[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13356-13369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 483 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. 5093.

                              {time}  1852


                     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. 5093) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2003, and, for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a 
request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 by the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) had been postponed, and the bill was open from 
page 126, line 15 through page 135, line 13.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The 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:
  Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Tancredo of Colorado;
  Amendment No. 2 by Mrs. Capps of California;
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123, 
noes 300, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--123

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Watkins (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--300

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano

[[Page 13357]]


     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Johnson (CT)
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Nadler
     Smith (MI)
     Traficant

                              {time}  1910

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Announcement No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 172, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--252

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--172

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)

[[Page 13358]]


     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Nadler
     Schaffer
     Traficant

                              {time}  1919

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 223, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Istook
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Nadler
     Traficant

                              {time}  1927

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.  . The Regional Forester for a National Forest System 
     Region may exempt a specific project involving the removal of 
     trees with a diameter of 12 inches or less on land owned or 
     managed by the Forest Service in that Region from the 
     applicability of the citizen suit authority contained in 
     section 11(g) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1540(g)) if the Regional Forester finds (and certifies 
     these findings to the Chief of the Forest Service and 
     Congress) that, on the basis of the best scientific 
     information available, (1) a wildfire in the area of the 
     project is likely to cause extreme harm to the forest 
     ecosystem and destroy human life and dwellings and (2) the 
     project is necessary to prevent these occurrences.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to address a 
problem with the Endangered Species Act and the fires that are raging 
across the West at the present time. Right now citizens' suits are 
being brought to prevent the clearing of these forests by thinning out 
the dead wood and thinning out the smaller trees. As a result of the 
fact that we are not doing this removal of smaller trees, we are 
encouraging crown fires which destroy entire areas.
  In my State of Arizona, we have just had a fire that has destroyed 
500,000 areas. If you look at areas that have been treated, it appears 
as though the fire never even went through those areas. If you look at 
areas where they were not treated, there has been absolute, total 
devastation. This simply says that a regional forest ranger could make 
a determination that a wildfire in the area of the project to thin out 
the fire load was likely to cause extreme harm to the forest ecosystem 
and destroy human life and dwellings and that the project was necessary 
to prevent these occurrences. Once that

[[Page 13359]]

finding had been made and had been certified to the United States 
Congress, then the thinning could occur without there being a citizen 
lawsuit to block the thinning from occurring.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah to discuss the issue 
as well.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out as the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources, one of the biggest problems we have in America and the West 
at this particular time is called fuel load. Fuel load is when we have 
dead trees and we have all kinds of trash and no one is allowing 
prescription, to go in and take these out on prescribed fires. We have 
case after case all over America where forests are burning to the 
ground. Last year I went with staff and we went to about four Western 
States. You have got fuel load up to your armpits. All you need is one 
strike of lightning and you have got a fire. Never have we had fires 
like this. Last year I asked all of the forest supervisors, are we 
going to have more fires? They said, ``Count on it. You'll never have 
as many fires as you have.''
  Why is this? It is because we cannot go in and we cannot seem to find 
a position that we can clear it out like we have since 1905. In one 
committee we had one of the large environmental groups there. She said, 
``We don't believe in this. We shouldn't do it that way. It's not 
nature's way.''
  I think this amendment is an excellent amendment. Somebody has got to 
wake up, be honest, and have guts enough to look some of these guys in 
the face and say, we have to clean the forests or we are going to burn 
the West down, and we are well on the way to doing it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment and in opposition to the point of order.
  The gentleman's amendment allows the management of the forest by 
thinning and protection of life and health of the forest by local 
control, that is, the Forest Service regional forester. I think it is a 
commonsense amendment, I cannot imagine anybody would be against it, 
and so I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is, in fact, a 
commonsense amendment. It does not say that you can never bring such a 
lawsuit. It is limited to certain circumstances where they are cutting 
small diameter trees, trees of less than 12 inches. It would not allow 
commercial logging. It simply allows a reasonable thinning of the 
forest to stop the kind of devastating crown fires that have destroyed 
Arizona recently and have stricken California and Colorado and many 
other States. It is, I believe, an absolute essential requirement that 
we allow this thinning to occur so that we do not burn our forests 
down. When you look at the language of the amendment, which requires a 
rather extreme certification that the wildfire is likely to cause 
extreme harm to the forest ecosystem, destroy human life and dwellings, 
and that the project is necessary to prevent these occurrences, I 
believe it is a very, very reasonable amendment. It is designed to 
protect our forests and strike a balance, because this would not block 
a citizen lawsuit if they wanted to thin larger trees. It would not 
block a citizen lawsuit under other circumstances where these 
certifications were not made. It is a middle ground that I think makes 
a great deal of sense.
  I would urge that the point of order be withdrawn so that the Members 
can at least look at this policy. Our forests are burning to the 
ground. We lost over 460 homes of people that live in those forests in 
Arizona in the absence of being able to strike a reasonable policy, and 
I think this does. This requires a certification. It requires that the 
certification be that there be extreme harm and that it is going to 
destroy human life and dwellings and that the thinning project is 
necessary. In Arizona, the environmental groups have agreed that they 
support thinning so long as it does not go to large-diameter, old-
growth trees. Indeed they have rushed to say we are willing to support 
this kind of policy as long as it is limited.
  I was urged not to put a diameter limit in this because I was told, 
look, if you put a diameter limit in it, we may need to cut some larger 
trees. I said, no, I want a bright line so that those who oppose 
allowing timber harvesting to go forward under this policy will not be 
able to see this as a ruse. It is not a ruse. It is a genuine effort by 
us to strike a reasoned policy that will allow thinning to go forward 
without extended legal battles where the thinning is not a commercial 
logging effort but is, rather, necessary to save the forest and to 
prevent these kind of crown fires.
  The evidence is absolutely clear that these crown fires take off and 
occur only when there is the underlying load, fuel load, which has not 
been removed. In the strongest possible terms, it seems to me that this 
is a reasonable compromise which I would urge upon this Congress and 
upon our colleagues that they withdraw the point of order.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point 
of order. I make a point of order against the amendment because it 
proposes to change existing law and imposes new duties and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing 
law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.
  Therefore, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask to speak on the point.
  I just want to say I have read this amendment and listened to a lot 
of testimony over the past several years about the need to do this sort 
of thing in our forests. When you look at the common sense of 
preserving the life of the forest, the ecosystem and helping save human 
lives and dwellings, this is a reasonable, commonsense approach. I 
would ask my friend from California to reconsider the point of order 
simply because I do think this is something in the interest of forest 
management that our agencies need. I regret that the gentleman from 
Arizona did not have it in the committee because I think that we would 
certainly try to work with you on the committee. But I hope the 
gentleman will withdraw the point of order because I think this is 
common sense, and I am an Easterner, but I have lots of forests, tree 
farms, as we would call them in my district, and forest management is 
part of the responsibility and it is a great, I would say, intercourse 
between man and nature and great involvement.
  I think this is a good amendment. I hope that we can keep it in the 
bill and that the gentleman would withdraw his point.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this, but we are supposed to be 
talking about the point of order, not the substance of the amendment. I 
would hope that the gentlemen would restrict their discussion to the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman from California 
would withdraw the point of order. I think it is substantive when you 
talk about these particular areas. We have a situation out there, and 
we had the BLM director.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have to raise a point of order here. The 
gentleman is not discussing the point of order. You have to have some 
way to talk about the rules of the House. He is not addressing the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to confine their remarks to the 
point of order.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. HANSEN. Parliamentary inquiry. Would you define ``point of 
order'' for us?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will proceed on the point of order. The

[[Page 13360]]

point of order is whether the amendment legislates on an appropriation 
bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling on 
my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah may proceed.
  Mr. HANSEN. I will say that we legislate on appropriations on a very 
regular basis around here. I think that my good friend from Washington 
is making something out of nothing, but that is his privilege to do 
that. But I would just like to say this.
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is willing to exercise his points of order 
when he needs them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is not recognized.
  Mr. HANSEN. You have a situation with the BLM and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) got up, he talked about show us a place where 
you can save money yesterday, he was talking of one, and here is one 
that comes out. The new director of BLM stands up and says, ``I'm 
spending close to 50 percent of my money on litigation.''
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the gentleman speak on the 
point of order and not talk about irrelevancies.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there is no further debate on the point of order, 
the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment proposes to convey new authority to the Executive and, 
as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule 
XXI. The point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Norton:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the planning, design, or construction of 
     improvements to Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White 
     House without the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a noncontroversial 
amendment. It is language identical to the language included in six 
previous appropriations bills. It makes sure that Pennsylvania Avenue, 
for 200 years America's Main Street, does not become a park without 
Congress having some say in it, that it would not be an administrative 
matter that the Park Service should simply be allowed to go ahead and 
do.
  It has been offered every year in the past by the distinguished 
former chair of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula). I understand it has been cleared with the present chair, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and with ranking members of the 
full committee and of the subcommittee on our side. I want to make 
clear that it has no security impact. All during the time this 
amendment has been in force, all 6 years, the White House has proceeded 
to on Pennsylvania Avenue put up the appropriate security. If you go 
there now, they have the same contraption that goes up and down that we 
have to come into the Senate and House side of the House.
  While I am on the floor, I want to explain why I did not offer an 
amendment on the payment of rent by Wilson Center at the Ronald Reagan 
Building to the Federal building fund. I have been assured of 
discussions going on now to accomplish what my amendment seeks, so I 
will hold it in abeyance for the time being.
  This is a noncontroversial amendment. I simply ask that we reinsert 
the amendment that has previously been in the appropriation for the 
last 6 years.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  We just recently were talking about this issue of fuel load which is 
a very sensitive issue to those of us in the West. We are seeing the 
West burn up. It is a very important thing. I remember yesterday when 
some people were talking about the idea of show us where you can save 
money. The new director of BLM is a lady by the name of Kathleen Clark. 
Kathleen Clark is a very bright lady. She was head of the natural 
resources department in the State of Utah. She has had all kinds of 
experience. We had her before the committee of which I chair of Natural 
Resources. She made an interesting statement. She said that she spends 
almost 50 percent of her budget fighting lawsuits put in by extreme 
environmental people. That was very interesting to us.
  Then we turned and asked the question also to Dale Bosworth, the new 
chief of the Forest Service. His is not that high, but it is pretty 
high. We are sitting here worried about the lands of America. What are 
we going to do to take care of this thing? How are we going to clean 
this forest? How are we going to get rid of this fuel load? So all this 
money we are putting up, we are turning around and paying it to 
attorneys. Around here, attorneys' retirement plans are a pretty big 
deal, it seems like. I have never seen such a waste of money, 
especially when they get on this rule 28. Win, lose or draw, they get 
paid 350 bucks an hour. I think that is really excessive. If we are 
going to take care of the forests, if we are going to take care of the 
public lands, if we are going to take care of these areas, somebody in 
Judiciary, this committee and others have got to have courage enough to 
start reining these people in. We can hardly go out spending all of 
this money that these CATs yesterday were talking about taking out. 
Look how much you could put into taking care of the forest if you did 
not do it this way. The judges, in effect, have taken over the public 
lands of America. Hardly qualified in my mind as I read many of their 
decisions to come up and explain what they feel is right in public 
lands.
  I wish I had an hour, and on a special order I may do this, talking 
about some of the dumbest decisions I have ever read in my life where 
these people are telling us how to run the public lands of America.

                              {time}  1945

  The reclamation, the BLM, the forest service and services as this.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this just jumps out at me that if the 
gentleman has been reading these decisions and we do not like the 
current law, which is what the judges are interpreting, the gentleman 
from Utah was in a wonderful position as chairman of the committee to 
try and do something about it, to clarify the law, or to make it 
clearer on some of these points.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. Believe me, if 
the gentleman has watched what we have done in the committee, he would 
know that we have tried very diligently to do it, and we would sure 
like the gentleman's support.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dicks) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) for securing 
funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Funding Program, known as 
UPAR, and for increasing the allocation for National Parks operation.
  Since its inception in 1979, UPAR has provided over 1,400 grants to 
42 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia for the 
revitalization of our urban and suburban parks and sports facilities 
and recreational facilities for young people throughout this country.
  The President has zeroed out the UPAR program, and I am thankful to 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for restoring this funding 
for this critically important urban and suburban program.
  This is a program that is sponsored by many, many parts of the 
private sector, from the sporting good manufacturers, pro sports and 
national league baseball, the NBA, the NFL, the

[[Page 13361]]

Women's National Basketball Association and so many others who have 
participated with this in this effort to revitalize these recreational 
opportunities in our cities and in our suburbs.
  I also want to thank them, as I mentioned, for restoring and 
increasing of funds for the Park Service operations. Over 83 Members 
wrote to the committee asking for an increase in this, and they were 
able to secure an additional $118 million for Park Service operations, 
which are so vital to the operations of the Park Service and to 
continue to present the kind of experience that the American citizens 
and people from around the world expect when they visit these massive, 
world-famous national parks in our system.
  I also want to take a moment just to recognize the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Chairman Skeen), whom I have had the pleasure of serving with 
in Congress for these many years, and who I have found to be one of the 
really fun people in the Congress of the United States, who has been a 
gentleman whenever we have had our disagreements. I have had the chance 
to travel with him on the issues of trade and agriculture, between 
Mexico and the United States, and enjoyed listening to him and the 
information that he understood, given his long background of living on 
the border, if you will, and understanding the relationships between 
our two nations.
  This is the final bill of his career; and I just want to thank him 
for all of his kindness, for his generosity, for hearing me out; not 
always granting my wishes, but at least hearing me out and being very 
fair about it. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his 
chairmanship of this committee and for his time served in Congress. It 
has been a joy to serve with the gentleman.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       At the end of the bill, preceding the short title, insert 
     the following:
       Sec.  . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--Bureau of Land Management--Land 
     Acquisition'' and by increasing the amount made available for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--Bureau of Land Management--
     Wildland Fire Management'' by $36,000,000 and $23,089,000 
     respectively.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to 
be evenly divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, does the 
gentleman think we need that much time on this amendment?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would agree with the gentleman 
from Washington that we will not need more, but we might need 20 
minutes. I think it is a reasonable number.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation, could the 
gentleman state how many other speakers there will be on this 
amendment?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I do not know.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) will control 
10 minutes and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a straightforward amendment about prioritization. I have, as 
I indicated last night in my remarks, the greatest admiration both for 
the chairman of the overall committee and for the chairman of the 
subcommittee. I have worked with him since I got here. I know that in 
the process of drafting this bill they had to make many hard choices, 
but I believe that one of them has been misallocated.
  The bill currently provides $23 million less for the Bureau of Land 
Management's budget for wildfire management than the current year 
allows. We have reduced the amount of money to fight wildfires. At the 
same time, we have increased the amount of money to acquire land to $49 
million. I would suggest that this is a misprioritization of our 
resources.
  In an age when we have seen outrageous fires across the West, in my 
State, as I mentioned a moment ago, we have lost half a million acres 
to wildfire, we are seeing a situation where we are reducing the amount 
of money to fight wildfires; but we are increasing the amount of money 
to buy land. It seems to me clearly imprudent to follow that course of 
conduct.
  Now, the acquisition of land would mean that we are going to buy more 
land in the western United States, because the BLM operates exclusively 
in the western United States. What that means is that this $49 million 
that is in the bill currently to acquire more land will be used to buy 
even more Federal land.
  I would suggest that that is a serious problem, that we do not need 
to acquire more land; but most importantly, we certainly do not need to 
acquire more Federal land in the eastern United States.
  In my State of Arizona, there is no shortage of public land. The 
Federal Government owns 29 percent of all of the land in the United 
States, and 92 percent of that land is in the 12 Western States. In my 
State of Arizona, 83 percent of Arizona's landmass is owned by one 
level of the government or other, leaving only 17 percent of our land 
in public ownership. There are only 32 States that have higher 
percentages of public ownership than Arizona, and that is Alaska, which 
is 90 percent public owned, and Nevada, which is 87 percent publicly 
owned. I might add Utah is 79 percent publicly owned.
  In contrast, the number of eastern States like Connecticut is only 
four-tenths Federal. New York is 1.4 percent Federal. We do not need at 
this moment in our history, with a war on and a battle over domestic 
terrorism, to be acquiring more Federal land, but we particularly do 
not need to do so at the expense of wildfire fighting. That should be 
obvious to anyone who has read the papers in the last month.
  It may be true that we need to acquire some land, and my amendment 
does not take out all of the monies in this legislation to acquire 
additional land. Some $13 million is left in this legislation to buy 
more land. But it does say that we are going to transfer a portion of 
that $49 million to buy more land, leaving $13 million there, a portion 
of that $49 million to buy more land we are going to transfer over to 
fight wildfires. I would suggest that it is absolutely irrational to 
oppose this amendment.
  Right now, again, I want to make this point, that there is an over-
$23 million cut in the current bill for wildfire fighting. That is 
obviously an error. In this bill itself, there is a supplemental for 
this year of $700 million to add for firefighting this year. If it was 
not enough last year, and it clearly was not enough, and it was the 
Dicks amendment which added $700 million for wildfire fighting this 
year, how can it be rational to cut wildfire fighting next year by $23 
million over the figure from this year, before we add the $700 million? 
It simply does not make any sense.
  Nobody can stand here today and say that there is a dramatically 
smaller chance of wildfires next year. Nobody has that kind of crystal 
ball. Indeed, what we are told, Arizona is in one of the worst droughts 
in its history; the entire West is in one of the worst droughts in its 
history. The entire West is burning up from heat. Temperatures are way 
up in Washington, hotter than they are in my State of Arizona. And that 
is part of a long-term drought.
  It is very obvious to me that we are going to need money to fight 
wildfires next year. I am simply saying that it does not make sense, 
when we are having to add in this very piece of legislation $700 
million additional dollars to fight wildfires in the current fiscal 
year, that we would, at the same time, reduce the amount of money that 
we are allocating to fight wildfires in the

[[Page 13362]]

coming year. Who can explain that? There is no reason to believe the 
drought is going to end; there is no reason to believe that the cost of 
fighting fires is going to go down. What we are doing is creating a 
situation where we will have to be back here on this floor the next 
time a devastating wildfire occurs finding more money for next year's 
budget because we simply underfunded it.
  With all due respect to the members of the committee, I think they 
made a conscientious effort, but we ought to make priorities. It is 
literally irrational to spend all of this money for additional 
firefighting efforts this year, $700 million under the Dicks amendment, 
and cut $23 million next year. I simply say we restore that by taking 
that money from land acquisition.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but praise 
him for his concern about this. I have the same concerns and the same 
philosophy about this issue.
  What I want to emphasize in my remarks, however, is that the 
subcommittee has led the way on the wildfire issue. For the forest 
service the subcommittee provided $146 million more than the President 
requested for wildfire. We added $5 million, over $5 million for the 
readiness and program management, which is really the money to get out 
there and fight these fires. We have $700 million additional in 
emergency spending for wildfires and fighting those within the system 
of the Interior Department, and we are at the President's budget 
request of $160 million for fire suppression operations.
  I think the gentleman makes some very good points; and I am going to 
be real frank about it, because I come from the West, and I know we are 
worried about additional acquisitions that are not then properly 
accounted for within the system. In other words, proper management 
falls behind.
  I will say, with respect to the gentleman's offset and the reduction, 
that if this land acquisition program reduction occurs, there will be a 
disruption in some of the agreed upon acquisitions that Members of this 
body, the House, and Members on both sides of the aisle, have looked at 
and agreed upon as a sensible acquisition, not an insensible one.
  So I think we, again, feel as though the subcommittee has balanced 
this issue pretty carefully, and I really want to commend the gentleman 
for his sensitivity about fire issues, especially from his State and 
his concern in this amendment. Again, I reluctantly oppose it; but on 
the other hand, I oppose it because there is a substantial amount of 
money in the bill that the subcommittee looked at and the full 
committee looked at and felt was appropriate at a level that meets the 
needs of fire suppression.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, my only question is, this does reduce the 
amount of money for land acquisition, but it does not zero it out. I 
mean, the intention of the amendment was to say let us leave some money 
there and to recognize that we need to acquire some lands. There are 
things that need to happen in a timely fashion. It seems to me 
reasonable to delay some of those land acquisitions.
  I guess I am asking, does the gentleman know what projects have to be 
delayed, what acquisitions would have to be delayed, based on the 
reduction contemplated in the legislation?

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not know which 
would be delayed. That is part of the problem that we have, that there 
may be some agreed-upon acquisitions that the BLM and the Members and 
others, and the administration and others, feel are sensible and 
genuine. So that is part of the problem that we cannot identify them 
exactly.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) yield me time?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona 
mentioning the fact that our committee, when we looked at this in the 
full committee, added $200 million for the BLM for this purpose as a 
2002 supplemental.
  I would like to see us in the supplemental, the one that is moving 
now in conference committee, and the administration suggested that we 
do that, add the $700 million in the 2002 conference so we will get the 
money back faster for the agencies, because they desperately need this 
money.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the gentleman that 
the place for firefighting money is in the supplemental, which could 
become law literally next week.
  Mr. DICKS. In a couple of days.
  Mr. SHADEGG. In a couple of days, rather than leaving it in this 
bill, which is not likely, at best, to become law before October. So I 
join the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to do what 
the gentleman is suggesting, what the gentleman has suggested, that we 
need more money for firefighting. We do. The agencies are telling us 
that they have to borrow money from other accounts in order to pay for 
the firefighting; that they are going to be completely dislocated in 
the last quarter of this year because they have not got the resources. 
Once they give the money for firefighting, all kinds of other things 
are going to stop within the BLM and the forest service.
  The gentleman has a stake in that, and I do. Many in this House have 
a stake in that. What I suggest to the gentleman, what I would suggest 
to the gentleman, is let us try to work on that issue with both of our 
leaderships on that committee to try to get the $700 million, it 
actually needs to be a couple more hundred million than that right now, 
into the supplemental.
  What we do here in the land acquisition account is completely disrupt 
the program that the President of the United States sent up. The 
President asked for $44,686,000. The committee added a small amount of 
money.
  There is, on page 21 of the report of the gentleman from Washington, 
the gentleman from Arizona, a list of the projects that will be 
affected, and these are all projects that I think are very well thought 
out. I notice there is one in Moses Lake, Washington, for example; one 
for Lewis and Washington Historic Trail in Montana; the Lewis and Clark 
National Historic Trail in Idaho.
  These are well thought out and very important projects; so I would 
urge the gentleman, he has made his point. We want to help him on the 
firefighting deal, but do not go in and disrupt this other program and 
slash the money that the President asked for. Yes, there are a few 
congressional projects in here, but this is well thought out, well 
balanced.
  The majority staff works with all the Members on this. This is not 
the place to take the money. What we should do, this should be 
emergency money. We should not have to take it out of this account. 
This should be emergency money.
  Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
certainly I agree with the gentleman that this should be emergency 
money. I believe it belongs in the supplemental bill and not in this 
bill.
  But that $700 million goes to this current fiscal year. What we are 
debating in my amendment is the funding for next fiscal year, where the 
committee has reduced the amount of money for wildfire fighting by $23 
million. That is what I am trying to restore.
  I would point out, the gentleman points out there is a list on page 
21 of

[[Page 13363]]

the report that shows the projects that need to be purchased, or that 
the committee has looked at purchasing; but no one of those projects is 
above the amount of money that I have left in the bill for land 
acquisition.
  This simply would say that in the current circumstances, with the 
unbelievable fires we are having in the West, with Colorado burning up 
and Arizona burning up, that for next year, we go through and 
reprioritize this list, delay the acquisition of some of that land.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I get the gentleman's point.
  Mr. SHADEGG. And fight fires.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the list on 
page 21. As I look at it and see the Lewis and Clark National Historic 
Trail, that affects numerous States from Missouri westward, and I think 
that is a fair acquisition. I think it is necessary as we come up on 
the bicentennial.
  We have the Lower Salmon River Area in Idaho of critical 
environmental concern. I think there has been some sensitivity about 
that whole issue. I do not think this list is the one to knock out, 
because it is agreed upon. They are necessary projects.
  I would just point out, too, to my friends, the gentleman from 
Washington and the gentleman from Arizona, the President is $150 
million above the fire plan. We have that 150 extra in. We are right 
where the President wants us to be in the budget request, so we are on 
budget. We are on target. We are even over with respect to the critical 
issues of fire suppression and fire assistance.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the amendment be defeated.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to make the point that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Washington, and I complimented the committee for its 
effort to begin with, has pointed out some of these particular 
projects: the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. I simply want to 
make the point that project is only $1 million. The second project that 
he cited is also only $1 million.
  We have left, under my amendment, a substantial sum of money in the 
bill so that we could go through and acquire much of this land in the 
current year as planned; and even with that, if we restored $23 
million, we will probably have to come back here and put more money 
into wildfire fighting next year.
  But I would simply say that it should be obvious to anyone, certainly 
it is obvious to the people of Arizona, that the devastation of these 
wildfires has not stopped and is not going to stop.
  I would point out that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle 
just fought us, at least his side of the aisle did, and objected to an 
effort by our side to allow a thinning of the forest, to allow us to 
clean out the fuel wood load so we would not have the devastating crown 
fires we now have.
  Some of the Nation's best experts are in Arizona. Dr. Wally Covington 
of NAU has said the only way we can save these forests is to clean out 
the fire load, fuel load that is underneath them. Yet we just made an 
effort to try to do that, and it was blocked on a point of order by the 
other side.
  If we cannot thin the forests, if we cannot take the advice of the 
experts like Dr. Wally Covington to avoid these wildfires, then we had 
better put the money behind fighting them. It is simply irrational, and 
I hope my colleagues in this Congress are listening carefully, it is 
simply irrational to add $700 million to firefighting this year and cut 
$23 million from wildfire fighting next year. What we are doing is we 
are putting the people who live in those forests at risk, and we are 
putting the firefighters who need that funding at risk, and we are 
putting the people who need these funds at risk.
  Right now, we just heard my colleague, the gentleman from the other 
side, say that, by gosh, we should not put these firefighting funds at 
risk. It is desperate to get money into them. Well, if it is desperate 
to get money into them, it is irrational and I would say dangerous to 
take money out of them; to undercut, underfund next year's firefighting 
effort by $23 million, when we know this is a long-term drought; when 
we know we are not thinning the forest the way we need to. It simply 
makes no sense.
  I have the greatest respect for the committee. I am simply saying we 
should not be buying millions of dollars of additional land that we 
cannot protect at the same time that we are bulldozing extra money into 
the current year. If we need $700 million more this year, by gosh, it 
is wrong to cut $23 million next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the point that is being missed here is that 
this acquisition list for limited purposes, for conservation or 
preservation, will be managed, will be managed against wildfire. I 
think by doing that in this particular bill in this particular 
acquisition, we are going to assure that the Lewis and Clark Trail does 
not burn up. We are going to assure that, as acquisition comes, so does 
management. This is not just land that is being bought for public 
purposes. It is bought for purposes of a specific region, a specific 
area that goes or carries along with it the obligation to manage it, to 
protect it from wildfires.
  So I would argue that it has a greater opportunity to be protected 
from wildfire on these particular lands than if it were otherwise 
acquired, or just left unacquired.
  So I think we agree with the gentleman, and I think there is some 
validity to the argument that we can protect this property from 
wildfire by having it acquired.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to thank the participants in this debate for its 
collegial nature. I think we are debating very, very important issues. 
I know for the people of Arizona, for the people of Colorado, for the 
people of California, and indeed, for the people of the entire West, 
Washington and New Mexico and all of these States, these are critically 
important issues. I appreciate the debate.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Washington, I paid a compliment to 
earlier. I think the committee struggled with these issues. I would 
simply argue that when this committee draft was put together, I do not 
know that we appreciated the dimension of this year's problems. I know 
this report was prepared very, very recently; and I know that the fire 
in Arizona literally was contained just a matter of a week or so ago.
  With regard to the point my colleague just made with regard to we can 
protect the land we are acquiring, yes, I would certainly agree, we can 
protect the lands we are acquiring. But candidly, we cannot protect it 
by reducing the amount of money for wildfire fighting for the coming 
year by $23 million. It is simply irrational to say that we can protect 
it next year for $23 million less, but we need $700 million more this 
year.
  I think for the people across America who understand this issue, 
certainly for my constituents in the West, they have to say, I would 
rather we acquired a little bit less, just acquire a little bit less, 
still go ahead and acquire the Lewis and Clark Trail, and I am just 
finishing the book on Lewis and Clark, ``Undaunted Courage,'' so I 
certainly think we ought to protect those lands. But we can slow down 
the acquisition of more Federal land this year in this economic 
climate, just slow it down, not bring it to a stop, and put a little of 
that money back into wildfire fighting, so we knew that money was there 
when we needed it.
  It simply makes no sense, and it literally cannot be justified, given 
the fires; and I know the Colorado fires recently broke out. They are a 
recent development. The committee may not

[[Page 13364]]

have thought through those. I know the California fires are relatively 
recent. I know the Arizona fires that have been devastating to my State 
and to 460 families who lost their homes, and to half a million acres 
of Arizona that is burned up and gone, I know those people would want 
to know that the money is not just there, the $700 million in the 
current year, but is going to be there next year. Because no one, 
again, I challenge my colleagues, either of my colleagues from 
Washington or anybody else on this floor, can say to me that they can 
establish that next year is going to be a less severe fire season than 
this year.
  If it is not going to be, and they cannot prove it is going to be, we 
cannot plus it up by $700 million this year and pull it down by $23 
million in the next year. We will be back at this issue. We should not 
do it this way. We ought to put the $23 million back in.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we have it. We have it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that I understand his 
concern. He has made a very valid point about the importance of proper 
funding, which this administration has refused to fund. Mitch Daniels 
should pull his head out of the sand and smell the smoke, okay? That is 
what happened: the West is burning. I quoted that from the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and he got it from Archie.
  The bottom line here is we will try to take care of this in the 
conference between the House and Senate. I urge our colleagues not to 
destroy this other program which we need in order to do it. We have 
heard them, and we will help them in the conference. I think they ought 
to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes in this body we get to an issue that we want 
to flip a coin on and say, heads or tails, because we are genuinely 
confused. Sometimes that coin actually lands on the edge.
  I have to say to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona, as I listened 
to his arguments, as I know my own philosophy on Federal land 
acquisition, the coin lands on a clear message that he has. I am going 
to support the Shadegg amendment. I believe he has proven the case. I 
think this is a worthwhile amendment with sincere reasons.
  Should it fail, I will commit, as will the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks), that we are going to try to work this out in conference. 
Should it pass, I will try to protect it in conference. I think the 
gentleman has a good amendment, and he has raised some excellent 
points.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments which I am not yet offering to 
insert two new sections related to the Everglades restoration effort. 
These sections are structured slightly differently but are functionally 
identical to the language included by the committee when it reported 
the bill to the House.
  The first amendment would add a provision to require the Secretary of 
Interior to be a full partner in the interagency RECOVER team which 
oversees the hundreds of individual projects which make up the $8 
billion Everglades restoration effort. My amendment is consistent with 
the long-held position of the Committee on Appropriations that if this 
project is to achieve true environmental restoration, the Secretary of 
Interior must be an equal partner with the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the Florida Water Management District.
  The second amendment provides statutory authority necessary to 
resolve pending litigation against the Army Corps of Engineers and its 
implementation regarding the so-called Modified Water Deliveries 
Project, the heart of the restoration effort. This language is 
supported by Governor Jeb Bush, the Secretary of Interior, the Army 
Corps of Engineers and several prominent environmental organizations. 
This project, which involves acquisition within the 8.5 square mile 
area, has been controversial. However, after a lengthy public hearing 
process and supplemental EIS, a final decision was made in 2000 by the 
Army Corps of Engineers to adopt a compromise measure, alternative 6D. 
This action was supported by the Florida Water Management District and 
the Secretary of the Interior.
  Alternative 6D was also formally adopted by the Congress in the WRDA 
2000 Act. But notwithstanding this agreement, the file actions have 
been tied up in court and the language inserted by the committee and 
reinserted by amendment is absolutely necessary if Everglades renewal 
and water development in South Florida are to be successful.
  It really upsets me to read today again in the Washington Post, there 
is a very good picture of the chairman of the Committee on Natural 
Resources, that because of maybe less than two or three dozen homes, we 
are standing in the way of this entire Florida restoration effort. And 
I will tell you, the gentleman from Washington is getting fed up. We 
are supposed to send them something like $8 billion in Federal money to 
fund this project. And if we cannot get them to at least have the 
courage to deal with this issue and to start this project moving 
forward, I think the committee has to seriously reconsider funding for 
the Florida project.
  And what is happening here is that Members of the Florida delegation 
are quietly behind the scenes going to the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the chairman of the Committee on 
Natural Resources because politically they cannot stand up here and 
offer the amendment themselves. In order to get, in order to protect a 
handful of people in their district, they are subverting the whole 
process of moving forward with this project.
  This is an important project. This may be the most important 
environmental restoration effort ever attempted. And if we cannot do 
this thing, if we cannot do mod 6, if we cannot make this initial 
start, then how are we ever going to move this project forward?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title on page 135, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec.  .  Of the amounts provided under the heading 
     ``National Park Service, land acquisition and state 
     assistance'', $20,000,000 may be for Federal grants, 
     including Federal administrative expenses, to the State of 
     Florida for the acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, within the Everglades watershed (consisting of the 
     lands and waters within the boundaries of the South Florida 
     Water Management District, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, 
     including the areas known as the Frog Pond, the Rocky Glades 
     and the Eight and One-Half Square Mile Area) under terms and 
     conditions deemed necessary by the Secretary to improve and 
     restore the hydrological function of the Everglades 
     watershed: Provided further, That funds provided under this 
     heading for assistance to the State of Florida to acquire 
     lands within the Everglades watershed are contingent upon new 
     marching non-federal funds by the State, or are matched by 
     the State pursuant to the cost-sharing provisions of section 
     316(b) of Public Law 104-303, and shall be subject to an 
     agreement that the lands to be acquired will be managed in 
     perpetuity for the restoration of the Everglades: Provided 
     further, That none of the

[[Page 13365]]

     funds provided for the State assistance program may be used 
     to establish a contingency fund: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds provided in 
     this Act and in prior Acts for project modifications by the 
     Army Corps of Engineers pursuant in section 104 of the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 
     shall be made available to the Army Corps of Engineers, which 
     shall implement without further delay Alternative 6D, 
     including acquisition of lands and interests in lands, as 
     generally described in the Central and Southern Florida 
     Project, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National 
     Park, Florida, 8.5 Square Mile Area, General Reevaluation 
     Report and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 
     dated July 2000, for the purpose of providing a flood 
     protection system for the 8.5 Square Mile Area.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, why do my colleagues object to this? The 
President, the Governor of Florida, the Corps of Engineers, the 
Department of Interior, all think this is necessary in order to move 
this project forward. Are we going to let a couple dozen people, and 
most of which I am told are prepared to sell their property, so it gets 
down to a handful of people, are we going to let that block this 
project?
  I think the gentleman from Alaska who has been a great leader in 
terms of our efforts on the West Coast to return the salmon runs, I 
think of that and this as the two most important environmental efforts 
of our time. Why are we trying to block this?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There are two reasons. One is I am not terribly 
fond of what originally this Congress did about the Florida Everglades. 
This is one of the largest pits we have ever created as far as dollars 
and expenditures. And we have some difference of opinion from science 
about the benefit of what they are trying to do. I have heard this as 
Resources chairman.
  Secondly, although small in number, there are about 200 people that 
are directly affected by the actions that you propose. Now, that may be 
small in number for a lot of people in this room, but I am one that 
believes that the individual is all-important, not the mass.
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman has answered the question. Let me ask this. 
If we are going to let a handful of people block this project, how are 
we going to complete this immense effort? How are we going to get that 
done if we cannot get this small initial project started?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I think there are different alternatives. I 
think it can be done a different way. I am not convinced that this is 
the perfect way of doing it, as I mentioned to you. As long as, in 
fact, I have the opportunity to see a different way, I am going to try 
to have that happen.
  Now, I know the sincerity of the gentleman. I do not doubt that, but 
I am not convinced that everybody is right in this issue. I have people 
from Florida calling me, talking to me, asking me to do this. And very 
frankly, just because there is 200 does not make the project that 
important if they are going to be adversely affected.
  Mr. DICKS. I definitely disagree with the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate what I said 
yesterday, that this is a major project. It is basically sold on the 
fact that we will restore the Everglades as a great national monument 
and part of our heritage, biological heritage. To not allow the 
Secretary of Interior to have a voice in the management of this project 
does not make any sense at all because it is fundamentally Interior. We 
have put in a billion dollars thus far from Interior. We are going to 
put 100 million in in this bill. And certainly the American people who 
are putting up the money with their taxes are doing this not because 
they care about Florida, but because they care about the Everglades. It 
is a great natural asset.
  Unfortunately, the language as it would be at the moment is that the 
Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Development Association will 
be calling the shots. And what is the key to all of this? Water. And, 
therefore, the Secretary of Interior should have a voice in the access 
to the water because that is the thing that makes the Everglades what 
it is.
  And, of course, on this land issue I thought that they had that 
resolved in the 8.5 square miles because they changed it so that only a 
limited number of houses are affected by it. But if we want to restore 
the Everglades, and that has been the basic premise of which all this 
has been done, we have to have the water and we have to have the 
Secretary of Interior playing a role in management.
  Mr. DICKS. I will just say the final thing since the gentleman has 
covered my second amendment, and I think the gentleman from Alaska will 
object to both of them, I would let the gentleman now proceed with his 
point of order which I will concede.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  This amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment waives existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to provide any grant, loan, loan guarantee, contract, or 
     other assistance to any entity (including a State or 
     locality, but excluding any Federal entity) identified 
     specifically by name as the recipient in a report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate, or in a joint explanatory statement of the 
     committee of conference, accompanying this Act unless the 
     entity is also identified specifically by name as the 
     recipient in this Act.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually quite simple. We 
have a situation in Congress now, we have been spending the last full 
day, many, many hours trying to amend the Interior appropriations bill. 
This is the bill. There are very strict limits on what we can amend and 
what we can do because we can only amend the bill. The problem is most 
of the spending is actually directed not on the bill itself but in the 
committee report.
  The committee report actually directs how a lot of the money is to be 
spent. The hard marks are in the bill. The soft marks are in the 
committee report.
  The problem we have is once this bill passes through the House, 
passes through the Senate, and then comes to a House-Senate conference, 
we then have the bill which we in the House vote on and they vote on it 
in the Senate, we have to go up or down. We cannot go in and amend 
specific language. But, again, most of the spending is actually 
directed, not then by a committee report, but by a conference report. 
Ordinary run-of-the-mill Members, if you are not a member of Committee 
on Appropriations, really do not have a chance to go in and amend some 
of the most egregious pork barrel projects that are often part of the 
bill. And there are some doozies. We hear about them all the time.

                              {time}  2030

  We have little ability on the House floor either at this point or no 
ability when we vote on the House-Senate conference report to actually 
go in and amend and actually go to try to clean up some of these pork 
barrel projects. What this amendment simply says is the executive 
branch of government cannot spend money, cannot expend

[[Page 13366]]

any of the money appropriated in the bill that is not expressly 
contained in the bill.
  This does not get rid of earmarks. Earmarks are an important part of 
the congressional prerogative. The executive branch does not always 
know the best way to spend money, and Congress has the prerogative to 
direct that spending.
  What this amendment simply says is that if we want to direct the 
spending, if we want to earmark the spending, do so in the bill, not in 
the conference report; and that will allow Members to go in and 
actually take that money out or move it around and not be limited to 
the very limited amount of money that we can actually direct or rescind 
or move around in the bill. We have to remember, most of the money is 
directed and earmarked through soft marks in the report language in the 
committee and then the conference report.
  I think this amendment is very simple. It actually would shine a lot 
of sunshine on the process. This would allow Members of the House and 
the Senate, not just those on the Committee on Appropriations, but 
Members at large to actually go in and face that pork barrel spending 
and actually do something about it, not just tell their constituents, 
hey, I was forced with an up-or-down vote, I had to vote ``yes'' or I 
had to vote ``no.''
  That is the amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, and I insist on my point of order because it proposes to 
change existing law and imposes new duties and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law the 
amendment imposes additional duties.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rules of the House, a 
proposal constitutes legislating if it imposes an additional task or 
new task on the executive branch or a government official, such as 
having information that that government official does not currently 
have.
  I would inquire of the Chair, is that the correct understanding of 
this provision?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is going to listen to arguments on the point 
of order, and then the Chair is going to rule.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have proposed only requires 
that a government official responsible for making grants or loans knows 
what is in the appropriation bill. Now I think we assume that those on 
the executive side actually read the bill. That is all that is required 
here. When they read the bill, they will know if this is report 
language or if it is language actually contained in the bill.
  With this information, they are able to make that determination 
simply by reading the bill. I do not see how this imposes a new task on 
a government official.
  If the Chair rules that my amendment is subject to a point of order 
because it proposes a new duty, then the Chair is ruling that a 
government official does not have the responsibility to actually read 
the bill. That is, I think, the least we can expect of government 
officials is that they actually read the bills that we pass.
  I would submit that this should not be subject to a point of order. 
It is inconceivable that this body is deciding that government 
officials cannot actually read the report. I respectfully ask that the 
Chair does not sustain the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) makes a point of order that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) changes 
existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The amendment in pertinent part would require the examination of 
certain legislative reports to determine whether an entity is 
specifically identified by name. As indicated on page 802 of the House 
Rules and Manual, the burden is on the proponent of the amendment to 
prove that the amendment does not change existing law. In this 
instance, the proponent has been unable to prove the existence of a 
requirement in law requiring the examination of legislative reports by 
Federal agencies.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in support of the proposed interior 
appropriations, and I am including my statement in the Record and also 
a letter from deputy assistant Secretary David Cohen.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California, Congressman Darrell 
Issa, has introduced two amendments to reduce considerably funding for 
my district of American Samoa. It is my understanding that there has 
been an exchange of communications between the Gentleman and the 
Governor of American Samoa. Specifically the gentleman's constituent 
has had an employment contract dispute with the American Samoa 
Government, and this matter has been ongoing for almost two years now.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the gentleman has withdrawn his 
amendments, and that he will insert a statement for the record. I do 
appreciate the fact that the gentleman has decided not to introduce his 
amendments, but I would also like submit this statement to express my 
concerns on the proposed amendments.
  I can appreciate the gentleman's concerns for his constituent, and I 
commend the gentleman for his efforts to look after the needs of his 
constituent. And every member should follow his good example.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern for these two amendments is that the 
gentleman's constituent has not sought judicial adjudication for 
whatever rights he felt were not fulfilled by the American Samoa 
Government. To punish every man, woman, and child in my district by 
reducing critically needed funding as the gentleman's amendments 
proposed--is just simply unfair and not right.
  This matter was never brought to the attention of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as the Full Appropriations 
Committee. And the matter certainly has been reviewed by the 
appropriate authorizing committees.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the courts to deal with contractual disputes 
between individuals and government entities. Our High Court in my 
district is the proper forum for my colleague's constituent to pursue 
his rights under the employment contract he agreed to with the American 
Samoa Government.
  I submit the American Samoa Government does have budgetary and fiscal 
problems, but so does our federal government, the state of California 
and all other states and other territorial governments. But this is not 
an issue about fiscal management or mismanagement. It is an issue about 
making sure the constitutional rights of my colleague's constituent are 
protected. And I submit the constituent always was afforded an 
opportunity to take the matter to court, but he did not. And for this 
basic reason, my colleague's amendments are not in order and should not 
be approved by this body.
                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2002.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: It has come to our attention that two 
     amendments have been offered to the Department of the 
     Interior's appropriations bill that would limit grants to the 
     government of American Samoa for fiscal year 2003 to 
     $22,012,058 (under one proposed amendment) or $23,012,058 
     (under the other proposed amendment). As you know, a total of 
     $33,240,000 was earmarked for American Samoa's government 
     operations and capital improvement projects for fiscal year 
     2002, and the same amount was requested by the Administration 
     for these purposes for fiscal year 2003. Additionally, 
     approximately $2,100,000 in technical assistance grants is 
     provided to American Samoa through my office in a typical 
     year. Therefore, the more severe of the two proposed 
     amendments would have the effect of reducing appropriations 
     to American Samoa for fiscal year 2002

[[Page 13367]]

     to fiscal year 2003 by approximately $13,328,000 or by 
     approximately 38%. Needless to say, such a drastic reduction 
     would jeopardize essential projects that my office was 
     supported for hospital improvements, new classrooms, water 
     and wastewater systems, public safety equipment and other 
     essential activities. Either of the proposed amendments would 
     likely have a significant adverse impact on the health and 
     safety of the people of American Samoa.
       Please feel free to contact me at my office at 208-4736 
     should you or your staff have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David B. Cohen
                  Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Insular Affairs.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 269, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--153

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--269

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Ehrlich
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Nadler
     Oxley
     Traficant

                              {time}  2058

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. QUINN, Ms. McCOLLUM, Ms. JACKSON-LEE 
of Texas, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. LUTHER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2100

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a long couple of days for all of us, and we 
are coming to the end of the Department of Interior appropriations 
bill, which will be the last appropriations bill with the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) as the chairman of a subcommittee of this 
House.
  Whenever I walk through the halls of the House and I pass by the 
statue of Will Rogers, I always think of Joe because Will Rogers is 
such a wonderful, funny man with a dry sense of humor who loved his 
country. Joe Skeen is the same kind of guy. He is a gentleman with a 
dry sense of humor, almost as dry as New Mexico this year. He loves his 
country, he loves this House; and he has served it well. I think we 
should all show our thanks to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Members. Now sit down and go to 
work.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003''.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I support 
it, and urge its passage by the House.
  This bill is important for the whole country, of course, but it is 
particularly important for Colorado and other states that include large 
amounts of federal lands.
  So, I am very appreciative of the hard work of Chairman Joe Skeen, 
ranking Member Norm Dicks, and the other members of the Interior 
Subcommittee as well as Chairman Young and ranking Member Obey of the 
full Appropriations Committee.
  In particular, I want to thank them for including in the bill $700 
million in Fiscal Year 2002 emergency firefighting funds. As we in 
Colorado are all too aware, the combination of serious drought 
conditions and the results of a

[[Page 13368]]

century's policy of suppressing all fires on federal lands has produced 
a series of extreme wildfires that have threatened the lives and 
property of thousands of people in our state and elsewhere.
  As a result, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other 
federal land-managing agencies have exhausted the funds budget for 
firefighting and have had to divert money from other important purposes 
to respond to the emergency conditions.
  That was why last month, along with my Colorado colleagues, 
Representative Hefley, Representative DeGette, and Representative 
Tancredo, and my cousin, Representative Tom Udall of New Mexico, I 
wrote to Chairman Young and Mr. Obey, urging that the agencies be 
provided with emergency supplemental firefighting funds.
  I thought then--and still think--that the best way to accomplish this 
would be to include the funds in the conference report on the emergency 
supplemental bill already passed in both Chambers. However, I 
understand that the Administration opposes that idea and therefore as 
an alternative the money has been included in this bill. I certainly 
support that, although I am concerned that the result may be to 
unnecessarily delay the provision of these vitally-needed funds to the 
agencies.
  I also want to express my appreciation for inclusion of the bill of 
$4 million to enable the Forest Service to continue acquiring lands in 
the Beaver Brook area of Clear Creek County, in Colorado's Second 
Congressional District.
  This tract encompasses almost the entire watershed of Beaver Brook, 
which flows into Clear Creek. The city of Golden originally acquired 
the lands as a potential source of water. However, it now wants to sell 
the lands so it can use the money for pressing municipal needs.
  The Beaver Brook lands, nearly 6,000 acres in all, are important elk 
habitat and include pristine riparian areas and ponderosa pine stands 
that are comparatively rare in this part of Colorado. The tract also is 
a key part of a corridor of open and undeveloped lands linking the 
alpine terrain of the Mount Evans Wilderness with the foothills and 
piedmont of the Front Range area. In short, these lands provide scenic, 
recreational, and wildlife resources that are important to all 
Coloradans, and it is very important that they remain undeveloped--
especially because our population growth is leading to increasing 
development throughout this part of the state.
  The City of Golden--the property owner--is willing to sell the lands 
to the federal government so they can be added to the national forest. 
Clear Creek County, where the lands are located, also supports that 
acquisition, and the Forest Service has identified it as a high 
regional priority. The acquisition is also supported by a wide range of 
other individuals and groups in Colorado--and here in Washington, 
Representative Tancredo and I have been working together on the idea as 
well.
  Last week, I had the pleasure of attending a ceremony marking 
transfer of part of the lands to the United States for inclusion in the 
Arapaho National Forest. The funds provided in this bill will help 
maintain momentum as we move toward completion of this important 
acquisition.
  The bill also includes a number of other items of particular 
importance to Colorado, including money for construction work at Rocky 
Mountain National Park and the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, 
funds to make the land acquisition that will set the stage for 
upgrading the Great Sand Dunes to National Park status, and funds for 
important work to further the protection of endangered species and the 
sound management of our natural resources.
  Of course, no bill is perfect. But this bill is a good one and I urge 
its passage.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for the Appropriations 
Bill for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the 
year FY 2003. It is not a perfect bill, but it includes many provisions 
that are important for Oregon and the rest of the country.
  The bill appropriates a total of $20.4 billion, which includes an 
important $700 million for emergency fire fighting in the West. The 
bill includes an increase in funding over both the President's request 
and the appropriation for last year for important programs within the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The bill also 
increases funding for the National Parks Service, which has a 
tremendous responsibility as caretaker of some or our nation's most 
valued natural, cultural, and historic resources that draw nearly 300 
million visitors annually. I was also pleased to vote for a bill that 
provides $1.4 billion for conservation programs, $120 million more than 
what President Bush recommended. Finally, on the 100-year anniversary 
of the National Wildlife Refuge system, the bill provided a $60 million 
increase for the refuge system to $458 million.
  I was pleased that the bill also provides funding for programs that 
are crucial to Oregon. We were able to secure $10 million and $2.5 
million to purchase land from willing sellers in the Columbia River 
Gorge and the Sandy River watershed, respectively. The bill increases 
funding to help fish in the Pacific Northwest, providing $4 million for 
fish screens and $20 million for additional fish passage projects. It 
also provides $500,000 for the Columbia River Estuary Research program 
at the OGI School of Science and Engineering.
  This bill was also improved on the floor. Amendments on the floor 
increased funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities that 
will help improve our federal commitment to the arts, which make a 
community vibrant, unique and lively. On the floor the House also voted 
to increase funding for the Energy Star Program and to prohibit funding 
for new oil drilling activity on the coast of California. Finally, 
adjustments were made to the bill on the floor to remove provisions 
that would be at best troubling, and possibly destructive to, the 
Native American community. More importantly, a strong commitment was 
made by the appropriators and members to work together to fashion a 
solution to the long ignored Native American trust issues.
  Unfortunately, an amendment I introduced that would have helped 
improve the situation in the Klamath Basin did not pass. The amendment 
would have help solveed the inherent conflicting priorities and 
competition over scarce basin water by farmers, endangered species, 
wildlife refuges, and Native Americans. The amendment would have also 
helped make farming on the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Wildlife Refuges 
more consistent with farming on other refuges around the country by 
prohibiting new leases from growing row crops or alfalfa. I pledge to 
continue to work with my colleagues in Oregon and California to address 
the shortage of water and habitat degradation in the Klamath basin.
  Overall, I believe this is a good bill for Oregon and for the United 
States.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the National Parks 
Subcommittee in Congress, I have made the protection of our National 
Parks one of my priorities in Congress. Our National Parks are our 
national treasures, and belong to each and every American.
  Each year millions of American families enjoy the fresh air, natural 
splendor, and diverse wildlife of our National Parks. If we are to 
preserve our Parks for future generations, however, we must invest the 
resources necessary for their continued preservation and maintenance.
  Due to a lack of funds, many of our parks suffer from inadequate 
sewer systems, poor and deteriorating facilities, and an insufficient 
number of park rangers. In addition to damaging the parks themselves, 
these conditions detract from the experience that visitors take away 
with them.
  Yellowstone National Park, the world's first National Park and one of 
my favorites, is representative of this problem. Created to preserve 
its unique geothermal features, Yellowstone currently lacks a geologist 
on staff to monitor and protect the park's geysers and ``underground 
plumbing.''
  Yellowstone, and the rest of or nation's treasures, deserve better. 
Earlier this year I joined 83 of my colleagues urging a significantly 
higher increase for the operations of the National Parks than provided 
in the bill we are debating today. But, given the funding constraints 
placed on the Committee, this bill takes a big step in the right 
direction to address the significant operating shortfalls facing our 
nation's parks. Because of this I would like to applaud the efforts of 
the committee. As the bill moves to Conference, it is critical that at 
a minimum, we hold the line on funding provided in this bill, and even 
do better.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, 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. 5093) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 483, he reported the bill, as 
amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House with sundry further 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.

[[Page 13369]]

  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  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.
  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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 377, 
nays 46, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               YEAS--377

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--46

     Akin
     Barr
     Barton
     Berry
     Boswell
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Jones (NC)
     Kerns
     Manzullo
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     Markey
     Mascara
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Nadler
     Traficant

                              {time}  2124

  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________