to even hold a hearing to reauthorize this
bill. When I was on that committee in 2005 and chaired the Forestry
Subcommittee, we marked up a reauthorization in 2005 by March, and we
passed it out of the committee by June.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of Mr. Lewis?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I do so to yield to those who would like to
continue this conversation. I'm glad to yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I very much appreciate that. I'd like to ask Chairman
Obey a question, if I may.
Mr. LEWIS of California. By way of me, certainly.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Actually, I want to ask you one too, so I'm glad
you're both up here.
Mr. Chairman, you have worked with us and tried to help us, and I
would agree with Mr. Walden on that.
You were kind enough to offer something a minute ago that I'd just
like to, if I may, accept that offer. You said you would write a letter
to the chairman of the authorizing, the respective authorizing
committees, which I think are both Resources and Agriculture in this
case.
Could we, and with our ranking member, could I invite both you
gentlemen to maybe submit such a letter to the relevant authorizing
committee chairmen? I think that would be a step in the right direction
here.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield, certainly.
[[Page H7238]]
Mr. OBEY. I will be happy to try to assist the gentleman in any way
that makes clear that the authorizing committees need to act, because
this is not a matter under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations
Committee. I've only been around here 38 years; and on occasions,
believe it or not, I've seen an authorizing committee object when the
Appropriations Committee invades its jurisdiction.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. And I appreciate that.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I continue to yield.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir. The problem we have had is, frankly,
the authorizing committees, for whatever reason, have chosen not to
act. And in that vacuum we've been faced with a crisis of what do we do
with the teacher being laid off or in Oregon's case with people being
let out of the county jails because they're lacking this funding. We've
had to come up with some extraordinary ways to respond to it.
Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Certainly. Happy to yield.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, I would not say that it's fair to
characterize the authorizing committees as refusing to move. We have
only been in charge of this Congress for the last 6 months, and there
have been a few other basic priorities, including reauthorization of
the basic farm bill that I'm sure have occupied the authorizers. I
thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I'll be happy to continue to yield, but I'd
like to take some time as well.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I didn't mean to imply, Mr. Chairman, that this was
just this Congress' authorizing committees. I'm reaching back in time
to include the previous Congress as well.
{time} 1430
It did pass out of the Resources Committee. And I think the bill
passed out handily. But it never cleared the other committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I find
this conversation to be very interesting, and I noted that there is a
tendency not to accept authorizing language in this instance because of
a very specific problem, and because the authorizing committee has not
acted. I, frankly, think there are a number of circumstances, including
the next amendment that is even more significantly an authorizing
problem that probably ought to be stricken as well. But if we are going
to be consistent here, let's be consistent. And, indeed, I would be
more than willing to join my colleague in communicating with the
authorizing chairman in connection with this. But perhaps the time to
draw a line is now and say we are not going to authorize in this bill
and then see how they respond to us.
Amendment 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 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
The amount otherwise provided in this Act for ``The
Historic Preservation Fund'' is hereby decreased by
$1,000,000 and increased by $1,000,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Just a few minutes ago, the full committee Chair mentioned the value
of this bill, and I salute the appropriators, the chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee, for the valiant effort that they have made,
whether it is about hazardous toxic cleanup; Superfund sites; national
parks; historic preservation, where $102 million is appropriated, $30
million over the budget of the President, $30 million over the 2007
mark and $20 million above the President's request. This is a very good
effort, and I want to thank Mr. Tiahrt and I want to thank the chairman
of the subcommittee and both the chairman and ranking member of the
full committee.
The chairman of the subcommittee just a moment ago mentioned the
words ``downward trend'' in the budget process as another amendment was
being debated. I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the
downward trend of historic preservation around America.
My amendment is simple. It is to encourage through reprogramming the
National Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation to redouble their efforts to assist State and
local governments and community groups in identifying and working to
preserve nationally significant sites, structures, and artifacts,
particularly those relating to communities founded by newly emancipated
slaves such as Freedmen's Town in Houston, Texas, or Tulsa in Oklahoma
or the work that was done to serve the pre-Civil War and post-Civil War
mansions in Savannah, Georgia, or the meat packing area in New York. We
have to be able to stand for preservation in the face of urban renewal,
in the face of urban infrastructure that has to be done.
I am hoping the reprogramming of $1 million will help communities
like Freedmen's Town, help the city of Houston to realize that we mean
business and the acknowledgment of the importance of historic
preservation. This is the historic Fourth Ward. These are the
cobblestone streets that have been laid by the hands of slaves. And
just a few days ago, we commemorated emancipation. These are the
remaining churches where pastors have dedicated their congregations and
their moneys and themselves to historic preservation. These are the
streets that have been disrupted.
And what we are hoping by this amendment is that the present project
of infrastructure work for clean water, which is crucially important,
can be done by the work or the analysis of an engineer that says you
can do this on a sidewalk and preserve these cobblestone bricks that
were laid by hand by 34 freed slaves who were bricklayers at that time.
We know that the repetition of disrupting these bricks will destroy
them forever, and there is a community that desires to have this
preserved. This amendment, which is a reprogramming, emphasizes the
importance of this.
Let us not have a downward trend, if you will, of historic
preservation. Many Members have come to the floor with issues of value
around Interior and Environment. We want the environment to be safe,
but we want the historic environment to be preserved for those who are
a valuable part of the historical story of America.
So I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is crucial
to the Freedmen's Town community in Houston, but it is crucial to the
Tulsa story in Oklahoma. It is crucial to the story of Chicago, crucial
to Savannah, crucial to New York, and many other States where we have
systematically ignored the historic preservation of our Nation. Who
will tell our children the story? I am fighting in Houston. Others are
fighting elsewhere. This amendment is to create the historical record,
the legislative record, that we are committed to.
Let me thank the committee for its commitment. We know the fund is
sizable, but this is an important step. And the funding that was given
is an important affirmation of historic preservation, particularly when
engineers recognize that you can construct infrastructure work and
preserve the historic identity of this community.
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. Most
Americans do not know that this bill also funds a very special agency,
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and its adjunct, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important
message from the Congress of the United States. The purpose of
[[Page H7239]]
my amendment is to encourage the National Historic Preservation Fund
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to redouble their
efforts to assist state and local governments and community groups in
identifying and working to preserve nationally significant sites,
structures, and artifacts, particularly those relating to communities
founded by newly emancipated slaves, such as Freedmen's Town in
Houston, Texas.
Mr. Chairman, just west of downtown Houston lies the Fourth Ward. It
is the city's oldest Black community. But before it was the Fourth
Ward, this community was known by its original name, Freedmen's Town,
given by freed slaves who settled it shortly after receiving the news
of their emancipation on Juneteenth.
Initially located where Allen Parkway Village now stands, Freedmen's
Town was established immediately after the Civil War, when many farmers
gave or sold their truck farms and property to freed slaves. Freedmen's
Town prospered during the turn of the century.
Economic, community, and social development were at a peak until
local government became threatened by the prosperity of this area and
its residents. In the 1920s, Freedmen's Town was the ``Harlem of the
Southwest.'' The area was filled with many restaurants, jazz spots, and
night clubs. These establishments were frequently visited by Houston's
white citizens as well. West Dallas was the community's main commercial
strip.
As the years passed and with the coming of integration, many
Freedmen's Town residents began to move toward Texas Southern
University, in the Third Ward, and other areas of the city, such as
Studewood, South Park, Riverside Terrace, Kashmere Gardens, and Acres
Homes. And the size and population of Freedmen's Town began to shrink.
Much of this was due to construction in the late 1930s against the
wishes of Blacks here, which continued to sever the historical
neighborhood, divided nearly at midpoint by the addition of the Gulf
Freeway.
The struggle for justice by community residents and leadership is
only one facet of Freedmen's Town's rich and colorful past, which is
still home to many significant historical landmarks and features. Hand-
laid brick streets, constructed by Rev. Jeremiah and his congregation
over half a century ago, still run through the area. Houston's first
cemetery, Founder's Cemetery at Valentine and West Dallas, contains the
graves of military men who fought in the Civil War, as well as the
historical remains of John and Augustus Allen, the founders of Houston.
Immediately adjacent to Founder's Cemetery stands the ``Hanging
Tree'' where several Blacks were hanged. During World War I, Camp
Logan, located just west of Freedmen's Town, was the site of the worst
race war in the city's history--the ``Camp Logan War'' in August of
1917.
Behind Founder's Cemetery lies Congregation Beth Israel, the oldest
Jewish cemetery in Houston, which is beautifully maintained to this
day. Among other historical churches in the area, Antioch Missionary
Baptist Church built in 1866 continues to be a major focal point of
Freedmen's Town, though it has been relocated from its original site on
``Baptist Hill'' where the Music Hall and Coliseum now stand.
Reverend John Jack Yates, the first Black pastor of Antioch, was a
dynamic and influential leader known for his deep commitment to the
education of Black youngsters. He often used his personal finances to
send Freedmen's Town children to school. Today, Jack Yates High School
in the Third Ward stands in his honor.
Of the houses that Reverend Yates built, only the one he built for
his brother remains at 1314 Andrews. Yates' historical homestead at
1318 Andrews, believed to be the oldest two-story home built by an
African American owner, was moved to Sam Houston Park (ironically, a
park commemorating a slave-owner), while the house at 1204 Wilson was
demolished by the City of Houston in 1986. Further plans promoted under
the name of ``Founders Park'' so threatened the historical preservation
of Freedmen's Town that outraged residents and leadership organized
opposition through the Freedmen's Town Neighborhood Association to
defeat the plans of outside private interests. However, the constant
encroachment on Freedmen's Town and Fourth Ward continues to date with
the plans of the Houston Renaissance and private developers.
Although Freedmen's Town is a nationally registered historical site,
and the largest intact freed slave settlement left in the entire
Nation, its official designation protects only 40 of the 80 blocks or
more of the remaining Freedmen's Town area.
To preserve what remains of Freedmen's Town will require the combined
efforts of community groups working with local, State, and Federal
Government to reach a consensus of projects worthy of preservation.
One such project for Freedmen's Town is the ``Bricks Street
Project,'' which is intended to preserve the original brick pavers of
Freedmen's Town along Andrews Street and Wilson Street. These streets
have been found to contain brick pavers patterns which may be unique to
the Freedmen's Town area, and are consistent with brick patterns seen
on architectural features located in the Historic District. Oral
histories indicate the possibility that portions of the iron rails
which once carried a Freedmen's Town trolley car may still remain in
situ in the rail track ways.
Three of these community groups include the Rutherford BH Yates
Museum, Inc., which has played a leading part in promoting the Bricks
Street Project; the Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village, which
works to educate the public on issues of Federal housing and historical
preservation laws; and the Freedmen's Town Association, founded for the
purpose of assuring the active and effective participation of current
residents in planning the preservation, restoration, and development of
the area, especially in the area of business and private home
ownership.
Mr. Chairman, hearts break when irreplaceable structures are
destroyed or damaged beyond repair, instead of preserved and protected
as they deserve. A plaque pointing out ``on this site a great building
once stood'' simply cannot tell the story in whole or in full. Equally
tragic is the loss of traditions: a way of living or crafting wood or
farming, of celebrating holidays or worshiping or feasting on
``Juneteenth'' cuisine. The preservation and perpetuation of artifacts
as well as traditions is important to telling the story of the people
who settled a community. By protecting the buildings, landscape or
special places and qualities that attract visitors, we preserve our
history for future generations.
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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would say that on behalf of
the majority, we would accept the gentlewoman's amendment and would be
willing to work with her closely on it.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I was just curious as to which line this
amount was coming from and where it is going to because the amendment I
have just says it decreases $1 million and it increases $1 million.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it goes right into the same
appropriations, historic State offices, but it doesn't take any money
out without putting it right back in.
Mr. TIAHRT. Okay. I have no problem with that.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
for accepting the amendment, and I look forward to working with
committee and working with the chairman on this important historical
statement and language as we move forward to conference.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield,
the chairman and ranking member look forward to working with the
gentlewoman on this very important issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and ask
my colleagues to support this amendment.
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. 17 Offered by Mr. Inslee
Mr. INSLEE. 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. 17 offered by Mr. Inslee:
[[Page H7240]]
TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to issue any permit for, or otherwise approve or
allow, importation of any polar bear or polar bear part under
section 104(c)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(A)).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, behold the polar bear Ursus maritimus, one
of the most magnificent creatures on earth, legendary in its strength
and to date its survival.
But today its survival is at great risk. It deserves the protection
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and it does not have it.
Today we seek to close the loophole that alone amongst marine mammals
allows the importation of bear heads, bearskins, bear claws in
opposition to the basic concept of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
And we do so because this animal certainly is at risk. It is at risk
because where there is no ice, there are no polar bears. This creature
is dependent on the ice, and the ice is disappearing. That is what has
led the Bush administration's Secretary of Interior to propose to list
it as a threatened species.
But it gets worse. If you look at what the future is going to bring
this bear, by 2040 the recent studies indicate that there will be no
meaningful sea ice in the Arctic ocean by 2040 upon which these bears
depend for their survival.
Now, we have folks who do enjoy trophy hunting in the United States,
and there is nothing wrong with hunting or any suggestion of that in
this amendment. But the truth is this: At this moment of risk to these
bears, polar bear cubs need their parents in their dens more than we
need polar bearskins in our dens. And this will simply close that
loophole to remove that lack of protection from these animals.
Now, these animals are not threatened just in the United States. The
ongoing trophy hunt is going on in Canada, where the International
Polar Bear Community has found that at least half of the specific
populations of polar bears are at great risk for extinction. And we
know that hunters can be a force for conservation. We know they help
provide habitat for ducks with Ducks Unlimited.
But the fact of the matter is, is that with a bullet to a bear, you
cannot conserve it. And the fact of the matter is that the $750 permits
that go to this bear hunt cannot solve the problem of global warming.
And we stand here today to say that we ought to have the same level of
American national commitment to the polar bears' continued survival as
we have had for the bald eagle. And if we demonstrate that commitment,
our grandchildren will enjoy these polar bears. And if we do not, they
will not.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Inslee
amendment.
This amendment would restore a ban on taking polar bear parts and
importing them into the United States, a ban that was in place for 22
years. As Mr. Inslee indicated, it was right around the end of last
year when the Secretary of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife service
surprised many of us by proposing to list the polar bears as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. They have now taken public comments
and must issue a final decision by December, 2008. At the very least,
stemming the tide of polar bear imports, imports, I stress, until this
decision is made makes sense.
Those who oppose the amendment would like to use the argument that
this is all about restricting the right to hunt. It is not. If it were,
I would not be standing here in support of it. I remember fondly, with
my dad, my cousins, my uncles, hunting as a young man, and I don't
believe this restricts the right of hunting.
So I would ask my colleagues to think seriously about the importance
of this amendment and to give it their utmost consideration and strong
support.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) for a brief question.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the simple question I have is the
picture of the polar bear that is down there, that is not, by any
chance, new, is it?
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this is an old polar bear species that has
been around here for centuries, and the ice is melting under its feet.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
offering this amendment.
It is illegal to hunt polar bears in America today except for
subsistence. You cannot do trophy hunting of polar bears today. So what
happened is you have wealthy American hunters that go to Canada. They
pay $30,000 to kill a polar bear for one reason, and that reason is to
cut its head off, send it back to America, and put it above their
fireplace.
There are only 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears left in America. This
amendment simply prohibits funds from being used to permit these
wealthy hunters from sending polar bear parts back to the U.S.
We should protect polar bears. This amendment is the right approach
to take.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Under the current law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits,
under very stringent rules, the importation of bear parts for trophies.
But this is only allowed from an approved management area in Canada.
{time} 1445
Importation from other countries is prohibited because they are
covered by the CITES, or Convention on International Trade and
Endangered Species.
Also allowed under current law, other exemptions are permitted, but
limited to Native American purposes, for medicines, for religious
reasons and for certain scientific purposes. All of these require a
permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service. And as far as the committee
knows, the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing a very good job.
I also have a letter from the Canadian embassy. The Canadian
Government is opposed to banning the polar bear trophy imports. Canada
has strong opposition to this amendment, where two-thirds of the
world's polar bear population exists. Now they're studying this through
their endangered species group. We are studying this, as far as America
is concerned, under our Endangered Species Act. And these two reviews
are just about to be done. So this amendment is actually premature. And
knowing that these two studies are pending, the Canadian Government has
decided to oppose this. So I think this is premature. It should
probably wait until next year, or they should just wait until the
governments of the United States and Canada come to a conclusion.
Also, I want to note for the record that there are groups that are
opposed to this amendment. These groups, besides the Canadian
Government, include the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association, Boone &
Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, the Conservation
Force, the North American Bear Foundation and the Wildlife Management
Institute, among others.
So I think it is very important that we allow top scientists in both
the United States Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service
do their polar bear population studies and see what problems exist
before we start to limit what's going on under the current situation.
So I think it's premature.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding.
I have listened to the opening of this debate, and I think sometimes
we get a little bit confused about what it is about. But there is
plenty of evidence out here and plenty of support out here that the
polar bear population is not threatened. There is a healthy population
of 25,000 worldwide, I think. And contrary to the gentleman's remarks
[[Page H7241]]
about it being in America, it's globally, that population; and that it
has been carefully studied, and that the permits that are issued
generate funds for Native North Americans as well as funds to help
sustain the polar bear population.
I think what this debate is about, and I can't question, certainly,
anybody motives, but I can tell you what I got here. I got an
announcement that said: ``This recorded vote will be scored on the 2007
Humane Society scorecard.''
So I look at the information that I see, and much of it is source
from that Web page, which I happened to have printed as well.
But I think the debate is a broader debate than the debate of the
welfare of the polar bear. I think this debate is about, and I am going
to broaden this, ``the incremental implementation of global
vegetarianism.'' That's the big picture. And the second picture is, ban
sport hunting. And the third picture is, ban livestock production and
feeding. And the fourth picture is, ban the consumption of meat. All
that stuff fits within this big umbrella. This is one component of the
much broader picture.
But if you take it back down to the issue that was raised, and
another one is using the canard of global warming being the issue,
well, it actually works against you, gentlemen. If you're worried about
global warming and if you're worried about the habitat for polar bears
being diminished by global warming, then humane hunting would be the
thing to do as the habitat diminishes to make sure they had a healthy
habitat for them to roam on. That's not the case. It's a canard, not a
reason. And it's not an environmental reason. It's a broader agenda,
through which the environmental and global warming agenda fits.
So this is sound science that holds this up on this side. And sports
hunting is a good way to manage population.
I would urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining, and the
gentleman from Washington has 15 seconds.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. I want to thank my friend from Washington for yielding me
this time. And, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I have had numerous conversations with Mr. Inslee, who I consider one
of my closest friends and colleagues in the House, and I certainly
understand the appreciation that he has in light of the challenges we
face with global warming and the potential impact it's going to have on
polar bears. But as one of the cochairs of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus in the House, we think this amendment is unnecessary
and, in fact, counterproductive.
I contacted the Canadian embassy and the Canadian Government, who
opposes the amendment. They say it would risk crucial conservation
funding streams and habitat protections for the very polar bears that
we're all interested in protecting. Also, our own U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service opposes this, again because of the cooperative
alliance that we've established not only with Canadian officials in the
proper wildlife management of this special species, but the fees
collected from hunting that go right back into a conservation program
that the U.S. and Russia have partnered with in order to enhance the
protection and the growth of this population.
Now, I've got a letter from the Canadian Government, as well as from
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, that I will submit for
the Record that states forth more fully the science behind their
calculation and the limited number of permits that they're allowing in
Canada.
Association of Fish
& Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, DC, June 22, 2007.
Dear Member of Congress: The Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies strongly opposes H.R. 2327, the so-called
``Polar Bear Protection Act'', both as a stand-alone bill and
as an amendment to any other legislation. This bill, which
would ban the importation of trophies of polar bears legally
taken from polar bear populations in Canada, will further
complicate polar bear management and not contribute to polar
bear sustainability.
The Association was founded in 1902 as an inter-
governmental organization of public agencies charged with the
protection and management of North America's fish and
wildlife resources. The Association's members include the
fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, as well
as federal government agencies in the United States and
Canada. The Association provides a forum for hundreds of
senior level fish and wildlife public agency biologists
across North America to develop positions on public policy
issues involving wildlife conservation. The Association has
been instrumental in promoting sound resource management and
strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in
protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats
in the public interest.
This legislation would diminish the bear's value to the
local communities which depend on hunts by United States
hunters for income. We know from long experience that most
successful wildlife conservation programs have, at their
core, value to local people and communities. We are advised
by our Canadian colleagues that many native communities
earnestly engage Canada's polar bear management programs
because these animals have value--funding schools, community
centers, etc. in those northern communities. This
legislation, if passed and enacted, would just add to the
list of other factors already complicating polar bear
management--melting ice pack, warming seas and loss of snow
cover.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act prerequisite that imports
come from certified stocks is an important tool for those
biologists working with these local communities to regulate
the harvest of the various polar bear populations. These
carefully set and intensely monitored harvests are critical
for the local community and are an important negotiating tool
for the biologists. Science-informed regulated hunting
ensures sustainability of polar bear populations.
Passage of this bill would not result in the taking of
fewer polar bears; it will just complicate the work of those
trying to conserve them. We urge that you not favorably
consider H.R. 2327 either as a stand-alone bill or as an
amendment to other legislation. Thank you for your sincere
consideration of our perspectives.
Sincerely,
Matt Hogan,
Executive Director.
____
Canadian Embassy,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2007.
Hon. Jay Inslee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Inslee and LoBiondo: I am writing
regarding your amendment to ban the importation of polar bear
trophies from Canada, which I understand may be offered to
the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act 2008, when the spending bill is
considered on the floor of the House this week. I would like
to express Canada's strong opposition to such an amendment
for the reasons outlined below.
Canada is home to two thirds of the world's polar bear
population. There is broad consensus among scientists that
climate warming is negatively impacting Arctic sea ice,
however, these impacts occur at different rates and times in
different Arctic regions. The Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada, an independent scientific
body, is currently assessing the status of polar bears and
will submit its conclusions to the Government of Canada in
2008. Based on that assessment, consideration will be given
whether to list polar bears under the federal Species at Risk
Act.
I understand that the United States is also reviewing the
status of polar bears under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Canada has made a submission in the U.S. review and is
working with other polar bear range nations on issues related
to polar bear research and management. Any action, such as
that proposed in the amendment is premature and should at
least await the outcome of the two reviews.
I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify that
the annual harvesting of polar bears in Canada is strictly
regulated within scientifically determined sustainable
levels. Northern Communities receiving a share of the annual
quota allocate their share between subsistence hunting and
sports hunting, Removal of the sports hunting exemption from
the Marine Mammal Protection Act will have no impact on the
numbers harvested but will cause economic hardship to
Canadian Northern indigenous communities. Finally. I would
point out that the export of polar bears from Canada is
governed by the provisions of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), of which Canada and the
United States are both signatories.
The Government of Canada takes seriously its internationa1
obligations with respcct to the conservation of polar bears
and their habitat, inc1uding under the International
[[Page H7242]]
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears which was signed
by all five polar bear nations, including Canada and the
United States.
The Embassy staff remains available to meet with your staff
to discuss these issues further.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Wilson,
Ambassador.
But this would also, I believe, not reduce the number of polar bears
harvested. There is a certain number, again based on scientific studies
in Canada, that go to native tribes in northern Canada for their
management and use. If it's not hunters using it, the natives will use
it. So this will not in any way diminish the number of polar bears
being legally hunted right now in Canada.
I would ask my colleagues, take a look at the ``Dear Colleagues''
that we've submitted as part of the Sportsmen's Caucus setting forth
more fully an explanation of why we oppose the amendment. And I would
encourage our colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will notify Members that debate on a
pro forma amendment is not controlled.
Mr. DICKS. Okay. So I just yield?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DICKS. Can you let me know when 1 minute is gone?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will let the gentleman know.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Inslee
amendment. This amendment would ban the importation of trophies taken
legally from healthy polar bear populations in Canada.
Removing incentives for U.S. hunters to hunt polar bear in Canada
would do nothing to reduce the number of polar bear harvested in
Canada. It would just lessen the resources that can be used for
conservation and management of these species.
Similar to all wildlife conservation funding, U.S. hunters support
polar bear conservation through fees that they pay. Permit fees
directly support polar bear research and conservation in the United
States and Russia.
Mr. Chairman, this management practice that has occurred in places
like Canada has contributed to the rebound of the population of the
polar bear for numbers somewhere around 6,000 to 20,000 today. Mr.
Chairman, this amendment would do nothing for conservation of polar
bears. It is simply one step further in the campaign to ban hunting.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I now will yield my remaining time to Mr.
Inslee, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. FERGUSON. I want to thank my friend from Washington and my friend
from New Jersey, and others, for supporting this amendment.
I also rise in strong support of this amendment today. We can see
here a picture of a beautiful polar bear. Recently, the polar bear was
listed as threatened under our Endangered Species Act. I don't believe
that allowing hunters to obtain permits to hunt these animals and bring
them into our country is a responsible environmental policy, with the
loss of habitat that these animals are enduring. And with a 30 percent
population decline predicted in the next 35 to 50 years, we ought to be
doing everything in our power to preserve this species, and this
amendment seeks to do just that.
It is our responsibility to create responsible environmental policies
to protect our planet for future generations, and I think this
amendment does exactly that.
Mr. INSLEE. I would like to address this canard that this is an anti-
hunting amendment.
In fact, Americans enjoy passing down the tradition of hunting to
their kids, their sons and daughters; and that tradition should be able
to continue. But if the prey is gone, there is no hunting. And if we
don't get serious about recovering polar bears, we will not be able to
hunt anything because they will not exist. And if we don't stop this
loophole which allows importing polar bear heads, contrary to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, we cannot tell our children we are
serious about recovering this species.
Listen to the science. In 40 years will there will be no polar ice
cap. And shooting polar bears and putting them in our dens in Texas or
any other great State in this country is not consistent with what we
did for the American bald eagle. And if we work together, hunters,
nonhunters, left and right, east and west, we can accomplish this goal.
But I'm suggesting this is a commonsense measure to close this loophole
and listen to the science.
These species are going to have a 30 percent decline in the next 30
years. Three of the six Canadian groups that are already hunted are
deemed at risk by the international scientific community.
I don't know what the Canadians are thinking. It's a great country;
they're the greatest ice hockey teams in the world. But maybe they
haven't got the best polar bear policy like we do in the good old USA.
Enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Bring some common sense.
Tell our kids we're going to keep these species available to them and
pass this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind the gentleman from
Washington that he has 15 seconds remaining in his previous time which
he may wish to reserve to close.
Mr. INSLEE. I will reserve to close.
Mr. TIAHRT. I just want to remind the gentleman from Washington, it's
not a loophole, it's the law today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me just say I appreciate the gentleman
representing this picture of a polar bear. It's not Knut. Knut, of
course, is the infamous polar bear cub the animal rights groups who
support this amendment wanted the Berlin Zoo to kill as opposed to
allow it to live in captivity. I'm glad it's not the same one.
This amendment does nothing to preserve polar bears. It's not about
preservation, especially when it cuts conservation funds in the
process.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am thankful for the comments of the previous
speaker, and of course the ranking member. I'm disappointed in those
that are offering this amendment.
The supporters of this amendment and the proposer of this amendment
like to believe that Chicken Little threats have been thrown about.
Instead of the sky falling, it's the Earth warming, and bears are in
extreme danger of extinction and we must act now. I just heard that
speaker from Washington say that.
Let's take care. Polar bears are not threatened; they're not
endangered. The worldwide population of polar bears is around 30,000.
While there may be polar bear populations feeling the effects of a
warming climate, and I say ``may,'' we need to remember these species
have survived past warming cycles.
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 yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This species is not at the end of its rope,
contrary to those who proposed this amendment. Thirteen of the 19 polar
bear populations are under the jurisdiction of Canada. Canada has one
of the best management programs, using state-of-art scientific
practices to manage these populations. While that should be enough,
it's not the end of the oversight or management of polar bears in
Canada.
The United States Marine Mammal Protection Act requires the Fish and
Wildlife Service to review the status of polar bear populations in
Canada. After conducting their review of the service-approved, stable
and healthy populations, hunters can only import trophies from those
approved populations.
Supporters of the amendment like to refer to the 1994 amendments of
the Marine Protection Act that allowed an importation of polar bear
trophies as a loophole. It was the law. These statements are far from
the truth. In fact, we worked on it with a Democrat-controlled
Congress. We worked on it together to improve the species in Canada
because Canada asked us to do so.
[[Page H7243]]
In 1970, many marine mammal populations faced numerous threats. The
Marine Protection Act was very effective in restoring many marine
mammal populations to healthy or historic levels. Unfortunately, the
act does not discriminate between healthy marine mammal populations and
those still in need of rebuilding. Robust populations of marine mammals
are treated like they are on the verge of extinction.
While the 1994 amendments did not address this issue, the Democrat-
controlled Congress, specifically those enlightened members of the
Merchant Marines Fisheries Committee, had the foresight to understand
that the sustainable use of resources and conservation activities are
not mutually exclusive. The committee developed strict requirements to
ensure the protection of polar bear populations in Canada, while
allowing for the importation of sport-hunted polar bear trophies.
The idea of incentives to give value to natural resources was very
new at the time. A similar program was developed for African
communities to protect big game resources in Africa using the same
incentive structure. These programs have proven their worth and are
very successful.
There will always be a sector of the population that believes we
should not kill anything or eat anything and, in fact, we should eat
grass. However, we need to keep in mind there are still areas in the
world that rely on the natural resources around them and still subsist
on these resources.
The argument is not that polar bears need to be protected due to the
effects of a warming climate. The argument is that certain groups do
not like hunting, regardless of what those are saying promoted, and
want it stopped.
The Canadian polar bear populations are healthy and well managed.
Sport-hunting activities provide important incentives and support
remote Native villages and important conservation programs in Canada,
the U.S., and Russia.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest, respectfully, go back to the history. This
saves the polar bear as is in place. This amendment will extinguish the
polar bear.
For those who don't know anything about the polar bear, and I
suggest, respectfully, those two gentlemen that introduced this have
never seen a polar bear in the wild, don't know anything about it, read
it in a book.
{time} 1500
I suggest respectfully that before this was in place, in 1994, what
was happening was that the Canadian natives, bless their hearts, would
hunt polar bears. They would kill the sows and the cubs but not the
boars. The boars would kill the cubs so they can breed the sows. Our
polar bear population was going down. Because of our actions, in fact,
the polar bear population increased. That is what we were trying to do.
It was a true conservation method, a method of science, a method that
works.
Mr. Speaker, if this amendment is adopted, you can forget your polar
bears in the wild. They will be extinguished. This is a bad amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
Just to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, numerous agencies that have looked
at the science of polar bear management in Canada and other places feel
that the limited permits that are issued for this hunting purpose is
conducive to conservation efforts and habitat protection up in Canada,
especially through the indigenous tribes there that are issued these
permits every year.
The Canadian letter that I just referenced earlier stated, ``Removal
of the sports hunting exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act
would have no impact,'' no impact, ``on the numbers harvested, but
would cause economic hardship to the Canadian northern indigenous
communities.''
Again quoting from the letter from Canada, ``Any action such as that
proposed in the amendment is premature and should at least await the
outcome of the two reviews.'' The two reviews they are referring to is
our own Fish and Wildlife review and also a Canadian review in regards
to the status of polar bear populations, those reports are going to be
coming due some time early next year.
Also, the National Wildlife Federation, I want to clarify, the
National Wildlife Federation has not endorsed nor opposed Mr. Inslee's
amendment, but they stated in a letter submitted to Members of Congress
yesterday, ``We understand that there may be a debate about managing
polar bear populations, which we believe is a distraction from the real
issue of global warming.'' They go on to state that the only thing that
could adequately protect the polar bear population is prompt action
taken on global warming.
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee) on the importance of that issue.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is
recognized for 15 seconds.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to submit that the day we
yield to Canadian judgment, we would replace baseball with ice hockey.
It is not the American principle. We have a strong Marine Mammal
Protection Act. It has a clear loophole. We do not want the last polar
bears to be head and skins in dens. We want this species to continue.
This will do that. Pass this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. INSLEE. 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 Washington
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to prepare or publish final regulations
regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale
resources on public lands pursuant to section 369(d) of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) or to conduct
an oil shale lease sale pursuant to subsection 369(e) of such
Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Snyder). Pursuant to the order of the House
of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar the
Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management from issuing any final
regulations for commercial-scale leasing of oil shale and from offering
any commercial oil shale leases during fiscal year 2008.
Current law requires BLM to issue those regulations, and to move to a
full-scale commercial leasing program, on a crash basis and under a
tight deadline.
I think that is a mistake, so I want to make it clear I support
Chairman Rahall's bill, H.R. 2337, that would change that and other
parts of the 2005 Energy Act. The Natural Resources Committee has
favorably reported the chairman's bill and it is headed toward this
very floor.
The purpose of this amendment is to slow the administration down in
the meantime, in order to give Congress time to complete action on that
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, oil shale has great potential as an energy source, and
therefore it is an important part of our energy policy. But it is also
important to American taxpayers, because they own most of it. But it is
particularly important for Colorado.
Our State has some of the most large-scale deposits of oil shale, and
Coloradans, particularly those on our Western Slope, will be directly
affected by its development.
Back in 2005, the RAND Corporation reported that the potential
benefits of developing oil shale were significant. But they also made
it clear that development will affect not only our land
[[Page H7244]]
but our air and the quality and quantity of our very limited supplies
of water. It was noted that large oil shale development will bring
significant population growth and is likely to put stress on the
ability of local communities to provide the needed services.
In short, the report reminded us how much Colorado and our neighbors
had at stake when Congress debated the oil shale provisions of the 2005
Energy Policy Act.
As I said, that law now calls for a crash program. I have been
concerned, as many people have in Colorado, that that would bring a
rush to commercial development before the Interior Department knows
enough to do it right and before Colorado's communities have had a
chance to prepare for what it will bring.
My concerns grew this year, when a witness from RAND told our
committee that the economic, technical and environmental feasibility of
oil shale development is not adequate to support the formulation of a
commercial leasing program on the time scale mandated and the
fundamental approach the Department of the Interior is currently taking
may be counterproductive if the goal is to keep open the option for a
sustainable domestic oil shale industry. Chairman Rahall's bill would
correct some of those problems.
I want to be clear, I strongly support oil shale provisions, because
I think they will help assure that any commercial development is done
in an orderly way that takes full advantage of the important research
and development work underway.
The bill would also relax the unrealistic deadline for the BLM to
finish the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement now underway,
and then the bill would allow a year, not just 6 months more, for the
BLM to prepare a draft, not a final, but a draft commercial leasing
regulation, after which the people in Colorado and elsewhere would have
180 days to comment.
I also support the bill and its mandate for developing a strategy for
sustainable and publicly acceptable large-scale development of oil
shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and its continued requirement that
we consult with the governors of those States.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Natural Resources Committee on a
bipartisan basis adopted my amendment to set aside part of the money
that the Federal Government will get from oil shale leases to help
affected counties pay for construction, operation and maintenance of
public facilities and for the provision of public services. This
addition reflects my concern about what large-scale oil shale
development can mean for Colorado's Western Slope.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the full House will follow our committee's
lead and approve these changes in the current law. I certainly will do
all I can to help Chairman Rahall be successful in this effort. But
there is a risk that these efforts could be frustrated unless Congress
first acts to relieve the pressure current law puts on the BLM to move
ahead on a crash basis.
Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the amendment, and I urge the
adoption of the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to tell
the gentleman that I think he has got a good amendment here. Our side
is prepared to accept your amendment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the chairman for his support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I hate to have to disagree with my
colleague from Colorado on this issue, but I definitely do so. Oil
shale resources in the United States, as was just stated, are
tremendous. The potential is that there could be 2 trillion, not
billion, 2 trillion barrels of oil in place in the oil shale bands of
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. It is, therefore, a strategically important
domestic resource that should be developed on an accelerated basis to
reduce our growing dependence on politically and economically unstable
sources of foreign oil imports.
The Department of Interior has issued the Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement and is now working on regulations for a commercial
leasing program. Stopping them now in their tracks would be a waste of
taxpayer dollars. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that the research
and development of this important resource have been paid for by the
private sector at no cost to the taxpayer.
The Udall amendment is unnecessary, because oil shale provisions in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 require approval of the governor before
commercial leasing can go forward. So it is not yet entirely even in
place. Therefore, this amendment would delay development of this
important domestic resource.
If we commercialize oil shale, that would provide significant public
benefits, including increased fuels available, reduced risk of supply
disruption, reduced imports, improved balance of payments, new Federal
and State royalty and tax revenues, increased domestic employment and
increased economic growth. Tremendous benefits will come from this.
Further, oil from shale will place appreciable downward pressure on
the world prices of crude oil, which would improve America's, and,
indeed, the entire world's economies.
{time} 1515
Oil shale is highly concentrated and gives the greatest yield of oil
per acre disturbed of any of the Nation's energy resources. The oil
shale resources of the Nation, besides totaling 2 trillion barrels,
would yield 750 billion barrels with a richness of 25 gallons per ton
or greater with near-term adaptations of existing technology. It is
possible that an oil shale industry could be initiated by 2011, with an
aggressive goal of 2 million barrels a day by 2020, which would create
100,000 new jobs directly and indirectly, and ultimately the capacity
could reach 10 million barrels a day, which is comparable to the oil
sands up in Canada.
So apart from the energy independence problems that this amendment
would cause, that production of oil shale is close to starting, and,
therefore, it is not right to pull the rug out from under the private
sector companies that have been working on and investing in this
resource.
In summary, there is no proven need to delay the use of this exciting
new source of domestic energy. The environmental concerns have been
addressed in a responsible and careful way. Billions of gallons of oil
will make our country freer from foreign pressure and our economy
stronger, with more energy available, gasoline prices lower at the
pump, and more jobs for our working families.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the first chart that will
eventually come up here, and I am sorry about this, indicates the
States in the United States that have the hardest time increasing their
education funding. This is where the funding is growing the slowest.
You notice the common denominator with these is not an attitude
towards education, it is that most of these are land-based States. The
land has been taken away from us to develop a property tax base.
Fortunately, God has given us resources underneath that to compensate
for that. But any program that would retard the leases or the royalties
that will come from those will harm education in Western States.
My kids in Utah will be put at a disadvantage because of this
particular amendment. There is collateral damage that takes place with
amendments, and one of those deals with education.
If you can look at this chart in the proper way, this chart shows the
salaries that are given for first-year teachers in Wyoming versus the
salaries on average for fourth-year teachers in Montana. Now, this
should not be that way, because Montana has the fewest amount of public
lands of any of the Western States. They have more of a property tax
base. The difference is Wyoming has the resources that they have
developed, which allows them simply to put more money into their
education system.
My colleagues who are still teachers deserve a decent salary, they
deserve a decent retirement, we deserve the right to build our public
schools. When you ask anything that shackles them from a brighter
future, either by postponing or forcing to replow the data that the
professional land managers have already established, it harms them.
You have taken away our land for property tax benefits. Allow us to
develop the resources so that we can have
[[Page H7245]]
a future for education in the Western States that is on par with those
in the Eastern States. It is important that we move forward. And I'm
sorry, but there is collateral damage with this amendment that harms
educators and education in the West.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr.
Lamborn) has mentioned that there are 2 trillion barrels of oil. That
is a conservative estimate. Estimates go way, way, way beyond that. The
only way we are going to know how much oil there is is if we actually
have the opportunity to unleash the creativity of the American genius
to go after that oil and develop it.
Mr. Lamborn also said that we expect to have a large production by
2011, 4 or 5 years from now. The fact is, we could have big production
out of shale much sooner than that if we continue on the path that we
are on. If we delay, we will not have that opportunity.
I have an amendment that I am going to offer in a few minutes, and I
will continue to talk about this point.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the question here is not whether
to develop oil shale, but how and when. The amendment would not stop it
in its tracks, as my good friend from Colorado suggests, but it would
direct those tracks on to a gentler and a more sustainable route.
We have always heard, Mr. Chairman, about oil shale being the fuel of
the future. But as the Rand Report mentioned, I remind us, so are the
potential problems. My amendment says, as we work to realize this
promise, we are not closing our eyes to the problems in front of us.
I urge adoption of this amendment. It is a smart amendment. It is a
wise amendment. It keeps faith with the people of western Colorado.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly in a balanced energy policy. We need
to invest in alternative energy sources and we need to tap the
resources that we have in a responsible manner.
The Department of the Interior is now completing a programmatic
environmental impact study on the commercial leasing program that is
authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This study is focused
on evaluating the potential impacts associated with the development of
commercial leasing programs for oil shale and tar sand resources on
public lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
The scope of this environmental impact study will include an
assessment for the positive and negative environmental, social and
economic impacts of leasing oil shale and tar sand resources, both the
positive and the negative impacts. I think that is important.
This will also include a discussion of the relevant mitigation
measures to address any potential impacts on the Bureau of Land
Management's administered lands in Colorado, as well as in Utah and
Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management anticipates that the draft Oil
Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact Study
will be issued just this summer. But this amendment would stop that
from occurring.
The draft environmental impact study will be followed by an extensive
public comment period, and a second revised programmatic environmental
impact study will be issued prior to the final record of decision.
I believe we must pursue environmentally responsible means of
developing domestic energy sources, and this amendment delays the
responsible planning process already in place.
The gentleman from Colorado said this is important to our energy
policy, and I agree. He also said that this was important to our
taxpayers. I also agree. But the leases that were expected to come in
under the Energy Act of 2005 have been taken into consideration in the
budget we already passed this year. By stopping this, you will stop the
income from those leases in fiscal year 2008. So this will cause us to
exceed the budget authority.
I would suggest the gentleman from Colorado withdraw this amendment
because it is subject to a point of order because your budget authority
is going to be exceeded by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Colorado, but I
would request that he withdraw this amendment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my great
friend from the Midwest, I will not withdraw the amendment. I would
make a point there, I don't believe a point of order is in order,
because there is no revenue anticipated from the leases that are
anticipated.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time to explain the reason the
revenue would be depleted, there was planned income from fiscal year
2008 from the leases on the oil shale. So I believe, in my estimation,
I am waiting for confirmation from the Congressional Budget Office,
that it will be out of order.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield
further, and I thank you again for yielding, I am very certain that
that is not the case, and I would just again remind all of my
colleagues that the intent here is to do this right. Not to stop this
from happening, but to do it right, given our history of oil shale
development or the lack thereof in western Colorado.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
I would say it is important that we let this process continue, and
therefore I think we should vote down the Udall amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Kansas is referring to the
other Udall amendment, not this amendment. I don't think there is a
point of order here. There is another Udall amendment that did have an
issue with it. There are a lot of them, so I can see how he could get
confused.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the
chairman for trying to continue to hold the ranking Member in accuracy,
but I believe it applies to both Udall amendments.
Mr. DICKS. Well, we will wait and see. But I didn't note the
gentleman making the point of order.
Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand
that I have missed my window of opportunity at this point in time to
raise a point of order, but I will reserve that opportunity in the
future, if such an opportunity will present itself.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANNON. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. 3 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement Bureau of Land Management regulations on
Recordable Disclaimers of Interest in Land (subpart 1864 of
part 1860 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations) with
respect to a claimed Revised Statue (R.S.) 2477 right-of-way
or to issue a non-binding determination pursuant to the
Secretary of the Interior's Memorandum to Assistant
Secretaries dated March 22, 2006, revoking the Department of
the Interior's previous Interim Departmental Policy on
Revised Statute 2477 Grant of Right-of-Way for Public
Highways.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[[Page H7246]]
Mr. Chairman, in a moment I am going to ask to withdraw the
amendment, but I want to engage Chairman Dicks in a brief colloquy. But
first let me provide a little bit of background here.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the amendment deals with claims under an
1866 law known as R.S. 2477 that granted rights-of-way to build
highways over Federal lands. This act was repealed in 1976, but because
Congress did not set a deadline for people claiming these rights-of-way
to come forward, we still do not know what valid rights-of-way may
exist.
There are pending claims that affect military lands and lands once
owned by the Federal Government that are now private property. Other
claims involve national parks, national forests and other conservation
areas.
When the Clinton administration tried to resolve this problem
administratively, Congress blocked that by passing a law barring
issuance of final regulations on this subject until Congress authorized
them. That law is still on the books. The Bush administration has not
asked Congress to change the law. Instead, they want to do an end run
around Congress and to deal with these claims through an administrative
process.
My amendment would have blocked them from doing that because I think
we should deal with that problem through new legislation. Toward that
end, I have worked for a number of years with counties in my State and
introduced a bill based on the results of that work.
My goal has been and still remains to establish a fair and neutral
process that will result in setting a time certain for claims to be
brought forward so valid claims can be recognized and any invalid ones
will be resolved and so to bring an end to litigation and controversy.
I do plan to continue to work on that approach in this Congress.
If I might, at this time, I would turn to the chairman and ask him,
does the chairman agree with me that it would be better for the
administration to work with Congress to resolve this issue, rather than
trying to follow a course that will lead straight to more litigation?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, I agree.
In our report on this bill, the Appropriations Committee warns the
Interior Department that we are concerned about the Department's
interpretation and actions that would disclaim Federal interests in
lands subject to an R.S. 2477 claim or issue any nonbinding
determination that would have a similar effect. That is why we tell
them to provide advanced notice to the Congress if the Interior
Department plans to approve any R.S. 2477 claims. We also require them
to provide quarterly reports on activities concerning claims under the
R.S. 2477 statute. But it would be even better for the administration
to work with the gentleman and the Natural Resources Committee to
develop a legislative solution for this serious problem, and I urge
them to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this
issue.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to
thank Chairman Dicks for his thoughts.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to impose on the time of the House by
calling for a vote on the amendment today, although the problem has not
gone away and it will not go away unless Congress acts.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. De Fazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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. 12 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new title:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. In implementing the amendments made by section
5401(c) of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007
(Public Law 110-28), a resource advisory committee
established under section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note;
Public Law 106-393), in addition to the duties assigned to
the committee by subsection (b) of such section, shall--
(1) monitor projects submitted by that committee that have
been approved by the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) advise the designated Federal official on the progress
of monitoring efforts under paragraph (1); and
(3) make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Agriculture regarding any changes or
adjustments to the projects being monitored by the committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the other side is reserving a point of
order on this because of a previous objection to an amendment which
would have allocated $425 million into the Safe and Secure Rural
Schools program, a program which I very much support. I am on the
authorizing committee and I can assure them that the authorizing
committee is determined to move forward on, one of the authorizing
committees at least, in the near future. In the last Congress, the
Resources Committee did act and the Agriculture Committee did not on
reauthorizing this program.
So we are engaging in that process in good faith and hope to be
working with our friends on the Appropriations Committee in the not-
too-distant future to extend this program for a number of years as we
phase it down.
But in the interim, the Appropriations Committee and this Congress
did, in the emergency supplemental, approve 1 year of temporary
funding, which was excellent. It staved off disasters in county after
county in terms of closed jails, loss of rural sheriffs patrols and
many, many other vital services.
But, unfortunately, in doing that there was an oversight, and it is a
simple oversight, easily rectified if there is not an objection. One of
the most beneficial parts for the Federal taxpayers generally beyond
the services that are provided within the counties and school districts
across America is the Resource Advisory Committees, committees made up
of a broad cross-section of communities across the Western United
States, both environmental, timber interests, general community
members, who have come forward, worked collaboratively, and have put 15
percent of the funds under the program, reinvested it back into the
Federal lands, providing tremendous benefits ecologically to those
lands, economically, in terms of thinning projects and other things,
things that were not within the budget of the United States Forest
Service or the Department of the Interior in the case of the O&C lands.
Unfortunately, since these committees, which are widely applauded in
a bipartisan way across the Western United States, were not
reauthorized, this language simply would give them authorization to
monitor the ongoing activities.
It is extraordinarily noncontroversial, and it would be
extraordinarily regrettable if in some sort of a misplaced tit for tat
there was an objection to this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague Mr.
DeFazio for his work on this amendment with me.
I would like to point out that on page 182 of the committee report
there is listed 30 different laws that have not been reauthorized and
are being funded. Some of these laws were last reauthorized 28 years
ago. So the fact that we have something before you that has just gone
out of operation here in less than a year, and we are trying to do a
technical correction here to reauthorize it, I don't think is deserving
of a point of order.
[[Page H7247]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am prepared
to accept the gentleman's amendment. I think this is a very positive
amendment. It has nothing to do with what we were discussing earlier,
and I am prepared to accept your amendment.
{time} 1530
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Well, I'm not sure everyone is, so if I may
continue. There are over 4,500 projects that these resource advisory
committees have worked on. They have leveraged $292 million to improve
watersheds and wildlife habitats, and reduce the risk of catastrophic
fire. No resource advisory committee has been disbanded or melted down.
There are 70 of them in 13 States. No RAC-approved project has been
appealed or litigated. No other active land management initiative in
either the Departments of Agriculture or Interior can equal such a
track record.
This has brought disparate individuals together to do good things for
the land, habitat and watersheds in a comprehensive way that leverages
local funds and support.
Today, as we debate this issue on the floor of this House, fires are
raging at Lake Tahoe, destroying homes and habitats and watershed.
Those sorts of efforts, where they tried to get in and thin in this
watershed and protect it and reduce the threat of fire, might have been
allowed to occur had there been a resource advisory committee like
these, and I don't know what they have got there, but certainly they
were not able to get the job done before the fire hit.
We are trying to do good things for our national forests, and I know
others are trying to as well. I just hope we can approve this.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my remaining minute.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, there are few Members of Congress who have more open
territory than I do in my district. There is enough space there to put
four eastern States easily and have room left over. I have rural
schools and problems that very much reflect the concerns that have been
expressed here.
But at the same time, I must say to the chairman and to the House, I
was sitting in my office observing the discussion early when the
Doolittle amendment was up. I was about to come to the floor because
the chairman of the full committee was beginning a discussion regarding
who taxes too much or too little, and who spends too much and too
little, and we will have that conversation as we go forward. But that
is what caused me to want to come to the floor.
In the meantime, Mr. Doolittle had a very specific problem that was
going to be taken care of, and it was objected to because it was
legislating on an appropriations bill. Because of that, I am going to
be pretty tough on this. The reason I reserved in this case, even
though it affects my own district, it is my intention to ask that the
amendment be stricken.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. DICKS. The only thing I would say here is that this amendment is
much different than the Doolittle amendment. This would help the
gentleman from Oregon and Mr. Doolittle in having a placeholder in the
bill.
As the gentleman knows, we agreed to $425 million in the supplemental
to help these gentlemen on the rural schools. My concern here is that
this is not an appropriations problem, this is supposed to be an
authorization problem. I even helped them way back in 1992 or 1993 when
the timber harvest went way down--Congresswoman Dunn and I got the
first program through Congress to keep this going for 10 years.
I have been a friend of this rural schools program. I don't quite
understand why this very small amendment that doesn't have any negative
impact on anyone would be stricken.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I
could.
I understand the point that the chairman is making, and I am very
appreciative of it.
The bill, as you know, was slushed with an awful lot of money above
and beyond what we anticipated. Before we got the last $3 billion we
had a fine bill. It strikes me that as we were slushing, we might have
put some money in this category if we were so concerned about it.
But in the meantime, there is little doubt that because of the need
for consistency here, if we are going to be striking language in the
fashion that I saw as I was sitting in my office, selectively, then it
seems to me we ought to try to at least raise the flag of consistency,
and it is my intention to do that here.
Point of Order
Mr. LEWIS of California. At your will, Mr. Chairman, 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 rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment in this case imparts direction, so I insist upon my
point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, to the point of order, again, the
gentleman is technically correct. But again, unlike the previous
amendment, this amendment not only does not cost money, it actually
benefits the Federal Government and the Federal taxpayers.
I wish the gentleman would reconsider that point and not target this
because of an earlier debate on a different issue having to do with
spending levels. This actually would save the taxpayers money. I would
ask that the gentleman reconsider his objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Seeing no further speakers on the point of
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn
Mr. LAMBORN. 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. Lamborn:
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 National
Endowment for the Arts.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
recognizes the difficult fiscal situation facing our government.
The Interior Appropriations bill has the largest increase over the
President's request of any of the spending bills, and I will support
efforts to bring the costs down as these opportunities arise. At a time
when our budget needs balancing, we must reprioritize our spending.
That is why the amendment I am proposing now would eliminate funding
for the National Endowment for the Arts.
I am disappointed that my earlier amendment yesterday was not
accepted as it would have directed some of the funding toward the PLT
program, or payment in lieu of taxes by the Federal Government to
compensate for lost revenues to local governments.
But I still maintain that particularly in this budget environment,
taxpayers should not be asked to fund the National Endowment for the
Arts. Now opposition to the NEA should not be perceived as opposition
to the arts. My wife is an artist, and I support the arts
wholeheartedly. But I do feel strongly that it is something that the
private sector can fully, and has in the past fully and wholeheartedly
supported.
True art can and does survive without Federal handouts. Artists have
every right to be creative without forcing the taxpayer to fund it. The
private sector is the appropriate venue to fund such projects. I know
artists who refuse to take money from any level of government because
they want to be
[[Page H7248]]
independent. They don't want to have any strings attached. They don't
want to be beholden to anybody, and they will refuse government
funding.
While there are certainly projects that the NEA does that are
worthwhile, some are objectionable and have been over recent history.
And at a time when fiscal restraint is crucial, we must examine closely
how and where we are spending taxpayer money. It is not only
appropriate but necessary to question some of the funding in this bill
and see if it can be either reduced or directed to more worthwhile
programs.
My amendment would save taxpayers an immediate $150 million in budget
authority spending in fiscal year 2008, and allows the remaining $10
million to be spent on shutdown costs. This still reduces the overall
cost of this spending bill and sends a message that in this budget
environment we are willing to tighten our belts here in Washington just
as any American family or business would have to.
It is disheartening to think there is an assumption of continued
taxpayer support for every single discretionary program. Yet that is
exactly what we are hearing today in this debate on funding for the
NEA. There are arguments for why we must continue to spend money on an
art program when we face budget constraints in trying to adequately
provide necessary treatment for our returning veterans and all of the
many priorities in our almost $3 trillion budget.
I come from a commonsense perceptive that says when my bank account
is low, I make tough decisions on where my money must be spent. None of
my colleagues supporting this funding seem to fully appreciate this
approach, and it is disappointing and it is in large part why we face
the budget situation that we are in.
I would note that the budget for this appropriations bill is I
believe $1.9 billion over what the President has requested. I hear talk
about how our deficit is going up every week, every day, every month.
This is a great opportunity that we have to stop the hemorrhaging. We
can stop the spending. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are contemplating not extending the Bush
temporary tax cuts. They want to end that in their budget plan. That
would amount to the largest tax increase in American history. We have
this opportunity now to take $160 million and save it for the taxpayer.
So I just think this would be a well-considered thing.
The arts are valuable in American life and culture. For anyone to say
let's do this through the private sector as opposed to the taxpayers
does not make them a member of the Flat Earth Society. The arts are
valuable, but they are well supported in our society and culture. We
just have so many other priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. We have heard speaker after speaker on the Republican
side say how concerned they are about spending. The minority whip stood
in the well and castigated the Democrats for spending. He has $950,000
of earmarks in the bill.
The woman from Colorado has $150,000 of earmarks in the bill.
If the gentleman is so sincere, let's entertain a unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. Chairman, is it in order to make a unanimous-consent request?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It depends on the nature of the request.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
Republicans be allowed to voluntarily strip their $45 million of
earmarks from this bill, which would save one-quarter of the amount of
money that the gentleman is trying to save by cutting all the funding
for the National Endowment for the Arts.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The order of the House allowing only certain
amendments may not be varied by the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. DeFAZIO. In conclusion then, we have a bit of hypocrisy here.
They want to complain at the same time as they put the projects in
their pocket and they go home and brag about it. They brag about how
they want to cut spending in Washington, and they brag about the money
they bring home.
I believe in investment in America in many ways, and this bill is
making many crucial investments in America.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is important for Members to realize as they consider the committee
action that the $160 million recommended only partially restores cuts
made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in this bill is
still $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After adjusting for
inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below the level in
1993, as displayed on a chart that I showed Members earlier.
As we debate this amendment, Members should also note that the
National Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts
funding debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the
NEA into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivey, appointed by
Bill Clinton, negotiated and implemented bipartisan reforms in NEA's
grant structure to ensure that funds go to activities for which public
funding is appropriate.
Dana Gioia, the current chairman, then energized the agency with many
new programs and a commitment to reach beyond the cultural centers of
our major cities.
Last year, every single congressional district received NEA support
through innovative programs such as the American Masterpieces,
Operation Homecoming and the Big Read.
Today, NEA is a truly national program with outreach efforts to every
corner of America and every segment of her society. Each of us have
different reasons to support the arts. Some will describe their support
in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a personally enriching
experience. Others support the arts as engines of job development and
economic growth.
{time} 1545
It is equally important to emphasize that most Members of the House
in recent years have been supporting funding for the arts and for the
humanities. I believe the cultural wars should be over. For each of the
last 7 years with the help of many Members in this Chamber, a
bipartisan majority in the House has voted to increase funding for the
NEA. During the last 2 years, Ms. Slaughter's and my amendments to add
funds were adopted by voice vote, without opposition from Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Chairman, I do not normally include quotes in my floor remarks,
but I was struck in preparing for this year's art debate by a quote
attributed to actor Richard Dreyfus at the Grammy awards ceremony:
``Perhaps we've all misunderstood the reason we learn music and all
the arts in the first place. It is that for hundreds of years, it has
been known that teaching the arts helps to create the well-rounded mind
that western civilization, and America, have been grounded on.
America's greatest achievements in science, in business, in popular
culture, would simply not be attainable without an education that
encourages achievement in all fields. It is from that creativity and
imagination that the solutions to our political and social problems
will come. We need that well-rounded mind now. Without it, we simply
make more difficult the problems we face.''
I believe Mr. Dreyfus is right, and the committee has acted to
provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American
communities with a richer variety of programs.
I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment and support for the
committee position.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for
his remaining 30 seconds.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My wife, Jeanie, is an artist. I support, she supports, the arts. I
agree with what you said about the importance of arts in our culture.
The only question is who should pay for it. Should the taxpayer pay for
it or the private sector? The $160 million budget in this bill is $35
million, or 29 percent, higher than last year's budget. Do we need a 29
percent tax increase? I think the arts are great, but let's support it
in the private sector.
I would urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H7249]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for
his remaining 30 seconds.
Mr. DICKS. I just will wrap this up.
I would say, you know, it's very unusual to say you support a program
or support the arts when you offer an amendment to eliminate the entire
program. It's like saying I'm for the B-2 bomber but I want to vote
against it. You can't have it both ways. Either you're for the arts or
you're not. When you're here, you have to demonstrate that support by
supporting the program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LAMBORN. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cannon
Mr. CANNON. 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. Cannon:
At end of bill add:
Sec. ___. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
implement section of this bill (relating to oil-shale
leasing) in the States of Utah or Wyoming.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would limit the effects of the amendment by my colleagues from Colorado
to Colorado.
I am deeply troubled by my colleagues' zeal to stop oil shale leasing
and development in the West. Oil shale is not a new idea. In fact, the
lands in question were once part of a strategic reserve. Rather than
limiting our energy resources, I am offering this amendment in an
attempt to make sure that Americans have the opportunity to be energy
independent and to create more American jobs.
Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming hold a conservative estimate of 2
trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Formation. We
have one or two times the total crude oil reserves of the whole world
and triple the amount of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Two trillion
barrels of oil is enough to meet current U.S. demands for hundreds of
years.
At a time when the price of consumer goods and services are soaring
in large part because of the cost of energy resources, why would we
intentionally hinder our ability to develop our most promising
resource? It is no secret that the environmental community does not
want shale development to succeed in this Nation, but we have
environmental laws that are designed to protect our Federal lands. If
those laws are not sufficient, let's talk about those issues as opposed
to simply putting up roadblocks to this promising resource. Increased
global demands, skyrocketing energy prices, geopolitical instability,
concerns about peak oil production and supplies are all economic
factors that we believe make oil shale an attractive natural resource
to help solve our country's dependency problems.
The U.S. and world demand for oil is increasing, and we will not be
able to conserve our way out of this dilemma. We must as a country look
to other sources of energy. Many experts agree that oil shale in Utah
can be a major part of the solution. Issues regarding environmental and
community impact will need to be addressed at a local, State and
Federal level and also by private industry. I believe Utah and the
region can look to Canada's oil sands to see what other countries have
done to develop their resources and the benefits that come with such
development. Canada has invested vastly in oil sands and has seen a
huge return in royalties. Oil sands are now a $20 billion-per-year
industry in a remote area of Canada.
We cannot leave our constituents holding the bag on higher energy
prices. Development of oil shale as well as oil, gas and renewable
energy technologies will lighten the load of our constituents.
Successful development of oil shale can help solve the Nation's energy
dilemma and also bring millions and eventually billions of dollars to
the Federal Treasury, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming through royalties and
mineral lease moneys.
We have heard that we need to be energy independent. How, then, can
we criticize the BLM for moving forward in helping us achieve this
goal? We should be encouraging the responsible development of oil shale
so that we can in part fulfill our desire to keep from relying on
foreign and often unstable nations for our energy resources. These are
nations that hate us and who use our American dollars to hurt our
interests.
I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and resist
the urge to destroy the potential of oil shale before it is developed.
I would encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to allow States
that want to develop oil shale, that they be allowed to develop that
oil shale.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. This amendment is a mistake. There are plenty of reasons
to delay the oil shale leasing which the BLM is doing. The Governor of
Colorado and several other local Members of Congress have also asked
for an appropriate delay so the public can fully understand the
ramifications of massive oil shale leasing. Furthermore, the large-
scale demonstration projects have begun and it is far too soon for
large-scale commercial leasing.
To give the companies time to learn from the demonstrations, I think
we should defeat this amendment and stay with the Udall amendment. What
this does is basically overturn the Udall amendment, which is pending
at this time.
I urge opposition to the Cannon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw his
point of order?
Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his point of order
and would point out, I understand that the Governor of Colorado, a
Democrat, has decided that he doesn't want oil shale development in
Colorado and my Democratic colleagues have opposed oil shale
development in Colorado. It is true that in Colorado there are major
projects that are underway and that have begun with some small-scale
demonstration projects. That is fine for Colorado. It does not make
sense for America to impose on Utah and Wyoming the same concerns that
the Democratic leadership of Colorado wants to have in Colorado. And so
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The fact is I
think, having looked at the industry, the likelihood of significant oil
shale development, oil coming out of shale, is more likely to be from
entrepreneurial sources that are not dependent upon these vast, vast
projects that are being done in Colorado.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Do you want us to all vote for the Udall amendment so that
your amendment can repeal it?
Mr. CANNON. No, no. If the Udall amendment passes, then my amendment
would become irrelevant. But I think under the rules of the body today,
we were not able to do a second-degree amendment which is what I would
have preferred. That being the case, the fact is Colorado has expressed
itself I think pretty clearly here today that they don't want this
development and, in fact, the case is different in Colorado than it is
in Utah. I think that the opportunity for entrepreneurial development
of oil shale should not be inhibited by frivolous government
regulations. We have laws in place. In Utah,
[[Page H7250]]
we are not going to do things that don't make sense environmentally.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. 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. For purposes of discussion, I would like to ask the
gentleman from Utah if it is correct, and my understanding of what
you're trying to do is offset what Mr. Udall is doing because he is
stopping the permitting process not only in Colorado but also in Utah,
your home State.
Is it also true he would stop the permitting in Wyoming as well?
Mr. CANNON. That is true. This would delay the development of oil
shale. The Udall amendment would delay it in Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming. My amendment would limit that effect to just Colorado and
allow Wyoming and Utah to develop their shale as they wish.
Mr. TIAHRT. So, Mr. Chairman, as I understand this, what the
gentleman from Utah is doing is his very best to represent the
interests of his State. And what the gentleman from Colorado is doing
was try to represent the best interests of his State. So I think in
fairness to the Members of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, it would be
proper for us to adopt Mr. Cannon's amendment. That way it would
satisfy Mr. Udall by restricting and limiting the permitting process in
Colorado but allowing the gentleman from Utah to represent his district
by letting the permitting process move forward.
So I would encourage the Members of the House to support Mr. Udall
via Mr. Cannon's amendment and vote to accept the Cannon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be
postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
Amendment No. 51 by Mr. Campbell of California.
An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on Greene County, Pennsylvania.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on Columbus, Ohio.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on Greensburg, Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 22 by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
Amendment No. 27 by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Inslee of Washington.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Udall of Colorado.
An amendment by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
An amendment by Mr. Cannon of Utah.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for
any electronic vote after the first in this series.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137,
noes 285, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 564]
AYES--137
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--285
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
[[Page H7251]]
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bishop (UT)
Braley (IA)
Costa
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Giffords
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Meek (FL)
Olver
Ortiz
Pearce
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in the vote.
{time} 1621
Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. SHIMKUS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. LUCAS and Mr. MOLLOHAN
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 564, I was at the White
House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104,
noes 323, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 565]
AYES--104
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Bono
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Cubin
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Hastert
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--323
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Blackburn
Boehner
Braley (IA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Giffords
Jones (OH)
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.
{time} 1626
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 565, I was at the White
House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment 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 the Conte
Anadromous Fish Laboratory.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97,
noes 330, not voting 10, as follows:
[[Page H7252]]
[Roll No. 566]
AYES--97
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--330
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Brady (TX)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Hirono
Jones (OH)
Levin
McDermott
Moore (WI)
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there
is 1 minute remaining on the vote.
{time} 1630
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 566, I was on the floor,
but in a discussion with collegues, and missed the vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of Georgia was allowed to speak out
of order.)
Mourning the Passing of the Honorable John J. Flynt, Jr.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to announce to the body
that a former Member of this body, John J. Flynt, Jr., better known as
Jack Flynt, of Georgia, passed on Sunday at his home in Griffin,
Georgia.
Congressman Jack Flynt was 92 years old. He served in the Congress
from 1954 until his retirement in 1979, and he was a member of the
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, and at one time, he was
also the Chair of the Ethics Committee.
Congressman Flynt had many varied professional experiences. He was a
prosecutor and the founder of a bank. During World War II, he joined
the Army Reserve and was aide-de-camp to Brigadier General Robert W.
Grow in France. For his service he was awarded the Bronze Star.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague from Georgia
(Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for
yielding.
Congressman Jack Flynt was a lifelong resident of Spalding County in
my district. After gaining a bachelor's degree at the University of
Georgia and a law degree at George Washington University, a young Jack
Flynt enlisted in the Army Reserves. He fought the war in France, won a
Bronze Star, and retired as a colonel in the Reserves.
After serving his Nation at war and in the Congress, Congressman
Flynt came home to Griffin for the last 20 years of his life and he
continued working in his hometown community.
On behalf of the people of my district, the Third District of
Georgia, and the great State of Georgia, I thank Congressman Flynt for
his lifetime of service, and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife
and family.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield now to my
colleague from Georgia, Congressman Phil Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Mr. Lewis for
yielding.
Former Member Jack Flynt served in this body for 24 years. It has
been mentioned that he served on the Appropriations Committee. Some
could say that he is neither a Democrat nor a Republican but an
appropriator. But Jack Flynt was a boll weevil Democrat. If he were
here today, he would be a staunch member of the Blue Dogs, I feel
confident.
When I was running in this district originally, that area was in my
district and many people said to me, You need to know Jack Flynt. I am
disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that I never did get to know him. But in
every instance the word about Jack Flynt was he was a gentleman.
And he and his wife of 65 years, Patricia of Griffin, Georgia, they
have three children: Susan Flynt Stirn of Arlington County; John J.
Flynt III of Augusta, Georgia, my hometown; and Crisp B. Flynt of
Griffin; four grandchildren and two great grandchildren.
I am humbled to have an opportunity to just say a few words about a
great Member of this body and to pay respect to him and offer our
condolences to his entire family.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the House now join in
a moment of silence in memory of John J. Flynt.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members will rise and the House will observe a
moment of silence.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 2-minute voting will
continue.
[[Page H7253]]
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on Greene County, Pennsylvania, on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104,
noes 328, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 567]
AYES--104
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--328
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Jones (OH)
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1639
Mr. BUYER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on Columbus, Ohio, on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 66,
noes 364, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 568]
AYES--66
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Biggert
Bilbray
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Graves
Heller
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Souder
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--364
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
[[Page H7254]]
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Jones (OH)
Kirk
Ortiz
Pence
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1643
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on Greensburg, Pennsylvania, on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86,
noes 343, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 569]
AYES--86
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Blackburn
Blunt
Bono
Burgess
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Graves
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--343
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Jones (OH)
Nunes
Ortiz
Sessions
Sullivan
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1647
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H7255]]
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Jordan) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 281, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 570]
AYES--150
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--281
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Ortiz
Pickering
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
the vote.
{time} 1651
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote. There are five 2-minute
votes after this vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 254, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 571]
AYES--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--254
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
[[Page H7256]]
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Marchant
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are less than 30 seconds
remaining on the vote.
{time} 1654
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Musgrave) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 238, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 572]
AYES--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--6
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Nunes
Ortiz
Pascrell
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
the vote.
{time} 1658
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H7257]]
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Inslee
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
There are three more 2-minute votes continuing after this vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 242, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 573]
AYES--188
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Campbell (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gillmor
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Platts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--242
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--7
Burgess
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Herger
Norton
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
the vote.
{time} 1702
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 215, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 574]
AYES--219
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
[[Page H7258]]
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--215
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--4
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.
{time} 1709
Messrs. SNYDER, RANGEL, BOYD of Florida, LEVIN and BACA changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Point of Order
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, rule XX, clause 2(a) says that no
vote will be held open to change the outcome.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman states a fair question. The vote
was kept open to do the numerical calculation to see if the votes of
the Delegates would change the outcome.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you hold the vote
open for people not having voted, but this was a specific case of
people changing their vote after the limit.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The vote was not kept open for the purpose of
allowing Members to vote. There had to be numerical calculations on the
votes of the Delegates to see if they changed the outcome of the vote.
That was the purpose of the delay. It was not for any other reason.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, if I understand it correctly, the
rule XX, clause 2(a) was put into effect to keep votes open and keep
people from lobbying to change their votes. That is exactly what
happened on this vote, and it is against the rules.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Lamborn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97,
noes 335, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 575]
AYES--97
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Radanovich
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Thornberry
Walberg
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--335
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
[[Page H7259]]
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Abercrombie
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Sessions
{time} 1715
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cannon
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 223, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 576]
AYES--204
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Conyers
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Ortiz
Reyes
Sessions
Whitfield
{time} 1719
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008''.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McNulty) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, 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, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 514, the previous
question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole?
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the Udall
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on which
a separate vote has been demanded.
[[Page H7260]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment:
Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to prepare or publish final regulations
regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale
resources on public lands pursuant to section 369(d) of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) or to conduct
an oil shale lease sale pursuant to subsection 369(e) of such
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 210, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 577]
YEAS--216
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--210
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Ortiz
Sessions
Smith (NJ)
Waxman
{time} 1741
Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Interior
Appropriations bill, and in favor of the rational funding increases it
proposes to help manage federal lands, support Native Americans,
protect our environment, and address the urgent problem of global
climate change.
Chairman Dicks and his staff have put together a great bill that
finally reverses the long series of cuts for environmental programs
imposed by the President and previous Republican Congress.
With $2.047 billion in this bill, we can finally take a step forward
to address the huge backlog of maintenance projects in our national
parks system.
With $8.086 billion in this bill we can finally put some teeth into
the Environmental Protection Agency's mission as it now moves to comply
with the recent landmark Supreme Court decision requiring regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
With $5.731 billion in this bill we can finally make good on some of
the promises we have made to Native American communities by supporting
health care, education, economic development and law enforcement,
including a targeted methamphetamine prevention initiative.
And with the important creation of a new Commission on Climate Change
Mitigation and Adaptation with a $50 million budget to jumpstart
scientific activity, we can begin to implement some real solutions to
the problem of global climate change.
I am also pleased that in addition to making these much needed
investments, the Interior bill maintains the bipartisan moratorium on
new oil and gas drilling on our outer continental shelf.
We recognize that safeguarding the health and natural beauty of our
coastal environment for future generations is an important priority for
our nation.
We don't believe that it is worth trading away coastal habitats to
the administration's cronies in the oil and gas industry to continue
their massive shakedown of our constituents through tax incentives and
high prices at the pump.
I again want to applaud my colleague Chairman Dicks for writing such
a well-crafted, thoughtful, and forward looking bill and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2008.
This bill is the first step on the long road back to re-investing in
our environment after years of neglect. It is a much-needed turnabout
from the practice of treating the natural world merely as a source of
material, rather than as the human race's one and only home. It is a
necessary reversal of past policies which disregarded the value of
clean water, clean air, and our public lands.
It represents the commitment of the new Democratic majority to
strengthening the long-term viability of our environment. At the same
time, it protects public health and demonstrates how important it is
for us to act as stewards for our communities.
Treating our wastewater before it is discharged into our oceans and
rivers is a crucial part of this process. However, the equipment and
infrastructure that we use to clean our wastewater is rapidly aging. It
no longer has the capacity to treat the amount of waste produced by our
growing population. My constituents in Sacramento have battled this
problem for years. When heavy rains come, the specter of sewers
overflowing into our streets can become a harsh reality.
[[Page H7261]]
That is why I am so pleased that the Appropriations Committee has
used this legislation to renew our commitment to clean water
infrastructure. H.R. 2643 increases water-related research, restores
funding for clean water grants to States, and directs greater resources
to cleaning up contaminated groundwater sites. In doing so, this bill
recognizes that investing in clean water protects our drinking supply,
restores our rivers and lakes, and strengthens public health.
Mr. Chairman, Americans across the country--and in particular the
people I represent from Sacramento--will benefit from this
legislation's clean water provisions. No longer will we have to worry
about untreated wastewater stagnating in our streets and polluting our
rivers. No more will raw sewage seep into basements, public parks, and
other areas where young children play.
When we pass this bill, the water our constituents drink will be
cleaner. The rivers they swim in will house fewer bacteria. The sewers
they rely on to transport wastewater will stop overflowing. Every
Member of Congress has an interest in solving the problems of
overwhelmed wastewater infrastructure, and H.R. 2643 begins to do so.
While this bill is but a beginning, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that
the Democratic Congress will use it as a building block to continue
restoring past cuts to clean water programs. The tangible benefits of
this bill's clean water funding levels are considerable, but they are
still just the first step in renewing our country's commitment to that
basic building block of life that sustains us all.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2643.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns
about legislative amendments related to permitting drilling for oil or
natural gas off of our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OSC).
I want it to be very clear what I support with regard to offshore
drilling. I believe it is important to ensure that we can adequately
protect Florida's shoreline and I believe that the legislation approved
last year by the Congress more than protects Florida's shoreline. I
support a 100-mile buffer of protection for our beaches when it comes
to drilling oil wells. Additionally, I am not opposed to allowing
natural gas only wells at a distance closer than 100 miles,
particularly in those States that want to permit natural gas wells
closer to their coasts.
The current Federal moratorium on offshore drilling bans natural gas
wells not only along the Florida coast, but also along southern,
central and northern California; Washington; Oregon; and the North
Atlantic, including Virginia. The State of Virginia has indicated that
it would like to permit drilling off of its shore. The Democrat
Governor of the State has asked for the ability to allow drilling off
of Virginia's shore. The Republican legislature of Virginia has asked
the Federal Government to remove the barrier to drilling off the coast.
The Federal moratorium in the Interior and Environment Appropriations
bills stops this policy asked for by the State of Virginia.
Additionally, with regard to Florida, I would like to clarify some
confusion on this issue. Some have suggested that without the Federal
moratorium rider on the Interior bill drilling would be allowed within
3 miles of the Florida coast. That is just simply not the case. The
Presidential moratorium would remain in place protecting Florida.
Additionally, President Bush has pledged to ensure that Florida is
permitted to maintain at least a 100-mile protective buffer. Moreover
should the Presidential moratorium be removed, the Congress must enact
legislation directing the Department of the Interior on where to permit
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases. This is not a one step process.
Some have suggested that allowing natural gas wells will do little to
address the energy costs in the United States. This claim simply is not
based on sound economics. As many of my colleagues know, over the past
decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of natural gas to
produce electricity. Switching to natural gas for electric power
generation has been a very quick and cost effective way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. According a 2005 report from the Florida
Public Service Commission, in 2003, 26 percent of Florida's electric
power was generated using natural gas. By 2013, just 6 years from now,
the FPSC projects that over 50 percent of Florida's electric power will
be generated using natural gas. The cost of natural gas for electric
power generation has more than doubled since 2002 from about $3.00 per
thousand cubic feet to more than $7.00 in 2007. Clearly, Florida is
increasingly relying on natural gas to meet our everyday energy needs
and ensuring a longer term affordable supply of natural gas will make
Florida consumers' power bills more affordable.
When you consider this growing reliance on clean burning natural gas
along with price increases we have seen, it is clear that Florida
consumers will continue to pay higher costs for electricity if we don't
expand our natural gas supply.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Florida
has an adequate protective buffer while looking to meet our
constituents' long-term clean energy needs.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of
strengthening environmental protections, preserving public lands, and
confronting global warming.
In the past 6 years of Republican budgets, our National Parks,
forests, and wildlife refuges were recklessly neglected. The
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the main entity responsible for
enforcing environmental laws, was left scrambling for funding.
Nonetheless, President Bush suggested another big cut in his budget
request. Fortunately for the millions of people who enjoy our public
lands and who rely on the EPA to protect our air and water, the new
Democratic Congress is committed to reversing years of dereliction.
Instead, we are making overdue investments in environmental
protections.
The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
(H.R. 2643) provides for modest, but crucial, funding increases in a
number of areas including: $437 million above the President's request
for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that will allow approximately
150 communities to modernize their drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure; $200 million increase over 2007 levels for the National
Park Service to end a decade of declines in staffing, visitor services,
and maintenance; $900 million more than the President proposed for EPA
enforcement and scientific research.
This bill protects coastal ecosystems and communities by maintaining
the longstanding moratoria on oil and gas drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf. This restriction protects the California coastlines
that my constituents and I hold dear.
Finally, after years of denials and stonewalling by Republicans, this
bill recognizes that climate change is a reality and requires us to
act.
It would create a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation to make recommendations on how to best respond to climate
change. This long overdue step will allow us to begin to address the
many challenges that global warming presents.
President Bush has issued a veto threat and called this bill
``irresponsible and excessive.'' What is truly ``irresponsible'' is
wasting billions of dollars on a fraudulent war while ignoring the
threat of global warming and failing to protect the environment and the
public health. This bill begins to alter the dangerous environmental
course that the President and the Republicans have led us down the last
6 years. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, the Report accompanying H.R. 2643, the
fiscal year 2008 Interior and the Environment Appropriations Act, urges
the Environmental Protection Agency to study the health and
environmental effects of using trona in air pollution control systems.
Trona is a naturally occurring, non-toxic mineral widely used in food
additives, in glass manufacturing, paper, laundry products and
medicine. It is odorless, non-combustible and stable in the air. Trona
is a key ingredient of baking soda. Here in the United States, we are
fortunate to have an abundance of this incredibly useful mineral. The
Green River Basin of Wyoming is home to the world's largest trona
deposit, and the Wyoming trona industry alone products close to 20
million tons of trona every year and employs more than 2,000 people.
For almost 20 years, trona has also played a critical and growing
role in air pollution control at coal-fired power plants, cement
plants, municipal incinerators and similar facilities around the
country, including Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Washington.
Texas-based Solvay Chemicals, Inc. pioneered the use of trona in air
pollution control systems, and it is the only company in the United
States that produces trona products for that purpose.
Trona simply works in air pollution control systems, and it works
incredibly well. The EPA, which has repeatedly approved the use of
trona in air pollution control systems, reports that those systems have
actually reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 85 percent and
hydrochloric acid emissions by 95 percent at several power plants
around the country, without increasing particulate matter emissions.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2643. I want
to thank my colleague and friend, Chairman Norm Dicks, for his tireless
work in bringing to the floor a bill that we should all be proud of
because of its commitment to protecting and conserving our environment
and natural resources for future generations to enjoy.
John F. Kennedy said in March 1961, ``It is our task in our time and
in our generation to hand down undiminished to those who come after us,
as was handed down to us by those who went before, the natural wealth
and beauty which is ours.'' In previous years we have
[[Page H7262]]
passed Interior Appropriations bills that do exactly the opposite--we
have cut essential funding that has put our natural resources at risk
as well as allowed policy decisions to hamper our ability to protect
at-risk land, wilderness and wildlife. In previous years, I have stood
before this Congress and expressed disappointment and anger with our
complete disregard for environmental stewardship. But this year is
different.
We finally have a bill that reflects where our budget priorities
should be. While this legislation may not solve all of our problems, I
believe it is an enormous step in the right direction.
First, I am proud to say that this bill allocates $50 million for the
stateside grant program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The
Land and Water Conservation Fund was separated into two components--the
full federal program and the stateside grant program--to help address
overdevelopment in both urban and rural areas. The stateside program
has increased the number of recreation areas and facilities in our
communities. It has also increased local involvement in land protection
and open space preservation.
In New Jersey alone, the LWCF program has helped preserve of 73,000
acres of land by providing more than $111 million in funding. Some of
the funding has been used to cleanup playgrounds, and build baseball
fields, develop waterfront parks and restore open spaces. It is beyond
me why the President continues to propose eliminating a program that is
so successful. Fortunately, Chairman Dicks and the members of the
Subcommittee understand the vital role this program plays in protecting
and maintaining vital open spaces. They have invested in a program that
remains a staple for conservation and land protection across the
country.
These funds are long-term gifts that allow for the preservation of
the wild and untouched places in America that our children and their
children should have for their enjoyment.
These funds provide for Tuesday night baseball games and Sunday walks
along the river, along with keeping what remains of our natural
resources clean and pollutant free.
I also want to commend the committee for recognizing the dire
situation of the National Parks. In preparation for the 100th
anniversary of the National Parks System in 2016, we have included a
hefty increase in the Parks budget for this fiscal year. This will go
to park improvements, staffing increases, and visitor center upgrades
in the Parks. Nearly a hundred years ago, Theodore Roosevelt urged the
American people and the government to begin to conserve what natural
resources we had so that some of the most majestic parts of this
country would remain intact. With the 100-year anniversary of the
National Park Service drawing closer, I echo the call to bring our
National Parks up to standards.
Again, I would like to commend Chairman Dicks for crafting this bill
before us today and I urge my colleagues to support it. By starting
here today with this bill, we are voting for our sons and daughters and
our grandchildren to be able to enjoy the natural resources of our
country that so many of us have had the opportunity to experience in
our lifetimes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.
[[Page H7263]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.001
[[Page H7264]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.002
[[Page H7265]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.003
[[Page H7266]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.004
[[Page H7267]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.005
[[Page H7268]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.006
[[Page H7269]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2643 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back to the House promptly with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 701. The effective date of section 115 of this Act and
of title VI of this Act shall be the day that the Secretary
of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy
and the Energy Information Administration, certifies that
nothing in this Act--
(1) shall reduce the amount of domestic energy available
from the public lands of the United States;
(2) shall result in the increased imports of any energy
otherwise available from the public lands of the United
States; or
(3) shall result in higher costs, to Federal agencies
funded in this Act, for gasoline, natural gas or home heating
oil.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, no issue in this bill is more
important than our striving towards energy independence, and to discuss
that by way of our motion to recommit, I yield to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), my colleague who is an expert on energy
policy.
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
I did make my living in oil and gas. I never owned one oil and gas
well; but I will tell you, we went down holes. We were plumbers, and we
fixed the oil wells and so I have seen the cost and difficulty of
producing energy from a very close point of view. My wife and I
employed 50 people in a small company that simply repaired oil weapons.
Reasonable people can have different points of view, but I have
watched the trajectory of the Democrat energy bills, first H.R. 6, the
energy bill that came through our Resources Committee and now this
Interior Appropriations. And I will tell you that from my point of
view, the Democratic energy agenda is anti-American energy. It insists
that we import more. It is going to send more jobs to China and it is
going to make life harder for Americans.
The motion to recommit simply says let's have the secretary certify.
If you reasonably believe that I am wrong about my assumptions, we are
going to send this back to the secretary to certify that nothing in
this bill will reduce the amount of domestic energy or result in
increased imports. I think if you believe in your bill, you should not
be afraid to cause that review by the secretary and that certification
that we are going to protect consumers. Because every one of us hear
from consumers every day, our constituents, that the price of gasoline
is too high. It is too high because of the policies that we in America,
we in this American government have caused.
Section 115 is a very simple section. It is the only research and
development section for ultra-deep oil. I can tell you that the deeper
you go, the more expensive oil is to get. And it is not for the big
companies, it is for the small companies that can't have research and
development. The only research and development money that is available
for small companies is in section 115. It has been taken out of every
other section.
Shale oil is title VI. Shale oil is two times all the reserves of oil
and gas in the entire world. Two times. It would make us self-
sufficient, and yet we are removing shale oil.
My friends, these are the reasons that I believe the policies that
are being promoted are anti-American and pro-import, will send jobs to
China, and will make life harder for Americans.
The Washington Post, in review of the very first shot of this
Democrat energy agenda, H.R. 6, The Washington Post said, ``This is
something Hugo Chavez would be proud of.''
My friends, we are not on a track to make life easier for Americans;
we are on a track to make life very difficult for the American economy
and the American consumer.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the motion uses the word ``promptly,'' as
this one does, it takes the bill off the floor and sends it back to the
Appropriations Committee. The committee is not required to act because
the instructions are considered merely advisory to the committee. In
other words, by using the word ``promptly,'' they would kill the bill.
Now this motion to recommit is simply a device to protect excess
profits of the energy companies. It does this by overturning section
115 of the bill. This section simply requires energy companies who are
realizing $9 billion of excess profits to renegotiate the faulty leases
which were signed in 1997 and 1998. In legal terms, this is called
``unjust enrichment'' at the expense of the taxpayers.
The motion overturns section 115 by delaying it until impossible
conditions are met, as certified by the secretary. If this language is
adopted, these enormous unjustified profits will continue for an
industry making tens of billions of dollars of profit.
Adoption of the amendment would kill the bill and with so many good
things in it, I urge all Members to vote against the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX and the
order of the House of June 26, 2007, the Chair will reduce to 2 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186,
nays 233, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 578]
YEAS--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
[[Page H7270]]
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--233
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Boehner
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Delahunt
Feeney
Hall (TX)
Melancon
Miller, George
Ortiz
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Weldon (FL)
{time} 1806
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272,
nays 155, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 579]
YEAS--272
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foxx
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--155
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Frank (MA)
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they
have less than 1 minute to vote.
{time} 1812
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________