[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26466-26482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2691, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 418, I call up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 418, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 28, 2003, at page H9898.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2691, 
and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we bring to the House the conference agreement on H.R. 
2691, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2004.
  Let me take a moment to thank the members of the Interior 
subcommittees for their support and guidance this year. I want to 
especially and personally thank the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for the extraordinary assistance 
that he has given in helping us to shape this bill.
  This conference report balances many competing needs and stays within 
the 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. It is fiscally 
responsible, providing $19.6 billion for our public lands, Indian 
programs, and critical science and energy research programs, and for 
cultural institutions

[[Page 26467]]

like the Smithsonian Institution. It also provides $400 million as 
requested by the administration to repay partial funds borrowed from 
the program accounts to pay fire suppression. Also, another $289 
million for wild fires and I will talk about that again.
  You may hear that we are not doing enough for conservation programs 
in this bill. I disagree. Given the constraints allocated, we have 
provided over $1 billion for programs in the conservation spending 
category. But more to the point, there are a number of critically 
important conservation programs in this bill that have never been 
included in the conservation spending category, but are equally 
important. We provide increases of $65 million for national parks, $47 
million for national wildlife refuges, $27 million for forest health, 
$10 million for hazardous fuel reduction. And I would like to argue 
that most of the funding of this bill is for conservation activities.
  Some Members will argue that we need to buy a lot more Federal land. 
What we really need to do is a better job of taking care of the lands 
we have, and this bill does that by providing additional operation 
increases and funds for critically backlogged maintenance activities.
  Firefighting needs are addressed in this bill as I mentioned before, 
$400 million in the President's requested amount and another $289 
million above the enacted level for suppressing the wild fires. That is 
almost $700 million for the fire programs. We continue to provide 
support for the national fire plan with the investment of $2.5 billion. 
We support preparedness activities so that we have the people and the 
equipment in place to handle wild fires. We provide funding increases 
for hazardous fuel reduction, State fire assistance and forest health 
programs. And with the passage of that bill, I think we can stop many 
of the fires that we will have to contend with this past year.
  We have provided substantial new resources to handle the Southern 
pine beetle and mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the West. I am proud 
of the balance we have achieved in these critical programs that are 
important to all Americans.
  The bill ensures that energy research programs are appropriately 
funded and that we maintain a proper mix between research on 
improvements to existing technologies and longer-term higher risk on 
new technologies. We need to keep all of our options open and not fall 
into the trap of picking winners and losers.
  When it comes to energy resources, ultimately the consumer, not the 
government, will determine what energy technologies will be successful 
in the marketplace.
  The bill provides for the continued crux of critically needed schools 
and hospitals for American Indians and Alaskan natives. It also 
includes a 1-year limitation of funds for historical accounting.
  The September 25, 2003, court order would require the Department of 
the Interior to spend an estimated $9 billion for an accounting that 
benefits attorneys and accountants. This subcommittee has maintained 
that this lawsuit continues to divert scarce resources away from 
critical programs that benefit Indian people and other programs in the 
bill. If we were to fund this court-required historical accounting, we 
would have to shut down one-third of the U.S. Department of the 
Interior. We would critically underfund education for Indians and 
health care for Indians. This is not worth the recommendation of the 
accountants and lawyers.
  Finally, the bill takes care of our cultural agencies and provides 
the funding needed to ensure that the Smithsonian Institute maintains 
its responsibility for providing quality visitor services and world-
renowned research. It provides increases above the enacted level for 
the National Gallery of Art and for the National Endowment for the Arts 
and the Humanities. The conference agreement for the interior and 
related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 strikes an 
appropriate balance among competing funds needs, and I ask for support 
for this bill.

[[Page 26468]]





[[Page 26469]]



[[Page 26470]]



[[Page 26471]]



[[Page 26472]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and his staff. We had a 
very cooperative working relationship on this conference committee. I 
am pleased that we have very substantial funding in this bill for 
firefighting. I see my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), whose district has been ravaged by these forest fires recently; 
and I know he has been working hard to make sure that the forest 
service and the BLM have adequate resources to deal with these issues.

[[Page 26473]]

  I want to also mention that we had a nice vote here on the House 
floor to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and 
Humanities. Both of those increased this year, $6.7 million for the 
National Endowment for the Arts; and I want to thank the chairman for 
his efforts on that in our conference committee.
  We have had questions on privatization studies, as we have been 
debating all afternoon. I think the provision that we worked out in 
this bill is a good one and will protect government workers.
  As was mentioned by the chairman, we had a very low figure in the 
House bill for lands and water conservation for acquisition of Federal 
lands for our Federal agencies. That number came up in conference 
committee. I, of course, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
we were two of the authors, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) of the conservation spending amendment, we are disappointed 
that we have not been able to keep that funding level where it should 
have been under the agreement that was reached in 2000. But one of our 
problems is with the budget resolution; our committee has gotten a very 
low allocation; and the strategy of the majority has been to try to 
take care of the Forest Service, the Park Service the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the major agencies and that is understandable, though I regret 
that we cannot do more on the Conservation Trust Fund.

                              {time}  1915

  So I think all in all this is a good bill. We are going to have a 
little debate here on other matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control 
that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations conference report contains 
language which represents nothing less than a gag order on some 500,000 
American Indians who have waited over 100 years for an accounting of 
their trust funds accounts by the Federal Government.
  On two occasions, we have fought similar provisions. Last year, I 
offered an amendment on the House floor to strip language with a 
similar intent from the Interior appropriations bill and it prevailed 
overwhelmingly. This year, our chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) took the same action and he was also successful.
  Yet this language keeps rising from the dead in this conference 
report. In effect, it would destroy a Federal court's order to the 
Interior Department to fully account for amounts derived from royalties 
and other receipts from lands in Indian country. Going even further, 
this provision appears to shield officials of the Interior Department 
from judicial actions requiring compliance, such as contempt of court 
citations.
  This is, simply put, appalling. It is an affront to the American 
system of government, especially our judiciary system, and it 
undermines the long-standing trust responsibility we have for Indian 
Nations and individuals. It is, in my view, unconstitutional and will 
most assuredly cause more litigation and more mistrust of Congress 
throughout Indian country.
  The Committee on Resources is in the middle of hearings on a 
settlement process of the Cobell litigation, and this sneak attack only 
makes it harder for us to conduct our business with the trust of those 
involved.
  How long will it take for the Interior Department to quit with the 
gimmicks and sleight of hand and legislative riders that are snuck into 
appropriation bills without any consultation with Indian tribes or 
representatives of the individual account holders or even the chairman 
of the appropriate committee? How long will it take for the Interior 
Department to step up to the plate and accept responsibility and act 
responsibly in fulfilling its commitment, statutory and moral 
commitment I might add, to these aggrieved parties? Apparently, we 
should not hold our breath waiting for that to happen.
  I urge a vote for the motion to recommit so that this matter can be 
addressed, and that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), and pending that, I urge defeat of the conference report.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my strong support for 
the appropriations conference report. I think the committee's done a 
great job.
  They have dealt with backlog maintenance which is extremely important 
in terms of maintaining our parks and giving the public the quality 
experience they expect.
  I was also pleased to see they extended the fee program. We are 
working to pass permanent legislation authorizing the direct fee 
program, but I would point out that this program has produced over $1 
billion in the past years. It has gone into improving the quality of 
the visitor experience, and the money has stayed largely in the park 
that has produced it. I believe the public, generally, has been very 
supportive because they recognize that they are the beneficiaries of 
the small fees for using the public lands.
  Also, I was pleased to see that the Committee restored cuts in the 
USGS budget, restored the cuts made in the President's budget. This is 
an extremely important agency because it allows us to understand the 
science of the earth and to better manage the resources of our programs 
that are their responsibility.
  Everglades, again, this bill continues our strong support for the 
restoration of the Everglades, provides $68 million toward the historic 
initiative, and it does have the assurance from the State of Florida 
that it will meet its obligations.
  Energy programs, extremely important to our Nation's economy. We are 
a Nation of large consumers of energy, and this is essential to the 
quality of life that we enjoy. I am particularly interested in 
developing programs to develop vehicles that will use natural gas. I 
think this is one of the ways to save our petroleum reserves and make 
us less dependent on imports. It is something that we are moving 
toward. A lot of buses, if my colleagues notice, around the city are 
powered by natural gas. The technology is clearly workable. It is a 
matter of getting infrastructure, and I would hope that the committee 
that does the reform of the transportation bill will recognize that 
there should be some funds to develop infrastructure for the fueling of 
natural gas vehicles.
  On balance this is a very good bill, given the limited resources 
available.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democratic member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a mixed bag. There is 
much in it to commend it, and I especially want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for the 
way that he has fairly involved the majority and minority in the 
fashioning of this bill, and also for the fact that he has treated 
Members with great fairness in my judgment.
  There are two problems that I see with the bill that I find 
troublesome. First, there are a number of what I consider to be 
antienvironmental riders involving Alaska and other areas. I would say, 
frankly, that these are not the worst antienvironmental riders I have 
seen in an Interior bill, but I guess that is damning, by faint praise, 
from my perspective.
  I think the basic problem is that the bill falls $447 million short 
of measuring up to the agreement that this committee signed on to 3 
years ago. At that time, a majority of the House had signed on to what 
was known as the CARA bill which would have created land acquisition 
programs and land

[[Page 26474]]

conservation programs as an entitlement. Those of us on the Committee 
on Appropriations thought institutionally that was the wrong thing to 
do, and so we tried to work out an alternative. And we did. That 
alternative said that funds for those programs would be first in line 
in this bill for the next 6 years, and we spelled out a specific 
funding schedule that was supposed to be met over that time period.
  Unfortunately, the committee has now, in essence, walked away from 
that agreement. At the time that we entered into that agreement, 
because I was one of the parties to it, I pledged that if the committee 
at any time walked away from that agreement that I would vote against 
any legislation that was at variance with that agreement. And so I feel 
constrained to have to vote against the bill today. I am sorry about 
that, but I believe that we are making a long-term mistake, 
institutionally, by not living up to that agreement.
  I recognize the committee is short of resources. I think that the 
House should have corrected that by making more resources available so 
we would have not been in this jackpot. Nonetheless we are, and so that 
is why I, despite many of the good things in the bill, feel constrained 
to vote against it when the rollcall is called.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding me this time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking 
member, has referred to the fact that I am facing a rather tremendous 
challenge in California with the devastation that is impacting my 
District directly. In talking early this morning with one of my very 
dear friends that has great expertise in this arena of professional 
work, it was from him that I first heard the reality that there are two 
kinds of money that involve fire money. When we are talking about 
protecting the forest and trying to get the dollars that are necessary 
to clear the brushes, make sure we do not have too many trees go 
through, et cetera, et cetera, that kind of money is very, very 
difficult to come by, and then suddenly we have a disaster, a fire, and 
a green light goes on. The difference is red money, green money. A 
green light goes on, and whatever is available or required suddenly 
comes forth.
  The deal with the challenges in my forest in recent years was we 
worked very hard to try to get some money to lay the foundation for a 
better management of the forests. Just in the last couple of years, we 
have finally gotten as much as $30 million. This evening, later, we 
will be considering the supplemental. After the fires had begun in the 
West, and within that package, there is a $500 million addition to the 
process that will help us deal with these problems in the West now, 
after the fire occurred.
  So I have great empathy for the challenges of the people on this 
committee who struggle to get adequate dollars up front to make sure we 
are managing our forests well, and it takes the kind of challenge we 
are facing at this moment to really bring the point home.
  I would have my colleagues know that I am very sensitive about my 
following remarks, and I would have the Chair be very careful with me, 
for it is a very unusual thing for me to do. Each of us has two U.S. 
Senators in each of our States. And in my case, there are two U.S. 
Senators and they are speaking about this general subject area, and I 
find great confusion here. I am going to be very careful as I refer to 
the other body and even Members in the other body to only use 
quotations from those individuals, but it makes it a very significant 
point as it relates to this bill.
  So in an attempt to do that, I would speak of one of my Senators 
first. The gentlewoman speaking on the Senate floor about the healthy 
forest legislation currently under consideration has said, ``We have an 
open invitation to destroy our forests without getting anything back 
for it. There are no limits on old growth forest logging. Timber 
companies will pick the trees they want with no veto from the forest 
service and a complete change from what we have had before.''
  My other colleague, another Senator from California, has been heard 
to say about this same proposal, speaking on the Senate floor and 
saying, ``This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify 
it, I think, falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be 
cleared out, and it would also provide the first statutory protection 
for old growth stands and large trees ever in the history of this 
Nation. I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation, 
and it seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests 
and restore their healthy condition.''
  Two contrasting points of view that are difficult for me to 
understand from two Senators from the same State, but they make the 
point that unless we are able to recognize that there are very serious 
challenges here and recognize that this bill attempts to begin to deal 
with some of those challenges, we will never overcome the kind of 
tragedy that we are now experiencing in the West.
  There are some 18 people who have died in southern California. Over 
2,600 homes have been burned. Three-quarters of a million acres have 
been burned. At this very moment in regions in my District, literally 
thousands of families are trying to figure out what to do with the rest 
of their life because I think we have not in the past been able to give 
the kind of broadly-based support that we need to give to this 
subcommittee.
  I think the report we have before us tonight is a reflection of very 
fine work between the ranking member and the chairman of our 
subcommittee. I very much appreciate their effort, but I want them to 
know from this Member's perspective, tonight's work is just another 
down payment. We will be making a down payment as it relates to the 
supplemental later. Indeed this down payment is very, very significant, 
and I want my colleagues to know that I appreciate the work they have 
done.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I wanted to say something to the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense. The gentleman served as a chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, and FEMA was under my 
colleague's jurisdiction. When FEMA has an expenditure it gets 
reimbursed.

                              {time}  1930

  In our situation, with the Forest Service and the BLM, they take 
money from all of the accounts of the agency, go spend it fighting the 
fires, and then we do not reimburse it completely. It is not automatic. 
It has to be appropriated, and we do not do it as completely as we 
should. I think the FEMA example is a better way to go.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would like to respond that in the recent reorganization, we shifted 
FEMA from VA-HUD to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. So there has 
been that change. And we have appropriated additional money there 
because in the middle of last year FEMA was running out of money. They 
were at least talking about the shortage. Suddenly we are going to add 
some money to that pool that they can draw from, and certainly that is 
a reflection of the challenges throughout the West.
  Colorado, just today, has another new problem. But before another 6 
months goes by, even FEMA is going to be stretched to the wall again, 
and that is why what the gentleman did last night was very important, 
and I appreciate my colleague's support.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a very valued member of the Committee on 
Resources and one of the strongest fighters for Native Americans in 
this body.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion that 
will be made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to recommit, 
because of the provision that keeps the Department of the Interior from 
performing its legal responsibility and further delays justice to a 
half million

[[Page 26475]]

account holders who have been waiting for an accounting of the 
individual Indian trust for more than 100 years.
  This so-called time-out provision is objectionable because it would 
require that the 1994 American Indian Trust Management Reform Act not 
be interpreted to require the Department of the Interior to conduct a 
full historical accounting. This is a way to avoid an order by a 
Federal judge in the Cobell v. Norton case, who just last month ordered 
the Department of the Interior to perform a complete accounting of the 
individual Indian trust.
  This provision provides zero incentive for the Department of the 
Interior to mediate or negotiate a settlement of the Cobell case; and 
it sends a terrible message to the Indians that when they finally get 
their day in court, Congress will pull the rug out from under them.
  Mr. Speaker, just last year this House overwhelmingly voted to strike 
a similar provision from the 2003 interior appropriation bill. 
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this provision violates the House rule 
against legislating on appropriation bills. It also violates the House 
scope rule because it was not included in either the House or the 
Senate fiscal year 2004 interior appropriation bill.
  The authorizing committee has started an important dialogue about the 
options to settle the Cobell case. It is critical that the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Committee on Resources, be permitted to continue its 
work without interruption. I urge my colleagues to support the motion 
to recommit; and if that fails, to vote against the conference report.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend 
the chairman and the staff on both sides for working on what I think is 
a good bill and one that I think meets the needs of firefighting, an 
issue that has not always been treated appropriately.
  I guess what a lot of people do not realize is that when we have 
these fires and do not fund them, the money is taken from all the other 
accounts. Now, think of running your business and the money for the new 
building you are halfway through building, money for other forest 
projects you are on, is suddenly snatched away from you and you just 
have to stop until the money comes back when it is restored. I do not 
think anybody realizes how we have had the bureaus managing our land 
working with these forest issues that have been hitting us year after 
year after year. So I am pleased that there has been a major effort 
this year, $3.2 billion, in different ways; some repayment of funds 
used, but money to prevent fires, money to fight fires, and money to 
replenish accounts.
  I am also pleased to see some progress on PILT. But I want to 
challenge the body. Payment in lieu of taxes has been an undervalued 
account here. When we take millions of acres, we own a third of the 
country and we only spent $227 million. It is still a pittance 
nationwide for our payment of taxes. Because when we take all of this 
acreage out of the economy, it does not pay taxes. But those people 
living in those regions have to have roads and schools and services, 
and we need to continue to improve there.
  I was pleased that we had a $61 million increase for national parks, 
$24 million for the National Wildlife Refuge, $30 million for 
geological survey, $29 million for the national forests, and $6 million 
for weatherization.
  And I was really pleased to see that that fossil energy research was 
increased by $60 million. Now, there has been a lot of money here, not 
wanting to put money into fossil research, because we all want to use 
renewables. I want to use renewables. But the renewables have not taken 
the place of fossil fuels.
  One final statement I would like to make. When we add up the energy 
used in the world today, geothermal, wind and solar are .56 of 1 
percent. My colleagues, we have to have fossil fuel research.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who is cochair of the Native 
American Caucus.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Virginia 
for yielding me this time. At the outset, let me say my affection and 
admiration for my colleague from North Carolina, the chairman of this 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, knows no 
bounds. There is much to praise in this bill; and yet as this 
legislation came together in conference, an indignity has been thrust 
upon this body and the legislative branch of government.
  What we witness tonight, my colleagues, is the triumph of the 
unelected, where legislative staffers, along with staffers from the 
executive branch, presume to know more than the duly elected officials 
of this body. And so in a closed conference, in 15 minutes' time, a 
provision is added to this bill which passed neither the House nor the 
other body and is thrust upon us at the last nanoseconds of the 11th 
hour in a cynical attempt to say, Come on, we dare you. There is needed 
firefighting money in here. We dare you to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, there may be some who interpret this as a turf battle. 
That would be a serious mistake. This is not a turf battle. This cuts 
to the core of our legislative branch and our system of coequal and 
separate branches of government.
  We cannot allow the First Americans to remain the Forgotten 
Americans. This House has taken action time and again to reaffirm the 
rights of Native Americans on the trust fund accounts. I will grant 
every Member of this body it is a difficult issue. But, Mr. Speaker, 
the fact remains those of us on the Committee on Resources that have 
the jurisdiction, many of us will meet in my home State of Arizona 
Monday as I will chair a field hearing on this very topic. And now what 
we are seeing happen, if passage of this legislation takes place 
tonight, it renders those hearings a moot point. It silences the First 
Americans. It assures they remain the Forgotten Americans.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is the wrong thing to do.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  If we are to keep on time, the Chair requests that Members stay 
within their allotted times.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
conference report on the interior appropriation bill. It is a 
reasonable and responsible measure to meet the natural resources, 
recreational, energy, and cultural needs of our citizens.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), chairman of this 
subcommittee, has done an excellent job in working with the Senate to 
provide a balanced conference report that sets the right priorities, is 
fiscally responsible, and reflects the values of the majority in the 
House. One of these priorities, of course, is more money and resources 
to combat and control wildfires. The bill includes $2.5 billion for the 
national fire plan, as well as an additional $400 million to repay 
wildfire suppression expenses from last year.
  In addition to providing these historic levels for firefighting, the 
bill recognizes that we must do more than fight fires once they have 
started. It takes an integrated fire plan approach which funds wildfire 
suppression and preparedness, hazardous fuels reduction, and forest 
health and rehabilitation activities.
  I am very pleased that it includes money for new forest pest 
management in the initiatives, including funds for the wooly hemlock 
adelgids in the East and the Southern pine beetle and Western mountain 
bark beetles.
  I think we need to address the Indian issue. No one wants, more than 
the members of this committee, to address this issue. But it does not 
make any common sense to spend between $9 billion and $12 billion over 
a 3-year period without a single dime going to the Indians. This gives 
us a cooling-off period

[[Page 26476]]

that we can get this thing done, because if we spend $9 billion to $12 
billion for an accounting system that gets us no result, there will not 
be money for wildland fire funding, Indian education and health care, 
national parks, PILT, and so on.
  This bill should be passed. I commend Chairman Taylor and the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for the 
outstanding job they did under tight budget constraints in meeting the 
stewardship responsibilities of the Congress. I urge adoption of the 
conference report.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), another valued member of our 
Committee on Resources and truly a strong fighter for Native Americans 
in this body.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) 30 seconds.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for centuries, American Indians were forced 
to give up their ancestral lands by this country's early settlers. It 
was one of the most shameful episodes in American history.
  The U.S. Government subsequently placed the Indian lands in trust. 
But the Department of the Interior has not met its trust responsibility 
and American Indians were forced to sue in court to protect their 
rights. Now, the court has made a decision in favor of the American 
Indians, and this conference report would essentially delay or reverse 
that court's decision.
  I think it is wrong for this Congress to deny justice to over 500,000 
of America's first citizens. Mr. Speaker, instead, we should reaffirm 
our commitment to Native Americans. That process begins here and now 
with this vote. By voting to recommit the interior appropriation bill, 
the antitrust reform language has a chance to be removed from the bill 
and a proper solution can be reached involving the Indian tribes.
  Keep in mind, the tribes were not consulted in this process. This is 
something that is coming from the Department of the Interior to reverse 
a court decision. There is no input from the Indian nations.
  Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. Let us begin to 
rebuild the trust relationship with American Indians so that we can put 
this ugly stain on American history behind us. We cannot do that by 
unilaterally doing this in the interior appropriation bill conference 
report. The only way it can be done is through the hearings that the 
Committee on Resources is now having. They are having them around the 
country, and they are allowing the Indian tribes to be involved in 
whatever solution we come up with.
  Now, I know that the authors here are well intentioned with this 
provision, but the bottom line is it delays or reverses the court's 
decision. What kind of signal does that send to Indian country? The 
wrong decision. Vote to recommit. And then if it does not pass, vote to 
turn this bill down. Vote against the bill.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise with reluctance to oppose this bill. 
I have not opposed an appropriations bill for many years. I appreciate 
the difficulty the subcommittee chairman and the gentleman from Florida 
have with the Senate, with the budget, and with all of the demands from 
Members, but I stand with the chairman of the Committee on Resources. I 
believe the administration committed an egregious process, a mistake, 
in going around the authorizing committee at the last minute without 
even telling the authorizing committee, and we cannot do business that 
way.
  I have a second problem with the bill, but it would not have caused 
me to vote against the bill. I believe the provision by the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) on the National Park Service should 
have been left in the bill. It is the most successful outsourcing 
organization in the country, and instead of attacking the most 
successful and highly-rated government organization in the country, 
even with the guidelines of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) which are very well written, basically guarantee that this 
money will be wasted.
  This is the type of thing that when President Bush has made national 
parks a centerpiece, his staff did him a disservice by having this in 
the bill that is aggressively focused at the park service when they are 
already over a majority, one of the only organizations in the 
government that is over a majority already outsourced, it is not only 
wrong, wasteful, but it is politically stupid. I hope we can get this 
fixed with the administration as we work through. I know the committee 
understands my concerns, and we will continue to work with them, but we 
have to have some kind of process where the authorizing committees are 
respected, and I stand with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  It is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose this appropriations 
bill. I rarely vote against appropriations bills because I know how 
hard it is to reach the compromises necessary to pass these bills.
  I rise partly in opposition to the imposed language, with no 
participation from the authorizing committee on the Tribal funds issue. 
We have clear conference guidelines to protect against this very thing 
and this was a blatant violation that threatens the committee system.
  Secondly, I deeply believe that the provisions on outsourcing in the 
National Park Service is a terrible policy mistake. I have been a 
consistent supporter of competitive bidding, outsourcing and/or 
privatization. But the way OMB is approaching this issue endangers the 
process as a whole.
  Employee work in our national parks is already under 50 percent. It 
is a serious story. Some outsourcing has been pulled back because, for 
example, private contractors found that it was hard to remove waste 
from remote mountain ranges. Or they only wanted to do it when economic 
times were hard. In other cases, bids were sought and none arrived.
  In other words, the National Park Service is a success model. But if 
OMB won't distinguish between success and failure, if money must be 
wasted in a never-ending hunt, not only will organizations like the 
National Park Service become demoralized, there will be no voluntary 
efforts, even more resistance and bitterness, and eventually a revolt 
against all outsourcing.
  Relatively mindless ``cookie-cutter'' approaches are an abdication of 
responsible government. The National Park Service rangers have among 
the highest, if not the highest, public approval ratings of any 
government or private sector employee. Even if the Park Service wasn't 
already 50 percent contracted out, why fix something that is not 
broken? We have enough problem areas on which to focus.
  Furthermore, President George W. Bush fully understands the 
importance of our national parks, to our nation, and from his personal 
comments, to his family.
  While the President favors outsourcing, as I do, it is poor staff 
work to further attack the National Park Service and waste more funds 
on outsourcing. Instead, the funds should be used to help eliminate the 
national parks maintenance backlog. Or it could be used to reduce the 
$30 million this bill is overbudget. Instead of staff attacking the 
National Park Service, the President should be told of its successes, 
and bragging about it.
  The original House language exempted the National Park Service. By 
friends and colleagues, Congressman Tom Davis and Pete Sessions were 
going to introduce an amendment to remove the provision. After 
discussions, during which it was apparent the amendment would likely 
overwhelmingly lose, they withdrew their amendment. Later in the bill, 
Congressman Bereuter offered a specific exclusion amendment for the 
archaeological centers. He won overwhelmingly. Repeatedly this House 
has made it clear that the National Park Service is not like other 
agencies.
  I do want to thank the Committee for definitive language forcing 
detailed guidelines on such studies. It means that, most likely, most 
of the outsourcing dollars being spent will be wasted money but at 
least it will be reasonably fair. As chairman of a subcommittee with 
National Parks oversight and as a member of the Resources full 
committee and National Parks subcommittee, I will be closely monitoring 
every threat to dangering our Park Service.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

[[Page 26477]]


  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
on H.R. 2691. I am generally supportive of the bill's thrust and 
appreciate the good work of both the Committee on Appropriations 
chairman and subcommittee chairman. However, the provision inserted 
into this legislation relating to the Indian trust issue makes it 
personally unacceptable for a variety of reasons.
  It is unacceptable, first, because it amounts to legislating in an 
appropriation bill, and I find that unfortunate.
  Second, it was not included in either the original House or Senate 
bill, and consequently did not receive the scrutiny and debate that it 
deserved.
  Finally, it is an effort, I think, inappropriately, to derail a 
judicial process that is already in progress. It is unfortunate that we 
are at this particular moment, and I regret having to vote against this 
bill. But I think had we operated through the Committee on Resources, 
let the processes in place work out, we could have arrived at a 
solution to the problem that was fair and equitable and trusted by all 
sides. It is with great reluctance that I rise in opposition.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report on 
H.R. 2691, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. I am supportive of the general 
thrust of this bill, particularly the emergency funds to help fight the 
wildfires in the West. Moreover, I recognize the need to finish 
appropriation bills on a timely basis.
  I respect the Appropriations Committee chairman and subcommittee 
chairman who laid out the broad framework for this generally laudable 
appropriations measure. I want to be clear that my criticisms of the 
substance of one part of this bill in no way are intended to reflect on 
the fine work and integrity of the chairman and the members of the 
committee.
  However, I feel compelled to vote against H.R. 2691 because of one 
provision in the bill concerning the Indian Trust issue. This provision 
was inserted in language funding the Office of the Special Trustee for 
American Indians and would dictate the manner in which the Department 
of the Interior undertakes a complete historical accounting of 
individual Indian Trust accounts. It is clearly the first step in a 
process designed to impose rather than negotiate a settlement of Indian 
Trust account claims and to do so for as little money as possible 
regardless of the merits of individual cases or the historical 
culpability of the Federal Government in the mismanagement and theft of 
Native American assets held in trust.
  This provision clearly violates the House Rule against legislating in 
an appropriations bill. Moreover, it undermines the excellent work of 
the Resources Committee, which has held two hearings on the Indian 
Trust issue and has been in the process of building a bipartisan 
framework to settle the Indian Trust issue in wake of the questions 
arising out of the so-called Corbel litigation. If this conference 
report is approved in its present form it will hinder the efforts of 
the Resources Committee to resolve this issue fairly and honorably for 
all concerned.
  In addition to being legislatively and procedurally unsound, the 
provision in question is clearly designed to limit the ability of 
Native Americans to pursue their legitimate claims in court. Frankly, I 
predict that this effort will fail. However, it will cost the litigants 
and the Federal Government more rather than less money in the long run. 
Moreover, it will further poison the historically poor relations 
between Indian tribes and the Federal Government.
  Frankly, I am appalled that this language was included in the 
conference report on H.R. 2691 since it was not part of either the 
original House of Senate Interior appropriation bills. It was added in 
the dead of night in order to avoid legislative scrutiny and open 
debate. This is a clear violation of the spirit if not the letter of 
the normal rules that govern the legislative process. It discredits the 
legislative process and should embarrass and disappoint every member of 
this body regardless of their position on the issue.
  In my opinion, this language delays justice for half a million 
individual Indian Trust beneficiaries who have waited over 100 years 
for a full and fair accounting of the property which the Federal 
Government holds in trust for them. This is both reprehensible and 
unacceptable. I intend to work within the framework of this institution 
to see that the mischief done in this appropriations bill is ultimately 
undone.
  Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that this provision was added to this 
otherwise praiseworthy and essential piece of legislation. Its 
inclusion makes it impossible for me or any other member who cares 
about the rights of Native Americans to support this bill. However, I 
take comfort in the fact that this issue will be dealt with again, both 
in the courts and in the halls of the Congress of this great republic.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources who 
I have had the pleasure to work with, and who is very capable and fair.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is with regret and a certain reluctance that I come to the floor 
tonight in opposition to the Interior appropriations bill. I think that 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) have done an excellent job with this bill, and 
it is probably one of the best Interior appropriation bills that I have 
seen during my time in Congress.
  But having said that, the addition of language dealing with the 
Indian trust issue, the Cobell v. Norton decision has forced me to rise 
in opposition to the bill. I will say to my friends, my colleagues, 
this is the wrong thing to do. It is wrong to put this into an Interior 
appropriations bill. When the Interior appropriations was moving 
through the House of Representatives, there was a provision that dealt 
with Cobell. It was a different provision, very different than what is 
in this bill, and I want to make that clear. However, that provision 
was struck and part of the debate, part of the discussion that went on 
on this floor was that the authorizing committee would have the 
opportunity to sit down and work our way through a hundred year old 
problem, and we are doing it.
  We have held a number of hearings in our committee. We have held a 
number of field hearings. As the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
said, he is holding a hearing on Monday dealing with this issue. The 
only way we are going to solve this problem is if we have the 
opportunity to sit down, to consult, to negotiate, and to ultimately 
reach a settlement. We are not going to do it by some rider put on in 
an appropriations bill. The only way we are going to solve this problem 
is if the authorizing committee, if the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall), myself, the members of my committee, have the opportunity 
to sit down with those that are impacted by this and do what is the 
best thing possible for the American taxpayer and for the Native 
American community in this country. That is how we are going to solve 
this problem.
  We are not going to do it on a rider. This is the wrong way to settle 
this problem. I appreciate that this is only good for a year and it is 
a cooling-off period as some of my colleagues have said. I am sorry, we 
do not do it on an appropriations bill, and I do not care who wants it. 
The only way we can solve this problem is to sit down and consult, 
negotiate, and ultimately lead to a settlement. That is what we are in 
the middle of doing, and I will pledge along with the ranking member, 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), that we will continue to 
work on that and we will get it done. But, Mr. Speaker, do not do it on 
an appropriations bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to a member 
of the Cherokee Indian Nation, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am here to voice my strong 
objections to the language included in the fiscal year 2004 Interior 
appropriations bill. This language, as has been discussed, delays 
justice to over 500,000 individual Indian money account holders.
  I represent a district with the most heavily Native American 
population in the entire country. And as a member of the Committee on 
Resources, the committee with jurisdiction over this important matter, 
I had no opportunity nor ability to participate in discussion on this 
language's effect on my constituents.
  For this reason, although I am a strong supporter of a number of 
provisions in this bill, I cannot in good conscience vote for it. I 
respectfully request that my colleagues vote yes on the motion to 
recommit and no on final passage.

[[Page 26478]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and I also want to express 
my respect for the work the gentleman has done on this bill and the way 
it has been done. But unfortunately, for reasons that are largely 
beyond his control, there are serious defects and deficiencies in this 
bill, so at the appropriate time I intend to offer a motion to 
recommit.
  This conference report breaks the promise to maintain the fully 
funded Interior portion of the Conservation Trust Fund, and that would 
be at $1.56 billion. The Conservation Trust Fund was groundbreaking, 
bipartisan conservation legislation designed to protect the Nation's 
threatened natural resources. To abandon it after only a few years 
violates a commitment that this House and this Congress made to the 
American people. Instead of the promised $1.56 billion, the bill 
contains just over $1 billion, $447 million below the authorized level 
and $87 million even below that appropriated last year.
  This funding level is an assault on the ability of the Nation to 
conserve lands and protect sensitive forests and parks. This funding is 
important because the American people value the programs in the 
Conservation Trust Fund for protecting open space and historic sites, 
conserving wildlife and wildlands, and creating opportunities for 
recreation for both body and soul. Because of these cuts, some 
threatened lands that would have otherwise been protected will now be 
lost forever.
  Within the Conservation Trust Fund, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund which funds land acquisition is especially hard hit with deep 
cuts. Land acquisition is funded at only $176 million, that is $137 
million below last year. It is a 60 percent cut below 2002. So this 
conference report willfully walks away from our responsibilities to 
protect and conserve our precious land. And if we approve it, I predict 
next year we will be fighting even deeper cuts than we are experiencing 
this year.
  And then there are a series of antienvironmental riders. This 
conference report includes damaging riders. Some of them, for example, 
would strike at the heart of the protection of the coastal lands. One 
Senate rider, for example, removes Alaska's Bristol Bay from 
protection, even though the House bill and the President's budget 
renewed the moratorium that put that protection in place.
  Mr. Speaker, it could be our coastline next. Another Senate rider 
sets a dangerous precedent for interfering with the independence of the 
Federal judiciary by severely limiting the amount of time that the 
public has to challenge harmful logging projects in the Tongass 
National Forest in Alaska, and limiting the amount of time a Federal 
district court has to rule on those cases. People will be denied their 
time in court. There are a host of our damaging antienvironmental 
riders in this bill, and for those and other reasons, I will offer a 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to end the debate on our side by saying I strongly support the 
conference agreement, and I hope Members will vote for the conference 
agreement. I appreciate the comments made here tonight. We are going to 
work hard to resolve the problems on the trust account issues. We will 
work with the authorizers. The chairman and Mr. Rahall are acting in 
very good faith. I know there has been a hearing, and they are going to 
have another hearing.
  We need a solution to this problem, and I pledge tonight to my 
constituents back in the State of Washington that I will work 
tirelessly for a solution to this problem, so we can do justice to the 
holders of these accounts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise first to support this 
conference report, but I also want to address another issue, especially 
to my fiscally conservative friends. They received in their offices 
today a publication that would appear to be coming from the Committee 
on Appropriations because it says Appropriations Update in the big 
headline. The actual author of the paper is shown in small print, which 
indicates that the author is the Committee on the Budget. It says that 
this bill exceeds by $30 million the 302(b) suballocation issued by the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The problem is, at least I guess what it is, the Committee on the 
Budget has one budget resolution to pass in the House, then that 
resolution goes to Senate, and then the House and Senate go to 
conference on that one resolution. Then they bring a conference 
agreement back, and we barely pass the budget resolution.
  The Committee on Appropriations has 13 regular fiscal year bills and, 
this year, three supplementals. So when we start to go to conference 
with the other body on all these bills, we have got to have the ability 
to negotiate the 302(b) allocations with the other body so we end up 
with the same 302(b)s in the House and in the Senate for each bill.
  In fact, if Members are concerned about this publication that was 
distributed today, let me say there should be no confusion. The 
Interior conference report is within the 302(b) allocation that was 
agreed to by myself and Senator Stevens. We provided this 302(b) 
allocation for the conference.

                              {time}  2000

  So, in fact, this bill is within the 302(b) allocations set for the 
conference, and, in fact, is below last year's level. For those who 
might be misled by this publication, understand our process of 302(b) 
allocations as we go to conference, and understand that we are within 
the bill's 302(b) allocation. We are not over it, despite what this 
report says.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I share the frustration of many of those who have spoken on the 
Indian trust issue. I represent the eastern band of the Cherokee 
Indians. I have been taught and seen it over and over again, the old 
adage that government will mess up a one-car funeral.
  The committee spent $20 million of the taxpayers' money to do a 
transaction-by-transaction accounting of five named plaintiffs in the 
Cobell v. Norton litigation and found that one check for $60 went to 
the wrong person; $20 million to find a $60 error. Can anyone argue 
that this is a good use of the American taxpayers' money? A Federal 
court ruling on September 25, 2003, in the class action lawsuit ordered 
an expanded transaction-by-transaction historical accounting from 1887 
to the present. Initial estimates indicate that the accounting ordered 
by the court would cost between $9 billion and $12 billion. Nobody ever 
envisioned that we would be spending $12 billion on an accounting that 
does not provide one dollar to Indian country. We have included 
language that limits funds available to the Department of the Interior 
for historical accounting to those activities that need to be 
accomplished and can be accomplished in the short term. Beyond the 
funding limitation, language has been included protecting the 
Department from further court action during this 1-year time-out 
period. This gives the authorizing committees time to address the 
issue. The appropriations committee is not addressing this. We are 
putting this with the authorizing committee.
  Without this language in our bill, the court would likely hold the 
Secretary in contempt and find for the plaintiffs' accounting that the 
government owes $176 billion in this matter without any further 
negotiation or findings. For the past 3 fiscal years, the Committee on 
Appropriations has stated that it will not appropriate hundreds of 
millions of dollars, now billions of dollars, for a historical 
accounting. There was no other option but to include the time-out 
provision in this bill. There is only one source of money available to 
the

[[Page 26479]]

committee; and an accounting of this magnitude, $12 billion, would 
require that vast sums be diverted away from other programs in the 
bill. Without the time-out language, we would have to divert vast 
amounts of money from Indian education, health care, the National Park 
Service, as well as critical fire fighting funding; and that is just to 
name a few. There will be further court proceedings in this case based 
upon the government's appeal of this court ruling. We should not expend 
hundreds of millions of dollars while this case is under appeal.
  We fully agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that 
the authorizing committees should address this issue, and we are not 
trying to do that. All the interior bill does is provide for a 1-year 
time-out, basically the remaining term of this Congress, to allow the 
Congress to provide, hopefully, a comprehensive solution to the Indian 
trust issue, or at least address the scope of the historical accounting 
so the Congress will not be put in the position of cutting programs in 
this bill to fund a $12 billion accounting. If the language is struck 
from the bill without providing full funding for the court-mandated 
accounting, some $3 billion in 2004, the court will likely hold the 
Secretary of the Interior in contempt and find summary judgment for the 
plaintiffs' accounting which purports to show that the government owes 
$176 billion.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out that we were $400 
million short in this bill. If we have to pay $3 billion just for an 
accounting next year or we are asked to pay $176 billion in the next 
year, or $12 billion maybe in a short period of time, imagine what will 
happen to this bill and the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, 
Energy and the critical funds that we provide for Indian health, 
education and other needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this conference report.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on the FY 2004 
Interior appropriations bill. I wish to thank the House Appropriations 
Committee for providing the much needed increases in funding for the 
fire-fighting and fire prevention accounts within the Department of 
Interior. As my constituents and the constituents of my other 
colleagues representing the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino, Los 
Angeles, Riverside and Ventura have discovered first hand over the last 
week, it is imperative that Congress fund the necessary resources 
needed to prevent fires and fight fires.
  Though I do plan on voting in support of this bill because of this 
funding and the funding of other important programs, I am concerned 
about the inclusion of a provision in this bill to halt a historical 
accounting of errors in the Indian trust fund accounts. While I 
recognize the need to address this issue quickly, the Interior 
appropriations bill is not the appropriate vehicle. An issue of this 
magnitude is better addressed through the normal legislative process. 
The House Resources Committee, chaired by Representative Richard Pombo, 
has already held numerous hearings on this issue, developing the 
necessary legislative history. Mr. Pombo is committed in working 
towards a more complete solution. I strongly disagree with the decision 
to include language in this bill that preempts the Resources 
Committee's thoughtful work on the trust fund issue.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for 
this conference report.
  The annual appropriations bill for the Interior Department and 
related agencies is important for the whole country, but particularly 
for Colorado and other states that include extensive tracts of Federal 
lands.
  It benefits all Coloradans for the Interior Department and the Forest 
Service to have the funding they need to do their jobs. I also support 
many other things that are funded in this bill, such as energy 
conservation programs of the Department of Energy, the Smithsonian 
Institution, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the 
Humanities.
  However, when the House first considered this bill, I found it so 
flawed that I could not support it. I voted against it in hopes that 
after the Senate acted and the bill came back to the House from 
conference it would be improved enough so that I could vote to send it 
to the President for signing into law.
  To a degree, that hope has been realized. The conference report does 
include some definite improvements on the House-passed bill.
  Perhaps most importantly, the bill would provide $400 million to 
repay the accounts from which the Forest Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, and other agencies had to take funds in order to fight 
forest fires. This is a very great improvement over the House-passed 
bill, as is the fact that the conference report restores $70 million 
for Forest Service wildfire preparedness to keep firefighter readiness 
at the 2003 level, and also would provide $2.5 billion for the National 
Fire Plan--$1.8 billion for the Forest Service and $694 million for the 
Department of the Interior--which is $126 million above the President's 
request and includes an increase of $289 million for wildfire 
suppression, $11 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and $9 million 
for State and community fire assistance.
  Those are good provisions that deserve support. And, in addition the 
conference report also includes some items of special value to 
Colorado.
  For example, I am particularly glad that the conference report--
unlike the House-passed bill--includes $2.5 million to enable the 
Forest Service to continue its acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook 
watershed, in Clear Creek County, now owned by the city of Golden. 
Together with others in the Colorado delegation, I have been working to 
complete this multi-year project, and am pleased that the conference 
report would enable it to go forward.
  Similarly, the conference report improves on the House-passed bill by 
providing $9 million for the acquisition of lands in the San Luis 
Valley--$7 million for the portion of the lands that will become a new 
National Wildlife Refuge and $2 million to round out the Great Sand 
Dunes National Park.
  I strongly support this, as I also do the provisions of the 
conference report that would provide the Forest Service with $1 million 
for acquiring lands in an elk corridor in the White River National 
Forest and the same amount of needed work on the Continental Divide 
Trail, the National Park Service with funds for planning for a new 
curatorial facility at Mesa Verde cultural center, and the Bureau of 
Land Management with money for acquisitions in the Canyon of the 
Ancients National Monument.
  But in other respects the conference report not only fails to improve 
on the House-passed bill, but actually is even more flawed--so flawed 
that I think it deserves to be rejected.
  Two aspects of the conference report are particularly bad, in my 
opinion--one involving language that is included, and one involving a 
provision of the House bill that has been dropped.
  The conference report includes a remarkable legislative rider that 
says--

     nothing in the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act of 
     1994, Public Law 103-412, or in any other statute, and no 
     principle of common law, shall be construed or applied to 
     require the Department of Interior to commence or continue 
     historical accounting activities with respect to the 
     individual Indian Money Trust until the earlier of the 
     following shall have occurred:
       (a) Congress shall have amended the American Indian Trust 
     Management Reform Act of 1994 to delineate the specific 
     historical accounting obligations of the Department of the 
     Interior with respect to the Individual Indian Money Trust; 
     or
       (b) December 31, 2004.

  I am not a lawyer, but it seems clear that this provision is intended 
to at least temporarily allow the Department of the Interior to refuse 
to comply with a recent decision in the pending Cobell v. Norton 
litigation dealing with the management of Indian trust accounts.
  Whatever might be said in its favor, it is not the kind of thing that 
should be included in an appropriations bill. In fact, it would be 
subject to a point of order under the rules of the House except for the 
decision of the Republican leadership to waive the normal rules.
  The subject matter of this provision is squarely within the 
jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. As a member of that committee, 
I share the view of Chairman Pombo that the inclusion of this 
language--which was not in either the House or Senate bill--in the 
conference report is ``an affront'' to our committee. I also share the 
Chairman's view that its enactment could make it even harder for our 
committee to play a constructive role in trying to resolve a situation 
that is a serious problem for both Native Americans and the Interior 
Department as well.
  And at the same time this was being put into the conference report, 
section 337 of the House-passed bill was being deleted. That section 
was added when the House adopted a revised version of an amendment I 
had offered to protect not just Federal lands but also private property 
and the public interest.
  It would have done that by preventing the Interior Department from 
going ahead with secret negotiations leading to back-room land deals 
under which the Interior Department would issue ``disclaimers of 
interest'' that would give away the government's claim to an interest 
in land.
  For decades, the Interior Department issued such disclaimers to 
people who were on

[[Page 26480]]

record as owning the lands involved. It was a legal technicality--
important for the people involved but not a tool for changing the 
management of sensitive Federal lands or creating problems for private 
land owners. But that has changed because the Interior Department has 
changed its regulations. It has adopted new rules to claim broad 
authority to issue ``disclaimers'' to parties that wouldn't have been 
eligible under the old rules--and it has announced it is ready to give 
those `'disclaimers'' to parties seeking them in order to clear the way 
for building roads.
  This involves the lingering ghost of the Mining Law of 1866. That was 
one of the 19th-century laws to promote settlement and development in 
the West. Among other things, it granted rights-of-way ``for the 
construction of highways'' on Federal lands. That provision later 
became section 2477 of the Revised Statutes--or RS 2477.
  In 1976, RS 2477 was repealed. But the repealing law did not affect 
existing rights under RS 2477, and did not set a deadline for claiming 
those rights. So, there is no way of telling how many claims might be 
made or exactly what lands are affected.
  But we do know that RS 2477 claims can involve not just Federal 
lands--lands that currently belong to the American people--but also 
lands that once were Federal but that now belong to other owners. That 
includes the lands that were homesteaded, as well as patented mining 
claims and the lands that the Federal government gave to the states, 
the railroad companies, and other entities during the 19th and 20th 
Centuries.
  Millions of acres of those lands now are ranches or farms, or 
residential subdivisions, or single-family homes, or private cabins in 
the mountains like ones owned by some of my constituents. And millions 
of acres of those lands now belong to the Native Corporations 
established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
  Also at risk are millions of acres that are still owned by the 
American people--including National Parks, National Forests, National 
Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well 
as wilderness areas and areas that deserve protection as wilderness 
areas. This problem is not new, but it is very serious. It needs to be 
resolved--but not the way the Interior Department wants to resolve it. 
What the Interior Department wants is to negotiate in secret and then 
issue ``disclaimers.'' They have already started that process with the 
State of Utah. And other parties--including the current state 
Administration in Colorado--are starting to ask for deals of their own. 
These backroom talks need to stop. Instead of making deals, the Bush 
administration needs to come to Congress for new legislation.
  That was what Congress told the Clinton administration when Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt moved to change the Interior Department's RS 2477 
regulations. To make sure that Secretary Babbitt got the message, 
Congress passed a law that says any new RS 2477 rules must be 
authorized by Congress. That law is still on the books. But the Bush 
administration says that is irrelevant because the new ``disclaimer'' 
regulations are not covered, even though they intend to use their new 
rules for RS 2477 claims. It's an interesting argument--but, frankly, 
it reminds me of the argument about defining the meaning of the word 
``is.'' In other words, it may be clever, but it fails the test of 
common sense.
  Of course, the administration also says they will only make deals 
that are in the public interest, so Congress doesn't need to get 
involved. But the best way to promote the public interest is to involve 
the public--not to make secret deals. And the best way to resolve this 
issue is by enacting new legislation, after public hearings and open 
debate. That's why I have introduced a bill--H.R. 1639--to do just 
that. My bill would set a deadline--four more years--for filing RS 2477 
claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative process for 
handling those claims and would set another deadline for any lawsuit 
challenging the result of that administrative process. Maybe my bill 
could be improved, and some of our colleagues may want to propose their 
own ideas--that is the legislative process. And that is how this issue 
should be resolved, not by backroom deals or clever maneuvers to try to 
side-step Congress.
  That is why I offered my amendment--to block the administration from 
trying to circumvent Congress. And while my original amendment was not 
adopted, the House did adopt a narrower version proposed by Chairman 
Taylor himself.
  That part of the House bill would have barred implementation of the 
new ``disclaimer'' regulations with regard to any lands within a 
designated National Monument, Wilderness Study Area, National Park 
System unit, National Wildlife Refuge System unit, or lands within the 
National Wilderness Preservation System.
  This did not go nearly far enough, in my opinion. It did not address 
and would not protect all lands that could be affected by the new 
regulations. However, it would have protected some of the most 
sensitive parts of America's public lands.
  That was why last week more than 100 of our colleagues joined the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and me in sending a letter urging 
the conferees to at least include the House language in the conference 
report. We thought that was a very reasonable request, especially since 
that part of the House bill had been written by the chairman of the 
relevant appropriations subcommittee and that the administration had 
not expressed any opposition to it during the debate on the House 
floor.
  However, our request was not granted, and the House's provision on 
this subject was omitted from the conference report. As a result, 
nothing in the conference report will restrain the Interior Department 
from implementing its new ``disclaimer'' regulations in ways that could 
have serious consequences for the National Parks, National Monuments, 
National Wildlife Refuges, or the wilderness and wilderness-study 
areas.
  Of course, I hope that won't happen. I hope that the administration 
will recognize that proceeding in that way will yield only unnecessary 
controversy and protracted litigation. I do have hope--but, frankly, I 
have little confidence. The administration seems determined to press 
ahead, and I expect that they are headed straight for the courts.
  There are other things I dislike about this conference report--for 
example, the fact that it includes a provision to extend the recreation 
fee demonstration program for 15 months, which is another instance of a 
violation of the House's rule against including legislation in an 
appropriations measure. Even so, if the Indian trust provisions had 
been omitted and the House-passed restrictions on the new 
``disclaimer'' rules had been included, I might still have been able to 
support it. However, I have concluded that I cannot vote for the 
conference report as it now stands.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment is one of the most 
important jobs I have as a Congressman. Unfortunately, the conference 
report before us today weakens several significant land and water 
protections.
  Language in this conference report will roll back our moratorium on 
offshore drilling by allowing new oil and gas drilling in Bristol Bay. 
It will reduce judicial review on Tongass timber sales by placing a 30-
day statute of limitations on challenging those sales in court. It will 
remove language included in the House bill that would have reduced the 
scope of an environmentally-destructive rights-of-way rule published by 
the Department of the Interior in January.
  In addition, the conference report waives National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) review for expiring grazing permits, which will 
further discourage agencies from complying with environmental laws and 
could lead to continued degradation of sensitive public lands.
  Finally, H.R. 2691 reduces funding for valuable Land and Water 
Conservation Fund acquisition programs by $142 million.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Congress can and 
must do a better job protecting our environment. We simply will not 
have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, Ranking Member Dicks, I would like to draw 
the managers' attention to the Detroit River International Wildlife 
Refuge.
  In Fiscal year 2003, the Committee appropriated $3.5 million for land 
acquisition in the Detroit Rive Refuge. For this I was grateful.
  Mr. Speaker, the Trust for Public Land, recently acquired an 
ecologically significant tract of land known as Humbug Marsh and 
Island. This is a tract I have been working to acquire for many years. 
This funding in FY 03 made this acquisition possible. And this year I 
was seeking addition funds to complete this acquisition. The Humbug 
project is wired and ready to go.
  Unfortunately, the conference report includes language, inserted by 
the other body, indicating that further appropriations for the Refuge 
have been delayed because additional funds could not be obligated in 
2004. It also states that there are outstanding issues related to 
contaminants. In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, neither of these 
statements has any basis in fact.
  I would ask, at this time, for unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record a letter from Mr. Eric Alvarez, Chief of the Reality Division of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Alverez writes to me, ``With 
adequate funding and no unforeseen problems . . . we anticipate a

[[Page 26481]]

February or March 2004 closing date `for the Humbug property.''
  I would also note to the Chairman and the committee that Secretary of 
the Interior Gale Norton was at the Detroit River Refuge for a 
centennial celbration event in September. I would like unanimous 
consent to insert into the Record a letter I have just received from 
Secretary Norton demonstrating her commitment to the conservation 
values of the Detroit River Rufuge.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can work together to address this 
issue as the process moves forward.

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                    Fish and Wildlife Service,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Dingell: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Division 
     of Realty has been working on the Detroit River International 
     Wildlife Refuge since December 2001. Since that time we have 
     been evaluating a number of properties for inclusion into the 
     refuge while developing our land protection plan. Recently, a 
     key tract, known as the Humbug Marsh tract, was acquired by 
     the Trust for Public Lands. Until this acquisition the 
     Service did not have many viable tracts where the existing 
     funds would have been obligated.
       Preliminary information indicates that the tract may be 
     worth around $4.9 million. The Service is currently working 
     on the contaminant survey and the appraisal that will 
     indicate the actual purchase price.
       The contaminant survey has yet to be completed, therefore 
     we do not want to speculate on the presence or absence of 
     contaminants. conversations with TPL representatives indicate 
     that they believe that there should not be significant 
     contaminant issues.
       An appraisal will indicate the purchase price and the 
     service has $3.4 million available for the acquisition. The 
     difference between the remaining amount and the original 
     appropriation ($3.5 million) has been used to pay for the 
     contaminant survey and the appraisal.
       With adequate funding and no unforeseen problems, with 
     title or contaminants issues, we would anticipate a February 
     or March, 2004 closing date.
       Please feel free to contact me at 703-358-1713 if you or 
     your staff require more information.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Eric Alvarez,
     Chief, Division of Realty.
                                  ____

     Hon. John Dingell,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Dingell: Thank you very much for including me in 
     the celebration of the Detroit River International Wildlife 
     Refuge. It was a pleasure to be on hand with you to celebrate 
     the Refuge System Centennial.
       I also appreciated the opportunity to hear more about the 
     spirit of cooperation and partnerships that made the Detroit 
     River Refuge possible. An unprecedented partnership between 
     Federal, State, Canadian, county and local governments, 
     private industry, conservation groups, and local citizens 
     resulted in a unique home for waterfowl, fish, and migratory 
     birds. This refuge is truly something of which you can be 
     very proud.
       Again, many thanks for your kind and generous hospitality. 
     Please pass on my best to Debbie. I had a wonderful time with 
     the two of you at lunch afterwards.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gale A. Norton.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. HINCHEY. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hinchey moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 2691 to the committee of conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that this vote will be 
followed by votes on the adoption of the conference report and on the 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Concurrent Resolution 
302. Both of those votes will be 5-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 229, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 594]

                               YEAS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--229

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter

[[Page 26482]]


     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Blumenauer
     Bradley (NH)
     Case
     Emerson
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     McCollum
     McCotter
     Miller (NC)
     Pearce
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (TX)
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.

                              {time}  2028

  Mr. BOOZMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5 minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 205, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 595]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buyer
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Blumenauer
     Bradley (NH)
     Case
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     McCollum
     McCotter
     Miller (NC)
     Pearce
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2037

  Mr. GALLEGLY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________