[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18560-18583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 319 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. 2691.

                              {time}  1018


                     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. 2691) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 
16, 2003, the bill was open from page 101, line 4, through page 101, 
line 13.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to 
engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced 
it was proceeding with the development of new voluntary guidelines to 
protect migratory birds from electrocution and collisions with power 
lines. This is an important development.
  For the past 70 years, the Nation's rural electric cooperatives have 
provided power to millions of people in rural America. Distribution and 
transmission lines cross many miles of wide open spaces and sometimes 
those wide open spaces are filled with migratory birds. Under two laws, 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection 
Act, electric utilities can be found guilty of so-called takings if 
birds fly into those lines or land on them and are killed. Many 
utilities have responded by redesigning the towers for new power lines 
and locating these lines outside of known flyways. Yet birds continue 
to fly into power lines and as things currently stand, these utilities 
are liable for penalties under these two laws. Mr. Chairman, no one in 
their right mind, when these laws were enacted, would have thought that 
these laws would be interpreted in this kind of a way.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has been very forthcoming in a series 
of meetings with myself and my colleagues, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). 
However, we ask you, Mr. Chairman, to join us in emphasizing to the 
Service the importance of resolving this issue. All of America, not 
just rural America, needs electric power and this problem has the 
potential of interfering with delivery of that power.
  If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield a moment to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado who represents the eastern plains of Colorado 
and has spent an enormous amount of energy on this particular subject. 
She actually represents an area bigger than some States.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I do represent an area that has wide open spaces. A 
few years ago, I attended the 50th year anniversary of YW Electric in 
Akron, Colorado. This rural utility serves a vast area. There were 
individuals at that anniversary celebration that remembered the day 
that they got electricity to their rural home. Of course, rural 
Americans want all of the amenities that we have because of 
electricity. It just so happens that rural electric lines are built in 
areas that are remote. It just so happens that that is where raptors 
are. Again as the gentleman from Colorado said, no one could anticipate 
the time when laws would be interpreted in such a way that when a bird 
landed on lines and was electrocuted, a rural electric could be found 
guilty of an intentional taking.
  Mr. Chairman, I just ask that you work with us in order to resolve 
this

[[Page 18561]]

problem. There, of course, is no intention in the taking of a bird. 
When lines are changed to pose less danger to birds, of course, those 
costs will be passed on to our ratepayers, the individuals who purchase 
electricity from the rural electrics. We would just ask for the 
chairman's help in this issue solving this in a reasonable way so that 
it will be beneficial to all of us who care about the birds, but those 
of us who realize that we have to have some common sense in this 
approach to whether or not a rural electric is guilty of an intentional 
taking when a raptor dies because they have landed on the lines.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, we do need your help on this and wanted to 
bring this matter to your attention. You also represent a great deal of 
rural area, I am sure many rural electrics, so you probably are quite 
aware of the problem.
  I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the 
gentleman and gentlewoman for their leadership on this issue of fowl 
mortality associated with electric power lines. We always want to save 
any bird possible, but this is somewhat of a bird-brained 
interpretation of what the rule is meant to do. I recognize the 
importance of electric cooperatives in rural America and will work with 
the gentleman and gentlewoman to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service continues to work closely with the electric power industry to 
resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial manner.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I want to thank the chairman for his assistance in this 
important matter.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy between myself and 
Chairman Taylor.
  Mr. Chairman, on June 23, 2003, President Bush signed into law the 
Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003. This new law 
settles a longstanding dispute over the water rights of Zuni Heaven 
among the local, county, State, tribal, Federal and private interests 
and restores and protects the wetland environments that previously 
existed on Zuni lands. Specifically, this recently enacted law provides 
the Zuni people with the resources and protections necessary to acquire 
water rights from willing sellers.
  The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act authorized 
appropriations for $3.5 million for the Zuni people to help them 
acquire and develop these water rights. This funding is to be used for 
the acquisition of water as well as associated lands by the Zuni tribe 
to facilitate the enforceability of the settlement agreement, including 
the acquisition of at least 2,350 acre-feet per year of water rights 
before December 31, 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Zuni people, I would appreciate it if 
you could do all you can to support the inclusion of this funding when 
we conference this bill with the Senate.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RENZI. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been 
very attentive in bringing this to my attention. You continually fight 
for the rights of Native Americans and you have persistently expressed 
to me the need to properly fund our trust responsibilities to the 
tribes. It has been a longstanding policy of this committee to fund 
water rights settlements that have been enacted into law. This one is 
no exception. However, this settlement will be a challenge for funding 
in the fiscal year of 2004.
  Mr. RENZI. I appreciate the gentleman's help on this important matter 
so that the Zuni people have enough water to bring back the original 
lush environment to the Zuni Heaven. I am grateful for his support.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I will be happy to work with you to 
fund this Indian water rights settlement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless 
     the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the House report 
     accompanying this Act.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     procedures contained in the House report accompanying this 
     Act.
       No funds available to the Forest Service shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of 
     Agriculture that exceed the total amount transferred during 
     fiscal year 2000 for such purposes without the advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $2,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $2,500 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, $3,000,000 
     may be advanced in a lump sum to the National Forest 
     Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in 
     support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when 
     the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative expenses 
     or projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That of the 
     Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no more than 
     $300,000 shall be available for administrative expenses: 
     Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, by the 
     end of the period of Federal financial assistance, private 
     contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis funds 
     made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, That 
     the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-Federal 
     recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient 
     has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: Provided 
     further, That authorized investments of Federal funds held by 
     the Foundation may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed 
     as to both principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, 
     $2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be available for matching funds to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709, 
     and may be advanced in a lump sum to aid conservation 
     partnership projects in support of the Forest Service 
     mission, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for 
     projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the 
     Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal 
     financial assistance, private contributions to match on at 
     least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service: 
     Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal 
     funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same 
     rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching 
     funds.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2), 
     and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to 
     Congress, and make available to interested persons, a report 
     containing the results of a management review of outfitter 
     and guiding operations in the John Muir, Ansel Adams, and 
     Dinkey Lakes Wilderness Areas of the Inyo and Sierra National 
     Forests, California. The report shall include information 
     regarding: (1) how the Secretary intends to minimize adverse 
     impacts on the historic access rights of special use 
     permittees in these three wilderness areas; and (2) how the 
     Secretary intends to ensure timely compliance with the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not 
     to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the 
     General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel 
     and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance 
     or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings, 
     training sessions, management reviews, land purchase 
     negotiations and similar non-litigation related matters. 
     Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and 
     the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums 
     previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law 
     enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural

[[Page 18562]]

     resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such 
     amounts shall not exceed $1,000,000.
       The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the sale of 
     excess buildings, facilities, and other properties owned by 
     the Forest Service and located on the Green Mountain National 
     Forest, the revenues of which shall be retained by the Forest 
     Service and available to the Secretary without further 
     appropriation and until expended for maintenance and 
     rehabilitation activities on the Green Mountain National 
     Forest.
       The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer or reimburse 
     funds available to the Forest Service, not to exceed 
     $15,000,000, to the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Commerce to expedite conferencing and 
     consultations as required under section 7 of the Endangered 
     Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536. The amount of the transfer or 
     reimbursement shall be as mutually agreed by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of 
     Commerce, as applicable, or their designees. The amount shall 
     in no case exceed the actual costs of consultation and 
     conferencing.
       Beginning on June 30, 2001 and concluding on December 31, 
     2004, an eligible individual who is employed in any project 
     funded under Title V of the Older American Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service 
     shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of 
     chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                         clean coal technology

                               (deferral)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in prior years, $86,000,000 shall not be available 
     until October 1, 2004: Provided, That funds made available in 
     previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any 
     ongoing project regardless of the separate request for 
     proposal under which the project was selected.

                 fossil energy research and development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $609,290,000 to remain available until expended, of which 
     $2,000,000 is to continue a multi-year project for 
     construction, renovation, furnishing, and demolition or 
     removal of buildings at National Energy Technology Laboratory 
     facilities in Morgantown, West Virginia and Pittsburgh, 
     Pennsylvania; and of which $130,000,000 are to be made 
     available, after coordination with the private sector, for a 
     request for proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative 
     providing for competitively-awarded research, development, 
     and demonstration projects to reduce the barriers to 
     continued and expanded coal use: Provided, That no project 
     may be selected for which sufficient funding is not available 
     to provide for the total project: Provided further, That 
     funds shall be expended in accordance with the provisions 
     governing the use of funds contained under the heading 
     ``Clean Coal Technology'' in 42 U.S.C. 5903d: Provided 
     further, That the Department may include provisions for 
     repayment of Government contributions to individual projects 
     in an amount up to the Government contribution to the project 
     on terms and conditions that are acceptable to the Department 
     including repayments from sale and licensing of technologies 
     from both domestic and foreign transactions: Provided 
     further, That such repayments shall be retained by the 
     Department for future coal-related research, development and 
     demonstration projects: Provided further, That any technology 
     selected under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal 
     Technology, and any project selected under this program shall 
     be considered a Clean Coal Technology Project, for the 
     purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 
     title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided 
     further, That no part of the sum herein made available shall 
     be used for the field testing of nuclear explosives in the 
     recovery of oil and gas: Provided further, That up to 4 
     percent of program direction funds available to the National 
     Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support 
     Department of Energy activities not included in this account.

                 naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

       For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities, $20,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior 
     years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities.

                      elk hills school lands fund

       For necessary expenses in fulfilling installment payments 
     under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United 
     States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as 
     authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106, 
     $36,000,000, to become available on October 1, 2004 for 
     payment to the State of California for the State Teachers' 
     Retirement Fund from the Elk Hills School Lands Fund.


                          energy Conservation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $879,487,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That $270,000,000 shall be for use in energy 
     conservation grant programs as defined in section 3008(3) of 
     Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such 
     sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: 
     $225,000,000 for weatherization assistance grants and 
     $45,000,000 for State energy program grants.

                              {time}  1030


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 109, line 22, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000, decreased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 109, line 23, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 110, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the Sanders-Kind amendment would increase 
funding for the very successful Weatherization Assistance Program by 
$15 million, from $225 million to $240 million. Even with this $15 
million increase that we are proposing, funding for the weatherization 
program would still be $48 million less than the President's request.
  We are not sure yet what the offset is, and that is an issue we will 
be working with the majority on. According to the statement of 
administration policy that was endorsed by the Office of Management and 
Budget: ``The administration opposes the $63 million reduction from the 
President's $288 million request for the Weatherization Assistance 
Program that assists low-income families with their energy bills while 
conserving energy for the Nation. The President is committed to 
increasing funding for this program by $1.4 billion over 10 years.''
  I do not often agree with the priorities established by the Bush 
administration, but on this issue they are absolutely right.
  One of the absurdities in terms of public policy both for the needs 
of low-income people and in terms of environmental protection is that 
we have huge numbers of low-income people throughout this country who 
are living in homes that are very poorly insulated, where energy is 
going right through the doors, through the roofs, through the windows, 
and it is a very sound investment indeed when we improve the 
weatherization of their homes. Low-income people save substantial sums 
of money on their limited budgets, and as a Nation concerned about the 
environment we do not see energy going right up.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to 
the extra $15 million. We may not be able to keep it through 
conference, but we will certainly support it now.
  Mr. SANDERS. Will the gentleman do his best?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. We will. We will try to keep the $15 
million in.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the gentleman 
for his leadership on this issue, and I know that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has also been concerned about this. We appreciate 
his efforts and will do our best to help.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind); and I thank the majority for their 
support for this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Sanders-Kind Amendment to increase funding for the Weatherization 
Assistance Program. Although, I am aware of the worthy funding for the 
Committee has offered to this program, I am bothered by the neglect to 
follow suit in the President's request to increase funding to $288 
million from its current funding level of $223 million.

[[Page 18563]]

  The decision to not increase funding to an adequate level for the 
Weatherization Assistance Program will directly affect my District and 
my constituents. Chicago endures some of the country's most severe 
temperature extremes. In 2002, with on the onset of a harsh winter, 
Chicago residents saw their heating cost soar to record levels--nearly 
tripling the cost of 1999. Chicago experienced another cold winter in 
2001 causing cost once again to be extremely high for residents. There 
were countless stories about seniors in my district, on a fixed income, 
making approximately $700 a month but whose December's gas bill was 
$400. The heating cost just did not affect residents, but small 
business, high-rises, and schools. The Chicago Public Schools reported 
in 2001 of having heating costs that were up $7 million, 50 percent 
more than what was called for in their budget. Historically, Chicago 
has experienced the highest electricity rates in the Midwest and are 
among some of the highest nationwide.
  The President's request to increase funding would have permitted an 
additional 25,000 poor and elderly families to be served by this 
program. It is estimated that each home that is weatherized will 
generate $275 in annual savings and $4,650 of life-cycle savings per 
household. These savings are critical for the countless families in my 
district living near or below the federal poverty level and depend on 
this program and programs like it to have a warm home. I am proud that 
in January of 2002, the city of Chicago implemented its New Energy 
Conservation Code which redefines energy efficiency requirements for 
all new and rehabilitated homes and commercial buildings. The goal of 
this new code will improve energy efficiency standards by 10 to 20 
percent. But this is just one small step in the process to lower energy 
cost for our constituents that need the Federal Government's 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not help our constituents weatherize their 
homes to become more energy efficient and heating cost continue to 
rise, our constituents will only be spending more of their money on 
energy bills and less toward the growth of our economy. This amendment 
is good for our constituents, is good for energy conservation and is 
good for our economy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,047,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      strategic petroleum reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $175,081,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                   northeast home heating oil reserve

       For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operations, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, 
     $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $82,111,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase, 
     repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the 
     General Services Administration for security guard services.
       From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may 
     be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
     performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance 
     authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless 
     specific provision is made for such programs in an 
     appropriations Act.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That 
     revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of 
     the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary 
     of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder 
     of revenues after the making of such payments shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof 
     entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority 
     shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar 
     days (not including any day in which either House of Congress 
     is not in session because of adjournment of more than 3 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.
       No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the 
     Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process 
     procurement documents for programs or projects for which 
     appropriations have not been made.
       In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the 
     Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and 
     private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds 
     account, and prosecute projects using such fees and 
     contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or 
     private agencies or concerns.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service

                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $2,556,082,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That $18,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health 
     Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $460,046,000 for 
     contract medical care shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2005: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $27,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, shall be used to carry out the loan repayment 
     program under section 108 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided in 
     this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants which 
     are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the total 
     obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds are 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 
     authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of 
     achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and 
     requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new 
     facilities): Provided further, That funding contained herein, 
     and in any earlier appropriations Acts for scholarship 
     programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal 
     organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and 
     available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations 
     until expended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, of the amounts provided herein, not 
     to exceed $270,734,000 shall be for payments to tribes and 
     tribal organizations for contract or grant support costs 
     associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts 
     or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health 
     Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to 
     or during fiscal year 2004, of which not to exceed $2,500,000 
     may be used for contract support costs associated with new or 
     expanded self-determination contracts, grants, self-
     governance compacts or annual funding agreements: Provided 
     further, That funds available for the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out 
     activities typically funded under the Indian Health 
     Facilities account.

                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and

[[Page 18564]]

     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $392,560,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities: 
     Provided further, That from the funds appropriated herein, 
     $5,000,000 shall be designated by the Indian Health Service 
     as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation 
     (YKHC) to complete a priority project for the acquisition of 
     land, planning, design and construction of 79 staff quarters 
     in the Bethel service area, pursuant to the negotiated 
     project agreement between the YKHC and the Indian Health 
     Service: Provided further, That this project shall not be 
     subject to the construction provisions of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act and shall be 
     removed from the Indian Health Service priority list upon 
     completion: Provided further, That the Federal Government 
     shall not be liable for any property damages or other 
     construction claims that may arise from YKHC undertaking this 
     project: Provided further, That the land shall be owned or 
     leased by the YKHC and title to quarters shall remain vested 
     with the YKHC: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 
     shall be used by the Indian Health Service to purchase 
     TRANSAM equipment from the Department of Defense for 
     distribution to the Indian Health Service and tribal 
     facilities: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for 
     sanitation facilities construction for new homes funded with 
     grants by the housing programs of the United States 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be used by the 
     Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian 
     Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an 
     existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health 
     Service and the General Services Administration: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be placed in a 
     Demolition Fund, available until expended, to be used by the 
     Indian Health Service for demolition of Federal buildings.

            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefor as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities.
       In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health 
     care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service 
     facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with 
     funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the 
     facility providing the service and shall be available without 
     fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or 
     regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be 
     administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation 
     Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
       Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this 
     Act, except those used for administrative and program 
     direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations 
     directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal 
     organization through a contract, grant, or agreement 
     authorized by title I or title III of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
     determination contract under title I, or a self-governance 
     agreement under title III of such Act and thereafter shall 
     remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without 
     fiscal year limitation.
       None of the funds made available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule 
     published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the 
     eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health 
     Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a 
     budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with 
     the proposed final rule, and such request has been included 
     in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
       With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health 
     Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health 
     Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those 
     entities, on a reimbursable basis, including payment in 
     advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements 
     received therefrom, along with the funds received from those 
     entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may 
     be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account 
     which provided the funding. Such amounts shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain 
     total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead 
     associated with the provision of goods, services, or 
     technical assistance.
       The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service 
     may not be altered without advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $13,532,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development

                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title 
     XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A), 
     $5,250,000.

                        Smithsonian Institution

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings, 
     facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five 
     replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for employees, $489,748,000, of which 
     not to exceed $46,903,000 for the instrumentation program, 
     collections acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the 
     National Museum of the American Indian, and the repatriation 
     of skeletal remains program shall remain available until 
     expended; and of which $828,000 for fellowships and scholarly 
     awards shall remain available until September 30, 2005; and 
     including such funds as may be necessary to support American 
     overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the 
     Council of American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments 
     to independent contractors performing research services or 
     participating in official Smithsonian presentations: Provided 
     further, That the Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal 
     appropriations designated in this Act for lease or rent 
     payments for long term and swing space, as rent payable to 
     the Smithsonian Institution, and such rent payments may be 
     deposited into the general trust funds of the Institution to 
     the extent that federally supported activities are housed in 
     the 900 H Street, N.W. building in the District of Columbia: 
     Provided further, That this use of Federal appropriations 
     shall not be construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee 
     of, a transfer of risk to, or an obligation of, the Federal 
     Government: Provided further, That no appropriated funds may 
     be used to service debt which is incurred to finance the 
     costs of acquiring the 900 H Street building or of planning, 
     designing, and constructing improvements to such building.

                           facilities capital

       For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and 
     alteration of facilities owned or

[[Page 18565]]

     occupied by the Smithsonian Institution, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the Act of August 
     22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and for construction, including 
     necessary personnel, $93,970,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which not to exceed $10,000 is for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That contracts awarded 
     for environmental systems, protection systems, and repair or 
     restoration of facilities of the Smithsonian Institution may 
     be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded on the 
     basis of contractor qualifications as well as price: Provided 
     further, That balances from amounts previously appropriated 
     under the headings ``Repair, Restoration and Alteration of 
     Facilities'' and ``Construction'' shall be transferred to and 
     merged with this appropriation and shall remain until 
     expended.

           administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs 
     including closure of facilities, relocation of staff or 
     redirection of functions and programs without approval from 
     the Board of Regents of recommendations received from the 
     Science Commission.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current 
     space or new facility without consultation with the House and 
     Senate Appropriations Committees.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for 
     the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in 
     Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize 
     water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim 
     structural support.
       None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance written approval of the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
     with the procedures contained in the House report 
     accompanying this Act.
       The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution may establish 
     a voluntary separation incentive program substantially 
     similar to the program established under section 1313(a) of 
     the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'' (Public Law 107-296, 
     116 Stat. 2135) for individuals serving in civil service 
     positions in the Smithsonian Institution.

                        National Gallery of Art

                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $88,849,000, 
     of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition 
     program shall remain available until expended.

            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $11,600,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $16,560,000.

                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration 
     of the existing features of the building and site of the John 
     F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $16,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $8,604,000.

           National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts

                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $117,480,000, shall be available to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts for the support of projects and productions in 
     the arts through assistance to organizations and individuals 
     pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, including 
     $17,000,000 for support of arts education and public outreach 
     activities through the Challenge America program, for program 
     support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the 
     Arts ``Matching Grants'' account and ``Challenge America'' 
     account may be transferred to and merged with this account.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities

                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $120,878,000, shall be available to the National Endowment 
     for the Humanities for support of activities in the 
     humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for 
     administering the functions of the Act, to remain available 
     until expended.

                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $16,122,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $10,436,000 shall be available to the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                       Administrative Provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may 
     be used as necessary for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That the 
     Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may 
     approve grants up to $10,000, if in the aggregate this amount 
     does not exceed 5 percent of the sums appropriated for grant 
     making purposes per year: Provided further, That such small 
     grant actions are taken pursuant to the terms of an expressed 
     and direct delegation of authority from the National Council 
     on the Arts to the Chairperson.

                        Commission of Fine Arts

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,422,000: 
     Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to 
     cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall 
     be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to 
     remain available until expended without further 
     appropriation.

               national capital arts and cultural affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000.

                        administrative provision

       None of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act, 
     except funds appropriated to the Office of Management and 
     Budget, shall be available to study the alteration or 
     transfer of the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs 
     program.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $4,100,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,730,000: 
     Provided, That for fiscal year 2004 and thereafter, all 
     appointed members of the Commission will be compensated at a 
     rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of 
     pay for positions at level IV of the Executive Schedule for 
     each day such member is engaged in the actual performance of 
     duties.

[[Page 18566]]



                United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

                       holocaust memorial museum

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310), 
     $39,997,000, of which $1,900,000 for the museum's repair and 
     rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the museum's 
     exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

                             Presidio Trust


                          presidio trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus 
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $20,700,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which congressional action is not complete.
       Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 304. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 305. No assessments, charges, or billings may be 
     levied against any program, budget activity, subactivity, or 
     project funded by this Act unless advance notice of such 
     assessments, charges, or billings and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 2002.
       Sec.  307. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for 
     the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with 
     the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
     (c) Report.--On September 30, 2004, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the 
     Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section 
     314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill 
     sites contained in a patent application as set forth in 
     subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the 
     sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party 
     contractor in accordance with the standard procedures 
     employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of 
     third-party contractors.
       Sec. 308. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by 
     Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
     277, 106-113, 106-291, 107-63, and 108-7 for payments to 
     tribes and tribal organizations for contract support costs 
     associated with self-determination or self-governance 
     contracts, grants, compacts, or annual funding agreements 
     with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health 
     Service as funded by such Acts, are the total amounts 
     available for fiscal years 1994 through 2003 for such 
     purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority 
     allocations for unmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts, 
     grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding 
     agreements.
       Sec. 309. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts--
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made 
     to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be 
     used to make a grant to any other organization or individual 
     to conduct activity independent of the direct grant 
     recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments 
     made in exchange for goods and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs and/or projects.
       Sec. 310. The National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to 
     solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the 
     United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other 
     property or services and to use such in furtherance of the 
     functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such 
     gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative 
     of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the 
     proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit 
     of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in 
     each case.
       Sec. 311. (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals, including urban minorities, who have 
     historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities 
     programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income 
     below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) (applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       (c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance 
     under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
     of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that 
     priority is given to providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs 
     that will encourage public knowledge, education, 
     understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
       (d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities Act of 1965--
       (1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for 
     projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of 
     national impact or availability or are able to tour several 
     States;
       (2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15 
     percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State, 
     excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
       (3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually 
     and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each 
     grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
       (4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to 
     improve and support community-based music performance and 
     education.
       Sec. 312. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the 
     5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support Government-wide administrative functions unless such 
     functions are justified in the budget process and funding is 
     approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds in this Act may be used for GSA 
     Telecommunication Centers.
       Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2004 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
     Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed 
     restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the 
     Woods'' Program established in Region 10 of the Forest 
     Service to individuals and entities in historically timber-
     dependent areas in the States of Washington,

[[Page 18567]]

     Oregon, northern California, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska that 
     have been affected by reduced timber harvesting on Federal 
     lands. The Secretaries shall consider the benefits to the 
     local economy in evaluating bids and designing procurements 
     which create economic opportunities for local contractors.
       Sec. 316. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2003 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the 14th paragraph 
     under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of March 4, 
     1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in 
     which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or 
     to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health 
     conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in 
     the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally 
     high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing 
     risks to human safety and public health and property and 
     enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest 
     productivity, and biological integrity. The projects may be 
     completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not be 
     expended under this section to replace funds which would 
     otherwise appropriately be expended from the timber salvage 
     sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     exempt any project from any environmental law.
       Sec. 317. Other than in emergency situations, none of the 
     funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering 
     machines during core business hours unless such answering 
     machines include an option that enables callers to reach 
     promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being 
     contacted.
       Sec. 318. No timber sale in Region 10 shall be advertised 
     if the indicated rate is deficit when appraised using a 
     residual value approach that assigns domestic Alaska values 
     for western redcedar. Program accomplishments shall be based 
     on volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year 2004, 
     the annual average portion of the decadal allowable sale 
     quantity called for in the current Tongass Land Management 
     Plan in sales which are not deficit when appraised using a 
     residual value approach that assigns domestic Alaska values 
     for western redcedar, all of the western redcedar timber from 
     those sales which is surplus to the needs of domestic 
     processors in Alaska, shall be made available to domestic 
     processors in the contiguous 48 United States at prevailing 
     domestic prices. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year 2003, 
     less than the annual average portion of the decadal allowable 
     sale quantity called for in the Tongass Land Management Plan 
     in sales which are not deficit when appraised using a 
     residual value approach that assigns domestic Alaska values 
     for western redcedar, the volume of western redcedar timber 
     available to domestic processors at prevailing domestic 
     prices in the contiguous 48 United States shall be that 
     volume: (i) which is surplus to the needs of domestic 
     processors in Alaska, and (ii) is that percent of the surplus 
     western redcedar volume determined by calculating the ratio 
     of the total timber volume which has been sold on the Tongass 
     to the annual average portion of the decadal allowable sale 
     quantity called for in the current Tongass Land Management 
     Plan. The percentage shall be calculated by Region 10 on a 
     rolling basis as each sale is sold (for purposes of this 
     amendment, a ``rolling basis'' shall mean that the 
     determination of how much western redcedar is eligible for 
     sale to various markets shall be made at the time each sale 
     is awarded). Western redcedar shall be deemed ``surplus to 
     the needs of domestic processors in Alaska'' when the timber 
     sale holder has presented to the Forest Service documentation 
     of the inability to sell western redcedar logs from a given 
     sale to domestic Alaska processors at a price equal to or 
     greater than the log selling value stated in the contract. 
     All additional western redcedar volume not sold to Alaska or 
     contiguous 48 United States domestic processors may be 
     exported to foreign markets at the election of the timber 
     sale holder. All Alaska yellow cedar may be sold at 
     prevailing export prices at the election of the timber sale 
     holder.
       Sec. 319. A project undertaken by the Forest Service under 
     the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program as authorized by 
     section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended, 
     shall not result in--
       (1) displacement of the holder of an authorization to 
     provide commercial recreation services on Federal lands. 
     Prior to initiating any project, the Secretary shall consult 
     with potentially affected holders to determine what impacts 
     the project may have on the holders. Any modifications to the 
     authorization shall be made within the terms and conditions 
     of the authorization and authorities of the impacted agency;
       (2) the return of a commercial recreation service to the 
     Secretary for operation when such services have been provided 
     in the past by a private sector provider, except when--
       (A) the private sector provider fails to bid on such 
     opportunities;
       (B) the private sector provider terminates its relationship 
     with the agency; or
       (C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with 
     the terms and conditions of the authorization.

     In such cases, the agency may use the Recreation Fee 
     Demonstration Program to provide for operations until a 
     subsequent operator can be found through the offering of a 
     new prospectus.
       Sec. 320. Prior to October 1, 2004, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of 
     subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) 
     solely because more than 15 years have passed without 
     revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary from 
     any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or any other 
     law: Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting 
     expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding 
     available, to revise a plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System, this section shall be void with respect to such plan 
     and a court of proper jurisdiction may order completion of 
     the plan on an accelerated basis.
       Sec. 321. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to 
     conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under 
     either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
     within the boundaries of a National Monument established 
     pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where 
     such activities are allowed under the Presidential 
     proclamation establishing such monument.
       Sec. 322. Extension of Forest Service Conveyances Pilot 
     Program.--Section 329 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (16 U.S.C. 580d 
     note; Public Law 107-63) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``20'' and inserting 
     ``30'';
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``3'' and inserting 
     ``8''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       Sec. 323. Employees of the foundations established by Acts 
     of Congress to solicit private sector funds on behalf of 
     Federal land management agencies shall, in fiscal year 2004 
     and thereafter, qualify for General Service Administration 
     contract airfares.
       Sec. 324. In entering into agreements with foreign 
     countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior are authorized to enter into 
     reciprocal agreements in which the individuals furnished 
     under said agreements to provide fire management services are 
     considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the 
     country receiving said services when the individuals are 
     engaged in fire management activities: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall not enter into any agreement under this provision 
     unless the foreign country (either directly or through its 
     fire organization) agrees to assume any and all liability for 
     the acts or omissions of American firefighters engaged in 
     firefighting in a foreign country: Provided further, That 
     when an agreement is reached for furnishing fire fighting 
     services, the only remedies for acts or omissions committed 
     while fighting fires shall be those provided under the laws 
     of the host country, and those remedies shall be the 
     exclusive remedies for any claim arising out of fighting 
     fires in a foreign country: Provided further, That neither 
     the sending country nor any legal organization associated 
     with the firefighter shall be subject to any legal action 
     whatsoever pertaining to or arising out of the firefighter's 
     role in fire suppression.
       Sec. 325. A grazing permit or lease issued by the Secretary 
     of the Interior or a grazing permit issued by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture where National Forest System lands are 
     involved that expires, is transferred, or waived during 
     fiscal year 2004 shall be renewed under section 402 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended 
     (43 U.S.C. 1752), section 19 of the Granger-Thye Act, as 
     amended (16 U.S.C. 580l), title III of the Bankhead-Jones 
     Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), or, if applicable, 
     section 510 of the California Desert Protection Act (16 
     U.S.C. 410aaa-50). The terms and conditions contained in the 
     expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease shall 
     continue in effect under the renewed permit or lease until 
     such time as the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of 
     Agriculture as appropriate completes processing of such 
     permit or lease in compliance with all applicable laws and 
     regulations, at which time such permit or lease may be 
     canceled, suspended or modified, in whole or in part, to meet 
     the requirements of such applicable laws and regulations. 
     Nothing in this section shall be deemed to alter the 
     statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, That where National 
     Forest System lands are involved and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture has renewed an expired or waived grazing permit 
     prior to or during fiscal year 2004, the terms and conditions 
     of the renewed grazing permit shall remain in effect until 
     such time as the Secretary of Agriculture completes 
     processing of the renewed permit in compliance

[[Page 18568]]

     with all applicable laws and regulations or until the 
     expiration of the renewed permit, whichever comes first. Upon 
     completion of the processing, the permit may be canceled, 
     suspended or modified, in whole or in part, to meet the 
     requirements of applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in 
     this section shall be deemed to alter the Secretary of 
     Agriculture's statutory authority.
       Sec. 326. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, to promote the more efficient use of the health 
     care funding allocation for fiscal year 2004, the Eagle Butte 
     Service Unit of the Indian Health Service, at the request of 
     the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, may pay base salary rates to 
     health professionals up to the highest grade and step 
     available to a physician, pharmacist, or other health 
     professional and may pay a recruitment or retention bonus of 
     up to 25 percent above the base pay rate.
       Sec. 327. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer 
     made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any 
     other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 328. Prohibition of Oil and Gas Drilling in the Finger 
     Lakes National Forest, New York.--None of the funds in this 
     Act may be used to prepare or issue a permit or lease for oil 
     or gas drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest, New 
     York, during fiscal year 2004.
       Sec. 329. 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.
       Sec. 330. In awarding a Federal Contract with funds made 
     available by this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior (the ``Secretaries'') may, in 
     evaluating bids and proposals, give consideration to local 
     contractors who are from, and who provide employment and 
     training for, dislocated and displaced workers in an 
     economically disadvantaged rural community, including those 
     historically timber-dependent areas that have been affected 
     by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands and other 
     forest-dependent rural communities isolated from significant 
     alternative employment opportunities: Provided, That the 
     Secretaries may award grants or cooperative agreements to 
     local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps or 
     related partnerships with State, local or non-profit youth 
     groups, or small or disadvantaged business if the contract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement is for forest hazardous fuels 
     reduction, watershed or water quality monitoring or 
     restoration, wildlife or fish population monitoring, or 
     habitat restoration or management: Provided further, That the 
     terms ``rural community'' and ``economically disadvantaged'' 
     shall have the same meanings as in section 2374 of Public Law 
     101-624: Provided further, That the Secretaries shall develop 
     guidance to implement this section: Provided further, That 
     nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the 
     Secretaries of any duty under applicable procurement laws, 
     except as provided in this section.
       Sec. 331. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     acquisition of lands or interests in lands may be expended 
     for the filing of declarations of taking or complaints in 
     condemnation without the approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That this provision 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated to implement the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 
     1989, or to funds appropriated for federal assistance to the 
     State of Florida to acquire lands for Everglades restoration 
     purposes.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through Page 150, 
line 23 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 332. Section 315(f) of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained 
     in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-200; 
     16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2006''; and
       (2) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of section 332, relating to the recreation fee 
     demonstration program, page 151, after line 6, insert the 
     following sentence:

     The amendments made by this section apply only with respect 
     to areas under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous 
consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to 20 minutes to 
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. And any amendments thereto?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, would it not 
be better to have a discussion on the point of order first before we 
get a time agreement, whether we should debate this for 20 minutes?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, we are 
trying to determine which amendment the gentleman is offering.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is amendment 18.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we withdraw the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn. Is 
the gentleman still making his unanimous consent request relative to 
the time limit on this amendment?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that to be 20 minutes on this 
amendment, equally divided, 10 minutes on each side, and on all 
amendments thereto.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North 
Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized 
for 10 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would extend the authorization for the Park Service 
which, I think, most Members of this body support, particularly given 
the backlog we have heard about and the underfunding to levy these fees 
under what has been commonly called the Rec Fee Demo Program. However, 
it would not prematurely extend the authority to the United States 
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to extend these fees.
  These fees, under current law for the United States Forest Service 
and the Bureau of Land Management, are authorized by prior 
appropriation, not through the authorizing committee, through October 1 
of next year. The authorizing committee has actually been processing, 
beginning work on an authorization bill, which will be the first time 
since 1996 that these were properly authorized for the Forest Service 
and the BLM. If this amendment would pass, that committee would have 
ample time to properly authorize the program before the expiration a 
year from next October.
  So I think that this would address the concerns of many Members of 
the House who are split between those who feel very strongly we need 
these funds for the Park Service, and those of us who feel very 
strongly that levying these fees indiscriminately across the Forest 
Service and the BLM, to nondeveloped areas in particular, is of great 
concern. Basically, if you want to drive your car around a park and go 
hunting or go fishing or just walk with the kids or the dog, you have 
to buy a pass for nondeveloped sites, and a lot of us have strong 
concerns about that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is 
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume, and I oppose this amendment.

[[Page 18569]]

  The amendment would strike the extension of the recreation program 
which provides resources for the national forests, refuges, and public 
lands. Over and over again, at many hearings and in visitors' surveys, 
and in my own travels, I hear that the public wants a recreation 
program that is consistent and simple. The President fully supports 
this program. This amendment would confuse the public.
  I agree with the gentleman that this program should be run through 
the authorizing committee. Our committee and others have had many 
hearings on this, and I have assurances that the chairman of the 
Committee on Resources will work on this issue soon. But for now, it is 
essential that the recreation industry has certainty and ability to 
plan ahead for tours and recreation packages. The recreation industry 
needs to have a full year advanced knowledge of fees in order to plan 
tours and other services.
  This program, begun in 1996, allows the National Park Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest 
Service to charge certain fees for recreation activities and retain the 
fees at the site to reduce the backlog in deferring maintenance and 
enhance the visitors' experience. This is not a charge to enter the 
forest or the reserve, this is a fee for recreational activity.
  To date, the fee program has raised nearly $1 billion to enhance 
recreation experiences on America's public lands. If we accept the 
DeFazio amendment and allow only the Park Service to have this 
authority, the other agencies will lose some $110 million over the next 
2 years that go to maintenance and enhancing visitors' services.
  We should not give this authority only to the National Park Service. 
This would cause confusion and inconsistency for our visitors to public 
lands. We need to work to create a seamless recreation program to make 
it easier, not more complicated, for visitors to our public lands.
  The program has been discussed in numerous hearings in both the 
Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committees, and has 
been the subject of several House Floor debates and votes, all of which 
have supported the program. We need to keep this program going while 
the authorizing committees address the permanent solution. This funding 
is very important to provide focused improvements to the huge backlog 
and maintenance needs and to increase specific services.
  Please oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to respond 
to the esteemed chairman.
  I just want this to be conducted factually. The total amount of 
funds, including the Park Service, may be the number the gentleman 
quoted, but the actual amount of money in the last year that we have 
figures for for the Forest Service was $36 million, not $191 million, 
and only $13 million of that was applied somewhere, somehow on the 
ground. This program is, in fact, eating up more than half of its costs 
in overhead.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon 
for yielding me this time.
  With great respect for my colleague and the committee, I rise in 
support of this amendment for this reason: When you get out my district 
in Oregon and over half of our lands are public lands. And the concerns 
raised by my colleague from the Lammot Valley are valid. People want to 
be able to go out and take the family, drive out one of these Forest 
Service roads, park their car, and walk out in the woods. They cannot 
do that now if they do not go buy a permit.
  If my colleagues want to talk about confusion, there are parts of my 
district where now you have to buy 3, 4, or 5 permits, depending on 
which part of public land you want to go on, whether it is a public 
park or the National Forest Service or the county or whoever. I have to 
tell my colleagues, there are a lot of people who want us in this 
Congress to vet this issue better. I think it is only appropriate.
  I have no problem paying a fee for a permit to plow the snow where I 
go skiing, and I do not know of anybody who does. I have no problem 
paying for developed campground areas, and I laud the effect of this 
program in that respect. But I resent the part of the program that says 
simply to take a walk out in the woods and look at trees in an 
undeveloped area, I have to go to some park ranger district somewhere 
or some Forest Service office somewhere that I do not even know where 
it is, maybe, and buy a permit to put in my window and spend 50 bucks 
or so so I can take my family out. I represent the 12th poorest 
district in the United States, and over half of our land is Federal 
land, and this is a burden these people should not have to shoulder.
  So I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it needs to be vetted 
better in our authorizing committee, and I look forward to that 
opportunity.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I listened to my friends from Oregon talk about this, and I 
substantially agree with everything that they are saying, but I do 
oppose the amendment.
  I believe it is extremely important that we continue on this process. 
Obviously, it is a very popular program that has some problems, and as 
the authorizing committee which both of the gentlemen from Oregon sit 
on, we are going to sit down in the next couple of months and 
reauthorize this program and fix the very problems that you are 
describing here today.
  I happen to believe that all of this money should go to increasing 
the enjoyment of the recreational experience on these lands. That was 
the intention of this program when it was adopted. The money should not 
be going to other things. That is the intention that I have going into 
authorizing this for all public lands, and I believe it is extremely 
important that we continue doing that.
  I think it is a mistake to limit this at this point in time to just 
Park Service. I do understand what the gentleman's argument is, but I 
think it is a mistake at this point to do that.
  I can tell my colleagues that I have had serious concerns over this 
program in the past and we have talked about that, but I do believe 
that we need to continue on with the program the way it is right now.
  The authorizing committee is going to sit down and work on this. 
Obviously the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is going to be a big 
part of that effort to move forward with reauthorizing or authorizing 
this program into the future, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden) will as well. But we are going to do that.
  I think it would be a mistake at this time to limit it just to the 
Park Service. It is an important source of revenue for local recreation 
in these areas, and I think that we need to continue doing that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I share a lot of the sentiments expressed 
by the chairman. But I would point out that both of these programs, 
both the Forest Service and the Park Service are authorized by the 
appropriators through October 1 of next year, which would give our 
committee more than ample time to authorize before the expiration. Just 
to have a degree of certainty because people are so concerned about the 
parks, I said, well, the parks would still fall under the 2-year 
extension here. But the Forest Service, I just want to make sure that 
we get it done and the other body does not somehow mess us up on this.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. 
The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is going to be studying this 
and making sure that these fees are for actual services, not visiting 
the recreation

[[Page 18570]]

lands that the public already has paid for and owns, but getting 
special recreation services; is that correct?
  Mr. POMBO. Yes, sir. The intention of myself and my committee is that 
this money will be going to enhancing the visitors to these 
recreational areas and national parks.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
further yield, if we find, I would say to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), that we 
are not providing actual services, I will join the gentleman in 
supporting the DeFazio amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. And 
we have had the opportunity to discuss this in the past. There is a lot 
of concern, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has brought up, 
about how this money is being used and whether or not it is going to 
enhance the experience of the people that are paying for it as it 
should. That is something that we are going to change. There is going 
to be very strict guidelines that come out of an authorization that 
goes to these agencies so that this does not happen in the future.
  I will say I oppose doing the amendment at this point in time, but I 
will tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that in the future, 
if we cannot authorize this program and change the way that it is being 
run, that I would join him in eliminating the program all together, 
because I think people that are paying to go into these Federal lands, 
these public lands should be getting something for their money, and I 
think there is a big question as to whether or not they are, the way 
the program is currently being run.
  So at this point in time, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I will 
work with him and others that have concerns over this program so that 
in the future, we have a program that works and enhances the experience 
that people have.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I get the division of the time that 
is left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 6 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the bipartisan DeFazio-Bradley amendment to 
remove the bill's provision extending the recreation fee demonstration 
program. I rise also in support of the conversation which has just 
occurred and am happy to follow my California colleague, the Chair of 
the authorizing committee, first to note that this is not just an 
Oregon issue. There are thousands of miles of public lands, a lot of 
that in the western States, which are not national parks, but which are 
national forests and have multiple access points.
  In my district on the central coast of California where Los Padres 
National Forest is in our backyard, few issues have galvanized such 
opposition as what we have come to call the recreational fee 
demonstration program known locally as the Adventure Pass.

                              {time}  1100

  There are many takes on that word by many of my constituents.
  As the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has said, this Recreation 
Fee Demonstration Program was passed into law without hearings in 
authorizing committees and without public debate. It sounds like it now 
will get a full hearing within an authorizing committee, which is a 
good thing. The program should not be blindly extended, however, 
another 2 years without oversight or debate.
  I support full funding, as all of us do, for our national parks and 
recreation areas. I recognize there is a serious backlog of maintenance 
and recreation needs on our Nation's public lands, and a lot of that 
exists within these beautiful forests on the central coast of 
California.
  The mismanagement of the program by the Forest Service as it exists 
today is staggering. The program was created to address the maintenance 
backlog on public land facilities, but only 50 cents of every dollar 
collected goes toward maintaining or improving our public lands. The 
rest is eaten up by administrative and collection costs and also 
litigation costs. Fifty percent overhead costs does not make an 
effective government program.
  Let us find more equitable sources for this money. Americans should 
not be charged twice, our constituents say that over and over again, 
first through their taxes and then again through these fees to go and 
have a picnic in their backyard, to take a hike, getting out of their 
car and see a sunset in our national forests. Big logging companies are 
receiving subsidies for their activities on these very same lands.
  Our national forests are natural treasures to be enjoyed today and to 
be preserved for future generations. I think we can accomplish this 
goal, but we should end the Adventure Pass misadventure. Let us go back 
to the drawing board, it sounds like we may be doing that, have 
hearings on this demonstrations program and conduct a full and open 
debate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I agree with what the chairman of the Natural Resource Committee had 
to say, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); and I think the 
problems of concern here can be addressed in a hearing for permanent 
legislation. So I think the chairman is right on.
  I just want to point out this past week the National Public Radio had 
two segments on maintenance in the parks, and they probably overstated 
the case substantially about how terrible maintenance is, but without 
the billion dollars that had been brought in over the past 3 or 4 years 
from the fees, it would be a lot worse. And these fees are to stay in 
the park or the forest or the Bureau of Land Management, or whatever it 
might be, to enhance the visitors' experience. We want them to have 
good restroom facilities, trails, and the things that are important to 
the visitors.
  To pass this amendment would confuse the public. Because the fee 
program is a package. It includes the Park Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, Fish and Wildlife, and USDA. The Forest Service has 
received over the period of this experimental program $206 million; and 
that has done a lot to enhance the visitors' opportunities.
  But I think the questions that have been raised by the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and addressed by the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources ought to be the subject of a hearing to make sure that the 
program works well for everyone.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was the 
person who was really the driving force behind the creation of the rec 
demo program. I think it has done enormous good, particularly in our 
parks areas. I think the chairman of the authorizing committee has 
given us appropriate promises that they will deal with this issue. I 
think we should defeat the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
commitments made by the gentleman from California to look at this very 
onerous program as it is implemented in the White Mountain National 
Forest in New Hampshire.
  I am an avid hiker. I am taking part in what for many people in the 
Northeast is a lifetime accomplishment, to try and climb all of the 48 
peaks in the White Mountain National Forest; and I am at 37. I 
constantly am hearing from my constituents how little they like this 
program and the reason they like

[[Page 18571]]

this program so little is the hassle that is involved, and then to find 
out that the administrative costs are so staggering.
  I really appreciate the comment from the gentleman from California to 
look at this, but I believe we can pass this amendment and finish and 
make a very clear statement that the program as it exists today does 
not need to be extended past September, 2004, and make sure that if a 
subsequent program comes into effect in the future that it is well run, 
that the administrative costs are within reason, and it is not an 
onerous burden, in particular, on the people that use the national 
forests where there does not need, in my opinion, to be an expensive-
to-collect forest fee. I look forward to working with both sides on 
this issue.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment. Before I do that, I would like to correct one thing on the 
record a few minutes ago. A statement was made that the timber 
companies get huge bonuses for cutting timber on public lands. That is 
not true. Timber companies bid for timber, a very little bit of it that 
is put up for sale, and there is no subsidy. They bid for it. They win 
the bid, and they pay for it. I do not know how you call that a 
subsidy.
  Back to this issue. I have many forest service recreational sites in 
my district. We do not get a lot of complaints on this program. I see 
the benefits as where the money is put back into enhancement.
  Let me tell you why it was needed. This Congress every year will take 
money that ought to go for maintenance of our parks and our forest 
service recreational sites to buy land. Buying lands wins every time. 
We have underfunded every one of our recreational opportunities, and 
because of that we have gone to a demonstration fee.
  My State parks have fees. We want enhancement. People like these 
sites. People are using these sites more and more. They are wonderful. 
But if we want them well-maintained, we will have to help pay for them.
  I think there are some problems in this system, but everything I have 
heard today would be very fixable.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Taylor) 
time has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the key points here are, and a number have been made by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for whom I have great respect, 
that the Park Service needs this money. They do, and that is why I have 
offered this amendment. It is to make certain that we cannot fail in 
our duty to the Park Service. This would extend 2 years further, which 
means a grand total of 38 months for the Park Service before we would 
have to pass an authorization; and surely the United States Congress in 
38 months can come up with a permanent authorization for the Park 
Service.
  But what I fear is, and we have heard this before on the floor, I 
heard 5 years ago from a former chairman of the authorizing committee 
that he would never, ever support further extension without proper 
authorization. The gentleman is now retired, but we did reauthorize 
this program with a rider in an appropriations bill without going 
through the authorizing process.
  I am pleased the current chairmen of the full committee and the 
subcommittee are working on legislation, but I fear this takes the 
pressure off, that if we pass now an extension for another 2 years from 
October 1 of 2004 for the United States Forest Service, we will not get 
to cleaning up that program and making the changes that need to be 
made.
  I am surprised anyone would want to support a tax where 50 percent of 
the tax is spent on overhead, and that is what is happening with the 
Forest Service. And the other 50 percent we do not really know where 
that money is going. There is no tracking. There is nothing to show 
that is going to meet inventoried unmet needs or enhancement needs for 
the recreational experience of the people who are paying this tax. And 
it is, in fact, a tax.
  Take the town of Oak Ridge in my district, totally surrounded by the 
national forests. If they go out to recreate with their families, just 
to drive up the nearest roads to park and walk over and fish, it is a 
paved maintained road, they are going to have to pay $35 to do that. 
Now that is not right. It is a low-income community, and it is just not 
right. They are surrounded by national forests. They don't have any 
options. They have to pay this tax.
  Then, to add insult to injury, half of the tax they are paying is 
going to bureaucratic overhead; and they do not know where the other 
half is going because the Forest Service is not tracking it. We have no 
system.
  I am certain the authorizing committee can rectify those matters, 
hopefully even eliminating a requirement of a tax on people who want to 
go to undeveloped recreation. I have no problem with charging this. It 
would obviously allow the continued charges at parks, but I do not have 
a problem for continuing to charge for developed campsites, boat ramps, 
special use areas, and other things on Forest Service and BLM lands.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this because I fear if we once 
again, through this process, extend this for 38 months into the future 
for the Forest Service, we will never get to correcting this program.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to provide broader 
explanation of my vote in favor of an amendment offered by my 
colleague, Peter DeFazio, which would remove a provision from the 
Interior appropriation spending bill extending the Recreation Fee 
Demonstration Program for the Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
  Historically, Mr. Chairman, I have been a proponent of the Rec Fee 
Demo Program under certain narrowly tailored circumstances. 
Regrettably, recreation-related appropriations have never reached the 
level of need. The agencies covered by the Fee Demo Program have 
experienced massive and growing deferred maintenance backlog expenses, 
large portions of which are recreation related. At the same time, more 
and more Americans are flocking to our national forests and parks to 
experience the wonders of nature. Under the weight of these self-
escalating pressures, both the resource and the user-public suffer. 
This is unacceptable. I have supported the Recreation Fee Demo Program 
as a mechanism to augment recreation-related appropriations.
  But when the Fee Demonstration Program was established as part of an 
appropriation bill in the middle 1990s, it was done so on a pilot 
basis. It was a public policy experiment--a test of the user pays 
concept, and the ability of the affected agencies to implement this 
authority fairly, wisely and with accountability, both to Congress and 
the user public.
  Today, some 9 years after Congress initiated this laudible test, and 
several Fee Demo extensions later, I believe it is time for Congress to 
make a longer term judgment as to whether or not the program should be 
extended into the future. Piecemeal extensions for all agencies that 
yield no oversight and exact no accountability are no longer in order. 
I believe it is time for Congress to sit down and in a thoughtful and 
deliberative way review this experiment and determine what has worked 
and what hasn't.
  We need to enter into a dialog with the user public, the affected 
agencies, the General Accounting Office and others with a stake in this 
program and make an informed decision--an accounting of lessons 
learned. Where weaknesses in the program exist, Congress should address 
them. Where strengths are found, those should be augmented. Where 
accountability has been lacking, greater accountability should be 
required. In any case, there is a legitimate policy debate that must be 
entered into before we again decide to extend this user pays 
experiment.
  So while I commend Chairman Taylor and all of the Appropriations 
Committee members and staff who have worked so hard on this program 
over the years, I am voting for the DeFazio amendment today with the 
knowledge that I intend to work with the chairman of the Resources 
Committee, Mr. Pombo, as well as other interested members of the 
Resources and Appropriations Committee, in a deliberative and 
systematic discussion about the future of ``user pays'' on our national 
parks, national forests, and public lands.

[[Page 18572]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 333. Subsection (c) of section 551 of the Land Between 
     the Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460lll-61) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     expend amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to 
     carry out this title in a manner consistent with the 
     authorities exercised by the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     before the transfer of the Recreation Area to the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary, including 
     campground management and visitor services, paid 
     advertisement, and procurement of food and supplies for 
     resale purposes.''.
       Sec. 334. Section 339 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted into 
     law by section 1000(a)(3) of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 
     1501A-204; 16 U.S.C. 528 note,), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``not less than the 
     fair market value'' and inserting ``fees under subsection 
     (c)''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall establish appraisal methods 
     and bidding procedures to determine the fair market value of 
     forest botanical products harvested under the pilot 
     program.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph (1):
       ``(1) Imposition and collection.--Under the pilot program, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall charge and collect from a 
     person who harvests forest botanical products on National 
     Forest System lands a fee in an amount established by the 
     Secretary to recover at least a portion of the fair market 
     value of the harvested forest botanical products and a 
     portion of the costs incurred by the Department of 
     Agriculture associated with granting, modifying, or 
     monitoring the authorization for harvest of the forest 
     botanical products, including the costs of any environmental 
     or other analysis.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``charges and fees 
     under subsections (b) and'' and inserting ``a fee under 
     subsection'';
       (4) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsections (b) and'' 
     and inserting ``subsection'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``in excess of the 
     amounts collected for forest botanical products during fiscal 
     year 1999'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``charges and fees 
     collected at that unit under the pilot program to pay for'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``fees collected at that unit under subsection (c) 
     to pay for the costs of conducting inventories of forest 
     botanical products, determining sustainable levels of 
     harvest, monitoring and assessing the impacts of harvest 
     levels and methods, conducting restoration activities, 
     including any necessary vegetation, and covering costs of the 
     Department of Agriculture described in subsection (c)(1).''; 
     and
       (D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``subsections (b) and'' 
     and inserting ``subsection'';
       (5) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``charges and fees under subsections (b) 
     and'' and inserting ``fees under subsection''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsections (b) and'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``subsection''; and
       (6) in subsection (h), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph (1):
       ``(1) Collection of fees.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     collect fees under the authority of subsection (c) until 
     September 30, 2009.''.
       Sec. 335. None of the funds in this Act can be used to 
     initiate any new competitive sourcing studies.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Strike section 335 of the bill (page 154, lines 12 and 13).

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and I 
approach the floor today to discuss section 335 which would block the 
Department of Interior from conducting public/private job competitions. 
As a result of this opportunity to be on the floor, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I have chosen to have side-bar 
conversations with the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me make a couple of comments.
  First of all, the underlying language in the bill gives me concern 
because it stops all competitive sourcing in the Department of 
Interior. I think the current administration plans are probably an 
overreach. I think there are a lot of concerns that are expressed over 
the current A-76 circular, and I get concerned sometimes that they may 
be biting off more than they can chew, moving a little faster and 
competitively sourcing too many things at one time and not exercising 
the appropriate oversight.
  But I think banning it in its entirety from this or any other agency 
is probably ill-conceived because, after all, this is one of the 
pillars of the administration's management policies, of their agenda. 
This provision constitutes really an unprecedented intrusion in the 
executive management discretion.
  Having said that, I do want to express a couple of concerns about the 
President's agenda on this issue. One is that we need to be concerned 
about Federal employees who enter for career service and will have 
their jobs uped every 5 years. And I think for competitive sourcing in 
terms of their being able to look at the appropriate career path, 
particularly in some of these areas, we have talked to a number of 
Members on this, and if we could get some kind of reading where the 
President would have some kind of flexibility in this area, I think we 
could move ahead.
  I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), 
offering this amendment. I think it is the right way to go when you get 
overreaching amendments like this on there, and I certainly support his 
efforts.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to engage, if I could, 
in a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, concerning this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and belief that you and I will be able to 
work together on this issue such that it might be able to be resolved 
in conference; and it is my understanding that what we will do is, as 
we work towards that resolution, it will allow completion of the work 
today to move on this bill and then that negotiation to begin.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's understanding, and I certainly will be willing to work with 
him.
  I want to say at the outset we do not oppose competitive sourcing. I 
also want to say that this is not a limiting amendment. Section 335 
provides that all studies that are currently ongoing for fiscal years 
2002 and 2003 shall be completed and the results of those studies 
should be reviewed before new studies are initiated. The language makes 
no judgment on what the outcome of those studies should be, and it 
merely is an attempt to ensure appropriate congressional oversight of 
this important initiative.
  The Interior Committee on Appropriations is no stranger to 
competitive sourcing. In 1996, the committee required the United States 
geographical survey to contract out 60 percent of its map and digital 
data activities. In 1999, the committee required the outsourcing of 90 
percent of the National Park Service's consultant operations. So we are 
certainly no stranger in outsourcing, and we do not oppose that at all.

[[Page 18573]]

  What we expect is clear budgeting in annual budget requests the 
amounts and purpose of the study, complying with the committee's 
reprogramming guidelines for use of funds that have not been clearly 
indicated in budget request, and OMB should provide clear direction to 
the agencies on how to manage these studies in a fiscally responsible 
manner.

                              {time}  1115

  We will be happy to work with the gentleman from Texas between now 
and conference, and hope that we can do that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) the chairman of the Committee 
on Government Reform. It is obvious to me, based upon this dialogue, 
that we will work diligently between now and the time that the 
conference on this important bill comes forth.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sessions-
Davis motion to strike the bipartisan language in the FY 04 Interior 
Appropriations bill that protects our National Parks by requiring a 
reasonable delay in the administration's efforts to outsource National 
Park Service jobs.
  As the Ranking Member of the National Parks and Public Lands 
Subcommittee, I have met and worked with many of the hard-working men 
and women of the National Park Service--a significant number of whom 
are minorities and women. Instead of promoting and increasing diversity 
within the Park Service, it is likely to do the opposite, especially at 
higher levels, but we appreciate the Director's concern for this and 
want to work with her and staff to ensure such diversity is enhanced.
  It disturbs me, that the National Park Service has spent millions of 
dollars on outsourcing positions which are central to the protection of 
our national treasures at the expense of enormous pressing fiscal needs 
of the parks, without Congressional approval.
  Furthermore, the significant costs of fulfilling the Administration's 
quotas are unfunded and these costs could seriously hurt visitor 
services and seasonal operations. The privatization of 808 of the 1,708 
jobs in question could carry consultant costs of up to $3 million.
  The bipartisan language in the Appropriations bill, which this 
amendment seeks to strike, protects the national parks by requiring a 
reasonable delay in the administration's effort to outsource National 
Park Service jobs. It would provide a reasonable pause in order that 
these issues are evaluated responsibly and that their ultimate 
resolution is in the best interest of protecting our national Parks for 
future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to strike and support our 
National Parks and the hard working men and women who are dedicated to 
their protection.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against 
the Sessions-Davis amendment. The provision contained in the Interior 
Appropriations bill that this amendment seeks to strike, is a well-
crafted, bipartisan effort that has the support of both the chairman 
and the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  After careful review of the Office of Management and Budget's 
competitive outsourcing initiative, the subcommittee believed that the 
massive scale on which the initiative is being carried out and the 
arbitrary targets involved is of great concern, especially considering 
the enormous costs associated with the initiative which are expected to 
be absorbed by the agency.
  During last year's consideration of the FY03 Treasury-Postal 
Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment prohibiting OMB or any 
other federal agency from using numerical quotas, targets, or goals for 
outsourcing initiatives. The point was to give federal agencies the 
flexibility to contract out as much or as little government work as 
they feel is necessary to meet their mission requirements.
  The House passed this amendment overwhelmingly with bipartisan 
support. Unfortunately, the provision was watered-down in conference 
and the administration is still moving full steam ahead with their 
quotas-driven agenda for the current fiscal year.
  As has been reported in the news over the last several weeks, in an 
effort to meet OMB's quota for the end of this fiscal year, the 
Interior Department has targeted thousands of jobs to be outsourced 
including archaeologists, scientists, engineers, and firefighters. 
Specifically, Interior's quota is 5,000 jobs, with the biggest piece--
1,708 jobs--coming from the Park Service.
  To conduct these massive outsourcing studies, the department is 
diverting critical funds and staff from high-priority assignments and 
consumed funding that is directed towards fulfilling important mission-
essential requirements.
  Personnel from the Interior Department agencies, including the 
National Park Service and Forest Service, have expressed concern over 
the declining morale due to OMB's rigid and arbitrary requirements.
  With this country in the midst of a ``human capital crisis'' what 
kind of message does this send in recruiting and retaining our best and 
brightest to safeguarding America's natural treasures.
  Time and again, OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to 
justify the privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY 
2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
  What Section 335 in the Interior Appropriations bill does is limit 
competitive outsourceing studies that are underway for fiscal years 
2002 and 2003 until the department and agencies submit a report 
detailing schedules, plans, and cost analysis.
  Striking this section would only give OMB the green light to continue 
with their competitive outsourcing initiative without the oversight and 
accountability reasonably requested.
  I understand the sponsors of this amendment have agreed to withdraw 
their amendment. I thank them for doing so and support the retention of 
Section 335 of the Interior Appropriations bill.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Section 335, which this amendment would strike, is a calm and 
measured response to a problem that is jeopardizing the ability of the 
Department of Interior and related agencies to safeguard America's 
natural treasures.
  This is about taking measures to make sure our national treasures are 
not put at unneeded risk by brash privatization with unclear results. 
The section would not halt the many outsourcing studies currently 
ongoing, nor would it stop new outsourcing studies from being 
commissioned before this bill is enacted. It would simply suspend 
privatization efforts in 2004 to allow the House Appropriations 
Committee to review an ``in-depth'' report on the results of pending 
privatization efforts.
  Section 335 is crucial because Interior and related agencies are 
currently under extraordinary pressure to privatize critical programs 
because of an onerous quota imposed upon all agencies by OMB to review 
for privatization 15 percent of their ``commercial'' activities by the 
end of fiscal year 2003.
  This quota is being applied regardless of the impact on the mission 
of Interior and related agencies or the needs of all Americans who 
depend on those agencies for efficient and reliable service. In fact, 
OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to justify the 
privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY 2003 
Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
  The Forest Service expects to spend $10 million during FY 2003 to 
meet the competitive sourcing mandate from the OMB. Instead of 
concentrating on bolstering emergency fire fighting, the Forest 
Service's contracting officers will be carrying out OMB's privatization 
quota. Instead of using funding to hire seasonal employees to handle 
the crush of summer visitors and making much-needed repairs to bridges, 
cabins, and historic buildings, the National Park Service will be 
paying high-priced privatization consultants. As the Committee report 
states, ``this massive initiative appears to be on such a fast track 
that Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor 
understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made.''
  That is reason enough to temporarily pause the funding of new 
outsourcing studies.
  In addition to the devastating impacts this arbitrary outsourcing 
quota could have on the visitor services and seasonal operations of our 
National Parks and Forest Service, this plan will significantly 
undermine the diversity in the National Parks Service and Forest 
Service workforce. According to one Administration official, the 
current plan to outsource more than 1,700 jobs by the end of Fiscal 
Year 2004 will disproportionately affect minorities.
  This comes at a time when the Park Service has explicitly stated its 
mission to improve diversity in its rank and file.
  The fact is, we don't know what the full impacts of the OMB's 
privatization plan will be. That's why this language was put in the 
bill, and why it should stay in the bill.
  Section 335 is bipartisan.
  Section 335 would not prevent Interior from continuing privatization 
reviews already underway.
  Section 335 simply says, ``proceed with caution'' when it comes to 
our national treasures.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. A ``no'' vote is 
a vote to protect our National Parks and Forest Service.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on this day, I will join many of 
my colleagues in voicing my disapproval of the amendment presented by 
Rep. Pete Sessions and Rep.

[[Page 18574]]

Thomas M. Davis III on H.R. 2691. H.R. 2691 makes appropriations for 
the Interior Department and related agencies for the fiscal year 2004. 
This amendment strikes out Section 335 from the bill which prohibits 
new competitive sourcing studies.
  In the Interior subcommittee's report language, a bipartisan majority 
of lawmakers expressed concern about the massive scale, the arbitrary 
targets, and the cost. This initiative remains on a fast track, without 
consideration for the implications or impacts of such a massive 
privatization scheme. The haphazard manner in which agencies are 
implementing privatization has had a horrendous impact on the agencies' 
abilities to provide basic services and due to a incredibily short 
timeframe, agencies have been unable to designate and protect those 
programs that are ``inherently governmental'' as well as critical 
programs, which should not be subject to privatization.
  While we support our federal agencies in their efforts to streamline 
their processes, we contend that all efforts to ensure the success of 
innovative process management requires due diligence, and should be 
afforded all resources necessary to conceptualize, plan, test, 
implement and evaluate said processes. As our agencies are forced into 
a trust relationship with contractors, they are faced with conflicts 
which impact their Vision, Mission and Goals of providing efficient and 
effective quality services to our Nation, while ensuring the solvency 
and viability of its organization and workforce. We must remain 
diligent and steadfast in our efforts to protect the Workforce of 
America, and we must ensure that we do not replace our existing 
workforce with a new Corp of Contractors, whose Statements of Work 
preclude them from the commitment and accountability which has remained 
the focus of our Federal workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow members of Congress, to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment, which, sir, is a vote ``yes'' for the future of America 
and her workforce.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I am pleased to see 
that the proposed amendment was withdrawn, but I just needed to respond 
to one thing that one of the previous speakers said. I believe it was 
the gentleman from Virginia who indicated his disquiet about the 
committee provision because he said this goes to ``one of the pillars 
of the administration's management policy.''
  That may be, but I think it is worthy to note that the 
administration's initiative runs the risk of screwing up one of the 
pillars of American excellence, which is the National Park Service. To 
me the value of keeping the National Park Service whole without 
outsourcing many vital activities of the Park Service is that you, 
first of all, maintain the institutional memory that comes from that 
dedicated service. You maintain the passion for the mission of the 
National Park system, which is I think part of the appeal to virtually 
every American citizen who visits one of the crown jewels of this 
country's heritage.
  I think it is also worth noting that the park system lives off the 
volunteer activities of thousands of Americans who give their time and 
service to help fill in the gaps in making certain that those parks are 
fully open to everyone. I think it is obvious, and I know I have heard 
many volunteers say, look, I give hours and hours of time to the parks, 
but I would not give one hour of time simply to improve the 
profitability of a corporation.
  I appreciate the gentleman's desire for some flexibility on this, and 
I know that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) means what 
he says on that score, but I would hope that the administration will 
take a second look at what they are doing with respect to the Park 
Service. Because if there is one institution in which the public has 
confidence, I think it is the National Park Service.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentleman's 
comments on the Park Service. The difficulty with this amendment is it 
was Department-wide throughout the Department of the Interior. 
Hopefully, we can come up with some satisfactory language that will 
satisfy the gentleman's concerns and ours as well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the Park Service, I think 
there are many other agencies that are just as professional and just as 
crucial, such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and 
many others. I marvel at the quality of individuals who are in many of 
those jobs throughout the country.
  The parks are a spectacular national asset, and I think we have to 
take great care before we mess something up. If ever we ought to follow 
the rule ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' we ought to follow it 
with respect to the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of 
Land Management and many other services who have incredibly dedicated 
employees, at least as dedicated as any of us are.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add my own personal concern here, 
particularly with the Forest Service and the Park Service, because the 
way the funding for these studies were done violates the reprogramming 
agreements that the Committee on Appropriations has with the agencies. 
This has been called to their attention by the committee with the 
chairman's leadership.
  I think it is very crucial that we protect the integrity of the 
reprogramming process so that agencies are just not taking money and 
going out and doing these studies without getting the prior approval of 
the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment to strike 
the language carried in our bill with broad committee support.
  The bipartisan language related to competitive sourcing was well 
thought out and should remain in our bill. Congress must ensure that 
our agencies are not spending untold millions of dollars related to 
outsourcing activities without any defined plan from the administration 
about what the goals are and how much money they intend to spend.
  I am deeply concerned about the loosely defined policy and believe 
that the committee was well within its bounds to simply ask for a 
``pause'' until we can better understand the parameters of the policy. 
The Chairman and I were extremely surprised to learn that agencies 
within the jurisdiction of our Subcommittee were spending, or were 
planning to spend, millions of dollars on competitive sourcing without 
coming to the Committee through the normal budget process to tell us 
how they intended to pay for it.
  Recently we learned that the Forest Service had already committed $10 
million on these studies despite the fact that they are still owed $372 
million in un-repaid forest-fire borrowing from 2002. The agency also 
admits that their budget for the National Fire Plan is insufficient, 
making borrowing more likely each season. For the life of me I simply 
cannot understand how the Forest Service could find the money to study 
outsourcing when they clearly don't have the money to fight forest 
fires without raiding other accounts.
  Adding to this, neither the Forest Service nor the National Park 
Service has come to the Committee for a formal reprogramming. Instead, 
the agencies apparently moved forward on this on their own. I am deeply 
troubled that the Park Service would undertake this effort without 
prior approval from Congress, especially since their own budget 
estimates suggest that these studies would cost $3,000 per FTE.
  Last month, Mt. Rainier National Park in Washington State was 
featured in an article in the Washington Post regarding outsourcing. 
The article detailed a memo that was sent to parks in the West from the 
Director's office that warned of budget cuts to pay for anti-terrorism 
policing and consultants to study outsourcing. Cuts that meant several 
projects that were ready to go in these parks would not happen this 
year. Administrators at Mt. Rainier had been instructed to absorb a 40% 
cut in their repair budget, which obviously meant several projects 
would not happen.
  I have been a member of this Subcommittee for 27 years. I am 
intimately aware of the backlog of maintenance on our public lands--and 
particularly our parks. Yet here we see money being literally pulled 
back from the field--money that Congress appropriated and directed how 
it would be spent--going towards consultants. As soon as I finished the 
article, I called Park Service Director Fran Mainella personally. I was 
able to get an agreement

[[Page 18575]]

with her that this money would in fact not be pulled from Rainier--but 
I'm not convinced that other parks are not in some jeopardy.
  I understand the agencies seem to be caught in the middle of a larger 
issue between the Office of Management and Budget which is pushing hard 
on outsourcing, and the Congress which is understandably concerned 
about the policy. This is precisely why we need this language. We have 
got to have a better understanding of the goals and costs of 
outsourcing. Only then can we make a rational decision about how--or 
if--to proceed.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for withdrawing their 
amendment. I was planning to oppose the amendment and speak on the 
floor. I think as they work with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) to work out compromise language, it is a step in the right 
direction. It is very important that we do this in a systematic way.
  I have supported the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and continue 
to believe that contracting out is one method to make government more 
effective. I believe contracting out has worked well, including in the 
Park Service. Some parks are 50 percent contracted out already.
  The question is, do we move full steam ahead, kind of willy-nilly 
bidding, or do we do this in a logical, orderly way? Some of these 
areas are in very remote areas. Contracting will work or not work in 
some of the urban areas. There are many variations in the Park Service 
and other institutions.
  Generally speaking, I believe it is important to put on the record 
that parks already contract out. The Forest Service already contracts 
out. We need to have an analysis on where they are on that. It is not 
whether Members are for or against the original amendment. It is not 
for or against contracting out. It is more what the chairman was trying 
to address. Let us do this in a logical way.
  I hope the conference compromise works to address that, but I am 
concerned that just to do it the way the administration was going ahead 
with the National Park Service would have done grave damage to the most 
effective institution and an institution which already had been 
following mandates on contracting out at a time when they are under 
tremendous budget pressures, when we in Congress keep adding units to 
the Park Service, keep adding heritage areas to the Park Service, and 
while we have increased funding, have not increased funding at a rapid 
enough rate.
  We have homeland security pressures on the parks, narcotics pressure, 
and at the same time the money is not keeping up. This would have had a 
tremendous demoralizing effect on the entire National Park Service had 
we not taken this effort to work it out.
  At the same time, I think it is important to acknowledge that there 
will be contracting out, there has been contracting out, and we just 
need to do it in an effective way.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my great privilege to represent portions of Mount 
Rainier National Park and Mount St. Helen's National Monument. I would 
like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder).
  I personally know some of the people who work in these fine resources 
for the benefit of the American people. Our national parks are truly 
great treasures of the people of not only our country but the entire 
world. The people who work in these parks are not there, for the most 
part, for the money. They are there because they value and cherish this 
resource.
  I can tell Members, having spoken to some of these folks, that this 
move towards privatization has had a chilling effect on morale. Let me 
share two brief anecdotes not just germane to this issue but about the 
broad effect of privatization.
  A dear friend of mine works for the U.S. Geological Survey, and he 
told me that when he first began working for USGS he and his colleagues 
put in typically 60- 70- 80-hour work weeks, not getting paid overtime, 
just putting in personal time because they so cared about their 
mission. Indeed, when Mount St. Helen's erupted, many of the geologists 
who were there had taken vacation time on their own time to be there to 
study that danger, and some lost their lives in the disaster.
  Last week, I was flying back here with a member of the civilian 
workforce who is in charge of safety at naval facilities. She told me 
that what surprised her most was how dedicated many of her employees 
were even as they faced privatization. But I also hear that it is only 
humanly natural, if one believes their job is soon to be put on the 
block, it is difficult to establish the institutional loyalty to put in 
that overtime, to develop the career path that will lead to the skilled 
and the trained and accomplished experienced workforce we need to staff 
our parks and other Federal agencies.
  In the name of our dear love for these resources, I plead with the 
committee to make sure that we do not move forward with this 
privatization. I thank the sponsors of the amendment for withdrawing 
it, and I will vigorously oppose the amendment should it reemerge.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, on the issue of hazardous fuels reduction activities, 
as the gentleman from North Carolina knows, many of our national 
forestlands are covered with unnaturally dense vegetation. This 
unnaturally dense condition has contributed immensely to the 
devastating wildfires which the western United States is experiencing 
right now and which it has experienced for the last several years. My 
own State of Arizona is experiencing the most severe wildfires of the 
entire West right now and is being devastated by those fires.
  Scientific research has shown that unnaturally dense vegetation not 
only leads to an extreme risk of catastrophic wildfire, such as the 
Rodeo-Chediski fire we had in Arizona last year and the Aspen fire we 
are having this year, but also that overgrowth in and of itself is 
extremely damaging to the health of the forest ecosystem.
  One example is the bark beetle infestation, which is currently 
affecting over 800,000 acres of forest in Arizona, and whose outbreak 
was directly tied to the overdense tree growth in our forests. Insect 
infestation not only kill and weaken the vegetation but also increase 
the threat of fire.
  Hazardous fuels reduction treatments which are narrowly confined to 
the wildland-urban interface are simply ineffective to reducing the 
risk posed by catastrophic wildfire both to communities, watersheds and 
to the overall forest ecosystem. During the Rodeo-Chediski fire, which 
destroyed almost 1.5 million acres in Arizona, that fire jumped on some 
occasions more than 3 miles ahead of the main fire line. As a result of 
that, it is obviously futile to confine hazardous fuel treatment 
activities to just the narrow wildland-urban interface, a ban often 
defined as half a mile wide. If the fire can jump 3 miles, thinning and 
protecting a half mile will not protect the forest or the communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts on this issue and I would 
like to clarify that the Forest Service hazardous fuels and authorities 
in this legislation are not limited to that narrowly defined wildland-
urban interface but may be used in those areas of the forest where 
hazardous fuels reduction activity is needed the most, not just to 
protect homes and structures in communities but also to protect the 
forest itself and the overall forest ecosystem.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I 
agree that many of our National Forests do have unnaturally dense 
growth which contributes greatly to the extreme threat of catastrophic 
wildfire that our forests and communities face. Such fires pose a 
serious threat to the lives and homes of individuals who live in these 
communities and also to the

[[Page 18576]]

health of the forest ecosystem, as the gentleman points out. Using 
funds and authorities in this act, the professionals of the Forest 
Service should use the best local information to prescribe treatments 
where needed to effectively reduce the threat of wildfire by improving 
the health of the forest ecosystem.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and I appreciate the gentleman 
clarifying that those funds can be used where most needed.

                              {time}  1130


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), Insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.___. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by one percent.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited 
to 10 minutes to be equally divided between the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will admit that I offer this amendment with a great 
deal of ambivalence because the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) takes a back seat to no one when it comes to trying to get 
control of the spending of our Federal budget. I have appreciated that 
over the years and have worked with him over the years on this effort.
  This amendment does offer an across-the-board cut of 1 percent or 
about $194 million. Actually I think this is generally a good bill. It 
addresses concerns that I have concern about, many things that are very 
important to me, many areas that I have been concerned about for years, 
including wildfire prevention and suppression. It has managed to do 
this at a level of about $186 million less than last year. I appreciate 
that. That took a lot of effort. It is still $110 million over the 
President's request, however.
  I offered a similar amendment on the Labor-HHS bill a week ago and 
intend to do this on most of the appropriations bills, so it is no 
reflection on your bill. It is just that I want some way to express the 
concern. Last week when we were talking about this, we were talking 
about a $400 billion deficit. Today they have changed those projections 
and now we are talking about a $450 billion deficit and say next year 
it will be $475 billion. When I arrived in Congress in 1987, we were 
running a $200 billion deficit and everyone thought that was the worst 
problem facing us. I have devoted over the years a lot of attention to 
that. We finally did balance the budget, and now we have a deficit that 
is twice as much as we were talking last year.
  I know that in circumstances like those we face with a sluggish 
economy and mounting war costs, that we need to show fiscal restraint 
and we need to show that balancing the budget is an important value and 
an important priority that we are still concerned about. It seems like 
when we have the excuse of the war and the economy, that all of a 
sudden we say, oh, well, we've got that excuse so we can continue to 
spend. I thank the gentleman for the good job he has done on this bill. 
I do offer this amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's 
tireless effort in trying to work in the areas of budget control. I 
know yesterday the announcement was made that we are in a deficit of 
$450 billion. We must work to solve that this year and in future years 
as we move forward. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we have opposed a number 
of much larger amendments, of over $100 million or $500 million that 
have been proposed here yesterday and this morning. We have worked the 
best we can to balance this bill. We think it is a good bill.
  There are 13 subcommittees. We work with one, with the Interior and 
Energy. We hope that we can convince the Senate to go with us and we 
will come out with a balanced appropriations bill that will be 
conservative as well as meet the needs of our Interior Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the 
gentleman from Colorado, but I think in this case this amendment is 
ill-advised. First of all, on the issue of how much it would affect, it 
would take $196 million out of this bill, a bill that is already 
inadequate in many respects. We get right to the first two items, 
conservation spending, which has already been devastated, would be cut 
$10 million, and then right here on the issue that is so important out 
in the West, wildfire funding would be cut $23 million. The 
administration is up here with an emergency supplemental asking for 
well over $200 million to add to this. How could we cut $23 million out 
of wildfire spending in this across-the-board meat axe approach?
  If you are going to have an amendment to reduce spending, I think you 
are better served in picking out the items you want to make reductions 
in. Maybe some of them would be over 1 percent. But to cut wildfire 
funding is just not responsible in the situation we find ourselves in. 
In fact, the agencies under this bill have had money borrowed from them 
to pay for the 2002 fire season that the administration has not even 
requested the funding to put back into place. So to compound that 
problem with another cut of $23 million to me is just not responsible.
  And then you get over to the Bureau of Land Management and there is 
another $7 million for BLM fire that would be cut. So you have got $23 
million in wildfire funding and another $7 million in BLM fire funding, 
and then you get to the Forest Service and it is $16 million, another 
$16 million. Or maybe it is the two of those together is $23 million. I 
think that is correct. The point is taking that kind of money out of 
this bill is just not right and it is going to go to conference. The 
House and the Senate are going to get back together. There is going to 
be a 302 allocation and we are going to fund the bill at the end of the 
day at the level that we have gotten an allocation for.
  I think this is just a waste of time and I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, while I oppose the 
amendment, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
in opposition.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have yielded back my time, and I do not 
want much time, but I want to say the gentleman from Washington is 
using the oldest trick that government uses and, that is, when any time 
you try to cut something, you pick out things and say, oh, it's coming 
out of here, it's coming out there. No, it does not have to come out 
here, and there. It can come out somewhere in there where they find 
waste, where they find things that are not the top priorities. You set 
the priorities and decide where that is. It does not have to come out 
of wildfire or some of the things are more high priorities. But this we 
do all the time. Anytime you talk about cutting, this is what we say we 
do.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

[[Page 18577]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this to the gentleman because I 
have the greatest respect for him, but it says here, ``Each amount 
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act that is not 
required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision 
of law is hereby reduced by 1 percent.'' So it takes every line item 
and reduces it by 1 percent. That means $23 million comes out of 
firefighting. I do not think that is what the gentleman intended 
because I have the greatest regard for him, but this is why we should 
vote against this amendment because of its unintended consequence 
because the language says one thing and the discussion and description 
of the amendment says another.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       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--
       (1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or 
     supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by 
     substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially 
     all''; or
       (2) to enter into a contract for the construction, 
     alteration, or repair of any public building or public work 
     unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is 
     applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65 
     percent'' for ``substantially all''.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to ask this House again 
to engage in the struggle that we have to try to return this country to 
some semblance of a manufacturing base. We are now down to 14.5 million 
workers engaged in manufacturing. That is about 6 percent that we have 
lost in the past 2 years. For the past 35 months, we have lost an 
average of 55,000 manufacturing jobs. We are being bored out. The jobs 
that we have left in manufacturing, many of them you might as well say 
we are in the process of assemblers as opposed to manufacturers.
  What this bill does is simply say as to acquisitions by the 
Department of Interior, which procured about $2.5 billion last year 
with regard to new construction, repair buildings, roads, dams, 
bridges, culverts and other projects, it simply says as opposed to 
using the 50 percent figure in the existing Buy American Act, that we 
raise it to 65 percent. This is no hardship to the Department from 
adapting to a higher percent of American domestic content for its 
procurements. We owe nothing to any foreign countries to guarantee them 
the opportunity to make things to put into our precious national parks. 
The area that I represent, Rockford, Illinois, in 1981 led the Nation 
in unemployment at 25 percent. Rockford today is at 10.5, 11 percent.
  Again today I got a letter from another manufacturer closing down a 
facility saying, sorry, we're moving everything to China. I just wonder 
how much bleeding, how much hemorrhaging the people of this country can 
take where there no longer will be any manufacturing jobs left enough 
to pay the taxes to buy the things that the government wants to buy. 
This is a simple statement, that the things that we put into our 
national parks, the things that the Department of Interior buys, the 
desks, the telephones, the stationery, at least let us use our 
government procurement to level the playing field and to keep Americans 
employed.
  I would implore this House if this amendment were in order, which it 
is not, but under any circumstances to force our government agencies, 
at least them, the ones that are using U.S. taxpayers' dollars, to 
increase the content of the things they buy from 50 to 65 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, with that statement being made and because of the rules 
of the House, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.  . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``National 
     Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities--National Endowment 
     for the Arts--GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION'' and by increasing 
     the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--
     Forest Service--WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT'' for hazardous 
     fuels reduction activities by $57,480,000 respectively.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited 
to 10 minutes to be equally divided between the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The last two fire seasons have been devastating for the American 
West. Millions of acres in States like Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and 
Colorado have been reduced to charcoal by catastrophic wildfire. By 
most estimates, an additional 73 million acres at the very least remain 
at extreme high risk to catastrophic wildfire. To put that in 
perspective, 73 million acres is an area larger than the State of 
Arizona.
  Central to reducing the threat that these unnatural fires pose to 
communities, water quality and wildlife is restoring our densely packed 
forests to a more natural state.

                              {time}  1145

  To do that, we must thin our forests.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Healthy Forests bill we passed 
earlier this year will go a long way towards streamlining the 
``analysis paralysis'' that has prevented our land managers from 
reducing the threat of wildfire in our overstocked forest. But in order 
to carry out more thinning projects, as many of my friends on the other 
side are fond of pointing out, the Forest Service needs additional 
funds.
  I want to give them an opportunity to put their money where their 
mouths are. If adopted, my amendment would transfer $57 million to the 
Forest Service for thinning operations from the National Endowment for 
the Arts. While this amendment only reduces its budget, few programs 
seem more worthy of outright elimination than the National Endowment 
for the Arts. First created in 1965, the NEA has been one of the most 
controversial government programs on the books almost since its 
inception. The most notorious aspects of the NEA have been talked about 
for many years, and I will not go into them today.
  In a tight budget year like this, it is irresponsible to squander 
scarce public funds on subsidizing the arts to the tune of $117 
million. Clearly, enhancing the ability of the Forest Service to 
protect communities from wildfire is a better use of our public funds.
  In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt's Agriculture Secretary James 
Wilson wrote a letter to the first chief of the Forest Service, Gifford 
Pinchot. In that letter Wilson wrote, ``and where conflicting interests 
must be reconciled, the question should always be decided from the 
standpoint of the

[[Page 18578]]

greatest good for the greatest number over the long run.''
  The choice between buying art with our tax dollars or protecting our 
communities from the catastrophic wildfires should be a no-brainer. It 
does not take a rocket scientist to determine which of these programs 
benefit the ``greatest number over the long run.'' I hope the Members 
will keep Mr. Wilson's words in mind when they consider the merits of 
my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) 
seek the time in opposition?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The committee bill already 
includes a large $20 million increase for fuel reduction work, fully 
$15 million above the President's request. This work is essential, but 
the agencies can only ramp up so fast in, and extra funding is not 
needed this year.
  Our bill makes a very strong contribution to the national fire plan. 
It is something that the Members can be proud of.
  The bill also increases wildfire suppression funding by $179 million 
and an $89 million increase for wildfire land restoration, forest 
health projects, and State and community fire assistance. Despite the 
good intentions of this amendment, I must oppose it. We have a balanced 
bill, and we think that we can help in many areas, especially in the 
areas of forest restoration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. This would take $57 million 
out of the National Endowment for the Arts. I think that is a big 
mistake. We are going to work on these fire issues. The chairman and 
the committee have added funds for that purpose. We have money coming 
up in the emergency supplemental. So I think this amendment is not 
warranted and should be strongly opposed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, 
ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I would join both 
gentlemen in saying that some of these amendments I guess I would refer 
to as the ``anything you can do, I can do better'' amendments. It 
sometimes seems that no matter what the committee will do someone will 
want to move a dollar and a half around in order to make a political 
point. That is legitimate. Sometimes I do it. But I think we need to 
recognize it for what it is. There is no reason we ought to be robbing 
Peter to pay Paul. We ought to be funding both of these accounts 
adequately, and I would expect that by the time the bill works its way 
through the process, we will.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will make one final 
comment. No Member has worked harder to increase funding for 
firefighting in these bills than I have. The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and I have made this one of our very highest 
priorities and included a $335 million increase over the current year 
for firefighting programs. In addition, we have worked with the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to ensure that additional funds 
for the current fire season are included in the emergency supplemental 
bill which we hope to conference this week.
  So what I would suggest to the gentleman is that he should join us in 
opposing the Hefley amendment that would take another cut out of 
firefighting. But let us all oppose the Tancredo amendment for this 
meat-ax approach to the endowment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  We are interested in how this is playing out. The gentleman just a 
few minutes ago, in discussing the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. 
Hefley) amendment, said that these accounts were underfunded, that the 
President had not replenished them to the extent necessary, and I am 
giving the gentleman an opportunity to in fact replenish these funds.
  Any appropriations is a priority-setting document. That has been 
stated over and over again, and it is certainly the truth. So I am 
simply asking people on the floor of the House and this body to 
establish a priority here. What is more important? Is it, in fact, the 
preservation of our forests? Is it to try to mitigate against the 
catastrophic fires that we have been experiencing and that we will 
continue to experience because of the overloaded conditions in the 
forests? Is that more important than purchasing $50 million worth of 
art?
  The gentleman and I both know I think it is patently clear that, 
regardless of whether or not the Federal Government ever bought a piece 
of art or funded a particular artist, art would thrive in America. 
People would paint. People would do everything that they have been 
doing, regardless of whether or not the Federal Government chose to 
participate in that particular endeavor. So, again, I am just asking 
that the House establish a priority here. What is more important? Our 
forests or somebody's opinion of what is art and how everyone's 
constituents should be taxed to support it? I mean, that is really the 
question we are facing here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. 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 Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Add at the end, before the short title, the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into any new 
     commercial agricultural lease on the Lower Klamath and Tule 
     Lake National Wildlife Refuges in the States of Oregon and 
     California that permits the growing of row crops or alfalfa.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year since we last 
considered this amendment. In that period of time we have come right 
back to an era of water shortage. Actually, we had a little rain, but 
the controversy continues.
  Last year, after the amendment was voted on, we saw an unprecedented 
33,000 fish killed by what many claim was a direct result of a lack of 
water. Whether my colleagues think that was entirely the case or not, 
virtually any common-sense appraisal would understand that the water 
shortage did, in fact, contribute to the problem.
  We are in a situation, Mr. Chairman, where we have an elaborate 
system of plumbing in the Klamath Basin that basically we have a 
problem where there is not enough water. I have had people from the 
Basin calling our office expressing appreciation for raising these 
issues.
  Because the fundamental problem is not fish. It is not problems with 
the native Americans, the sportsmen or waterfowl, and it is certainly 
not the problem with the farmer. It is that the Federal Government has 
promised more than this elaborately plumed basin in the middle of a 
desert can deliver. We have overcommitted tens of billions of gallons, 
and we will continue to have all these problems. We will continue to 
see fish dying, wildlife

[[Page 18579]]

habitat destroyed, the demise of recreational commercial fishing 
activities, and we are going to continue to see farmers in the Basin 
pinched.
  The Federal Government right now, today, can make a small but 
significant improvement by reducing millions of gallons of peak summer 
demand.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto to be 
limited to 30 minutes to be divided as follows: 10 minutes to the 
proponent, 15 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and 5 minutes to the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. So the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is clear, 
his 10 minutes starts from now.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am happy to accommodate the recommendation of the chairman of the 
subcommittee. My point, Mr. Chairman, was that the Federal Government 
right now, today, can make a small but significant improvement by 
reducing millions of gallons of peak summer demand.
  Teddy Roosevelt helped designate one of these wildlife refuges as the 
first waterfowl refuge in 1908. We continue to lease water within these 
refuges for intensive agricultural uses. The amendment today would be 
an important step to stop making the problem worse. If the amendment 
were approved, we would be limiting the leases that expired this year, 
which are approximately 2,000 out of 20,000 acres.
  Number one, the basin limitation is what we do virtually everywhere 
else on wildlife refuges where there are few refuges where farming is 
allowed but there are controls. If there is truly an agricultural or 
economic imperative for some of the water-intensive crops, there is 
private land that is available in the region where people can pay 
market rate leases rather than having the ground cut out from 
underneath these private property owners by the Federal Government. It 
will be market rate, profits go to the local economy, and the Federal 
Government will not be wasting water on its land.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we send a signal today to lead by 
example. By pretending that water does not matter, that the interests 
of the Federal Government are supreme, that we can undercut the private 
market even if it is not good for wildlife, not good for endangered 
species, not good for other agricultural commitments or those to our 
native Americans--this is an easy, simple, direct environmental vote, 
and it is also a reaffirmation of our responsibilities as stewards of 
the land to start making the Federal Government part of the solution 
rather than continuing to be part of the problem.
  One of my major goals as a Member of Congress is that the Federal 
Government be a better partner in promoting livable communities, and 
the simplest way to do that does not require new rules, regulations, 
laws, or taxes but simply for the Federal Government to behave the same 
way we want the rest of the country to behave.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, that here in the Klamath Basin, where we are 
encouraging farmers to cut back because of their continuing water 
crisis, the Federal Government is prepared to extend leases on land 
that we owned for water-intensive agriculture. That is not just foolish 
and hypocritical. It is why we continue to have a problem in the 
Klamath Basin. It is always someone else's fault.
  By adopting the amendment that I am introducing with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), we will stop being hypocritical. We will lead by example, stop 
competing with private farmers who have land to lease, and we will stop 
pretending that steps that would save hundreds of millions of gallons 
and ultimately billions of gallons during the worst time of the year 
are inconsequential or worth nothing.
  It would be a tragedy if Congress did not accept this common-sense 
approach that would be better for farmers, better for wildlife, better 
for the environmental community and, most important, will start us down 
the road of recovery rather than wallowing in denial, acrimony, and 
recrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Lower Klamath and Tule 
Lake National Wildlife refuges were established with the expressed 
intent that agriculture uses of certain lands within the refuge should 
be continued. Under the law, not more than 25 percent of the total 
leased lands may be planted in row crops. The agricultural activities 
must be consistent with proper waterfowl management.
  Now, we should step back and allow the process to work. The amendment 
can only serve to further complicate a very complex and touchy 
situation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for bringing forward this amendment.
  I rise in support of this amendment, and I want to emphasize that 
this amendment is not anti-agriculture. This amendment is pro-water 
conservation.
  The water situation in the Klamath Basin is in bad straits. We are 
oversubscribed in the Klamath Basin and, as a result, last year some 
38,000 salmon, adult-spawning salmon in the lower Klamath Basin, were 
killed because of the oversubscription, the drought, and the extreme 
water problems that impact the entire Klamath Basin. This amendment 
will provide more water for fish without harming agriculture.
  The Klamath Basin water problems are not insurmountable. We can fix 
them. But it is going to require that all parties take a seat at the 
table and show a willingness to work towards a solution. I would 
encourage all, those who are opposed to this and those who are in 
support of it, to come together, finally come together, join forces and 
attempt to fix this problem. I think this amendment is a step in that 
direction. It frees up a lot of water that can be used to mitigate the 
environmental problem that led to the death of some 38,000 fish, the 
largest fish kill in the history of this country.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let me address this issue of the 
fish kill last year, because the science is really in dispute. Dave 
Vogel says, In 1988, and he is a scientist who has studied this 
carefully, a run totaling 215,322 salmon occurred on the Klamath River 
with identical flow conditions: 2,130 cfs in 1988; 2,129 cfs in 2002, 
but no fish die-off occurred. In 2002, there were 132,000 salmon and 
33,000 died.
  But why? Two dramatic and uncharacteristic cooling and warming trends 
occurred during late August and September where the Upper Klamath River 
was still naturally unsuitably warm that probably both attracted fish 
into the lower river and then exposed the fish to chronically and 
cumulatively stressful conditions.
  The point being, in 1988 we had nearly double the number of salmon 
coming back, there was no fish kill, and we had the same amount of 
water as in 2002 where we had about half the run coming back and we did 
lose fish. None of us wants to see a fish kill. We are all trying to 
work together; and I would welcome the opportunity to work with

[[Page 18580]]

my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), to find a 
global solution. But this is not it. This is not the solution.
  I have to raise an issue that was raised on this floor last night by 
my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Oregon, when he told the 
House that he would offer an amendment today, and I quote from his 
words last night: ``That would reduce water-intensive agriculture in 
one of the wildlife refuges in the United States where there is 
unregulated agriculture practicing on leased land dealing with the 
Klamath Basin.''
  I would suggest that that was a misstatement. It is a misstatement 
because, first of all, these lands are governed by the Kuchel Act 
passed in 1964 that says: ``Such lands shall be administered by the 
Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of major waterfowl 
management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use 
that is consistent therein.''
  The leases, and I have a copy here of the draft leases, these are 
what the farmers have to agree to. And it includes information relating 
to the previous year's operations which include a report of planting 
date, cultivar variety, seed and seed piece treatment, crop yield, and 
units of tons by acre, and harvest date; on and on, including what 
pesticides are used, irrigation, tillage, burning, fertilizers on each 
crop. This is regulated, I would suggest, more than the Chinese 
regulate their agriculture.
  Finally, these farmers work very hard to reduce pesticide use, and 
every year they are evaluated and they enter into probably the most 
progressive activity when it comes to limiting and reducing pesticide 
use that we have, and that is the integrated pest management concept. 
Time and again, they have entered into these agreements; and time and 
again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and even the courts have 
found that these lands are being used in a compatible way.
  Now, it is important to understand as well that even if we could find 
the water that was freed up by limiting crop restrictions on these 
2,250 acres, it would not go to the refuges. It would go to other uses 
having higher priority, which could include private farmland. The U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service realized this in their determination made in 
2002. Environmental groups sued on that determination and were 
unsuccessful.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also found that based on a USGS 
study that if you did not irrigate, I mean if you took irrigation 
completely off of these leased lands, at all, only a minor amount of 
water would be freed up because there would be a substantial 
consumptive use of water by the weeds.
  Now, their amendment basically tells farmers in my district, and 62 
percent of my folks have these leases, that they cannot grow onions, 
potatoes or alfalfa. They can only grow grain crops. And somehow, that 
is going to solve the problem or a part of the problem.
  What my colleagues may not understand is that onions use 1.88 acre 
feet of water per acre. Potatoes, the villain from last year, consume 
1.73 acre feet of water per acre. The very grain crops that you want 
them to only be able to grow consume 1.87 acre feet of water per acre, 
more than the potatoes use, equal to what the onions grow. Now, sure, 
maybe alfalfa consumes more water. But do my colleagues know what? If 
we just turned this over to wetlands, wetlands themselves consume 2\1/
2\ to 3\1/2\ times the amount of water that potatoes and onions 
consume. So if you turned this over to the noxious weeds, they will 
drink up more than these farmers will.
  Finally, these people have been devastated economically down there as 
farmers, and they have done enormous work to try and solve this 
problem. We spent $16 million putting in a new sophisticated fish 
screen in the canal that now routes nearly a million sucker larva down 
to three-eighths of an inch back into the river or into the lake. That 
would have languished forever. We got it done.
  In conclusion, we are making efforts through the EQIP money that my 
colleague from Oregon voted against when he voted against the farm bill 
to do water reduction efforts to have more efficient irrigation 
systems. That farm bill, too, which the gentleman voted against, 
included the study, the 1-year study for removal of Chiloquin Dam, 
which has now been completed which we restored access to 95 percent of 
the habitat for suckers on the Sprague River. It was a principal 
blockage and reason why the suckers were limited in the first place.
  My point is, we are taking action to try and solve the problem. This 
does not help.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) to respond to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me this time.
  I just want to make a couple of observations, and this has come from 
someone who voted for the farm bill and someone who actually farms. 
Again, this is not an antifarming amendment; it is a pro-water 
conservation amendment. That is what is needed in the Klamath Basin.
  I just want to raise the issue that the low flows that we were 
talking about, this last year when 38,000 adult-spawning salmon were 
killed, this was the lowest water flows ever recorded since they have 
been recording the flows out of Irongate, the lowest flows ever during 
the migration period of the salmon.
  The other thing I want to mention is that we can argue science all 
day, but there is one thing that is not arguable, and that is, fish 
need water. This is a good amendment. It is not antiagriculture. It 
does not have anything at all to do with the farm bill. There is 
nothing in it about chemicals or chemicals used in agriculture. This is 
water conservation. It will save fish. It will help farmers on both 
ends of the Klamath Basin. I ask for my colleagues' ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, so this amendment seeks to save the 
wildlife refuges of the Klamath Basin. From what, Mr. Chairman? Farming 
in the refuge of the Klamath Basin has occurred since they were created 
nearly 100 years ago. Today it continues to represent a shining example 
of how agriculture and wildlife cannot only coexist, but thrive 
together.
  And as if the farmers I represent in this area of Northern California 
have not suffered enough, it would cause them even more economic harm. 
And not unlike the disastrous decision that shut off 100 percent of 
their water just 2 short years ago, there is absolutely no valid 
justification or factual basis for it.
  Row crops are an essential part of the balance that embodies the 
lease land farm program. They are specifically required under the law, 
because they benefit wildlife and maximize revenues for farmers in 
local counties. On average, row crops have generated $10 million 
annually. If those same acres were planted only in grain, as this 
amendment would require, they would generate only $1 million. Make no 
mistake: that $9 million loss would cripple this economy.
  The irony, Mr. Chairman, is that despite the gentleman's desire to 
help wildlife, this measure would do precisely the opposite. For 
generations, farmers have worked and nurtured these lands for the 
benefit of the wildlife. Waterfowl populations in particular are 
thriving. Consider this statement from the California Waterfowl 
Association: ``For nearly 100 years, farmers and ranchers in the 
Klamath Basin have coexisted with immense populations of wildlife. Many 
wildlife species, especially waterfowl, are familiar visitors to their 
highly productive farms and ranches. Klamath Basin agriculture provides 
a veritable nursery for wildlife.''
  Row crops are not just an economic necessity to farmers; they provide 
food for migrating birds. Crop rotation improves the health of soil 
and, therefore, the productivity of the cereal grains that provide 
other essential wildlife benefits.

[[Page 18581]]

  Allow me to address the notion that this measure would somehow 
provide more water to the refuges. That is simply inaccurate. For 100 
years, all interests in the Klamath Basin, farmers, fish, and refuges, 
have gotten by together, sharing the pain and the profit alike. It was 
not until 2001 that the Endangered Species Act caused some interests to 
do without. Shortages are not the result of an overallocation; they are 
the result of environmental laws that do not allow for balance.
  Mr. Chairman, the lease land program is a win-win. It benefits the 
environment. The Fish and Wildlife Service have found that it is 
entirely compatible with refuge management, and a Federal district 
court has agreed. So what is the problem, Mr. Chairman? Why the 
persistent attacks on farmers when these facts are so clear?
  The purpose of the radical environmental groups supporting it is the 
removal of agriculture entirely. Consider that virtually the same 
groups behind today's amendment pursued a version several years ago to 
eliminate any new leases, and the same kinds of radical environmental 
groups have unsuccessfully attacked the program again and again in the 
courts.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look at the facts and consider 
the lives and the families of those who will be directly impacted 
should this amendment succeed. Reject this veiled attempt to undermine 
agriculture.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Klamath Basin is represented by 
three Members, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger), and myself from California. It has today 
about 50,000 people in it. It is one of the earliest reclamation 
projects in the United Nations. The Reclamation Act was passed in 1902, 
and this was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior in that same 
year.
  You will see here the cover of Life Magazine, January 20, 1947. By 
the way, it was 15 cents in those days. They have a homesteading 
veteran portrayed on the cover with his wife and family. People were 
attracted to this area by government policy to settle the area. It was 
a good area for farming, and it would be a benefit to the wildlife 
because of the refuges that existed there.
  I want to show you now a picture in 2001 of a real family that lives 
there, tries to farm there today under the very difficult circumstances 
imposed by the government. This is lease land farmer Rob Crawford and 
his family. You can see it does not look very inviting because that is 
what happens when you cut the water off. It is basically a desert.
  These people in our districts have suffered terribly at the hands of 
the government and misguided people who think they are trying to bring 
about a good policy. But they are not bringing about a good policy. 
This amendment is an anti-farming amendment. I do not care what the 
sponsors say. That is its effect. The wording of this amendment 
basically bars the alfalfa and the potatoes and the onions. Those are 
higher value crops. These are the crops that feed this family. But did 
you know that they are the crops that the wildlife feed on? The geese 
actually eats the potatoes after the first frost, the antelope come 
through for the alfalfa and the geese back again in the spring. So this 
is of great benefit. The law recognizes this benefit, and the whole 
system was set up so that this could occur.
  The proponents claim that their amendment will save water. It will 
save no water. The crops that they will restrict us to growing, which 
are lower-value crops and will throw people onto welfare, there will be 
no less water required to grow those crops than required to grow the 
higher-value crops that this amendment would prohibit. This is an anti-
farming amendment.
  If you set the precedent today that we as the Congress will going to 
dictate what crops a farmer can grow, watch out the rest of you, 
because today it is in a small part of remote northern California and 
southern Oregon but tomorrow it will be all over the country as these 
people with their agendas come after you and your families and your way 
of life. Vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has 6 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I did not come to the floor to speak on this 
amendment, but after hearing the debate I must rise. Because this is 
not a debate about farming versus the environment. This is a debate 
about economics versus economics. It is about coastal economics, where 
the majority of the population of the people in California live, versus 
interior economics. It is an issue that cries outs for a solution to 
both parties.
  There is not a win-win here. Without this amendment, you have a win-
lose.
  You have the entire tourism industry which is dependent on where this 
stream comes into the ocean which is dependent on that fish coming into 
the stream. There is an economic survival, both in the tourism and the 
fisherman there versus the farmers.
  Alfalfa is one of the most water-intensive crops that we grow in the 
United States. Certainly the farmers through best management practices 
can do with less water. We do that in our area all the time. We are 
always struggling to have it.
  What this problem cries out for is a solution for a win-win. In order 
to do that, somebody has to give up something.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was incorrect earlier. The gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
on this amendment, that this really does cry out for compromise.
  We have had some of the most bitter environmental battles in the 
Pacific Northwest over the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, salmon, 
and in most of these instances we have been able to sit down and work 
out a compromise on these important issues.
  What happened last year, and there may be a multitude of reasons, the 
death of these fish, I think, caused a tremendous impact not only in 
the Northwest but across the country; and we have a scientific study 
that will look into and give us the reasons for the loss of this fish. 
But the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Blumenauer) amendment I think is 
an attempt to try and deal with the basic underlying issue, that is, 
the allocation of water.
  We have the same problems in the State of Washington. We have to work 
out agreements between farmers and fishermen. And we work on these 
things, and it is not easy to accomplish. But the last thing we need to 
do is to end the dialogue.
  I heard my friends, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), say they were prepared to enter 
into a dialogue. I think there ought to be a dialogue with the Members 
and the agencies. But the one thing you have to do with situations like 
this is to rely on science. This cannot be done on emotion. We just 
heard a very emotional appeal. This has to be done on good science.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I fully concur with the gentleman 
about basing this on science. In fact, when we had the National Academy 
of Sciences review the biological opinions that set up the water cut-
off in 2001, the initial findings came back and said the decisions by 
the government were not backed up by science, and we are waiting for 
the final review now.

[[Page 18582]]

  This bill is a rifle shot at a very tiny piece of a huge problem. And 
as I mentioned in my comments, fixing the fish screen on the A canal, 
dealing with fish passage at Chiloquin, which will probably result in 
removal of that dam which I will support if that is what the consensus 
is, those are the things we can deal with.
  Mr. DICKS. Was water temperature here an issue?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Ambient temperature as much as water 
temperature are both issues. I will be happy to discuss this further 
with the gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  The gentleman raised a point that we stated in the beginning. I 
oppose this amendment because it will disrupt the very technical 
amendment that has been worked out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and his opposition to this amendment. As the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, I want to rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment as well.
  I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that 
compromise is certainly needed and sound science is certainly needed, 
but the sound science has not been put forward today, and this is not 
the place to be doing it. This is barely inside not being struck for 
being authorized on an appropriations bill, because all you are doing 
is limiting expenditures for specific crops.
  I would say that this is exactly the wrong place, and the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) ought to withdraw his amendment and work 
with the appropriate authorizing committees that are involved and 
interested in this as well as with the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor) to come up with a solution that works and not try to 
not compromise, which is exactly what you are doing here.
  You are trying to stuff this issue down the throats of the citizens 
of Eastern Oregon, and I would strongly oppose the amendment. The 
amendment would sacrifice farming families in the Klamath Basin by 
restricting the acres planted and restricting the options of families 
farming under the false premise of providing water for wildlife. You 
cannot replace some of the crops that you want to replace them with the 
crops that are being planted now because they are not as profitable. 
The farmers cannot make a living by having the government dictate to 
them what they should be doing. This is the wrong place with the wrong 
solution.
  In reality, the Blumenauer amendment would provide less food and 
water for the millions of waterfowl that use the Klamath National 
Wildlife Complex in California and Oregon each year.
  Congress itself has recognized the dual benefits of the leased lands, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is the only 
Member with time remaining, and he has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first two factual observations:
  One, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
suggested that we were going to be flinging these farmers off the 2,000 
acres that are leased and denying them a way to earn a living. There 
are people in the Basin who are trying to lease their own private land 
right now. I have heard from them. In fact, they were in the gentleman 
from California's (Mr. Herger) office yesterday. They have land to 
lease, but they are undercut in their efforts to lease their land 
because the Federal Government is leasing land at below-market rates.
  Now if there is a dramatic demand to grow water-intensive crops, 
there are private lands that are available to be leased. Nobody has 
made the argument that there is not. I have heard from farmers down 
there who have land ready to lease and wonder why we are competing with 
them.
  Second, several of my colleagues have said you are not saving any 
water because some of the things that you would permit to grow, if this 
amendment were enacted, actually consume more water. But what my 
friends did not tell you and, in fact, again, I had a farmer from the 
Basin yesterday in my office explaining why it is a savings of water, 
because they can take the water in the winter, charge the ground, do 
winter irrigation and the water is available for these serial crops in 
the summer. They do not have to irrigate during the summer when we do 
not have the water available.
  So it is a net gain because it takes the water when it is plentiful, 
put into the ground, store it up for the summer. It helps recharge the 
groundwater, and it uses less water when the fish need it, when the 
Native Americans need it, when it is needed for recreation activities 
that are far more valuable than just the agricultural interests alone.
  I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that the 
Federal Government is the culprit. Absolutely. We have promised more 
water to the Native Americans, to the farmers, to the needs of 
endangered species and wildlife, and it is time to stop pretending that 
we can blame it on somebody else.
  I have watched people play politics in the basin. I have watched the 
sad spectacle when law enforcement officials said they could not 
enforce the law. And people play to inflame the attitudes and emotions. 
I think that is wrong. I think that is sad.
  The problem in the basin is that the Federal Government has committed 
more than nature can produce, and for us to stop the nonsense of 
assuming that we can just be business as usual is the first step.
  I commend my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who has 
been working on this for years. I commend many of the issues that he 
wants to move forward in terms of dam removal and fish screens. I will 
support him. I will support major Federal investment to buy out willing 
sellers to reduce the water demand. Because unless and until we come 
face to face with the fact that we have promised more than we can 
deliver, we will be in this mess year after year after year.
  This amendment will not throw any farmers off the land. In fact, the 
farmers in the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) in 
the wildlife refuge do not irrigate. It will not affect the farmers in 
his district in the wildlife refuge. I wanted to make the point that it 
is not going to affect the farmers in the wildlife refuge in his 
district. The farmers that are in the Tule Lake area can go ahead. They 
can lease land if they want. But for the land that the Federal 
Government provides, it is time for us to face reality, limit the use 
away from water-intensive agriculture.

                              {time}  1230

  This is not trying to play the blame game. It is for the Federal 
Government to lead by example and stop leasing lands for water-
intensive agriculture, allow the water to be used at a time when it is 
most plentiful. They can continue like they have in the other part of 
the refuge.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote on a path towards a more 
sustainable future in the basin, cooperate where we can, but do not 
make it any worse by continuing to lease land in the refuge for water-
intensive agriculture.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes 
that the House of Representatives arbitrarily declare what crops a 
farmer can and cannot grow.
  I am concerned that this amendment is being sponsored by those who do 
not represent the areas affected--members who are from urban areas.
  This amendment is opposed by those who represent the communities that 
will be affected, those people who are closest to the land, and those 
who care the most for the land because it is where they live and where 
they raise their children.

[[Page 18583]]

  This amendment is targeted at the Klamath Basin--an area that has 
seen its farmers and entire economy devastated by actions taken by the 
federal government. I have traveled to the Klamath Basin and seen the 
effects first-hand.
  I also represent two very large reclamation projects--including one 
of the largest in the country--and the success of these farmers comes 
from their hard work, the care they give the land and diversity of 
their crops.
  Passage of this amendment would set a very bad precedent of the 
government stating what crops can be grown and which can't. The impacts 
of the amendment would directly harm farmers and communities. The 
precedent it sets would be far-reaching and very detrimental.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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 Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Herger) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, 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. 2691) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________