[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13106-13115]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5093, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 483 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 483

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5093) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
     beginning with ``Provided'' on page 29, line 22, through page 
     30, line 11; page 68, lines 1 through 7. Where points of 
     order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order 
     against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be 
     made only against such provision and not against the entire 
     paragraph. During consideration of the bill for further 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. During consideration of the 
     bill, points of order against amendments for failure to 
     comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 483 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 5093, the Department of the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003. The rule waives all points of order 
against the consideration of the bill, and provides 1 hour of general 
debate, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule provides that amendments printed in the Committee on Rules 
report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted in 
the House and in the Committee of the Whole. It waives points of order 
against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with 
clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or 
legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified 
in the resolution.
  The rule further provides that the bill shall be considered for 
amendment by paragraph, and waives all points of order during 
consideration of the bill against amendments for failure to comply with 
clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency-designated amendments 
to be offered to an appropriation bill containing an emergency 
designation.
  Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record, and provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 5093 is to provide regular annual 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior, except for the 
Bureau of Reclamation, and for other related agencies, including the 
Forest Service, the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service, 
the Smithsonian Institute, and the National Foundation of the Arts and 
Humanities.
  H.R. 5093 also appropriates $19.7 million in new fiscal year 2003 
budget authority, which is $546 million above last year's enacted level 
and $800 million more than the President's request. The bill also 
provides $700 million in emergency FY 2002 budget authority for 
firefighting.
  Specifically, the bill provides $458 million for the National 
Wildlife Refuges, a $60 million increase over last year. National Park 
Service operations are funded at $1.6 billion, which is $117 million 
more than last year. In addition, the bill provides $368 million, an

[[Page 13107]]

increase of $33 million, to reduce the Park Service's enormous 
maintenance backlog. Also, $96 million is appropriated for the ongoing 
restoration of the Florida Everglades.
  H.R. 5093 provides $377 million for the Federal land acquisition, as 
well as $154 million for Stateside land acquisition grants; $150 
million for urban parks, forests, and historic preservation; and $100 
million for State wildlife grants.
  Notably, the bill provides $50 million for landowner incentive and 
stewardship grants to help private property owners carry out habitat 
conservation measures required by the Federal Government.
  Those of us who represent districts in the West have expressed our 
concern year after year about proposals to increase Federal 
landholdings in our areas. Several years ago, I coauthored an amendment 
with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) designed to put 
equal emphasis and dollars on maintaining the land and facilities the 
Federal Government already owns before acquiring even more.
  Much of the local opposition to Federal land purchases in the West 
arises from concern about revenues lost when land moves off local tax 
rolls and into Federal ownership. I am pleased, therefore, that the 
committee has increased the Payments in Lieu of Taxes by $30 million, 
to $230 million in this year's bill.
  In recognition of the important role energy conservation must play in 
strengthening our national security, the committee has also 
appropriated $985 million for energy conservation, and $300 million for 
weatherization and State energy grants.
  Furthermore, the committee has fully funded the President's request 
for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
the Humanities.
  Finally, as a member from a State ravaged by wildfires in recent 
years, I would like to highlight the committee's efforts in the area of 
wildfire suppression in firefighting. The massive wildfires burning 
today throughout the western United States illustrate the grave need to 
actively and responsibly manage our forests.
  Fire suppression will require a solid commitment by Congress and 
concerted efforts to overcome the forces currently encumbering Federal 
forest managers. This bill takes an important step to restore healthy, 
productive forests by appropriating more than $2 billion to implement 
the National Wildfire Plan, including $919 million for fire 
preparedness, $581 million for fire suppression activities, and $669 
million for other fire-related operations, such as hazardous fuels 
reduction, restoring burned-out forests, and preventing and treating 
the problems of invasive insects.
  On behalf of the brave men and women we depend on to fight wildfires 
and the citizens whose homes and livelihoods are threatened by 
wildfires, I thank the committee for the special attention it has 
devoted to this important matter.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations ordered H.R. 5093 
reported by a voice vote on July 9. The subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), have requested an open rule, and 
the Committee on Rules is pleased that the resolution now before the 
House grants that request.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the 
rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5093.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings), for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that I will not oppose, and the 
underlying bill has the support of many from both sides of the aisle. 
Moreover, the minority was consulted throughout the process in 
developing the legislation, a trend we all hope will continue 
throughout the process of appropriations.
  The bill provides $19.8 billion in new discretionary spending 
authority for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. This 
is $546 million more than last year, and almost $900 million more than 
the President's budget request. Moreover, the committee provided an 
additional $700 million to fight the western wildfires as emergency FY 
2002 spending.
  For the communities fighting these fires and for all who are still 
recovering from the devastation these fires have wrought, this is 
welcome news. Communities in Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and 
other parts of the West need to know that Washington has not turned a 
blind eye to their very real pain.
  I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee 
on Appropriations, for ensuring that this funding was included. I also 
strongly commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their success in the funding 
of a new conservation trust fund created in FY 2001. By including the 
$1.44 billion, $120 million above last year, authorized for 
conservation, Congress has kept a promise to expand funding for land 
acquisition, wildlife protection, and other preservation and 
conservation programs.
  Specifically, the fund provides $100 million for State wildlife 
grants, $30 million for urban parks and recreation recovery grants, $60 
million for Forest Legacy, $44 million for North American Wetlands 
Conservation Fund, $30 million for Save America's Treasures, $46 
million for historic preservation, $50 million for Fish and Wildlife 
Service landowner incentive programs, $36 million for urban forestry, 
and $121 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation 
Fund.
  This is an extraordinary victory for those who care about preserving 
our Nation's natural resources for future generations, and we thank the 
gentleman. But in other ways, the measure before us represents a lost 
opportunity, in its present form. In what is becoming an annual act of 
neglect, the committee failed to allow for the restoration of some of 
the unwise cuts made 7 years ago in the funding of those agencies 
responsible for the country's small but critically important arts and 
humanities education and preservation efforts.
  The bill funds the NEA at $116 million, a level almost 40 percent 
below the 1995 funding level.

                              {time}  1530

  The National Endowment for the Humanities is funded at $126 million, 
almost 30 percent below the level in 1995. These funding levels 
fundamentally ignore the successful efforts by both NEA and NEH to 
broaden the reach of their programs and to eliminate controversial 
programs, the two reforms that were requested by the majority when they 
reduced the funding in 1995. It is time to recognize the success of 
these reforms and give these agencies the resources they need to meet 
this critical need.
  This is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The NEA is essential to the 
part of the important link between education and the arts. The economic 
benefits we receive are enormous compared to our small investment in 
the NEA.
  The Arts and Economic Prosperity Study conducted by Americans for the 
Arts reveals that the nonprofit art industry generates $134 billion in 
economic activity annually. Over $80 billion of the figure stems from 
related spending by arts audiences, at the parking lots where patrons 
leave their cars, at the restaurants where they eat before 
performances, at the gift shops where they buy souvenirs, and at the 
motels where they spend the night.
  The $232 million that the Federal Government has invested in the NEA 
and NEH has returned $134 billion to Federal, State, and local 
economies. I cannot think of any Federal investments that yield that 
kind of return. Moreover, the public supports continued funding for the 
NEA because the NEA grants affect every congressional district. This 
funding is not concentrated in the handful of urban areas, but instead 
impacts hundreds of communities around the country.

[[Page 13108]]

  The arts are not only good financial investment for our communities, 
they greatly benefit the growth and development of our children. A 
recent study entitled ``Critical Links'' conducted by the Arts 
Education Partnership shows that learning and the arts improves 
critical skills in math, reading, language development and writing, 
skills badly needed. For example, the study shows that learning dance 
and drama helped to develop skills and improve creative writing. Skills 
learned in music increase a student's understanding of concepts in 
math.
  This body can ill afford the short changes that these vital programs 
provide when we have committed ourselves time and time again to 
improving the lives of our Nation's children. This is an inexpensive 
and most effective way to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the underlying measure, I will 
work to ensure the programs are given a fighting chance. I will offer 
an amendment to give the NEA an additional $10 million and an 
additional $5 million to the NEA and urge my colleagues to support 
these efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this will probably be the first day 
that I ever vote against a rule because I believe very strongly in the 
principle of this House that you do not legislate on appropriations, 
and this is what this rule allows, especially concerning the Commission 
on Native American Policy.
  This is a bill that was introduced into the Committee on Resources 
and was never heard, never had a markup; and it appears in this 
legislation. I think that is inappropriate for this body. I believe, in 
fact, it is meddling with the American Native. There is not one 
American Native group that supports the provision of H.R. 2244. And to 
have us now, in appropriations, legislate is wrong.
  I hope everybody has my understanding of the American Native and the 
injustice and wrong that has been done to them all these years by 
supposedly the Government of the United States, and this is yet another 
example.
  This is an example where this Congress is going to say, we are going 
to review your activities. We are going to make recommendations and we 
are going to do to you what was not done by the Justice Department, by 
the BIA, the FBI, and the Office of Tribal Justice. We are now going to 
tell you what you have been doing wrong all these years. Now, that is 
not correct legislative process.
  So the first time since I have been in this body with the minority, 
when we were, and now with the majority for the last 8 years, I am 
going to vote against the rule because it is the wrong rule. And for 
those of you in the office, think about it for a moment. It can be you 
the next time. It can be you the next time where you look up one 
morning and find out something that you feel very strongly about and 
that is the American Native population or some other group that you 
feel equally as strong about, and a bill that has never had a hearing, 
never any input, no ramifications is now in an appropriations bill. I 
thought we were above that.
  And to the Committee on Rules members, I suggest to you, where did 
this come from and why? Ask yourselves that.
  So I am asking Members listening to this today, vote ``no'' on the 
rule, make them come back with a rule that protects the prerogative of 
the authorizing committee. This rule does not do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Rule. Section 141 of H.R. 5093 
constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill.
  H.R. 2244 was introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in 
this Congress with the exact same language to create this Commission. 
The authorizing Committee has chosen not to take up this bill for 
consideration.
  This proposed Commission on Native American Policy would ask whether 
Indian gaming benefits Indian communities, whether Tribal government 
gaming is regulated, and whether Tribal government is influenced by 
organized crime. I would like to point out, that at the gentleman from 
Virginia's request, the federal government--through the National Indian 
Gaming Impact Study Commission (NGISC), the Justice Department, and the 
National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGA) has already addressed these 
questions a number of times.
  In contrast to what was stated by the author of this provision, I 
want to point out that Indian gaming benefits Tribal communities. The 
NGISC found that gaming is the only proven method of stimulating 
economic development in Indian country.
  I also want to emphasize adamantly that Indian gaming is well 
regulated. In a July 3, 2002 Memo from the U.S. Justice Department's 
Office of Inspector General (with the Criminal Division, the FBI, and 
the Office of Tribal Justice) found that Indian gaming is not 
influenced by organized crime. Additionally, the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) Office of Organized Crime wrote to the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee on July 25, 2001, confirming the Inspector General's report 
in its own independent report. Also, the $5 Million NGISC study found 
that Indian Gaming is not unduly influenced by organized crime--
confirming DOJ reports. Tribes reimburse States over $40 million on 
State regulated Tribal gaming and have spent over $160 million on 
Tribal regulation of Indian gaming.
  The gentleman from Virginia's provision is wasteful and unnecessary. 
Millions have already been spent on the creation and study of the NGISC 
for the same issues. The $200,000 appropriations request to create yet 
another Commission to study Indian Gaming would not permit the 
Department of the Interior to accomplish a meaningful study. Lastly, 
the money for the Commission would come out of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) ``available funds'', which could be used for much needed 
trust administration rather than a study intended to reach pre-
established conclusions. BIA is already underfunded in many of its 
program areas, and we do not need to request another duplicative study 
on Indian Gaming.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to delete Section 141 from H.R. 5093, 
the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, in support of the 
underlying bill; and I wanted to commend the chairman and ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on the Interior and the Committee on 
Appropriations for drafting this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that more funds shall be made available in the 
future to meet the many critical needs addressed by this bill and to 
expand programs that benefit our environment and conserve our 
resources; however, for fiscal year 2003, I believe that this bill has 
done great service to the country and restored most of the short-
sighted cuts recommended in President Bush's original budget proposal.
  There are just a few areas where slightly more remains to be done, 
and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment that will be 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to provide an additional $10 
million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1995 funding for the NEA and NEH was cut by more than 
40 percent. Even though $116 million is provided in H.R. 5093 for the 
NEA, that amount is still $46 million below the 1995 level. NEH funding 
is similarly inadequate.
  The Slaughter-Dicks amendment partially restores funding to these two 
vital programs. The reasons to support and expand these programs are 
well documented. The NEA provides critical support for arts education, 
which has been proven to increase skills in math, reading, language 
development, and writing.
  Grants provided by the NEA and NEH leverage millions of dollars each 
year in private support for arts projects all across this country.
  The NEH has embarked on numerous projects to preserve our Nation's 
cultural heritage. It is the Nation's largest source of support for 
research and scholarship in the humanities.

[[Page 13109]]

  According to a recent study by the Georgia Institute for Technology, 
the arts industry generates millions of jobs and $134 billion in 
economic activity every year. Let me repeat that figure: $134 billion 
annually.
  In Worcester, Massachusetts, the nonprofit arts community generates 
over $48 million annually. It supports 1,445 full-time jobs and 
generates over $1 million in local government revenue and over $3 
million in State revenue.
  Over the past 4 years, the Worcester community has benefited from 
$215,000 in NEA grants. These grants help mount exhibits in the 
Worcester Art Museum and in the Higgins Armory Museum. They brought 
arts exhibits to the public schools and school children to the 
community art centers and museums. Similar grants also supported the 
Attleboro Art Museum and community arts programs in central 
Massachusetts.
  The NEH at the same time helped to protect some of our Nation's most 
precious documents and historical archives, which are preserved and 
displayed at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester. Other NEH 
grants supported seminars on history and culture for K through 12 
school teachers at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth and at 
Holy Cross College in Worcester.
  These programs enrich our cultural heritage, strengthen our 
educational programs, stimulate our teachers and our children, and 
contribute to the economic well-being of our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Slaughter-
Dicks amendment when it is debated later on in the Interior bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a former chairman of this 
subcommittee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but the rule has a 
serious flaw and let me point that out. I want to go back to WRDA, 
which was passed by an overwhelming majority in the year 2000 to do a 
restoration of the Everglades, and I quote from it: ``The frame work 
for modifications and operational changes to the Central and South 
Florida project that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the 
South Florida eco-system,'' that is the Everglades, ``while providing 
them for other water-related needs of the region, including water 
supply and food protection.''
  Now, today's bill, and this is in the wisdom of the chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and I quote, ``Activities of the 
restoration, coordination and verification team as described in the 
final feasibility report and programmatic environmental impact 
statement for the comprehensive review of the Central and Southern 
Florida project shall be directed jointly by the Secretary of the 
Army,'' that is the Corps of Engineers, ``the Secretary of the 
Interior,'' because this is a national park and it is a national 
resource. It belongs to all the people of this Nation. ``And the South 
Florida water management district, `` because the way that water is 
managed is important to the people in South Florida.
  However, the rule makes it possible and as I understand it there will 
be a point of order against that section I just read. Now, the net 
effect of that is to take the Secretary of the Interior out of the 
management. But I thought we were doing this to preserve the 
Everglades. And who has a greater stake as an agency than Interior? 
This bill provides $100 million of Interior money that is collected by 
taxes from people in 50 State, not just Florida, but 50 States. In the 
Interior bills in previous years, we have appropriated approximately $1 
billion from all the people in the United States. Who better can speak 
on their behalf on matters of the eco-system, which is provided in 
WRDA, and matters that are important to the south Florida system, the 
Everglades? And yet this point of order will take the Secretary of the 
Interior out of play.
  That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong, and I think that is a real 
flaw in this rule. And I believe that the only way we can correct that 
and pass this good bill is to defeat the rule and let this section be 
protected. The Secretary of the Interior who speaks for all of us who 
are paying the bill, a former head of the Corps of Engineers, estimated 
it might cost as much as $80 billion to restore the Everglades. Let us 
divide that by four, $20 billion to do the restoration and vision in 
WRDA, and yet we will not let the Secretary of the Interior have a 
voice? We will take that individual out of play?
  It is not just this Secretary of the Interior. This is going to be a 
long-term project, and unless the Secretary of the Interior is in on 
the ground floor, this will not work. I think we ought to go back, pass 
a rule and protect the section that gives the Secretary of Interior a 
voice as the present bill includes, thanks to the wisdom of the 
chairman and the members of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the substance 
of what the gentleman said. This year I went down to Florida, visited 
the Everglades, met with the top officials because this is a major 
program for our subcommittee and for the country, as the gentleman 
points out quite properly. And I completely concur with the gentleman 
that we should have the Secretary of the Interior as an equal player, 
and we need to have this Florida water modification program moved 
forward in order to get water back into the Everglades and into the 
Florida Bay.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to tell the gentleman I am very 
sympathetic to what he has to say and I appreciate him yielding.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, such time as is left, 
and I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  If the Secretary of Interior is not part of the management system, 
the emphasis will be on water, water for everything but the Everglades, 
and yet I think the people in the United States assume that we are 
going to restore the Everglades. The one individual who is a key player 
in all of that will be the Secretary of Interior, and that individual 
deserves a place at the table.
  I would urge Members to support a rule that leaves this section that 
is in the bill as put there by the wisdom of the chairman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the bill today but understand 
that the Committee on Rules has chosen not to protect the language that 
has just been mentioned on the Florida Everglades restoration project. 
It is my hope that the language remains in the bill and that the 
language is ultimately adopted.
  I would say that this certainly could have an impact on the 
committee's judgments in the future about the funding levels for this 
project if, in fact, this language is stricken. I just say that to give 
everyone fair warning.
  The project is one of the most important environmental projects this 
subcommittee has ever undertaken, but we are at a critical juncture. 
The chairman and I feel very strongly that the Secretary of Interior 
has an equal voice, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Water 
Management District. We have appropriated over a billion dollars in 
this bill over the course of the project and believe that this language 
ensures that.
  I strongly support this year's bill and sincerely hope that the 
committee's guidance is maintained.
  I also wanted to mention that in the question of the National 
Endowment for the Arts, we will have an amendment today. The 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I and others are 
cosponsoring this amendment at a time when our economy is under great 
stress.
  I think it is very interesting to point out to the membership that 
there was a very comprehensive economic study done about arts and 
economic prosperity, and the figure here is that the total economic 
impact of the arts in

[[Page 13110]]

our country is $134 billion, and it provides, I think, 4.27 million 
jobs, and at a time when our economy is hurt, I think we ought to 
remember that this sector is growing and is very vibrant. One of the 
reasons for it is the fact that this Congress has stayed with this 
program and added critical funding.
  Also, I would like to point out to my colleagues that a couple of 
years ago we had had a big fight over CARA, and myself and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment creating a 
conservation trust fund, and at that time, the total spending in the 
country on conservation was $752 million if we added together the money 
in the Interior bill and the money in the Commerce-Justice-State bill.
  I want to report to my colleagues that in this bill, there is $1.44 
billion for these conservation categories, and also, there will be 
significant additional funding over in the Commerce-Justice-State 
portion which takes us up to $1.92 billion. So I think we have kept our 
commitment to the House that we would fund these programs in a more 
substantial way and including one program, the West Coast Salmon 
Recovery Initiative, and I want all Members of the House to know that I 
was out testing the waters this weekend, and the recovery initiative is 
doing quite well.
  I disagree with my colleague. I think we should move ahead, pass the 
rule, and I hope that nobody will object to these important Everglades 
provisions.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me the time, and I rise this afternoon reluctantly to oppose 
the rule that we have before us today, and I want to cite a couple of 
problems that I see with the rule.
  The first is actually, in my judgment, not the biggest of the 
problems that we have. The first, however, does require, I think, some 
observation, and that is, that we have added $700 million to this as an 
emergency measure to fight fires, apparently. This has been done 
despite the fact that there is no such request from the administration. 
This has been done despite the fact that evidently most, if not all, 
the fires are out, and although there probably is some need for some 
firefighting funds, this is probably considerably more than what is 
needed.
  Frankly, where this belongs, and there probably is a need for some 
funds for firefighting, but it should be on the supplemental, and that 
is where we should be doing this kind of thing. In fact, the President, 
it is my understanding, has offered to put it on the supplemental, and 
to find offsets so that we can do that supplemental, get it done, get 
it done at the level that the President has asked and that the House 
has passed.
  The point that I want to make is that there is another place for the 
appropriate number. I do not think that is the appropriate number. I do 
not think this is the appropriate place. I think it ought to be on the 
supplemental which, by the way, I do not know what is holding up the 
supplemental. It has been something like 120 days, and we still have 
not been able to get that done.
  That is the small problem that I see with this rule and this bill. 
This larger problem is that this bill puts us on a path to bust the 
budget, and I think that that is a big, big mistake. We passed a budget 
on this floor, basically passed it twice, once as a budget resolution. 
A second time, we deemed that resolution to be the operative budget 
since we never got a budget out of the Senate and, in addition, the 
President has indicated that he wants to stick with the House-passed 
budget.
  I think we owe it to the American people that we do stick to that 
budget. Let us think about this. We have a war under way. There are 
huge costs to that war. We have vulnerabilities that require huge 
expenditures for homeland defense and for security, completely 
legitimate and important. We are no longer able to set aside the 
surplus from Social Security as we did, as the Republican-controlled 
Congress did for a number of years. We are now running a deficit and we 
are told just yesterday that that deficit for this year alone will be 
approximately $165 billion. Yet this bill, if we proceed as it is 
currently contemplated, virtually assures us that we are not even going 
to stick to the budget that we passed, and let me explain why.
  The reason is that the allocation of the total amount of spending 
that we agreed in the budget resolution, the allocation amongst the 13 
appropriation bills, contemplates significant increases in spending 
much above and beyond the President's request, way above and beyond 
last year's level, on a handful of bills that are generally relatively 
easy to pass and that the plan is to pass them early. Well, they will 
pass easily, bills like Interior and Agriculture and Treasury Postal, 
where there are big plus-ups above and beyond the President's request.
  The problem is to make the numbers add up. The assumption is that we 
are going to be able to pass Labor, Health and Human Services and VA, 
HUD, and Commerce-Justice-State, the assumption is that we are going to 
pass those bills at lower levels, and we know realistically that is not 
going to happen.
  So if we are serious about delivering on the budget resolution that 
we voted to, that we adopted in this House and that the President wants 
us to stick with, if we are serious about that, and by all means we 
should be, then we need to stop this process right now and rethink 
these 302(b) allocations.
  Maybe I am all mistaken and maybe this is just not the case at all 
and that every one of these bills can and will be brought out and we 
will pass it and that is the intention here. If so, then I would 
suggest let us start with the hard ones, not the easy ones. Why do we 
not start off with CJS right now, why do we not do VA-HUD, why do we 
not do Labor-HHS now, rather than at the end of this process, when in 
all past years when we get to the end, we shrug our shoulders and say, 
imagine that, there is not enough money to pass these bills, and then 
we bust the budget.
  At this time when we are running the deficits that we are, when we 
have the vital challenges facing our Nation to equip our men and women 
in uniform, to protect our homeland from the threats that it faces, we 
cannot afford big increases in bills that are not as vital, and so I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention to the Members that 
there is $700 million added to this bill for firefighting. That may not 
be enough to make up for the difference in what is needed because of 
the tremendous fires we have had in the West. In fact, we have heard 
that number may now be over a billion that is needed, and this is a 
2002 supplemental. This is not part of the 2003 bill, and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can, of course, speak on this better than I, 
but my judgment is this should be added to the 2002 supplemental, the 
regular supplemental, and if it were, we would obviously take it out in 
conference, but we need to get this money passed.
  The problem we have is that the administration, Forest Service, the 
BLM need this money. If they do not get it, they will have to borrow 
from other accounts within the departments, and it will completely 
disrupt the way they do their business. So we have to be very careful 
here that we do not completely disrupt the way the Forest Service and 
the BLM operate because they have many other significant 
responsibilities.
  This is the least we should be doing. We should be doing more, and I 
cannot imagine why the Office of Management and Budget does not 
understand that there is a problem out there that needs to be solved, 
and it is mystifying that they have not made a formal budget request 
when there is this kind of need out in the West.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me

[[Page 13111]]

the time, and I wanted to just touch base, Mr. Speaker, on a couple of 
points about this bill.
  This bill is our national environmental policy in many ways because 
it takes the management of land, the management of resources, policies 
affecting energy and a number of other issues, and it cobbles together 
a bill which is truly bipartisan and one that represents many different 
kinds of philosophies.
  Many folks from the East have very strong opinions on this bill. Many 
from the West have other opinions and so this bill is actually 
delicately balanced and crafted. Many Members do not appreciate what 
goes into it, but I can assure my colleagues when we get so many Type A 
personalities in a body of 435 people, we are not always going to have 
agreement, but what we do end up with is a good bill, a bill that funds 
our national parks.
  Our national park maintenance program is far behind, a billion 
dollars. This helps catch them up. We lose lots of assets on our Park 
Services every year. It helps round out a lot of the boundaries in the 
Fish and Wildlife and the wildlife refuges that are overdue, Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management, some of the policies that have 
to do with Western utilization of land.
  One of the things that people do not get reminded enough in terms of 
our national forests is that the concept of national forests started 
under Theodore Roosevelt, and the idea was that the Federal Government 
cannot lock up everything, but the private sector also cannot always 
develop everything. The national forests are not supposed to be 
national parks. They are working forests, and so it is proper there for 
public utilization both for recreational and for commercial purposes to 
take place.
  This bill has lots of great research for energy policy. At a time 
when, unfortunately, our energy bill has stalled in the other body, 
this bill steps forward without doing a lot of good research like fuel 
cell technology, things like this. This balances our issues in the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, health care on reservations and land disputes 
and title research.
  All of this is in there, Mr. Speaker, and I urge Members to support 
the rule and support the bill and let us keep our environmental policy 
in America moving forward.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a perfectly reasonable bill and I 
intend to support it, but I must bring to the attention of the House 
certain facts that relate to the overall budget situation of which this 
bill is only a part. Because while the bill itself has been put 
together by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in a perfectly responsible way, the 
allocation process under the Budget Act, under which it comes to the 
floor, is in my view a charade, and I want to explain that.
  We are now for the third time going through the same drill that we 
have gone through the previous 2 years. The Committee on the Budget has 
imposed on this House a budget ceiling for domestic discretionary 
programs which is about $748 billion. Everyone understands, except 
perhaps 30 or 40 people in this House, everyone understands that, in 
the end, appropriation bills will wind up costing considerably more 
than that $748 billion. So this is a question of truth in packaging.
  The problem that we face, what is happening this year, as was the 
case in the last 2 years, is that the larger bills which are going to 
be coming later, the VA-HUD bill, the Labor-Health-Education-Social 
Security Services bill and the Commerce-Justice-State bill are all 
being cut by very large amounts below the levels that both sides of the 
aisle recognize will be needed to eventually pass those bills, in order 
to, on a temporary basis, free up money which can be put into bills 
like this one to make it look as though we can pass bills like this and 
still remain consistent with the overall Budget Act.

                              {time}  1600

  Now, the fact that that is being done is not the fault of the 
Committee on Appropriations. It is the only choice left open to the 
chairman because of the unrealistic spending levels that are provided 
for in the budget resolution. But what this means, in the end, is that 
(while we will be able temporarily to hide from the truth, 
unfortunately, and we will be able to pass the smaller bills, such as 
the Ag bill, the Treasury Post Office bill, the military construction 
bill, this bill, and a few others), come September, guess what! 
Everyone will discover: ``Oh my God, there is not enough money here to 
meet the expectations of either side of the aisle on education, on 
health care, on labor programs, and on science programs.''
  The VA-HUD bill, for instance, has been cut $2.7 billion below the 
budget request of the President in order to temporarily free up room 
for bills like this. The Labor-HHS bill is going to be cutting teacher 
improvement programs. It is going to be cutting Pell Grants and other 
programs if it is going to comply with the overall spending limits.
  So, in essence, we have a charade. And I think the House ought to be 
facing up to it now versus later. But we are not going to do it 
because, I realize, that the House leadership has only one play that 
they know how to run. And as I said in committee, it kind of reminds me 
of my high school football team, when Dick Gumness was the quarterback 
and Jack Bush was the half back. We were unscored on the first seven 
games of the season. Then, in the last game, the opposition, Eau 
Claire, scored 14 points the first half, we scored 7 points the second 
half and were driving for a second tying touchdown. We got to about the 
20 yard line, and Jack Bush, the half back, had his bell rung on a 
play. He came back into the huddle, and Dick Gumness, the quarterback, 
recognized that Jack could not remember any other play, except the one 
we had just run. So we ran that same play five straight times in order 
to cross the goal line, because that is the only play Jack could 
remember.
  That is what it reminds me of when I look at what the leadership is 
doing here. This is the only play they can figure out, so they are 
going to run it again, again, and again, even if in the end it results 
in a futile effort and no score. That is the only difference between 
our game and this one. There is not going to be any score until people 
face reality.
  So sometime between now and October 1 people are going to have to 
recognize that the budget resolution is a fiction. That does not mean 
there should not be a budget resolution. There should. But it should be 
an honest one which honestly, up-front, ahead of time estimates what 
the cost will be rather than hiding the true cost until the end game.
  That is why this Congress is being delayed in so many other aspects 
of its work. It is a shame, but it is the only play, evidently, that 
the leadership knows how to run.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
for yielding me this time, and I want to congratulate the chairman of 
our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and the 
ranking member, my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), for their hard work.
  I listened intently to the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), talking about football plays; and this bill 
particularly, I guess, can be likened to the idea that there is going 
to be a Monday morning

[[Page 13112]]

quarterback coming in always on this bill and trying to rewrite it, and 
I think that is probably what we will see some of today. It is 
different when you are in the room trying to solve the problem of 
allocating money among disparate resources and a limited amount of 
money for certain functions of the government that deal with our 
natural resources economy.
  I think this bill, while not ever perfect, for goodness sakes, is a 
very balanced bill; and I think it is a rule that is fair as well. By 
and large this is a good package, and I think it has taken a tremendous 
amount of work to get Members on one side of the political spectrum 
dealing with those on the other and trying to come to a package that 
makes some sense.
  I supported in the subcommittee, and I am very proud of my 
conservative credentials, fiscally and otherwise, but I supported the 
additional money for firefighting. I did it because we saw a memo that 
I hold here from the chief of the forest service basically saying this 
is such an extraordinary year facing fire costs that we must have 
additional money or else in the forest service they are simply going to 
say, drop all other obligations for the forest service and put that 
effort into firefighting and put the resources into firefighting.
  If you are from the West, and I am, and your State is burned up, from 
time to time, you will be the last to criticize additional money that 
comes in for firefighting purposes. I say that advisedly to some of my 
colleagues who are concerned about this extra money. If you are from 
Arizona, you are not going to feel this way, necessarily. If you are 
from California or Washington or Oregon or elsewhere that is facing 
unrestricted firefighting problems, you are going to say, please help 
us out. And if it is your home that is being destroyed or your 
neighborhood or your region, you are going to be the first to stand up 
and say this government can help and we can do so through the Federal 
system.
  So I think we are, within our budget allocations in the interior 
bill, in a difficult bill to try to balance, we are balancing it with 
adequate consideration for resources, for conservation, for 
development, for the arts, the humanities and so forth. It is a tough 
balancing act to try to get into law, and we are doing it and we have 
done it.
  So I would say to any critics of this measure, be thoughtful about 
how you criticize, because this is a well-balanced package that I think 
is very well crafted to do all that we want to do in this bill.
  It is important, I think, to know also that the administration 
supports the fiscal year 2003 Department of Interior and related 
agencies bill reported by the House Committee on Appropriations. And I 
hope my colleagues will support the rule and the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
to express my strong opposition to certain provisions included in the 
interior bill that impact American Indians.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I have concerns regarding the language on 
the Commission on Native American Policy, American Indian trust fund 
reform, and the Cobell v. Norton litigation. These provisions were not 
developed in consultation with Indian country. Rather, they were 
directly included in the House interior appropriations bill. This 
language will erode the legal rights of tribal governments and block 
the goals they seek to attain, and these provisions violate House rule 
XXI, which prohibits legislating on appropriation measures.
  Mr. Speaker, in this day and age, the tactic of ignoring tribal 
government input and advice on initiatives that impact their lives and 
systems of government is really unacceptable. Congress should set the 
example for how adequate and meaningful consultation should occur 
between the Federal Government and tribal governments. The Commission 
on Native American Policy would mandate that tribal governments engaged 
in gaming be subjected to additional federally imposed examination and 
possibly more regulation.
  I believe these provisions were put in by Members of Congress who 
oppose Indian gaming. But tribal governments, similar to State and 
Federal governments, are democratic systems of governance. If some 
tribal governments decide to pursue gaming activities as a means of 
securing economic self-sufficiency, Congress should not stand in their 
way.
  The proposed commission will also divert Federal funds from other 
badly needed Federal Indian programs. And, in fact, millions of dollars 
have already been spent studying the need for more regulation of Indian 
gaming. We do not need to waste money on another study.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that I also oppose two other 
provisions in the bill, one that will reform the American Indian trust 
fund strategy and the other dealing with the Cobell v. Norton 
litigation. These provisions will limit a historical accounting of 
trust funds to the period from 1985 to 2000, which will assume all 
records before 1985 are correct, and in addition would not provide an 
accounting for funds held in an account closed as of December 31, 2000.
  The tribal governments and representatives involved in the trust fund 
and litigation procedures are demanding an accounting of their trust 
funds dating back to the 1800s. Why in the world are some Members of 
Congress attempting to deny these account holders a full accounting of 
their trust funds? I have no idea.
  These provisions not only serve to undermine existing Federal law, 
requiring a full accounting of all trust funds, but they also deny a 
Federal court decision requiring an accounting of all funds regardless 
of the date deposited. Why are we trying to go counter to a Federal 
court action and contrary to the existing Federal law that is simply 
asking for an accounting for funds that are owed to tribes? It makes no 
sense whatsoever.
  Basically, Mr. Speaker, these provisions in the bill are clearly 
moving in the wrong direction. They do not serve to meet the needs or 
strengthen the rights of Indian country. They are taking away the 
rights of Indian country. They are being done without consultation. It 
sets a terrible precedent on an appropriations bill that we do this 
without any opportunity for a hearing or any opportunity for 
consultation with American Indians.
  For these reasons, I oppose these provisions, and I oppose the rule. 
I would ask my colleagues to support two amendments that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), 
and other Members of the Native American Caucus are going to offer 
later that would strike these very bad provisions, in my opinion, that 
impact Indian country in a very negative way.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
rule. This is an open rule. Unlike some of the bills that come to this 
floor under closed rules, this is an open rule. The Committee on 
Appropriations brings open rules to the floor. Members will have an 
opportunity to deal with this bill responsibly, and this rule makes 
that in order.
  Now, I understand, listening to some in the debate, that there are 
going to be some who do not like this bill. Well, that is usually 
always the case that some will not like this bill. But we cannot 
predict what will happen to bill number 13 based on bill number three. 
And this is only number three of the FY 2003 appropriation bills.
  Now, why is that? Why is this only bill number three, and we here in 
the middle of July? It is number three because this chairman made a 
commitment to the President of the United States that this year the 
first appropriations bill to move through the House would be the 
defense appropriations bill, and the second one would be the military 
construction bill. And, Mr. Speaker, this chairman kept that 
commitment.
  While we were doing that, we were also working on a supplemental, 
which was basically all defense and homeland

[[Page 13113]]

security. So we have been very busy. Now, these other bills backed up 
because we have kept that commitment to the President to move the 
defense bills first. In a time of war, I think that is perfectly 
acceptable. I think it is a good idea.
  But now I understand that because some people might not like what is 
coming down the road, they are going to use all the dilatory tactics we 
can on this interior bill, which is the last bill that the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is going to present to this House before he 
retires.
  We are providing the membership with a good bill. There may be some 
differences, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is why we have 
an open rule. But this is a good bill. It meets the needs and the 
requirements of this country. There is nothing wrong with this bill. If 
there are some who think they want to change it, they can offer an 
amendment. Under an open rule, that is what you do.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I read some comments by some of our 
colleagues who want to destroy the appropriations process. Do it, if 
you can. But understand that of all the bills that are considered in 
this House during a fiscal year, the ones that really have to pass are 
the appropriations bills, because without the appropriations bills, 
nothing happens.
  So destroy the process, if you want. The budget process WAS 
destroyed. There is no budget process here, which makes it very 
difficult to appropriate and confer with our counterparts in the other 
body.
  If what you are about here is just numbers and the destruction of the 
appropriations process, so be it. But I believe that a vast majority of 
this House will not agree to that because they understand the 
importance of the appropriations process to this House.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this is a good rule, it is an open rule, and it 
allows the House to work its will.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I, for one, Mr. Speaker, do appreciate the open rule, and today I 
will be offering an amendment to the interior bill to encourage our 
administration to work on terminating the 36 undeveloped oil leases off 
California's coast. My amendment would restrict this year's Department 
of the Interior funds from being spent to develop these 36 leases.
  It is similar to an amendment the House passed last year by a wide 
bipartisan margin to stop the sale of leases off Florida's coast.

                              {time}  1615

  Offshore oil drilling has long been a controversial issue throughout 
California. The 1969 blowout in the Santa Barbara Channel dumped 4 
million gallons of oil into the sea, killing thousands of marine 
animals and damaging a huge swath of our beautiful coast. The 
devastation was so great that it galvanized virtually the entire State 
against more offshore oil drilling. Many credit this event to inspiring 
the modern environmental movement.
  Since then, dozens of local governments have passed anti-oil drilling 
measures, and our State has enacted a permanent ban on new offshore oil 
leasing. Many of us have asked this administration to work on 
terminating these existing leases. So now I hope that a strong House 
vote on protecting California's coast and economy can encourage such 
action similar to the action on behalf of Florida and Michigan's 
coastlines.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this amendment and demonstrate 
the House's commitment to protecting our environment and the economy 
associated with our coastal resources, particularly in this case, the 
California coastline.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good Interior appropriations 
bill; but the problem is that the rule failed to protect two very 
important provisions of the bill that were put in there by the 
Subcommittee on the Interior and endorsed by the full Committee on 
Appropriations on a bipartisan basis. These two provisions are critical 
to protecting a program to restore the natural system of the Florida 
Everglades. This restoration project is costing the people of the 
United States literally billions of dollars. It is the most 
comprehensive and ambitious environmental restoration project perhaps 
in the history of our world, certainly our country.
  What happens is that one of the provisions that is not protected by 
the rule would ensure that the Department of the Interior is made a 
full partner with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida 
in determining how this restoration project goes forward, and that 
science is used to make sure that the project is carried out in a way 
that achieves its objectives.
  Without the Department of Interior as a coequal partner, we are not 
going to get the kind of results that we want here. If the Department 
of Interior is required to play a subsidiary rule, as this rule would 
require, then the outcome is going to be less than what we want and 
money will be sorely wasted.
  The other provision that the rule fails to protect is a provision 
with the way the water would flow, north to south and south to north. 
Right now the Tamiami Trail which runs east and west across southern 
Florida blocks the flow of that water. A provision in the 
appropriations bill, again put in there by the members of the 
Subcommittee on Interior and endorsed by the full committee on a 
bipartisan basis, would ensure that a provision which the Congress 
previously authorized, the purchase of land to make sure that the 
Tamiami Trail can be raised and the water can flow naturally back and 
forth, north and south through the Everglades and into Florida Bay, 
that provision is not protected.
  These two essential ingredients of the Florida Everglades Restoration 
Plan, costing the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars, are 
not protected in this bill. That is why the rule should be defeated.
  Some Members might say we are legislating on an authorization bill. 
That is nonsense. These provisions ensure that what the Committee on 
Appropriations does, which authorizes money to be spent, that that 
money is going to be spent properly, cleanly, honestly, scientifically, 
so that we get the results that we want and need in this restoration 
project. Politics and not science is going to rule the day if this rule 
goes forward. That is the problem with this rule, and that is why it 
should be defeated.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and 
associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the former chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  The Committee on Appropriations has breached rule XXI which forbids 
legislating on an appropriations bill. They have breached it in two 
places in a very delicate, complex area of Indian law which is under 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. We have been working on 
that area of law very carefully and over a number of years, and have 
within sight, I believe, a solution to the problems which they seek to 
address in this appropriations bill.
  I went to the Committee on Rules last night asking them not to 
protect these two breaches of rule XXI, but they would not give me that 
protection, would not give the House that protection. Therefore, I 
oppose this rule. I think this breach is an insult to the authorizing 
committee, and it is really an affront to the Native Americans of this 
country with whom we have worked closely on the Committee on Resources 
to resolve their problems.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, my comments are very similar to several 
speakers who have risen on the rule. I

[[Page 13114]]

am very much in support of many provisions in the bill, but the rule, 
unfortunately, specifically in terms of not protecting two very 
significant issues on Everglades restoration, I urge my colleagues to 
look, understand the rule, and urge defeat of the rule for those very 
specific and unfortunate nonprotection issues.
  Those are the only two issues where points of order are not waived. 
It was a very conscious, very specific decision that was made in the 
Committee on Rules. Members need to understand the specifics about 
what, and we are getting on some local, local issues. One of the 
provisions which has been mentioned deals with the Department of 
Interior representation in the process to determine literally how $8 
billion is going to be spent. There is a real concern that that 
component, without the Department of Interior's involvement, is going 
to lead to results that this Congress does not want. If we pass the 
rule, that provision will be taken out. There has been incredible 
bipartisan support, people on both sides of the aisle have spoken 
against the rule for this very reason.
  In the State of Florida, all of the 23 Members of the House have 
supported Everglades restoration efforts continuously at a legislative 
level. When we have had Democratic governors, Republican governors, 
candidates for President from both sides of the aisle have vigorously 
supported this restoration process. But in the bowels of the 
legislation to take out the Department of Interior really in a sense in 
the dark of the night in a specific way would be very unfortunate and 
would have the exact results that publicly no one has the guts to stand 
up and articulate a reason for doing it because it is such an untenable 
political position.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a specific area called the 8\1/2\ square miles. 
There are 60 homes in that area right now. It is in my district. Those 
homes are probably going to have to be condemned. They are in the 
middle of a floodplain. However it happened, this provision prevents 
those homes from being condemned. They need to be condemned for 
Everglades restoration. This provision prevents it, and can actually 
prevent the entire project.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) who is, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
said, is going to be bringing forward his last appropriations bill 
before he retires, and so I would like a great round of applause for 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. Speaker, this is, as was said so well by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), an open rule. There has been a lot of confusion 
about this process, but I want to take a moment to go through a couple 
of provisions raised by Members.
  I oppose authorizing in appropriations bills. I do not believe it is 
the right thing to do, but sometimes it is necessary. We in the 
Committee on Rules have worked very diligently to ensure that we 
address the prerogative of the authorizing committees when we proceed. 
What that basically means is on rule XXI, which the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) just raised as an issue, if we have opposition 
that comes from the chairman of the authorizing committee, we in fact 
do not provide that waiver of rule XXI. So what we have done is we have 
received a grand total of one letter, and I have it here someplace, and 
it came from two committee chairmen raising concerns about legislating 
in an appropriations bill, and it did not have to do with the Indian 
provisions because under the open amendment process, any Member can 
rise and strike those provisions that were included in the bill.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is here. He is chairman of the 
Committee on Resources, and he did not choose to object on that issue. 
So for that reason, we in fact did provide the protection; but a 
striking amendment will still be in order.
  The letter we did receive from the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) 
and from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) deals with the two 
Everglades provisions. We found strong opposition from the authorizing 
chairmen who have jurisdiction there. So what we did do, what we chose 
to do was to make sure that those two issues could in fact be open to a 
point of order and be stricken.
  Now, I will tell Members that every Member of this House who serves 
on an authorizing committee will, I believe, have some issue that they 
hope that the Committee on Appropriations does not address, and they, 
in working with their chairman, can get a letter that is sent to us to 
ensure that that issue is addressed appropriately in the Committee on 
Rules.
  We have followed this pattern, which has worked very effectively on 
both the Indian gaming issue and on the Everglades issue and other 
concerns that were raised. So I will say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) who raised some concerns, he has the right to 
strike any provision that is in this bill, and he can offer an 
amendment to do that. But as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
said, we have to proceed with the appropriations process. It is a 
priority. It is a constitutional responsibility that we have to 
appropriate the dollars to deal with our priorities.
  I urge Members to support this open rule which is very fair, 
addresses the concerns of both the authorizing committees and the 
Committee on Appropriations. Let us pass the rule and pass the bill 
itself. I urge Members to join with us in doing that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, two points. Am I correct the gentleman has to be on his 
feet when the vote is called, and it has to be done in a timely manner?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognized the gentleman from New 
York.
  The gentleman from New York objects to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and makes the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Following this vote, pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will 
then put the question on the remaining motions to suspend the rules on 
which further proceedings were postponed earlier today and then on the 
motion postponed from Monday, July 15.
  Votes will be taken in the following order:
  H.R. 4866, by the yeas and nays; and
  H. Con. Res. 395, by the yeas and nays.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
in this series.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 322, 
nays 101, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                               YEAS--322

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)

[[Page 13115]]


     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--101

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Goode
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pence
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rivers
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Solis
     Stark
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     Nadler
     Pascrell
     Riley
     Schaffer
     Traficant

                              {time}  1655

  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, BLUMENAUER, SANDERS, LUTHER, JACKSON of Illinois, 
KENNEDY of Rhode Island, CONYERS, DAVIS of Illinois, and BECERRA, and 
Ms. McKINNEY, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. SOLIS and Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. STRICKLAND and Mr. SHAW changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________