[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 12889-12920]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 674 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4568.

                              {time}  1345


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4568) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2005, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Biggert (Chairman pro tempore) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, June 16, 2004, the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment 
from page 77, line 9, through page 139, line 22.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to kill, or assist other persons in killing, any 
     bison in the Yellowstone National Park herd.


[[Page 12890]]

  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank my good friend, 
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for cosponsoring this 
amendment with me. This is an amendment which will protect the 
Yellowstone bison. The Yellowstone bison are unique, in that they are 
the last element that traces its genetic strain back to the American 
bison that roamed the great plains and prairies of America in the early 
years of our history and of course much before that.
  In the 18th century, it is estimated that there were between 20 and 
40 million American bison in the Midwest and the West of the United 
States between the Appalachians and the Rockies.
  By the advent of the 20th century that number had dwindled to 25. The 
American bison was almost extinct, and it almost followed the path of 
the passenger pigeon, but due to the intervention of conservationists 
and the efforts of this House, measures were taken to preserve the 
American bison. As a result of that, their numbers turned around and 
they began to prosper once again under that protection.
  The American bison has become an American icon. It was on one of our 
coins. It is seen across the country in a variety of ways. It 
represents the great freedom that was inherent in the vast plains and 
prairies of America.
  But now the American bison, the last genetic strain that traces its 
history back to those that roamed this country and earlier centuries, 
is in great danger. It is in great danger as a result of the activities 
of the Park Service and the harassment of these animals out of 
Yellowstone National Park, west and northwest of the park and then the 
capture and slaughter of those animals.
  The amendment that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I 
offer today would restrict funding in this appropriations bill so no 
money could be used to carry out that capture and slaughtering process 
for 1 year so we will have an opportunity to look into this situation, 
examine it closely, see what is being done and understand it better.
  Now there are some Members who contend that this slaughter is 
necessary because bison may transmit brucellosis to cattle on the 
fringes of Yellowstone. First of all, there are hardly any cattle on 
the fringes of Yellowstone. And what are there, most of those are 
trucked in in the summertime when the bison are back in the park. 
Furthermore, according to the National Academy of Sciences, there has 
never been one single example of the transmission of brucellosis from 
bison to cattle. It has never occurred.
  Yes, brucellosis can be transmitted from animals in the wild, and it 
has been shown that brucellosis can be transmitted from elk in 
Yellowstone and elsewhere to cattle, but there is no program to deal 
with elk in any way. That causes one to wonder whether brucellosis is 
really a motivation here at all; I suspect it is not. There is 
something else going on here, something that we need to get to the 
bottom of. We need to understand why these animals are being harassed 
and slaughtered in the way that they are.
  Now, this argument comes not just from me and other people who may 
not be directly involved in this in a material way, it also comes from 
people who live out there in Montana, people who live up on Horse Butte 
Peninsula, for example, who have contacted my office and told us how 
the Park Service and people working with them harass these animals with 
helicopters and snowmobiles and drive them across the park and across 
their property and block roads.
  The people who live in those communities are tired of it. We were 
contacted by the Chamber of Commerce in Gardiner, Montana. They told us 
people come out there in the wintertime to examine the wildlife of 
Yellowstone in winter conditions. They do not come out there to see the 
Yellowstone wildlife, particularly the American bison, captured and 
slaughtered in the way that the Park Service is doing it.
  So what we want to do here is stop this outrageous activity from 
continuing to occur for the extent of this bill over the next year. I 
hope that the majority of the Members of this House will see the clear 
inherent benefits and the sensibilities of this and they will join us 
in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  None of us are comfortable with this issue, but let me attempt to 
provide Members with some facts.
  The record of decision was signed in December 2000 by then-Secretary 
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan 
Glickman and the Governor of Montana. This document was a long-term 
plan for bison management in the region. The main objectives were to 
maintain a free-ranging bison population and manage the risk of 
transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. Both the State and 
the Park Service have specific responsibilities under this agreement. 
The plan is effective, and the bison population there has continued to 
grow to over 4,000 from 2,000 a decade ago.
  The real issue arises when bison go outside the park boundary into 
Montana, a brucellosis-free State. When this occurs, bison are 
captured, tested and some are shipped to slaughter. On occasion, bison 
that resist repeated hazing and capture are removed. This spring, there 
was a dangerous situation of this kind involving one aggressive bull 
bison. The animal could not be hazed back into the park from private 
property and had to be lethally removed under the direction of the 
State officials.
  The Park Service had opened the Stevens Creek Capture Facility within 
park boundaries. This facility was required under the original Babbitt 
management plan. Captured animals are tested and released if negative 
and removed if positive. This is a very difficult situation. However, 
there has been no change to the original record of decision, and the 
State and the National Park Service are abiding by this agreement.
  We have recommendations from the National Wildlife Federation to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) saying, ``We positively applaud 
your commitment and desire to curtail the unnecessary killing of 
Buffalo. We respectfully submit that your amendment would neither 
achieve this goal nor advance the cause of Yellowstone buffalo 
conservation in any meaningful way. In fact, your amendment, if 
enacted, would lead to slaughter of more animals.'' Let me read that 
again. ``It will lead to slaughter of more animals than under the 
current management plan.'' This is the National Wildlife Federation 
writing to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  We also have a similar letter from the InterTribal Bison Cooperative.
  Madam Chairman, I certainly agree with the general concept of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) but this will not do it, and I 
strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BASS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). In response to my friend, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the basic issue here is it 
is not necessary to kill American bison. As the gentleman mentioned 
when he said his opening remarks, the Department of Interior and the 
National Park Service both prominently display as their logos the 
American Buffalo. The 42nd Congress in 1872 passed legislation creating 
Yellowstone National Park, and it required that the Secretary of the 
Interior ``shall provide against the wanton destruction of the fish and 
game found within said park, and against their capture or destruction 
for the purpose of merchandise or profit.''
  In 1999, the Congress spent $13 million to set aside additional 
Federal lands to ensure that animals in the park could migrate during 
the winter and summer seasons. This is in addition to the hundreds of 
millions of dollars which have been wisely spent to provide good 
stewardship of the land and protection of the wildlife for the public's 
benefit. Yet the National Park Service also spends millions to harass 
and shoot the very animals that they are supposed to be protecting. 
This

[[Page 12891]]

past winter alone, they captured 482 bison and they killed 277 of them. 
It is absurd.
  This expenditure is a waste of taxpayers' dollars when there are 
other reasonable methods to manage one of our Nation's premier wildlife 
icons.
  Our amendment would place a 1-year moratorium on Park Service funding 
that is used for lethal management and would force the agency to 
redirect its resources toward common-sense wildlife management 
endeavors more in keeping with its proud record of stewardship. A few 
common-sense measures to safeguard livestock, fencing, vaccinations, 
working proactively would be far more productive and less destructive 
than the system and program we have in place today.
  The buffalo and other wildlife are why we have this park in the first 
place. We allow cattle grazing on it because there is enough room for 
both resources, but then to use the false fears of cattle ranchers as 
an excuse to kill these buffalo is absurd. If the ranchers do not want 
to risk their cattle on these Federal lands, they have many different 
resources, but the bison do not.
  Let us be clear, however. This is an amendment that is designed to 
halt the wasteful and unnecessary attack on the American bison. It is 
not about hunting and it would not affect traditional wildlife 
management tools such as hunting outside the national park. The basic 
question here is should we kill buffalo from Yellowstone National Park 
with one dollar while we spend other dollars on the other hand to 
protect them. To me it is one of these crazy concepts that needs to be 
stopped. It will be stopped if Members vote in favor of this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I urge the committee to support the pending 
amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for this very 
responsible, appropriate amendment. It is not just a matter of a waste 
of taxpayers' money. This is a shameful, disgraceful policy. Here are 
the facts: there has not been one confirmed incidence of brucellosis 
transmission in the wild from buffalo to cattle. Not a one. In fact, 
the risk is so low as to be immeasurable according to the National 
Academy of Sciences.
  Buffalo with brucellosis and cattle have grazed together for over 50 
years in the Jackson Hole area south of Yellowstone without any 
incident of disease transmission. The irony here is that we do know 
that elk can transmit this disease to cattle. In fact, it did happen in 
Wyoming. But we do not kill or harass the approximately 13,000 elk that 
are in Yellowstone. They are allowed unfettered access, as I think they 
should be; although you could develop a wildlife management plan. But 
there is no excuse for what we are doing to the buffalo.
  Four thousand buffalo have been killed over the last 20 years. In the 
last year, 480 were caught and most of them were killed. It does not 
make sense. It is wrong. This, as we understand, is the only pure-bred 
herd that is allowed to roam where they have always traditionally 
roamed. Is that not of some value in our Nation? Back at the turn of 
the 20th century, in the very early 1900s, we sent soldiers and 
settlers out to create grazing lands, and they slaughtered the buffalo. 
Thousands you could see dead on the plains allowed to rot because they 
just wanted to kill them off, whereas the Native Americans had a belief 
that you do not kill unless you have purpose, unless you need to eat or 
for clothing.
  For thousands of years under the stewardship of our Native Americans 
the buffalo herd prospered. We came out, almost exterminated the 
buffalo, and finally they are coming back on the land that has a 
natural ecosystem. We are told that in fact there is no risk to the 
ecosystem, that in fact the greater Yellowstone ecosystem is not 
threatened whatsoever with regard to the ecological carrying capacity 
for bison in Yellowstone. If you look at all the facts, even the fact 
that there is one rancher from Idaho that trucks a herd of 150 cows to 
fenced private pasture in Horse Butte in the summer, the buffalo are 
already back in the park far away from the cows. So why would you kill 
4,000 buffalo to protect a few hundred cows when they are not even 
nearby? There is something gratuitously destructive about this policy.
  Even the people that live near Yellowstone, including the Chamber of 
Commerce, do not want this policy. People come to see the buffalo, and 
here we were told just recently by somebody that was there, there are 
helicopters shooting at them, harassing them. That is not why you go to 
a national park.
  This policy is absolutely wrong. We can find no justification for it. 
It is shameful. Our stewards that work for the Park Service do not want 
to be doing this kind of thing. This is unnatural to what they are all 
about. I do not know what is driving this policy, but it has got to 
change. I suggest it is because there are some people who want an 
opportunity to hunt the buffalo--but they are basically cows--where is 
the sport in that? The buffalo are part of our heritage. We had them on 
the back of the nickel. It means something to protect a species that is 
native to this land that was integral to the survival of the Native 
American peoples.
  And so I would very strongly urge this body to pass this amendment. 
It is a responsible amendment. It is justified. The policy that it 
overturns is not justified. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment. Let us rectify this situation. Let us restore 
the buffalo to their natural habitat and enable Park Service rangers to 
conduct the kind of professional responsibilities that they want to be 
doing and not carrying out a policy that they know is ill-advised and 
destructive of a species that desrves to be protected and preserved.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment for a 
lot of reasons. In December 2000, the National Park Service, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and the State of Montana finalized a long-
term management plan for the Yellowstone bison herd. This plan brought 
to a close more than 8 years of public rulemaking, court proceedings, 
and intense negotiations over how the Yellowstone bison herd should be 
managed.
  I am not alone in opposition to this amendment. Yesterday, the 
National Wildlife Federation sent a letter to the author of this 
amendment saying, ``On behalf of the 4 million members and supporters 
of the National Wildlife Federation, we are writing to urge you not to 
offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill 
restricting funding for the National Park Service with respect to 
Yellowstone bison. In fact, your amendment, if enacted, would lead to 
the slaughter of more animals than under the current management plan. 
Your proposed amendment, if similar to the amendment offered in fiscal 
year 2004, and it is, would effectively block the National Park Service 
from operating its Stevens Creek facility where more than 100 buffalo 
are tested for brucellosis, held inside Yellowstone, and ultimately 
repatriated back in the park if they test negative. It's true that 
buffalo testing positive for the disease at Stevens Creek are sent to 
slaughter; but under the terms of your amendment, these animals would 
be killed when they leave the park, by Montana's Department of 
Livestock'' which this amendment cannot stop.
  The InterTribal Bison Cooperative sent a letter yesterday urging the 
proponents of this amendment to not offer it because it ``may hinder 
the progress that is being made toward the eventual relocation of 
Yellowstone buffalo to tribal lands in other locations.'' And the U.S. 
Sportsmen's Alliance yesterday sent a letter urging opposition to this 
amendment, saying that this is an anti-management amendment that would 
supersede the professional judgments of trained wildlife scientists in 
Federal and State resource agencies.

[[Page 12892]]

  The greater Yellowstone area is one of the last known reservoirs for 
brucellosis in the United States. Tests indicate that up to 50 percent 
of the bison in the park are potentially infected. There have also been 
scientifically documented cases of bison and elk transmitting 
brucellosis to cattle under both range and experimental conditions. The 
bison management plan relies on separation of bison from cattle that 
graze in areas surrounding the park. As bison leave the park during 
winter, management zones are used to monitor the movement of the bison 
and ensure that bison and cattle do not intermingle. The bison are 
phased back into the park at the beginning of the spring season. Bison 
outside the park's boundaries past the onset of spring are captured or 
removed. In addition, cattle are not allowed to graze on public land 
outside the park until enough time has passed after the bison leave to 
ensure that the brucellosis bacteria is no longer a threat.
  While it is unfortunate that Park Service employees must sometimes 
remove bison that have left Yellowstone Park, it is important to note 
that these operations are targeted and only one component of a much 
larger effort to preserve the health and viability of the entire bison 
herd. If left unaddressed, the brucellosis situation in the Yellowstone 
area represents a threat to livestock health in the United States. In 
2002, a cattle herd in Idaho was infected with brucellosis which was 
linked to elk from the greater Yellowstone area. In 2004, Wyoming lost 
its brucellosis cattle-free status due to the detection of the disease 
in two cattle herds that were again infected by elk from the greater 
Yellowstone area.
  It is critical that Park Service employees be permitted to carry out 
their roles under the current management plan. I urge Members to join 
me; the chairman of the subcommittee; the National Wildlife Federation; 
the InterTribal Bison Cooperative, which is comprised of dozens of 
Indian tribes in the western part of the United States; and the U.S. 
Sportsmen's Alliance in opposing a bad amendment. Bad for bison, bad 
for Yellowstone National Park, bad for the cattle industry, and bad for 
the Montana-Wyoming area of this country.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and add a few other points in 
opposition to the gentleman from New York's amendment. I appreciate all 
of those who support this amendment for their desire to protect a noble 
species. However, it seems clear to most people, and we have heard from 
the National Wildlife Federation, the InterTribal Bison Cooperative and 
others who live in that area who understand that this is more than an 
effort to protect a species.
  In fact, those who oppose this amendment are the ones that are out to 
protect the species. Brucellosis when it occurs in a cattle herd or in 
a dairy herd, a beef cattle or a dairy herd, oftentimes the entire herd 
is disposed of in order to bring about control of the disease. In a few 
cases, individual animals are slaughtered in order to bring under 
control the disease. That is what is attempting to be done now in 
Yellowstone Park and in other areas of this region. We have a serious 
disease problem that cannot be controlled by good intentions on this 
floor.
  We have to keep in mind that the continued infected status of these 
bison is not just a threat to their continued reproduction but it also 
threatens our beef herd with reinfection from a disease we have spent 
millions of dollars trying to eradicate. As the steward of American 
wildlife, the Federal Government has a responsibility to manage all 
wildlife in a way that minimizes these sorts of negative impacts on 
private citizens and their property. That is what the policy that is 
now going on in Yellowstone is not only attempting to do but will do if 
we just allow it.
  Again, I appreciate the author and all of those who speak in favor of 
this issue today, but I believe that this is another example upon close 
scrutiny of unintended consequences which often attend efforts in this 
body. Many well-intentioned efforts at Federal intervention, especially 
when local stakeholders have already negotiated their own agreements, 
end up producing worse outcomes for all involved. It seems clear that 
in this case that those made worse off include the North American bison 
herd. I encourage all Members to oppose this amendment. The best way to 
take care of the buffalo is to allow sound science to work with those 
who live in that area and who truly appreciate it; and the Indian 
tribes who would like to see more buffalo returning to their tribal 
lands certainly know more about it than any of us in this body today.
  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, oftentimes I think that maybe Montana creates some of 
its own problems for itself because we encourage people to come to 
Montana and make movies like ``A River Runs Through It'' or ``The Horse 
Whisperer'' and do stories on Jeremiah Johnson, but it gives an 
unnatural opinion or vision to people on the east coast that frankly 
shocks me.
  I just do not understand how anybody that truly loves their park 
could support an amendment like this. I was Lieutenant Governor before 
I was a Congressman so I was intimately involved in the negotiations on 
this process. I am also a land manager. I make my living understanding 
the mineral cycle and the water cycle, understanding what it is like to 
overgraze and undergraze and overlog and underlog, that there are 
various cycles that exist within society. So if I could put it to the 
sponsors in language that they can understand, maybe I ought to talk 
like Ranger Rick and suggest to them that when a bull and a cow get 
together, they have calves. And when you have calves, eventually you 
overpopulate.
  They have used the number 4,000 killed. That is over 20 years. Last 
year three were shot, because they needed to be. Nobody wants to shoot 
them. But some of them are uncontrollable. But the problem is 40 
percent of the herd in Yellowstone Park are infected with brucellosis. 
Do you not care enough about your bison to want to have a healthy herd? 
They abort their calves. They kill their own calves because of a health 
issue.
  The proponents are loving their park to death. Give us the 
opportunity to use the memorandum of understanding that is in place to 
manage the herd for the betterment of the park. What are the odds of 
getting Bruce Babbitt, Glickman, and Mark Racicot in the same room and 
getting them to sign an agreement?

                              {time}  1515

  It is called the consensus process. In fact, it was so good, we set 
up a consensus council in Montana to keep people from divvying in the 
corners and suing their way back out, to find middle ground. They liked 
it so well, Mr. Glickman and Mr. Racicot, that they have asked me to 
carry legislation in Congress to create a national consensus council, 
to bring this kind of a solution to the national level.
  There are a number of things I want to talk about real quickly. One 
is human health. It is called undulate fever. One gets it, and it is a 
strain of brucellosis, from lifestock, sometimes elk, sometimes bison, 
sometimes cattle. One gets it, they have it forever. And it shows up in 
the CDC right next to anthrax in severity. It is a bacteria, not a 
virus. Brucellosis through humans is called undulate fever, and it is 
right up there with anthrax.
  Herd health: 13,000 elk in Yellowstone Park and the surrounding area 
have brucellosis. It is another problem we are going to have to 
address. This is going to get even more expensive to try to solve. We 
cannot ignore the elk problem that have brucellosis as well.
  Cattle: This is strictly a matter of prevention. Is it not 
interesting we have 93 million head of beef in America today and we had 
one case of mad cow, one mad cow situation in the State of Washington. 
And look at all the protocol we are putting in place today to

[[Page 12893]]

try to keep it from entering into the human food chain and into the 
livestock food chain, but when we have 50 percent of the herd in 
Yellowstone Park, it does not seem to be a problem because it is the 
icon. It certainly is to us as well, but we want a healthy herd.
  No degradation to the ecosystem? To my friend from Virginia, maybe 
his natural resource management skill is mowing his lawn, but he ought 
to go out and take a look at Yellowstone and see what the over 4,000 
head of bison are doing to their riparian area. They are eating the 
grass down to nothing. They are creating a parking lot along those 
rivers and streams. They are overpopulated. The reason the National 
Academy of Science established a figure of between 2,300 and 3,000 head 
is that there is a finite ecosystem. They cannot overpopulate because 
if they overpopulate, they destroy their environment.
  If we managed federal properties on the Bureau of Land Management 
properties with cattle the way the National Park Service is ignoring 
the overpopulation, you would throw us in jail because we are 
overpopulating and we are destroying the environment.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, has the gentleman supported the 
reintroduction of the wolf as the predator in Montana?
  Mr. REHBERG. I have not.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, would that not be a natural thing to do if 
they have these animals that are overpopulated?
  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, the gentleman makes my point exactly 
because if we could tell the wolves to stay behind the fence the same 
way we are trying to expect the bison to respect the fences of 
Yellowstone Park, we would not have a problem. Reintroduce the wolves 
into Yellowstone Park. The problem exists when they get outside of 
Yellowstone Park and they start decimating domestic herds, taking away 
the livelihood of Montana families who are just trying to pay for their 
kids in schools and their college education and their shoes for their 
families as well.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I have been listening to my friend from Montana's 
presentation, and I noted the reference to mad cow disease. Would that 
we had the same zeal on the part of the Department of Agriculture to 
protect American consumers from mad cow disease, a sort of zero 
tolerance that is being advocated here dealing with the bison. It may 
well be the reason we have only discovered one case of mad cow disease 
in the United States is because the American consumer for years has 
been eating the evidence. We have such a limited, tiny sampling process 
at present, unfortunately, our not being able to find out in a wide and 
broad fashion whether or not we have a problem. I note no small amount 
of irony that we are going to prosecute the poor hapless beef producer 
in the Midwest who wanted to test all their beef for mad cow so that it 
could be exported again to Japan.
  Listening to the debate here today, the Chair of the Committee on 
Agriculture is making a compelling case for more aggressive action for 
elk, but as has been pointed out from my colleague from New Hampshire, 
my colleague from New York, there has not yet been a documented case 
dealing with the bison. Never a confirmed incident of brucellosis 
transmission in the wild from buffalo to cattle. Yet we have got 13,000 
Yellowstone elk, some of which are infected after we have documented 
the problems, that are allowed to wander unfettered to federal land 
outside the park. It seems at least from a distance that Montana has a 
different philosophy from Wyoming.
  I see my colleague from Wyoming perhaps approaching the well, but it 
seems that Wyoming does not deem buffalo to be a threat to the cattle 
because for more than 4 decades buffalo with brucellosis and cattle 
have grazed together in the Grand Teton National Park evidently without 
incident.
  It would seem to me that what has been proposed in this amendment is 
a simple common sense approach to just have a 1-year moratorium. It is 
not seeking to establish in law at this point, a prohibition, but 
giving an opportunity to array the evidence, having an opportunity to 
look at less invasive solutions. Maybe we only have killed three by 
shooting them, but my understanding is that we had 277 that were sent 
to slaughter. It may be a distinction without a difference if one is a 
bison whether they are shot or sent away to be slaughtered. I would 
hope that there would be an opportunity for us to think about how we 
are upsetting these natural ecosystems. I would hope that we could look 
in a broader context for wildlife management. I would hope that there 
would be an opportunity for people to not single out bison for 
slaughter when it appears, from what we have heard on the floor today, 
that the problem instead is one of infected elk which are treated 
differently and will continue to be treated differently.
  I would respectfully suggest that we adopt the amendment from the 
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from New Hampshire, give us a 
year's breathing room, be able to find ways to solve this problem in 
the future in ways that deal with a more humane treatment for our 
American Great Plains icon.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, with all the misinformation that is floating around 
in this Chamber today, I hardly know where to start. But one place I 
will start is I would request that the Members on the other side who 
have supported and offered this amendment ask the Sierra Club or the 
Natural Resources Defense Council to update the notes that they give 
them to speak on the floor because there is so much misinformation that 
is out there. And I will clarify some of that.
  It is amazing to me that the people who are offering and supporting 
this amendment I know for a fact have never attended the Greater 
Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee meetings that have been 
going on for several years. All the stakeholders are involved. The 
environmentalists are at the table as well as the Park Service and the 
other stakeholders. Were this a goodwill amendment, they would have 
more information than what they read in their radical environmentalist 
journals.
  While I understand that some folks do not approve of the management 
techniques used by the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis 
Committee, this amendment is truly misguided. By the way, to my 
colleague from Oregon, Wyoming does have a brucellosis problem, and 
Wyoming is not a brucellosis-free State anymore. That happened early 
this year because herds of cattle were commingling with elk. And so 
once again it would be really good if the gentleman could have current, 
accurate information before he delves into something that is so 
sensitive.
  It has been said, and it is entirely true, that the population of 
bison in the park is truly degrading the environment because there are 
too many. As I said, my State of Wyoming lost its brucellosis-free 
status earlier this spring due to the commingling of brucellosis-
infected wildlife in Yellowstone in the ecosystem with domestic cattle 
herds this year. Some estimates indicate that this has cost the 
agricultural community in Wyoming $22 million already, and the year is 
only half over. I think a vote for this amendment will be a vote 
against those agricultural families.
  There is a delicate balancing act for all of the parties involved to 
address the needs of the environment, the federal and private 
stakeholders. Bison numbers are at capacity, and that is not an issue 
that is even up for debate. According to everyone, the bison has 
reached its total capacity in the Yellowstone ecosystem. We have to 
actively manage this herd so that we can preserve the ecosystem. To not 
do so would upset the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

[[Page 12894]]

  This amendment would make the decade-long efforts of public and 
private stakeholders in vain by limiting the use of federal funds to 
aid in Park Service management efforts that result in the reduction of 
the bison herd. By taking one of the Park Service's tools out of their 
tool box in bison and brucellosis management, this amendment reduces 
our ability to effectively control the bison herd at a time when its 
numbers are at maximum capacity.
  I want the Members to know this amendment will not reduce the 
reduction of bison leaving Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. 
They will continue to leave. And what will happen is the surrounding 
States will take a more active role in reduction activities to protect 
their livestock industries with or without the aid of the Park Service.
  So if my colleagues do not like the way the animals are killed, that 
is one thing. But the fact is the numbers have to be reduced. This is 
nothing more than feel good legislation that ignores the facts, all the 
stakeholders' concerns, and the real world lack of a magic solution 
bullet to fix this problem. There simply is not one.
  This is bad policy. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the 
American West.
  I do think it is ironic that these easterners, with the exception of 
my friend from Oregon, offer amendments about a very serious issue of 
which they have very little knowledge. I noticed the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey) shaking his head no when the fact was brought 
forward that three bison were shot last year. That is the case.
  I ask my friends to vote against this amendment and suggest that the 
people who have made the amendment offer their advice to the Buffalo 
Bills. Maybe then they could beat the Denver Broncos.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Blumenauer, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Cubin 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CUBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, because, as fellow westerners, I did 
not want there to be a misunderstanding, what I said when I was on the 
floor earlier was that there had been four decades of having buffalo 
grazing in the Grand Teton Park with cattle without incident. Does the 
gentlewoman have evidence that I misspoke, that there have been 
problems in the last four decades between the buffalo and the cattle in 
the Grand Teton National Park?
  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, actually I cannot answer that 
specifically for Grand Teton National Park, but I can say that the fact 
is there is evidence now that brucellosis was spread from elk to 
cattle. That is a fact, which my colleague said has never happened.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CUBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, there is no evidence, is that not correct, 
that even the National Wildlife Federation letter says that this part 
of the case is overstated, the threat of the buffalo to the cattle has 
not been established, I mean in terms of brucellosis being picked up by 
the cattle? Is that not correct?
  Mrs. CUBIN. That is correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Also, Madam Chairman, I ask the same question to the 
gentleman from Montana. I ask him the same question. Many of us 
supported the reintroduction of the gray wolf, which was extremely 
controversial because it would give them the top predator in the food 
chain, who would then go in and take down the sick and aging elk and 
buffalo, and I know that is sensitive, but if my colleague says he 
wants to reduce the size of the herd, the natural way to do that is 
with predation.

                              {time}  1530

  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is such a huge 
subject. Once again, that wolf reintroduction program has not created 
the behaviors in the wolves that were expected at the time they were 
reintroduced. So this is too big a subject for us to go into right now.
  But my friend from Montana made the point perfectly well. You are 
making our point for us. They do not know where the boundary is, the 
bison do not and the wolves do not.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Rehberg, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Cubin was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CUBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, I have all the sympathy in the world for 
Wyoming losing its brucellosis status, because you know as well as I do 
it costs millions of dollars to prove to everyone again that you are 
brucellosis free. So you have got a situation that I do not envy and we 
do not want to happen.
  And that makes the point exactly. Why are we doing what we are doing 
with mad cow with the one case in Washington? Because of the 
devastating effect it could have. It is all a matter of preservation 
and prevention and protection of it occurring.
  Now, one of the points that was made is there is no proof. Well, that 
is part of the difficulty. We want Yellowstone Park to be as natural as 
possible. You have to actually physically, visually be there to see it 
occur. So we do not know where it is coming from.
  But we do know, through common sense, that it can be transferred from 
elk to cattle and bison to cattle. So rather than it even occurring, as 
my colleague from Wyoming clearly understands, you spend the money and 
you take the time and the effort to see that it does not happen.
  How can anybody argue with wanting to have the most healthy herd of 
bison in Yellowstone Park and ultimately the most healthy herd of elk 
in the greater Yellowstone area, which is what we are attempting to 
accomplish?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I had the opportunity to visit Yellowstone a couple 
of weeks ago and to meet with groups of citizens who are actively 
involved in trying to protect the wild and free-roaming buffalo of 
Yellowstone National Park; and it is their position, and having been on 
the site and seen where buffalo follow migration patterns, it is their 
position that everything should be done to make sure that these free-
roaming buffalo are protected for future generations.
  One of the things that has not been brought up in the debate that I 
would like to add at this time is the importance of protecting these 
buffalo as a genetically unique herd.
  I enter into the record of this discussion here remarks that were 
made by a Texas A&M professor in the Department of Veterinary 
Pathobiology, who said ``The so-called random shooting at the Montana 
borders is actually eliminating or depleting entire maternal lineages; 
therefore, this action will cause an irreversible crippling of the gene 
pool. Continued removal of genetic lineages will change the genetic 
makeup of the herd; thus it will not represent the animal of 1910 or 
earlier. It would be a travesty to have people look back and say we 
were idiots for not understanding the gene pool.''

       The so-called random shooting at the Montana borders is 
     actually eliminating or depleting entire maternal lineages, 
     therefore this action will cause irreversible crippling of 
     the gene pool. Continued removal of genetic lineages will 
     change the genetic makeup of the herd, thus it will not 
     represent the animal of 1910 or earlier. It would be a 
     travesty to have people look back and say we were ``idiots'' 
     for not understanding the gene pool. Bison have developed a 
     natural resistance genetically as long as they have enough to 
     eat, limited stress and are not consumed by other disease. 
     There is no magic bullet in

[[Page 12895]]

     wildlife disease, therefore management is important. Vaccines 
     are one management tool and one component, but genetic 
     structure is necessary for future management. Every animal 
     which is removed from the breeding population can no longer 
     contribute to the genetic variability of the herd.

  So there are genetic implications to this action as well. We have to 
understand that what is happening here is that buffalo in the greater 
Yellowstone ecosystem, according to the Save the Buffalo National 
Petition, are not protected on traditional winter habitat to the north 
and west of Yellowstone National Park.
  The park does not provide sufficient winter range, except during mild 
winters, for the resident herds of buffalo; and buffalo leave the park 
to forage on lower grasses critical for winter survival. That is not 
because the park is overgrazed, but because forage is unavailable due 
to winter conditions. Thus the buffalo follow their instinctual 
migration routes to lower elevation and unwittingly enter a conflict 
zone where their survival is undermined by politics.
  Now, this petition, which is available on the Web, points out that 
one of the solutions is that the U.S. Government recognize the 
importance of traditional buffalo grazing and calving lands and 
migration quarters to the future of wild herds.
  The Hinchey petition would protect the status of the free-roaming 
buffalo.
  They also go on to say that the Forest Service should close grazing 
allotments to settle and reallocate them to the last wild buffalo.
  This is something that we need to keep in mind, because on the 7th of 
June, the Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife and Parks released a 
draft environmental assessment to analyze the possibility of a sport 
hunt of buffalo that cross the borders of the Yellowstone National Park 
into Montana.
  We have to see that what is happening here is that buffalo are being 
hazed with helicopters. Once they go off lands, and sometimes they are 
on Federal lands, they are subjected to not just hazing but eventual 
capture and elimination.
  I think that we need to see that we have a national obligation here. 
It is part of our national obligation. This is not about East versus 
West. This is about who we are as a country.
  One of the iconic songs of another generation, ``Home on the Range,'' 
begins, ``Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam.'' It did not go on 
to say, and let us capture them and kill them. It talks about an image 
of America, which still resides in the hearts of many Americans today.
  There are many young people who are working in the area of 
Yellowstone National Park to save the buffalo, and we ought to be 
joining their efforts. We ought to be joining it, because this is part 
of who we are as a Nation, this is a part of America's heritage; and 
while we need to be concerned about the cattle ranchers, we also need 
to take into account that according to science there has been no 
demonstration after transmission of brucellosis from a buffalo herd 
into cattle.
  So we have to go on the facts, but we should also remember who we are 
as a Nation. Let us protect the buffalo, and let us vote for the 
Hinchey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to maintain more than 65,000,000 barrels of 
     crude oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.


            Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified in the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       On line 3, strike 65,000,000 and insert 647,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to maintain more than 647,000,000 barrels of 
     crude oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have to convince any Member of 
this body that the American people are outraged by the extremely high 
prices they are currently paying for gasoline. I am sure that you are 
getting the same calls that I get in my office in Vermont.
  As we all know, these exorbitant prices are a serious drag on our 
economy. They affect small business and farmers, they affect airlines 
and the trucking industry, they affect middle-income people who drive 
to work every day and are seeing their wage increases going into their 
gas tanks. This is a serious national problem.
  Now, I understand that there are differences of opinion in this body 
about long-term solutions to this crisis. We have debated that over the 
last couple of days. I personally believe we have to take a hard look 
at OPEC, the cartel which today functions directly in opposition to 
international free trade law. I think we have to deal with the 
increased concentration of ownership in the oil industry, and I think 
the time is long overdue that we have to break our dependency on fossil 
fuels and move to sustainable energy.
  But whether one agrees with my long-term solutions or not, there 
should be no debate about the need for us to come together now to 
provide immediate short-term relief to the American people who are 
hurting from high gas prices.
  The concept I am introducing in this amendment has had support from 
Democrats and Republicans, people from all political views, and I hope 
and believe that it will win strongly today.
  Specifically, this amendment would suspend oil deliveries to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and cap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at 
647 million barrels of oil, the level that it was in in March of this 
year, just a few months ago. In other words, we would immediately stop 
the purchase of more oil for the reserve and release into the market 15 
million barrels of oil. This action would have the very immediate 
impact of substantially lowering gas prices in America.
  Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently contains 
approximately 662 million barrels and the administration is pushing to 
increase that number to some 700 million barrels. My amendment would 
increase the amount of oil on the market and lead to lower cash prices 
immediately upon its implementation. It would also keep gas prices down 
by making sure the government is not competing against consumers in the 
marketplace at a time that gas prices are so high.
  Mr. Chairman, extrapolating from at least three economic studies done 
by Goldman Sachs; the largest crude oil trader in the world, the Air 
Transport Association; and petroleum economist Phillip Burleger, the 
estimate is that this amendment could reduce gasoline prices at the 
pump by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. It is not going to solve the whole 
problem, but 10 to 25 cents per gallon is not an insignificant step in 
helping the American consumer.
  Mr. Chairman, even the staff at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
recommended against buying more oil for the SPRO in the spring of 2002. 
They

[[Page 12896]]

state, ``Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high, and 
economic growth is slow. The government should avoid acquiring oil for 
the reserve under these circumstances.''
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of people have come up with this idea. This is 
not just mine. Members may remember that in March of this year, 53 
Members of the House, including 39 of our Republican colleagues, wrote 
to President Bush calling for a halt of oil deliveries into the SPRO. 
Let me quote from this letter: ``Dear Mr. President, we are writing to 
urge that you suspend shipments of oil to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve and allow more oil to remain on the market and available to 
consumers when supplies are tight.''
  I agree with those 39 Republicans and other Democrats who made that 
request of the President. They are right.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition, on March 16 of this year, the Senate 
passed an amendment by Senators Carl Levin and Susan Collins with a 
bipartisan majority of 52 to 43 to suspend oil deliveries to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

                              {time}  1545

  Frankly, there is nothing magical about the 647 million barrels of 
oil in this bill which this amendment proposes; that is the cap we 
propose. In conference, that number could be changed. That number 
simply came about with this amendment because it is where the SPR was 
in mid-March when the Senate passed its resolution and when the 53 
Members of the House, including 39 Republicans, wrote their letter to 
the President.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment. Even if the gentleman was correct, it would have to be 
opposed. We have 661 million barrels as of yesterday. The gentleman 
wants to cap us at 647 million. We cannot by law sell it; therefore, I 
assume we will pour it out on the ground and that will be 15 million 
barrels of a large oil spill.
  We are not buying any oil now. We have 700 million barrels as our 
goal, and that is capacity. As I say, we need only 39 million barrels 
to fill the Strategic Oil Reserve. Oil will come in in kind; where 
companies are drilling for oil on government lands, our share will come 
in the form of oil, but we are not buying any oil, and we do not have 
any intentions right now.
  The management of the program right now is to, in tight markets is to 
not buy any petroleum, and the 39 million barrels that we have to go 
for our capacity will come in, as I say, through our royalties.
  So we cannot sell it, we cannot honor the gentleman's amendment to 
hold 647 million with the amendment he has. So I recommend we oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Sanders amendment is something that I believe that people on both 
sides of the aisle will be able to support, and let me explain why. If 
I may quote from something previous that the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) has actually presented to this House, he pointed out that 
releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the past under 
both Democratic and Republican administrations has, in fact, lowered 
the price, lowered the price of gas and crude oil.
  When President Clinton ordered the release of 30 million barrels of 
crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2000, the price of 
gas fell by 14 cents a gallon in just 2 weeks. And, when President 
George H.W. Bush released 13 million barrels of crude oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1991, crude oil prices dropped by over 
$10 per barrel. So those are Democrats and Republicans out there alike 
who are getting socked by these high prices for gasoline.
  So it is up to us to be able to stand up for both Democrats and 
Republicans alike who are suffering from high gasoline prices.
  The Sanders amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, is a win-win 
for consumers and for the Federal Government. It is going to reduce the 
price of gas. People want to know, Congressman, what will you do to 
reduce the price of gasoline? The Sanders amendment. It will reduce the 
price of gas and reduce the deficit at the same time.
  Expenditures for gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas in 1999 
accounted for about $1,400 per year of total household expenditures. 
Price increases over the past 4 years for these residential items added 
about $350 per household per year, meaning that domestic energy price 
shocks have increased household energy bills by 25 percent.
  The driving motivator of these energy price shocks is the 
monopolistic energy industry. The industry has been concentrated in the 
hands of a few vertically integrated companies that have shut down 
refineries, reduced stocks, and exploited markets when they became 
tight. Since these price increases were about padding the corporate 
bottom line, not about responding to increased costs, petroleum 
industry profits have risen to record highs over the period. Domestic 
petroleum companies have stuck U.S. gasoline and natural gas consumers 
with about, get this: $250 billion in price hikes since January 2000, 
resulting in an after-tax windfall profit of $50 billion to $80 billion 
to the industry.
  So the next time someone goes to the pump, they have to understand 
they are subsidizing windfall profits for the oil companies, and all of 
these families in America that are suffering from the high cost of 
gasoline, the Sanders amendment is the solution to do something about 
it.
  Now, this amendment will suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve effective to March of 2004 when several Members of 
Congress wrote to President Bush calling for a halt of oil deliveries 
into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment would prohibit the 
use of taxpayer dollars to maintain more than 647 million barrels of 
oil. We can always swap it out if there is a problem with the numbers.
  At the present time, there is 661.4 million barrels of oil in that 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Bush administration is to fill the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its capacity of 700 million barrels, 
regardless of price, and that is the policy that is keeping the prices 
higher. At a time when the price of gas still averages about $2 a 
gallon, it simply does not make any sense to continue to put more oil 
into that Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is the policy that keeps 
gas prices unnecessarily high, and my constituents in Ohio and all 
across the country, they are paying the price at the pump.
  The quickest method to reduce gas prices is to send a clear message 
to the oil industry that the Federal Government is not going to 
tolerate further price increases and profiteering. The Sanders 
amendment will do that.
  Further profiteering is only going to hurt our weak economy. It is 
time for Congress to protect our constituents' pocketbooks and improve 
the economy. We must prod the oil companies into compliance rather than 
subsidize them.
  This amendment is good for consumers, it is good for this country, it 
is good to stop the rising inflation that the increased costs of 
gasoline is contributing to, and it maintains an adequate level of 
crude oil in Federal stockpiles. It is time for Congress to take action 
on this, and again, this is a bipartisan amendment. People on both 
sides of the aisle can support it. I represent Republicans as well as 
Democrats, and I am proud to say that, and I am proud to say that 
people, both Democrats and Republicans, I believe, in my district 
support this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt such 
a fine speech with any logic.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Does the gentleman seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the gentleman from 
North Carolina being recognized for a second time?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, provided that the 
gentleman wants to share that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Ohio reserving the 
right to object?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.

[[Page 12897]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of 
hysterical comments on the floor, and I share the gentleman's concern 
about high gas prices. The unfortunate thing is we are not spending any 
money now to buy gas. No funds are being expended here. We expect the 
next 39 million barrels will come in as royalties. We cannot sell the 
oil with this amendment. This merely says no funds in this act shall be 
used to maintain more than 647 billion barrels of crude oil in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Now, if it ever gets back down to 647, and that would take a 
complicated movement to get it back down there, then the gentleman's 
amendment might apply. But I do not see that it does what he is 
intending it to do, and certainly it is not going to lower the price of 
gas.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am delighted to yield 
to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the sponsor of the 
amendment, to respond to the chairman.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I am 
not quite sure I understand the chairman's confusion on this issue.
  The gentleman is correct. No money would go to maintain the SPR 
unless oil was released, and that certainly can be done, as the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) indicated, through a swap. That is 
not a difficult process.
  What we are saying very clearly is that millions of working people 
are paying through the nose in high gas prices; it is imperative that 
this Congress act. We have had Republican presidents, Democratic 
presidents, Republican Members of the House, Democratic, Independent 
Members of this House, who have shown sympathy to this idea. It is a 
simple idea. It could lower the price of gas, and we should go forward 
on it. It is a totally practical approach.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding 
that the Department of Energy does have the authority to do something 
of this nature. I think Secretary Richardson did this at a previous 
point in time, and I assume that the theory of the gentleman's 
amendment is that since we are at 661 million barrels inside the SPR 
and under his amendment we can only be at 647 million barrels, that 
they would then have to sell the difference between those two numbers 
into the market.
  Now, I think the Department of Energy has the authority to do this. 
Maybe it would be best for us to talk to the Secretary of Energy about 
this and see if we cannot get him to do it. It might be a lot faster 
and help in a more timely way than a bill that will not probably be 
enacted until October 1.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues that this is a very 
interesting amendment and perhaps I would use the word ``clever,'' 
because it is really a back-door attempt to change our energy policy, 
to really take it away from the President of the United States and to 
use it so that we can use the reserves from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to manipulate crude oil prices for political gain, I think.
  I really think the premise of the amendment is false. It says that 
this amendment can reduce gasoline prices by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. 
We asked the Department of Energy if they agreed, and they said no. The 
effect would be between zero and 1 cent per gallon.
  Now, all of my colleagues remember when President Clinton did this. 
What was the effect of what President Clinton did? What, 1 or 2 cents? 
And I think the people who support this amendment will agree. It is 
going to have a very negligible effect.
  The world is a much more dangerous place than it was previously. 
Terrorists have attacked oil installations in Saudi Arabia. We have 
seen that recently. The bulk of Iraq's exports were shut down on 
Tuesday by terrorist attacks on two oil pipelines in southern Iraq. So, 
I say to my colleagues, we need to preserve what we have in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the event, in the event of a true supply 
emergency, and I think this is more of a political emergency.
  If we want to truly lower gasoline prices, we need to encourage the 
Senate to pass H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act 
of 2004. In this House we passed it by almost 240 votes. When a vote 
was on the floor to really do something about gasoline prices, the 
cosponsors of this amendment said no.
  No individual should cash in his life insurance policy to pay his 
reoccurring, reoccurring monthly expenses. Neither should we, I say to 
my colleagues, the Federal Government cash in its oil insurance policy 
to make a one-time payment on a reoccurring expense; namely, gasoline 
prices.

                              {time}  1600

  My colleagues, we have seen how turbulent the world has become in 
just the past few months. We should have the foresight to see how much 
more so the world could become in the coming months, and we have had 
threats already presented to us. We need to be sure and to ensure that 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is there in the case of these 
emergencies. It is simply an emergency policy. We do not want to go and 
deplete it because of high gasoline prices. We should attack it in a 
way which is meaningful. The energy bill that we passed out of the 
House of Representatives, ask the Senate to do it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard this was a back-door attempt to change our 
energy policy. Well, we have a failing energy policy in the United 
States with the oil men in the White House, and it would be good to 
change it; but I would say actually this is a front-door attempt to 
lower the price of gasoline for American consumers and American 
business. Every penny costs American consumers a billion dollars at the 
pump. Every penny costs the aviation industry a billion dollars in 
profits.
  So if it only came down 2 cents, like the gentleman says, well, that 
is 2 billion bucks for the aviation industry, a couple billion bucks in 
the pockets of American consumers, but maybe that is chump change 
around here. I do not think so. That is real money to the American 
people.
  But beyond that, it is kind of interesting to say if George Bush took 
action and released some oil, it would only drop a penny or two, I 
guess maybe because he would work with the industry to keep the price 
up, because when President Clinton ordered the release of 30 million 
barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2000, the 
price of gas fell by 14 cents. Well, maybe that is just because he is a 
Democrat. That took 2 weeks.
  Well, then, let us go back to President George H.W. Bush. He released 
13, only 13 million barrels of crude oil, about what we are talking 
about here, from the SPRO in 1991, and crude oil prices dropped by $10 
per barrel. So there are precedents. This is not insignificant. We are 
not talking about pennies, but even pennies would bring relief to 
Americans. The last time I drove to the bagel store near my house in 
east Springfield, I went by a gas station, and the price changed 
between the time I went in there to the BuyMart store and went back 
home. It went up. Let us bring it down. Let us change the direction.
  Now, a number of us have asked the President to file a World Trade 
Organization complaint. We passed legislation that costs $154 billion 
just before this because of a complaint filed against the United States 
at the World Trade Organization. Now, I do not support the WTO and I 
voted against it; but, hey, we are in it, this President loves it, and 
we are passing legislation to comply with it.
  Why will he not file a complaint against the eight member nations of 
OPEC? Eight of them are in the World Trade Organization. They are 
violating the World Trade Organization every day. They are colluding to 
restrict supply and drive up the price of oil, but

[[Page 12898]]

this President will do nothing. He will not file that complaint. I have 
written to him twice. They will not file the complaint.
  I guess it is too much to ask this administration to take positive 
action to help bring down the price of oil. If they cannot take 
positive action, maybe a little bit of inaction. Stop filling the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I hope I do not get anybody fired, because 
this administration does not like people to say reasonable things that 
go against their stubborn beliefs, but the staff at the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve recommended 2 years ago that we stop filling the 
reserve because ``Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are 
high and economic growth is slow. The government should avoid acquiring 
oil for the reserve under these circumstances.''
  We are not talking about doing away with the reserve and the 
insurance policy. We are talking about taking prudent steps at a time 
when we are paying sky-high prices for oil to show the world that we 
are going to protect our consumers and stop the price gouging, but I 
guess that is too much to ask of the oil men down at the White House.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention for the record 
that if this amendment passes, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would 
have 93 percent of its capacity, and we could fill it as soon as the 
oil prices went down. And, again, when people talk about concern about 
national security, we are all concerned. Let me remind that 53 Members 
of this House urged the President to do this, including 39 Republicans. 
The Senate passed a bipartisan resolution.
  So as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has indicated, the 
issue is will we finally stand up for the American consumer and lower 
the cost of gasoline.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be 
an insurance policy? Yes. And in this case, it can ensure a lower price 
of gasoline for American consumers and American businesses, or the lack 
of change in this policy and in the administration's current actions 
will ensure higher prices and higher profits for the industry. This 
vote will tell us which side of that question people come down on.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been interesting to listen to this discussion 
today and talk about why we have high prices. Someone just talked that 
we had a failing energy policy. Folks, this Congress has never put an 
energy policy on any President's desk, and I do not know that any 
President has asked for one till George Bush. He has begged for one. He 
has pleaded for one, and this Congress has not put an energy policy on 
his desk. That is why we are in trouble. Even with an energy policy, it 
is going to be years before we have much to say about our future.
  We are dependent today because we do not have a plan; we do not have 
a policy on foreign parts of the world who dictate. Think, just a few 
months ago, one of our supposed friends said when oil was $32 a barrel, 
they were going to raise the price. No. They were going to reduce how 
much they were sending. Historically when it got over $30, they put 
more oil in, and the price would come down a little bit, but at $32 
they took oil out, and prices sky-rocketed within a couple of months to 
$42.
  Folks, we are vulnerable to countries who have little long-term 
interest in us, little long-term commitment to us, and that is why it 
has never been more important for us to have a stockpile. SPRO was not 
designed for price control. The strategic oil reserve is for us in case 
of war, in case of something that would interrupt our supply of oil. We 
are now 58 percent dependent on imports from unstable parts of the 
world.
  We have never had a time when our oil supply, they are looking on how 
they can disrupt our oil supply every day, whether it is blow up 
tankers, whether it is blow up pipelines. Iraq had serious problems 
just this week. It was going to stop supply, a tremendous amount of 
supply from Iraq.
  We are vulnerable, and if we would have one of these countries taken 
over by a dissident group, we would have not $40 oil, not $50 oil, but 
possibly $60 oil, which would crush our economy. We have to look at the 
big picture here, but all of those pleading for price control, let us 
talk about an energy policy. I wish you would join us in saying let us 
put an energy policy on the President's desk so he can sign it so this 
country can get on a plan of action where we are not dependent on 
foreign oil.
  The natural gas issue right beside us is crushing us economically 
because we cannot import natural gas like we import oil. We have $6-
and-something gas going into the ground right now that is going to be 
coming out next winter. Last year at this time we put natural gas in 
the ground at $4.60, and that was a record. This year it is in excess 
of $6. When you combine those two, greater pressure on oil because of 
high gas prices. They were related. Last winter, school districts, 
hospitals who had the ability to divert, diverted from natural gases 
because of high prices and used more oil, increasing our need to import 
oil from foreign countries.
  We talk about our oil companies control, this country has little 
control of oil. We do not have it. We are only producing 42 percent of 
the oil we use. We produce 20 million barrels a day out of the 80 
million; and we have China, we have India who are now becoming huge 
users. The countries that took care of us have lots of people knocking 
on their door now saying we need oil. They have other people who are 
going to use huge amounts of oil. There are those who predict China 
will use more oil than us in 5 years. I do not know that that is 
correct. I have not researched that, but I have heard that stated.
  The most important thing we can do here in this Congress is give the 
President, quit our bickering and our partisan fighting and get an 
energy policy on the President's desk that he can sign that will help 
us wean ourselves off foreign oil, get us out of oil for transportation 
down the road and other measures to move our vehicles. We have to have 
a plan of action. We are becoming more dependent every day, and we are 
dependent on less and less stable parts of the world for oil.
  The energy issue, when you combine oil prices and natural gas prices, 
has the potential to stall the economy of this country. And if we do 
not protect SPRO and have it in case of an interruption, disruption, 
$50 and $60 oil will shut the economy down is what we are talking 
about.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Speaker, to listen to the other side, you would think that the 
margin between chaos and a healthy economy is 7 percent in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The matter is the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) has a very rational amendment.
  You have a time when families are being stretched by high oil prices, 
much of it I guess because of the war in Iraq, at a time when people 
when we are trying to get the economy moving again, we are trying to 
hire people, we have industries under incredible pressure because of 
high energy prices, the transportation industry and the trucking 
industry and the airline industry. It has been estimated that of the 
middle class tax cuts, half of it has been taken back in higher energy 
prices.
  The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) says just take the 
artificial customer out of the marketplace, which is the Government of 
the United States. We have filled about 93 percent of the SPRO. We are 
going to pause right now because there is turmoil in these markets and 
we are going to give the American economy and American families a 
break, a breather from $2.50, $2.70 gasoline that we are paying in the 
San Francisco Bay area. I represent five major oil refineries. Yes, 
they are working to capacity. But the fact of the matter is, many 
economists have suggested that if this amendment would pass, people 
would get a reduction of 10, 15, or 20 cents. Maybe that is

[[Page 12899]]

not a lot to Members of Congress, but it is an awful lot to people who 
are driving long distances in northern California to commute to work. 
The cost of going to work has increased dramatically for families in 
this country.
  This amendment says this is just one of the few things that we can 
do. There is a lot of discussion that somehow if we had the energy 
policy that the Republicans were pushing last year and could not get 
passed, although they controlled the Senate, they controlled the House, 
they controlled the White House, they could not get it passed. Why 
could they not get it passed? Because when the day came to pass it 
finally at the end of the session in the Senate, they realized it was 
not an energy policy. It was a tax giveaway for a lot of old, tired 
ideas about the petroleum economy of the past and had very little about 
the future.
  Then they decided, and the majority leader here decided, he was going 
to protect MTBE, the polluters that are poisoning the wells of small 
communities all over the country, all over the country. He has decided 
that those companies are going to be protected from lawsuits from 
communities that are trying to clean up and recover their domestic 
drinking water supply, that that was part of the energy bill. Had that 
not happened, you would have had an energy bill last year, but you 
thought the MTBE polluters were more important than an energy policy.
  It is also interesting when the Senate took a second look at it, they 
said these $35 billion in tax bills that are paid for by the deficit, 
we cannot afford it; and they started ripping them out, and they 
reduced it to 14 billion. And now there is a lot of people on the other 
side that are upset because they lost their tax cuts in that 
legislation.
  It was never about energy. It was about paying old debts to people 
that were very supportive in the campaign and had some old, tired ideas 
that they should not have to pay royalties and they should not have to 
pay taxes on their earnings in the energy industry. It was not going to 
produce any new oil. It was not going to produce any new energy.
  Yes, we are dependent on foreign oil, and we will continue to be 
dependent on foreign oil for as far as we can see because we cannot 
produce our way out of that problem. We simply cannot produce our way 
out either by natural gas or by oil or even by coal for the needs that 
we have for that energy.

                              {time}  1615

  Now we can change our usage. We can engage in conservation 
renewables, but that is not what that energy bill was about, and that 
energy bill did not pass. So we have an option here, to do the one 
thing that we can do and we can do it immediately, and it is under our 
control and that is to simply stop filling the SPR, go back to the 
March levels when these energy prices started running up, and give the 
American people and businesses a break, and let them recover and to 
assimilate these costs.
  Yes, we would love it that it would drop by 25 cents, but if it only 
drops 12 cents or 10 cents or 15 cents, that is important. It is 
certainly important to the business in this country and to the families 
we have kept our faith with the idea of filling the SPR because we are 
at the 93 percent level.
  So I would urge that people would consider supporting this amendment. 
I think it is important for our constituents, it is important for their 
families, it is important for their budgets. We are talking about 
people in the middle class who are being squeezed.
  This is not the only place. It is not only high energy costs. They 
have seen their deductibles and copayments on health care go up. They 
have seen their cable rates go up, their utility rates go up, the cost 
of their kids' college education. This middle class is being squeezed. 
We can provide some relief here with the Sanders amendment and lower 
the energy costs to these families in America, and we ought do it.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, you can use all the figures you want and make all the 
projections that you want to make and you just cannot shake this down 
as anything other than an effort to misuse the purposes for which SPR 
was set up. I think we need to go back many, many years ago when 
Congress voted it. The President has not declared an emergency as 
required. President Clinton did declare an emergency. Secretary 
Richardson did release at Clinton's request. It did little effect. It 
had very little effect. It had very little help. It was just a blip on 
the market.
  Actually, we are in a situation here where attempts are made to stop 
putting into SPR, and that is to save maybe a penny a gallon or maybe 
less than a penny a gallon. It just does not make any sense at all. Yet 
at a time when we cannot pass ANWR, we cannot pass drilling up there 
that could have some real consequential effect on whether or not the 
gas prices go up or down and make a great defense on whether or not 
youngsters have to cross an ocean to take energy away from someone who 
has it, when we have none that we can mine, now that does not make any 
sense. We have a chance to save for this country for this generation to 
cross oceans and take away energy from people who have and save our 
children from having to fight a war. Give them the chance to say what 
profession, what business am I going into rather than what branch of 
service. We cannot pass ANWR. We cannot pass the Ultra D. We are two 
votes away, for political reasons, from passing an energy bill.
  I just want to say this amendment seeks to suspend deliveries to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the 2004 cap and to prohibit the use of 
taxpayer money to maintain more than 647 million barrels of oil in SPR. 
That means with 661.4 million barrels in SPR now, there must be a 
release of 14.4 million barrels out of SPR.
  By the time the fiscal year 2005 begins October 1, 2004, the SPR will 
have over 670 million barrels in SPR. This amendment will force the 
immediate sell-off of 23 million barrels, causing extreme volatility in 
the market which could ultimately lead to grave shortages as the 
markets come to rely on the government to provide supply. Of course, 
the government only has a limited supply for a country that uses 20 
million barrels of crude oil every day.
  This amendment is merely a backdoor attempt to change the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act to make the SPR a means by which the 
Federal Government can manipulate crude oil supply for political gain 
instead of using the SPR as an insurance policy, which it was intended 
to be used for and then only in the event of a ``severe energy supply 
interruption,'' as set forth in the existing law. That just has not 
happened.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) stated here just a few 
moments ago, the premise of the amendment is just absolutely bogus and 
false. It says that this amendment can reduce gasoline prices by 10 to 
25 cents per gallon. The Department of Energy says that the effect 
would be between zero and 1 percent per gallon.
  The world is at a more dangerous place than it was back in March of 
2004. Terrorists have attacked oil installations in Saudi Arabia. The 
bulk of Iraq's exports were shut down on just Tuesday of this week by 
terrorist attacks on two oil pipelines in southern Iraq. We need to 
preserve what we have in SPR in the event of a true emergency. That is 
what it was intended for. That is what it was set up for. That is what 
this Congress based it on, not a political emergency.
  If we want to truly lower gasoline prices, we need to encourage the 
Senate to pass H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act 
of 2004 which the House passed by a vote of 239 to 192. When a vote was 
on the floor to really do something about gasoline prices, cosponsors 
of this amendment, most of them voted ``no.''
  Now, no individual, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), 
should cash in a life insurance policy to pay their recurring monthly 
expenses. Neither should the Federal Government cash in an oil 
insurance policy to simply make a one-time payment on a recurring 
expense, namely, gasoline prices.
  Having seen how turbulent the world has become in just the past few

[[Page 12900]]

months, we should have the foresight to see how much more so the world 
could become in the coming months. We need to use SPR for what Congress 
really intended it to be, an insurance policy in the event of a severe 
energy supply interruption. We have not had that.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if I have understood the arguments that have emanated 
from the other side of the aisle accurately, they seem to suggest that 
we should not be doing anything; that is, the government of the United 
States, should not be doing anything to help consumers, taxpayers, at 
this moment when they are paying record prices for gasoline out in the 
marketplace.
  Well, that does not make any sense. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) has offered an opportunity to do something which will hold the 
price of gasoline and drive it down 10, 15, 20 cents a gallon. That 
makes a lot of sense. Any time a person can save a dollar or two or 
three on a tank of gas, that means another quart of milk or another 
loaf of bread for some people who are having a hard time in this 
country making things work.
  The argument that the government should not do anything to try to 
regulate the price of oil is absurd. Let me just take my colleagues 
back in history a little bit, not very far, just about a year or so, 15 
months.
  When the leadership of this House brought a resolution to the floor 
here authorizing the President of the United States to go to war in 
Iraq, many of us said that there would be terrible consequences and 
that among those consequences would be this, that that war would 
destabilize the Middle East and the destabilization of the Middle East 
would drive up the price of oil and that the American taxpayer/consumer 
would have to pay more for gasoline and more for heating oil as a 
result of that war resolution. What do my colleagues know? That is 
exactly what has happened. The destabilization of the Middle East has 
driven up the price of gasoline and the price of heating oil.
  Now we are told we should not do anything about it. What are we doing 
in Iraq now? This government is asking the American taxpayer to 
subsidize the price of gasoline in Iraq. Iraqis are paying 5 cents a 
gallon. We are paying $500 million every quarter to subsidize the price 
of that gasoline at 5 cents a gallon, $2 billion a year. That comes out 
of the same pocket, the people who are paying record prices for 
gasoline today. That is a consequence of the policies of this 
administration and the majority party in this House.
  When Halliburton can buy gasoline for 71 cents a gallon and sell it 
to the Army Corps of Engineers for more than $2.10 a gallon, three 
times the price they are paying for it, and the government of the 
United States, the leadership in the administration and here in the 
Congress, turns a blind eye to it, that drives up the price of gasoline 
for every American consumer and taxpayer as well. When the 
administration engages in economic policies which deflate the value of 
the dollar by 30 percent, that means that everything we buy with that 
dollar on the international market costs more.
  So, as a result of the economic policies of this administration, 
which have deflated the dollar by almost one-third, the American 
taxpayer-consumer is paying more for gasoline and fuel oil.
  These are things that this administration, the Bush administration 
and the leadership here in the Congress, have done to regulate the 
price of oil. Unfortunately, none of that has been to drive down the 
price of gasoline or the price of heating oil, but every bit of it has 
been to drive up the price of gasoline and the price of heating oil.
  What the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is trying to do is just 
reverse that a little bit. Let us support him today.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I heard a moment ago an estimate from the 
DOE that this amendment would lower the cost of gas by one cent. Well, 
let me tell my colleagues that Goldman Sachs has studies which suggests 
that it would be 10 to 25 cents. They are the largest crude oil trader 
in the world, 10 to 25 cents a gallon.
  People say this is a new and radical idea. It is not a new and 
radical idea. George Bush, the first, did it; Bill Clinton did it; and 
in both instances, it was successful. It drove down the price of gas 
that consumers were purchasing.
  This is an amendment and a concept supported by Republicans and 
Democrats.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the 
amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will 
be postponed.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on 
Interior and Related Agencies appropriations for a colloquy or 
dialogue, the chairman from North Carolina.
  It is my understanding the Office of Insular Affairs of the 
Department of Interior has proposed a new competitive grant formula for 
capital improvement grants whereby funding can be increased or reduced 
depending upon each Territory's performance in meeting proposed 
criteria for financial management and accountability. Committee report 
also indicates that the Secretary may use discretion to modify the 
funding formula to address court-ordered infrastructure projects.
  For the chairman's information, my district does not have a court 
order pending and we also have complied with a separate memorandum of 
understanding to put a fiscal reform plan in place. Our fiscal reform 
plan has been submitted and accepted by the Department of the Interior.
  To my knowledge, the Office of Insular Affairs has not consulted with 
the territorial delegates on this matter nor with our territorial 
governments regarding this proposal.
  I express my deepest disappointment in the OIA's failure to consult 
with the territorial delegates on matters which seriously affect the 
constituents we represent, and while I can appreciate the territorial 
governments need to be fiscally responsible, we cannot and must not 
excuse OIA's disregard for the democratic process. I kind of like to 
think we are a co-equal branch of government in the way we operate.
  Finally, I would like to work sincerely with the chairman and ranking 
member to include language in the conference report to direct the 
Office of Insular Affairs to consult with the delegates and the 
territorial governments for purposes of refining the criteria that will 
be used before this proposal goes into effect.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's statement, and I will work with him, and we will try to get 
the Interior Department's efforts to allocate construction funds based 
on financial performance, and I will be glad to work with the 
gentleman.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
assistance to resolve this matter.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Guam.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for yielding.
  As has been stated, the Office of Insular Affairs has proposed a new 
competitive grant formula for capital improvement grants that derive 
from a reprogramming of funds authorized under Public Law 94-241. I 
commend the Department for addressing the capital infrastructure needs 
of the Territories

[[Page 12901]]

and in proposing a formula whereby grants can be increased or reduced 
depending upon each Territory's performance through evaluation on 
proposed criteria for financial management and improved accountability.
  Mr. Chairman, I note that the committee report on this provision 
indicates the Secretary may use discretion to modify the funding 
formula to address appropriately court-ordered infrastructure projects 
in the respective Territories.

                              {time}  1630

  In the case of Guam, I would note for the record that the government 
of Guam is under a consent order for water and wastewater 
infrastructure improvements in the amount of $200 million to comply 
with the Clean Water Act and also under a second court order to close 
the Ordot landfill at a cost of $30 million to remedy additional 
violations of the Clean Water Act.
  Given these circumstances, is it the committee's intent that the 
Secretary should consider these court orders in determining allocations 
for the infrastructure grants?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
from Guam for raising this issue. The committee encourages the Office 
of Insular Affairs to take into account financial accountability 
performance. The committee also wants the OIA to consider the capital 
infrastructure needs mandated by Federal court orders in the 
Territories. This is important to Guam and to other Territories and to 
the committee.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor) engage me in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have an amendment to offer at this time, but 
since this bill has provisions dealing with mineral leasing and 
permits, I want to make an observation about the administration's 
budget request and the fact that the Office of Management and Budget is 
increasing the Federal maintenance fees for hardrock mining claims from 
$100 to $126 per claim based on a cost-of-living adjustment from 1993 
to 2004.
  While the provision allowing them to do this is in current law, 
neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land Management, the 
Federal agencies that oversee and approve mining operations on Federal 
lands, maintain a tracking system capable of determining how long a 
mining permit has been pending. This simple data management tool is 
necessary to more accurately track these permits. These agencies need a 
system that does more than merely determine on a yearly basis the 
number of plans and notices that are submitted and approved each year. 
These agencies need a system that lets the department, Congress, and 
the public know how long these applications are pending. Such a system 
should alert these agencies to where additional attention or resources 
are needed.
  Delays in processing mining permits have impacts far beyond any 
particular mining project. A ripple effect occurs. Delays impact 
investment, lack of investment results in less exploration, less 
exploration results in less development of domestic resources, less 
development of domestic resources leads to greater reliance on foreign 
sources, greater reliance on foreign sources impacts our economic and 
national security, not to mention loss of jobs and economic impact on 
local communities.
  The U.S. mining industry is modern, high-tech and environmentally 
responsible and overall has a solid record of compliance with the 
world's more rigorous State, local, and Federal laws and regulations. 
It should not take 4 to 10 years to obtain the permits necessary to 
commence operations. The government needs to find ways to improve 
permitting and expediting mining permits before it increases fees for 
holding the land involved in these permits.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that this issue can be addressed in the near 
future.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Simpson) is correct in his assessment that a permit tracking 
system is needed, and we will work with the gentleman on this issue in 
the future and hope we can succeed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Holt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to permit recreational snowmobile use in Yellowstone 
     National Park, the John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway, 
     and Grand Teton National Park.

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson) to offer an amendment to 
protect the world's first national park and a wonderful American 
treasure, Yellowstone.
  Our amendment completes the phaseout originally implemented by the 
National Park Service in 2001 of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand 
Teton National Parks. The phaseout was delayed and then reversed over 
the course of the past 3 years, only to be reinstated for most of last 
winter under court order. The original decision to phase out 
snowmobiles in favor of snowcoaches was not an arbitrary decision or 
some kind of gratuitous attack on snowmobiles. It was based on 10 years 
of careful study, after which the National Park Service implemented a 
rule in January 2001 calling for a 2-year phaseout.
  After President Bush entered the White House, the National Park 
Service delayed implementation of the phaseout and initiated yet 
another study of winter use in Yellowstone at a cost of $2.4 million to 
taxpayers. This study, no surprise, completed in February 2003, came to 
the same conclusion, that phasing out snowmobiles in favor of 
snowcoaches would be the best thing for Yellowstone Park, for the park, 
for the visitors, for the employees, for the wildlife.
  This is about protecting our natural treasures. It is not primarily 
about snowmobiles. It is that snowmobiles have been determined to be 
incompatible with the preservation of Yellowstone Park. In the early 
days of Yellowstone Park, employees and visitors engaged in all sorts 
of behavior which was not thought to be harmful at that time, but it 
jeopardized the ability of future generations to see the natural 
splendor. Park employees used to throw trash down the geysers or use 
them for laundry, permanently plugging up the geothermal features. The 
National Park Service used to encourage visitors to feed the bears, 
wolves were openly hunted across Yellowstone until they were extinct. 
Visitors were allowed to chip off chunks of rock from geysers. But it 
was recognized that this behavior was not compatible with the purpose 
of the park, the creation of Park Service to preserve these parks for 
the enjoyment of current and future generations.
  As the Park Service learned more about the unique environment of 
Yellowstone, they ended these destructive practices. Snowmobiling in 
the park is no different. The Park Service has studied the issue 
repeatedly and comprehensively and found that continued use of 
snowmobiles is incompatible with the mission as laid out in the 
legislation creating the parks, to conserve the scenery and the natural 
and historic objects, the wildlife in the parks, and to provide for the 
enjoyment of the same and such manner and by such means as will leave 
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

[[Page 12902]]

  We are not here to disparage the snowmobile industry or those who 
ride snowmobiles, I among them. We are trying to make the point that 
Yellowstone National Park is a unique environment, a precious national 
treasure that deserves an extra level of protection. In fact, the 
unique characteristics of Yellowstone's winter environment actually 
magnify the harmful effects of snowmobiles, making their impact really 
worse than in other areas of the country.
  Sound travels further in winter. Snowmobile noise is audible across 
many popular sections of the park, as I discovered when I was there in 
February last year. Even the newer snowmobiles which were supposed to 
meet strict new noise and emission standards were found to actually 
emit more because the snowmobile industry has souped them up. They are 
higher horsepower. So, in fact, even though the four-stroke engine 
offers some advantages over a two-stroke engine, what is being 
purchased, sold and used is a more powerful snowmobile that is emitting 
more.
  The simple fact is that snowmobiles that enter Yellowstone and Grand 
Teton are only a tiny portion of the $7 billion snowmobile industry. As 
the industry reacts and produces more powerful snowmobiles, it is 
difficult to make them quieter and cleaner. And in fact, EPA tests 
found that the 2004 four-stroke models was actually emitting more than 
the 2002 models.
  We have no intention of cutting off motorized access to the parks. 
The original snowmobile phaseout encouraged the purchase and deployment 
of snowcoaches.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Holt was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there are 400 miles of snowmobile trails 
immediately adjacent to Yellowstone, thousands of miles of snowmobile 
trails, some of which I have traveled outside the park in Idaho, 
Wyoming, Montana, and 130,000 of snowmobile trails across the country. 
We are talking about phasing out snowmobile use on 250 miles. This is 
not going to hurt the industry. It is not going to hurt the tourism 
industry and it is not going to hurt the snowmobile manufacturing 
industry.
  It is true if you are snowmobiling on these trails outside of 
Yellowstone Park, you will not see Old Faithful, but we are hopeful if 
we remove the snowmobile smog, others will be able to see Old Faithful 
when they travel in by snowcoach.
  Let me point out that many former National Park officials who worked 
under both Democratic and Republican administrations have expressed 
their displeasure. Last month they wrote to Secretary Norton saying to 
uphold the founding principle of our national parks, stewardship on 
behalf of all visitors and future generations, the snowmobile should be 
phased out. This was signed by the Park Service Director who served 
from 1964-1972; the Assistant Secretary of the Interior who served 
between 1971 and 1976; the National Park Service Director who served 
between 1980 and 1985; the National Park Service Deputy Director who 
served between 1985 and 1989; the Park Service Director who served 
between 1993 and 1997; the Park Service Director who served between 
1997 and 2001; the Yellowstone Park Superintendent who served between 
1983 and 1994; and the Yellowstone Park Superintendent who served 
between 1994 and 2001. They all say proceed with the rule that phases 
out snowmobile use on these 250 miles of roads in Yellowstone Park. 
That is what we are asking for today. I ask support for my amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, this is a complicated issue. 
With two Federal courts dueling, one ruling that the National Park 
Service's 2003 plan was invalid and the other that enjoined the plan of 
the Clinton administration. Caught in the middle are the local business 
people that rely on winter use and the visitors who 90 percent prefer 
the use of snowmobiles to access during the winter in Yellowstone.
  Together the courts have found that the environmental studies in 
place are flawed and must be redone. This will take 2 to 3 years. In 
the meantime, to ensure snowmobile use this winter, the National Park 
Service has initiated a temporary winter use plan to allow for their 
use while the long-term study is being completed. Now there is a whole 
plethora of rules and regulations, but the committee supports the 
National Park's efforts to ensure continued winter use that balances 
visitors in the park and resource protection until the courts can get 
back to it again.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this amendment and correct some 
of the erroneous statements which have already been made regarding this 
issue.
  My district in Minnesota is the home of Arctic Cat and Polaris which 
produce American-made snowmobiles. I have about 4,000 people in my 
district which work at these two plants, and there are probably another 
2,000 to 3,000 jobs directly related, manufacturing plants which supply 
pulleys and sprockets and precision equipment. This is a big industry 
and a big employer in my district.
  They have really gone out of their way to improve these machines. 
Artic Cat, for example, started in 1996 developing the four-stroke 
machine. These companies spent millions of dollars developing this 
technology so we could have cleaner and quieter machines operating in 
different parts of the country.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) was saying these machines 
are actually louder or pollute more than the machines that were 
developed in 1992. Well, that is absolutely not the case at all. I have 
a letter here from the National Park Service, Yellowstone Park Director 
Suzanne Lewis printed on their stationery which commends Polaris and 
Arctic Cat for the work that they have done in developing these new 
technologies. They have a number of machines that are now well below 
the requirements that were placed on these manufacturers and these 
machines by the National Park Service.

                              {time}  1645

  In the area of hydrocarbons, they had to meet less than 15 grams per 
mile, or hour, I guess it is. The 2002 Arctic Cat was not 15, it was 
6.2. That was brought down to 5.62 in 2004. In the case of carbon 
monoxide, they had a level of 120. The original machines that were 
certified were 79.95 in 2002. That is now down to 9.2. They have made 
significant progress in these areas. On the sound emissions, they have 
a 73 decibel rating and those are also below the amounts that were 
required by the National Park Service.
  If anybody wants to see this, this is information that is put out on 
the Yellowstone National Park's stationery by the park manager, and 
these companies have not only met the standards; they have gone well 
below the standards. If anybody has ever ridden one of these 
snowmobiles or been around one of them, when you turn it on, you cannot 
even hear it run. When it is out there operating, if you are riding 
with somebody else, you can talk back and forth. They are very quiet. 
They not only improve the situation in Yellowstone Park; they also 
improve the situation in any other place in the United States where 
they are operating these machines.
  Some people have suggested that we ought to have snowcoaches as an 
alternative to these snowmobiles. The snowcoaches actually put out more 
pollution per the number of riders that can go in one of these 
snowcoaches that would be put out by the equivalent amount of machines 
that could haul the same number of people using a regular snowmobile. 
And if you have ever been out to the park and been able to participate 
in this, it is a wonderful experience. I think it is much better to see 
the park in the wintertime than it is in the summer because it is a lot

[[Page 12903]]

more beautiful. But if you are in a snowcoach, it is not that great of 
an experience. The windows all steam up and really the only time you 
can see anything is when they stop and let you out. So it really 
destroys the experience.
  People need to understand that these machines are on the same roads 
that we drive with the cars that we use in the summertime. They have 
speed limits. They have now limited the amount of machines that can go 
into the park. This compromise that they have come up with makes sense, 
and it still allows us to use the parks in the way that we intended and 
that is for the American people to be able to enjoy the beauty of our 
national parks. Some of the people that are interested in solving this 
problem, if they really are concerned about pollution, we should think 
about eliminating cars in the national parks because they produce a lot 
more pollution than these machines.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, Yellowstone was established in 1872 with the dual 
purpose of protecting the unique resources in that area and providing 
for the American public to be able to enjoy that area. Both Yellowstone 
and Grand Teton National Park have been well managed through the years 
to conserve the land and to provide for the public's use and enjoyment. 
No damage has ever been done to the parks by snowmobiling.
  I have to take exception with my friend from New Jersey's remarks 
that the EPA stated that the current snowmobiles are more polluting and 
noisier than the old because they are more powerful. After he told me 
that yesterday, I contacted the EPA. I have here with me the study that 
the EPA did. As a matter of fact, the current policy, the Bush policy, 
allows four-stroke engines to be in the park because their air 
emissions are 90 percent lower than the two stroke and the noise is 50 
percent less than the two stroke. The Bush administration's policy is 
to allow four-stroke engines and limit the number of snowmobiles that 
can go into the park.
  I want to repeat: snowmobiles have never caused a violation of our 
current environmental laws, and the air quality will only improve under 
the Bush administration guidelines. As I said earlier, the new four-
stroke engines are cleaner; and as my friend from Minnesota stated, 
they are quieter as well. By the way, snowmobiles can only go on the 
roads that are already plowed. I think people have the idea that snow 
machines are just going all over the park in all directions. That is 
not true. The only place they go are on the roads, as we see here, that 
are already plowed.
  The new supplemental environmental impact statement, which I just 
discussed which came to the conclusion that four-stroke engines could 
be used and to limit the number, grew out of countless hours of input 
from the National Park Service, from the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and from all the cooperating agencies and counties and other 
interest groups. This was a compromise between a ban and unlimited use. 
It strikes a good balance to provide for continued snowmobile use while 
still preserving the health of our national parks and the wildlife that 
live there.
  According to the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural 
Resources, a ban on snowmobiles in the parks could cost Wyoming 938 
jobs and $11.8 million in lost labor income a year. That might not mean 
much to my friend from New Jersey, but it means a lot to us. To put it 
in perspective, these net job losses in Wyoming would be equivalent to 
67,743 lost jobs in California; 37,952 lost jobs in New York; and 
12,698 lost jobs in Massachusetts. That really does make a difference.
  If we ban snowmobiles, there will be two alternatives: no visitors in 
the winter, or snowcoaches as was said before. A snowcoach is a 
modified sport utility vehicle which gets from 2 to 4 miles per gallon. 
The emissions are much greater than the snowmobiles, even greater than 
the old two-stroke snowmobiles, and the noise is unbelievable. I know. 
I have seen them. I want my colleagues to look and see how much people 
interfacing with wildlife in Yellowstone National Park bothers the 
wildlife. Banning snowmobiles is the only way to stop this interfacing 
between animals and people, but obviously the animals are not upset 
about that and they are not upset by the snowmobiles coming around, 
either.
  Let us be honest in this debate, and let us not pretend that 
preventing the use of snowmobiles will enhance the environment in 
Yellowstone. It simply will not. As I said, no environmental law or 
limit has ever been broken or exceeded by the use of snowmobiles in 
Yellowstone. Many of the radical environmentalists pushing for this ban 
would like to put all of the West into a national park. We have had a 
bill filed that actually does that from a Congressman from New York. I 
ask my colleagues to use their good sense. I ask them to allow the 
people of the United States of America to enjoy the resources and the 
God-given natural beauty that we have.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, those who are here advocating a limitation or banning 
of snowmobiles from Yellowstone and perhaps from other national parks 
are operating under what I am convinced is a misguided understanding of 
snow-
mobiling. They are probably thinking of snowmobiles as they existed 10, 
15, 20 years ago, not the snowmobiles that have been developed in 
recent years and which meet and even exceed the stringent standards 
that the National Park Service has established for snowmobile use in 
our national parks, as in Voyagers National Park in my district and as 
we are talking about with Yellowstone.
  Some years ago, there were 2,000 snowmobiles a day allowed in the 
park. Today that is 740. Fifteen years ago, they were noisier, perhaps 
more emissions emitted from such machines. Today it is vastly 
different. Snowmobile technology has vastly improved. The primary snow 
machine used in Yellowstone and in Voyagers has emissions 97 percent 
lower for particulates and 85 percent lower for carbon monoxide than 
machines used just even 5 years ago.
  The U.S. manufacturing sector, Polaris, Arctic Cat, Bombardier, have 
invested millions, even tens of millions of dollars to improve the 
quality of their snowmobiles to operate in our national parks and 
elsewhere throughout the United States. The maximum grams per kilowatt 
hour allowed in Yellowstone, 120 for carbon monoxide; Arctic Cat 
emissions, 92; Polaris, 111; bombardier, 92. Technically, just on the 
science alone, they are well below the standards set by the National 
Park Service. Hydrocarbon emissions, maximum allowed in Yellowstone per 
kilowatt hour, 15; for Arctic Cat machines, 5.6; for Polaris, 5.4; for 
Bombardier, 6.12, two-thirds less than the national standard set by the 
National Park Service.
  Noise is another argument made against snow machines. Run a hair 
dryer or a hair blower, that is 100 decibels. Run a lawn mower, that is 
85 decibels. Run your garbage disposal in your kitchen, that is 80 
decibels. Run a vacuum cleaner around your house, that is 80 decibels. 
Run a snowmobile. The maximum decibel level allowed in Yellowstone is 
73 decibels. Arctic Cat is at 70. Polaris is at 73. Bombardier is at 
72. They are at or below the level of noise standard set by the 
National Park Service, and they are getting better. I think that we 
need some common sense in this matter of access to the national parks.
  Before snowmobiles, we did not really have a life in the northern 
tier of States, but now people are able to get out and enjoy the 
countryside, to travel distances out into the woods, out on the side 
roads and the byroads and the tote roads of logging days. In Minnesota, 
we have got 11 months of winter and 1 month of rough sledding. Without 
the snowmobile and stretch pants, we would not have a life. So do not 
take this away. Do not come down with this hard and fast, you cannot 
use this. Accept the march of technology and sensible use.

[[Page 12904]]

  Snowmobilers are just good, ordinary citizens. Who are they? In my 
district, they are the men and women who work in the iron ore mines. 
They are the men and women who work in the retail grocery stores and in 
the hardware stores, the men and women who work in the pulp and paper 
mills. They go out to exercise themselves, to enjoy the winter that 
they live there for. Do not take this away from them. They are 
respectful of this environment. That is why they live in that north 
country.
  Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in opposition to this amendment which I think makes very 
little sense. Apparently one day someone was in Yellowstone years ago 
and following a bunch of two-stroke snowmobiles and the deal on a two-
stroke snowmobile, they mix oil with the gasoline for the lubricating 
process, and it eliminates a little haze. The new machines, the four-
strokes as the previous speaker said, are very efficient, they are very 
quiet, and they do not pollute.

                              {time}  1700

  And they do not emit that blue smoke. We are trying to eliminate 
65,000 snowmobiles a year from Yellowstone when we allow 1.8 million 
cars to traverse the same roads. The new snowmobiles have about the 
same technology as the cars and emit about the same amount of 
hydrocarbons as the cars. So why would we eliminate 65,000 snowmobiles 
and allow 1.8 million cars?
  We have a certain group of people in this country that seem to want 
to lock up our national treasures, our national parks, and cherished 
places and keep the public from enjoying them. Snowmobiling is a great 
way to enjoy the park. It is now very well controlled, and it is a way 
for people to get out in the wintertime and see a whole other side of 
these beautiful parks. Instead of going in the summer and following a 
travel trailer and wandering through the park and not being able to see 
anything, one can take their own sled and go through and enjoy the 
beauty of the park.
  There is no reason to legislate against this. We are meddling where 
the Park Service has decided to make a very good compromise and take 
advantage of the new science and the better machines to allow something 
that is a very good and wise use of our natural resource.
  This is a great way to enjoy the park. It is nonpolluting, it is 
controlled. It is not nearly as abusive of the air quality as are the 
normal things we do in the summer with all the cars. This is great 
recreation.
  If we are so intent on reducing every possible amount of damage to 
the air, why do we not cancel baseball season or football season or at 
least football season in the wintertime? Because apparently that is 
what we are worried about. I do not think this makes a lot of sense, 
and I think we should rely on the Park Service to implement the 
regulations that they have in place with the restrictions so that 
people can enjoy our parks.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do have five charts I would like to take. I would 
like to take the opportunity through the use of these charts to better 
understand the facts surrounding snowmobile use in Yellowstone National 
Park which are all based on data supplied by the National Park Service.
  Mr. Chairman, my first chart is on bison populations in Yellowstone, 
which clearly illustrates that since the early 1960s, when snowmobile 
use began in the park, and to its peak in the early 1990s, the bison 
population has increased from 819 animals to an estimated population of 
about 4,200 animals. I think many would agree that this is quite a 
healthy population, and it would also suggest to my colleagues that 
cleanly groomed roads and snowmobile use has not been a hindrance to 
the bison reproduction rate.
  My second chart, which I think is perhaps the most interesting, 
illustrates the number of snowmobiles that entered Yellowstone National 
Park in 1994, 1998, and 2003, versus the number of motor vehicles that 
use the park's roads in nonwinter months. Keep in mind that in 
wintertime the only way to access Yellowstone National Park is through 
snowmobiles. Vehicles enter it in the nonwinter parts of the years. As 
my colleagues can see, the number of snowmobiles is totally dwarfed by 
the number of cars, motorcycles, SUVs, RVs, and other vehicles that 
enter the park, and I wonder if my colleague from New Jersey wishes to 
move beyond the banning of the 48,000 plus snowmobile users in the 
wintertime toward eliminating over 1.8 million summer vacationers from 
the park in the nonwinter parts of the year. Perhaps we should operate 
under the presumption that the fewer people accessing the park is 
better and maybe perhaps cars would be next.
  My third chart, Mr. Chairman, is an emissions comparison of the 
popular West Yellowstone Entrance. The first bar at 150 parts per 
million of particulate matter is the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard. The next bar of 33.7 parts per million represents the two-
stroke snowmobiles emissions. The next two bars, representing 5.4 parts 
per million each, are for the 2001 Clinton snowmobile ban and the 2003 
Bush Rule requiring best available technology. It is interesting how 
the requirement for best available technology, the use of cleaner and 
quieter four-stroke snowmobiles is dramatically well below the current 
EPA standard.
  My fourth and next to the last chart, Mr. Chairman, is an emissions 
comparison for carbon monoxide at the West Yellowstone Entrance. Again, 
as my colleagues can see, the use of best available technology is well 
below the EPA standard, as shown on the far two bars there.
  And my last chart is a comparison of audible noise and acres in 
Yellowstone National Park. I think this chart is very important because 
it shows that of the park's 22 million acres, only 182,540 acres would 
be affected by using best available technology in snowmobile access. I 
believe that is less than 10 percent of the park.
  So we are here today to eliminate a historic use that affects less 
than 10 percent of Yellowstone National Park and its other users. For 
these reasons, and for the reason this is really a discussion of not 
recreation but access, and coming from the other part of the country 
that has Yosemite National Park, we deal with restrictive access issues 
all the time, I really would urge my colleagues to oppose the Holt-
Shays-Rahall-Johnson amendment and rely on the current administration's 
attempt to work out a solution that will allow people access into 
Yellowstone National Park and still preserve the environment there.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to know if snowmobile use was 
permitted in Yosemite National Park.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, people do not use snowmobiles to get 
into Yosemite National Park as they would in Yellowstone National Park. 
They do not use snowmobilies to access Yosemite. I mean it is not a way 
one gets in there because it is not the only way that one can get there 
in the wintertime.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, so it is not a permitted use in Yosemite 
National Park?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, nobody drives a snowmobile to go to 
Yosemite. We live in the West under 4,000 feet elevation. We do not get 
much snow in the wintertime. I am sure they could drive one but it 
would be kind of stupid.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I rise in support of the amendment. This has been an interesting 
discussion about the difference between two-cycle and four-cycle 
engines, and that is very important because the industry has made 
remarkable improvements in snowmobiles, in the skidoos and the 
watercraft industry and the motorcycle industry and the off-the-road 
vehicles of all different types because

[[Page 12905]]

they recognize that people were having a very serious problem with the 
invasive nature of these vehicles but also recognizing that this is a 
very large economy. Many, many people use and enjoy, as family 
recreation, off-the-road biking, off-the-road vehicle travel, 
snowmobiling, skidooing, and the rest of that. But because we can do 
that does not mean we can do it everywhere we can do it. There are some 
places in this country that are in fact very special. And there are 
places that do not necessarily need to be invaded by a snowmobile 
whether it is two-cycle or four-cycle. One can use their cell phone 
almost every place but there are places we would prefer they not do it. 
They can but we choose to say no.
  The gentleman just asked the question about Yosemite. In the 
wintertime, one could take a snowmobile and go out to the end of 
Glacier Point. It would be a beautiful, marvelous trip. In a full moon 
people go out and they travel on skis and they go out. It is one of the 
great pleasures in Yosemite National Park in the wintertime. Would 
people want to run a snowmobile out to the end of Glacier Point? It is 
a paved road. It is covered with snow in the wintertime. It is not 
plowed. The answer is probably not because it is a very special place, 
and I do not think one would want to be out there listening to two-
cycle or four-cycle engines for that matter.
  Yellowstone is one of those very special places, and we should not be 
taking this very special place and submitting it to this pollution and 
to the noise factor in this park. Its impact on the people who have to 
work there, its impact on the wildlife have been well documented in the 
reports.
  Some people say, well, then we should not allow the snowcoaches in. 
No. The snowcoaches should continue to strive to be better, to improve 
their efficiencies, their pollution, and the rest of that. I am not for 
banning people in Yellowstone in the wintertime. But to have 750 people 
zipping around on snowmobiles recognizing that they are on the paved 
road, and that has been a big victory to get them out of the back 
country, to get them out of the nonpaved areas, but the fact of the 
matter is that this park should not be invaded in that fashion.
  I have been to West Yellowstone. I have talked to the snowmobilers. 
They are having a great time and I understand all of that. But I think 
there are many miles of trail that they can ride adjacent to the park 
in the area and across this country. There are tens of thousands, 
hundreds of thousands of miles of trails that people can use that are 
official and unofficial trails that they use in the various States and 
the various regions where they can snowmobile. But we recognize, as the 
previous Congresses did when they set aside these great natural assets 
for this country, there are a lot of things we could do in the Grand 
Canyon but we would not. There are a lot of things we could do in 
Canyon Lands, but we would not because we recognize the integrity and 
the struggle that we have to maintain the integrity of these national 
parks. And in this particular one we are trying to make a decision that 
snowmobiling will not be allowed.
  The gentleman from Minnesota who spoke said we can ride them in 
Voyagers. That is fine. Maybe that works in Voyagers. But we do not 
think it works, and it is incompatible with the protection and the use 
and enjoyment of Yellowstone National Park, and for that reason I would 
hope that people would support the Holt amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Oftentimes in Montana I have 
to try to go back and explain some of the dumb things that Congress 
does, and I usually explain to them that we are a reflection of 
society, that there is no literacy test to run for Congress. They 
usually think that is pretty humorous.
  But unfortunately there seems to be no common sense test and 
sometimes in the courts as well. This is one of those times when I am 
glad not to be a lawyer, because as I look at the dueling cases that 
are occurring in the court, I look at the kinds of decisions the judge 
made in Washington, D.C. And I invited this judge to come to Montana 
and actually take off his robe, get out from behind the desk and come 
out and learn something about what he is deciding on, as opposed to 
other judge who lives out there who understands the problem.
  On November 20 of 2003, the district court judge back here in the 
case involving the limited use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park 
implied that the U.S. Government should consider strapping respirators 
on the resident bison of the park. Let me just read some of the 
dialogue that occurred between the judge and a witness.
  ``What about the animals? How are they protected? I mean how are 
their breathing abilities protected? If the park rangers are provided 
respirators,'' which they did not need them, by the way, that was a 
gimmick, ``what are the animals provided? Is there a safe haven for 
them somewhere? For the bison.
  ``Well, has anyone studied that, though?'' This is the judge. ``I 
mean in the film I saw, that's part of the evidentiary record. It was a 
6-minute film.'' A film, by the way, that was inaccurately put together 
by the animal rights people.
  ``Have you seen that?'' he said. ``I saw bison being herded by 
snowmobilers.'' I hope not because it is illegal and somebody should 
have done something about that.
  ``Has anyone conducted any study on the impact of the quality of air 
they're breathing while being herded by snowmobilers?''
  ``Shouldn't there have been, though? That's a major concern, that the 
bison are dying off.''
  They are not dying off. And in fact, in 1963 there were 400. Now 
there are 4,000. They have overpopulated themselves.
  ``Especially if the park rangers have respirators. They don't have 
respirators, obviously. What do they have?''
  If this judge is so impressed by inaccurate films, I would hate to be 
the one to tell him there is no Yogi Bear and Boo Boo out there either. 
He ought to get his facts straight before he decides to judge on 
something so very important.
  Listen to what the Court decided in Montana, a new winter access 
plan. As a result of many, many years of discussion and testimony and 
compromise and consensus, they came up with the idea that less than 1 
percent of the entire park could have snowmobiles on it.

                              {time}  1715

  There are 2.2 million acres; and at about 180,000 acres, you can 
actually hear snowmobiles. You have to be on the snow-covered road, in 
single file, less than 35 miles an hour, with a guide. When it was 
unlimited, it got up to a number of 1,100. They have capped it at 780, 
and they have gone beyond that, and they have said it cannot go into 
one entrance at the 780 per year, you have to spread them around; and 
they set the numbers for the four entrances into the park.
  It does not bother the wildlife. In fact, as we were looking at the 
picture, the snowcoach and the bison standing next to each other, a 
gentleman behind me said perhaps they ought to check that snowcoach for 
brucellosis, as close as it is. They are not afraid of these machines. 
Go out there and find out; you will see it for yourself. In 4 decades, 
not one single violation of clean air standards.
  I saw a handout sent, a Dear Colleague, that suggested 250 miles of 
snowmobile trails. Yes, there are, in Yellowstone Park; 14,000 miles of 
snowmobile trails in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
  Well, see, the sponsors of this amendment do not understand the 
difference between recreational snowmobiling and sight-seeing and 
destination points. The 250 miles of trails in the park matter, because 
they are to places like Old Faithful, Tower Falls, Paintpot, Geyser 
Basin. They are destinations where people want to go and look at these 
opportunities.
  The final point is, look what you are doing to the communities. Over 
the years, we encouraged West Yellowstone, the Jackson area, Gardner, 
Cody

[[Page 12906]]

to become gateway communities, to set up the infrastructure so they 
would not have to be built in the park; to create the motels, to create 
the restaurants, to create the gift shops, to create the recreational 
opportunities for the sightseeing to become available.
  Then what comes along? Somebody that does not want to reasonably 
consider the fact that they have to pay for their children's clothes, 
for their children's education, for their retirement. They come in and 
say we are going to cut you in half. We are taking half of your income 
away.
  Our communities cannot withstand that. I hope someday they understand 
the kind of devastation they have created for these communities and 
these families with this kind of legislation. I hope this judge will 
get out from behind his desk, come out to Montana, accept my 
invitation, and actually learn something, use some common sense, rather 
than making the kinds of inquiries that I hope were a joke about 
putting respirators on bison.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Oberstar and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rehberg was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made an eloquent appeal 
and a very compelling appeal. I just want to suggest for those who are 
concerned about snowmobiles and their effect on the environment, they 
should take a look at the 1,790,000 vans, buses, automobiles, 
motorcycles, RVs, SUVs, trucks that are rumbling through Yellowstone.
  If they are really concerned, take a look at that impact on the 
environment and not pick on the snowmobile, which is well in compliance 
with the air quality and noise requirements of the National Park 
Service.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to point out my 
statistic, it is less than 1 percent of Yellowstone Park you will be 
able to hear snowmobiles, it is .082.
  I might remind some of my colleagues throughout Congress that there 
are other parks that have snowmobiling, and they will get you next. 
North Carolina; Washington has four; Maine; Colorado has four; Oregon; 
Pennsylvania; North Dakota; Ohio; California; Wisconsin has two; Iowa; 
Utah has two; and Michigan. Trust me, you are next.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments.
  The previous speaker, the gentleman from Montana, gave a very 
compelling argument, and it is one that I listened to. This is not an 
easy amendment for any of us; but it is important we have this debate, 
and it is important we visit each other's districts.
  I happen to view Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National Park as not 
owned by Montanans, not owned by folks from Wyoming. They are owned by 
Americans throughout the United States. These parks are precious and 
they are owned by all of us.
  What would have happened if the United States Government had not 
bought these parks? What would they be? They might be owned by someone 
in the private sector, and then no one could use them.
  So I do not have any reluctance whatsoever in standing up and saying 
I own these parks, as much as anyone else here does. They happen to be 
in a place that I do not live, but I own these parks; and I have a 
right to say that my constituents own these parks. They own Yellowstone 
and Grand Tetons National Parks as much as anyone from Montana or 
Wyoming or wherever else; and they are owned by us to be used as we, a 
country, want to use them.
  Our concern is that these two precious places are not being treated 
the way they need to be treated, and we are saying we would like there 
not to be snowmobiles in these two parks.
  We are being asked by those who live there to allow snowmobile use 
because there is an economy that depends on their use, and I understand 
that. But that is the difference in this debate. The difference in this 
debate is we are saying this is a place that our constituents can go 
to, as much as yours, and the only difference is they have to travel 
farther to get there. And when they get there, my constituents are 
saying, they would like to go there and not have to see or hear 
snowmobiles.
  The studies are pretty clear. They point out snowmobiles are not 
healthy to these parks.
  I was not here for the first part of the debate, and I know my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), wants to make some 
comments.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) in 
response to an earlier amendment today said, ``We want Yellowstone park 
to be as natural as possible.''
  We are not here to disparage the snowmobile industry. We are simply 
trying to make the point that Yellowstone National Park is a unique 
environment, it is particularly fragile in the winter, it is a precious 
national treasure that deserves an extra level of protection.
  Now, my colleagues want to substitute their own judgment for the ones 
who have taken the measurements, the ones who have the data. We could 
talk about two-stroke engines and four-stroke engines, and I would be 
happy to refute all the arguments that have come up.
  But the point is, the studies have been done; they have been done 
repeatedly. The Environmental Protection Agency said that the original 
National Park Service study was more thorough than anything they had 
seen on a similar subject; and the conclusion was, even considering the 
new technology, even considering the four-stroke engines, that the way 
to protect Yellowstone Park was to phase out snowmobiles, two-stroke 
engines, four-stroke engines, all of them.
  Maybe my colleagues think that these machines, nearly 100,000 of them 
that go into the park, will not hurt anything. Maybe they want to 
believe that the experts are wrong and it will not hurt the air and the 
water and animals, it will not stress these animals during the tough 
times in the winter. But that is not what the studies show.
  So we are simply asking that these 250 miles, this precious park, be 
set aside. The constituents of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) can snowmobile all over Minnesota. The constituents of the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) can snowmobile all over Wyoming. 
We are talking about America's premier park.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know that I completely agree 
with him that everybody who lives in the United States owns Yellowstone 
National Park. I totally agree with the gentleman on that. I do not 
think it belongs any more to Wyoming, Montana or Idaho than it does to 
the rest of the country. I will say when it comes time to taking care 
of Yellowstone and looking at the needs Yellowstone has, nobody does 
that but me.
  I would also say that because we live there, because we work there, 
we do know the issue; and our knowledge needs to be respected too.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the 
Holt-Shays-Rahall-Johnson Amendment to protect Yellowstone and Grand 
Tetons National Parks.

  I believe protecting and preserving our environment is one of the 
most important duties we have as members of Congress. We simply won't 
have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.
  Our predecessors understood the preservation of our natural resources 
was a moral and patriotic obligation. It was their vision and foresight 
that led to the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872.
  The creation of our first national park was a far-sighted guarantee 
each new generation

[[Page 12907]]

would inherit a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone, a park complete with 
wildlife, majestic vistas and awe-inspiring geysers.
  But snowmobiles have put the park's health in jeopardy. When they 
roar through the park, they generate tremendous noise and pollution, 
forcing our park rangers to wear respirators to combat the noxious 
cloud of blue smoke in which they work.
  The harm caused by snowmobile use in Yellowstone has been 
scientifically proven, studied further, and proven yet again. Over the 
past decade the Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
independent experts have conducted extensive studies and always reached 
the same conclusion: a phase-out of snowmobiles is necessary to restore 
Yellowstone's health.
  Last winter marked the start of a transition to snowcoaches. Just as 
the Park Service and EPA predicted, substituting snowcoach access for 
snowmobile use began to make Yellowstone a safer wintertime destination 
for the public, especially visitors susceptible to respiratory 
problems.
  Visitors and park rangers breathed less carbon monoxide, 
formaldehyde, and benzene than in past winter seasons. Yellowstone was 
also quieter and less hectic for people and wildlife alike.
  By a 4-to-1 margin, Americans overwhelmingly support protecting 
Yellowstone by replacing snowmobile use with park-friendly, people-
friendly snowcoaches.
  This amendment does not restrict winter access to the Park. Rather, 
it requires visitors to travel in a manner that protects Yellowstone's 
precious resources.
  There are thousands of miles of snowmobile routes surrounding 
Yellowstone National Park including 400 miles near West Yellowstone, 
Montana alone. In Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, the total is more than 
13,000 miles. All of these opportunities will be unaffected by the 
Yellowstone amendment which involves only 180 miles of routes within 
Yellowstone National Park.
  Let's not waste another minute or another dollar of taxpayer money 
further studying this issue. Let's put into law a scientifically sound, 
environmentally safe and fiscally responsible decision that protects 
our nation's first treasure.
  I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Holt amendment, and let 
me tell you why. I know a lot of these things have been said.
  But, after all, this is a national park, and I think if you read 
Megatrends and what is happening in America, that the most increasing 
sport in America is watchable wildlife. More people watch wildlife than 
all of the national football games, baseball games, basketball games, 
golf, everything you see on television. More people are looking at wild 
animals.
  Where do you go to look at wild animals and have the serenity of the 
wilderness? It is in the wilderness areas. It seems to me that that is 
the inspiration for thought, the inspiration for connection with 
nature. And if there is anything that is so obtrusive after you have 
gone into a park, it is to be interrupted by things that are not 
natural.
  If there is something that is not natural in a national park, it is 
snowmobiles. It is like having chain saws while we are trying to have 
this debate here in this Chamber. We could not stand the noise. We 
would ask that it be stopped.
  I represent the United States' largest marine sanctuary. We have 
outlawed jet skis in the sanctuary. Why? People do not want to go down 
to the ocean and just hear a bunch of noise from jet skis. They want to 
see otters, they want to be able to see sea lions, they want to be able 
to hear them, they want to be able to watch whales, they want to see 
the coastline in its natural state. That is why we have national parks. 
That is why it is the highest act of Congress to do it.
  It seems to me if a park is a park is a park, then we have to do 
everything possible to make sure that park is the experience that 
people want to have in the wilderness. If you want to go out and have 
sports in the wilderness, fine, go to someplace in a national forest. 
But do not go to a national park to do it. It is just not right.
  You do not allow hunting in the national park, and people could give 
you all reasons why perhaps you ought to have hunting, limited hunting; 
but we do not do it, and we ought not to have snowmobiles in any 
national park.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the 
gentleman's comments. I completely agree with him on this particular 
issue.
  I understand there has been a lot of progress made with four-stroke 
snowmobiles over two-stroke, but still you wind up with the noise 
factor. I look at my friend from Minnesota, and I would say we have got 
the Forest Service lands that surround the national parks, where people 
can do that kind of recreation. We have the Olympic National Park in 
the State of Washington; we have Mount Baker Forest. There are areas 
where you can do these things; and, yes, maybe they will raise these 
issues.
  But the top officials in about the last four administrations who run 
the Park Service believed that in Yellowstone this should be 
reconsidered. All the science is on the side of this. In my view, it is 
just like the jet skis. In certain areas, Lake Crescent within the 
Olympic National Park in the State of Washington, banned the jet skis 
because they were noisy. We had one county that did this because the 
people did not like the noise.
  It is something about being out there in a national park where you 
want to enjoy the wilderness, the moment. This noise level still, in my 
judgment, is unacceptably high.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to also 
associate myself with the gentleman's remarks, and remind this body 
that only last week with all the construction that is going on, and we 
are trying to get that construction over with because it is so 
bothersome, but when we were having the service for former President 
Reagan in the rotunda, we stopped all the noise outside in the 
construction area.
  It seems to me that we ought to allow the national parks to be places 
where people do not have to experience unnatural noises, and the noises 
from snowmobiles are very, very loud.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know some of my colleagues are tired of me making 
reference to the fact that 2 years ago I was simply a high school 
teacher, but I am still amazed sometimes when I think back that indeed 
I was talking to a bunch of high school kids at that time, giving them 
brilliant lectures in history and government, and I know they were 
brilliant lectures because I was listening to them. Sometimes I feel I 
was perhaps the only one in the room actually listening to them.
  None of you actually had the chance to hear them, so it bespeaks the 
question on can you actually give a brilliant lecture if no one is 
hearing it. All of you are politicians, and I realize your greatest 
orations are given in the shower or the bathroom as you are preparing 
for the day. And it bespeaks the question, Can you actually give a 
brilliant speech if no one is there to hear it?
  National parks, like wilderness designation, is not a land management 
formula; it is a recreation designation. Brilliance of nature. Can it 
actually be there if no one has the opportunity of actually seeing it?
  That is the purpose of a national park, to see the natural beauty 
that is there; and to do so there are trade-offs that we make. In the 
summer, we are willing to make those trade-offs, because they are so 
traditional. We become used to them.

                              {time}  1730

  We allow 3,000 belching automobiles to go through Yellowstone every 
summer day. We allow 956,000 tourists to go through there in the month 
of July alone. We put up public toilets and garbage collection areas 
not because they enhance nature, but because they make it possible for 
people to go through and experience what a park is supposed to be 
about.
  We allow the noise of human activities at national parks, because 
that is the purpose of a park, to experience

[[Page 12908]]

and see it. We need to allow all our parks to fulfill the measure of 
their creation.
  Winter beauty in Yellowstone is evident. It is not going to come out 
and be seen in the coaches, which are terribly ineffective and 
inefficient. It is a wonderful experience, I suppose, if you can yell 
over the noise and actually see through the fogged-up windows, but it 
is unacceptable, and so we find ourselves in the situation right now 
where one judge in Washington said there should be no snowmobiles, one 
in Wyoming said they all should be there, and what we need is what John 
Adams used to call the delightful of all legislative delicacies, a 
compromise.
  Earlier this year there was a compromise. In August the concept of a 
compromise to come up with a policy of allowing snowmobiles acceptable 
in that kind of designation will go forward if this amendment is 
defeated. If this amendment is passed, it brings to a screeching halt 
any efforts to come up with a long-term compromise solution so that 
everyone can feel comfortable with that national park that belongs to 
everyone.
  This amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) would halt 
that progress but also hurt people who actually want to experience 
these parks, and I am going to contend that it hurts the park itself. 
If Yellowstone Park actually had an assault, this would be an assault 
on that park as if one were assaulting somebody on the street, because 
its destiny, its premise and its purpose would be totally destroyed.
  Parks are there for people to enjoy and understand. This amendment 
halts that. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said maybe this 
park should eliminate this type of activity by definition, and the 
answer is no, it should not, because by definition if you eliminate 
this activity, you eliminate the ability of people to experience the 
purpose of that particular park, and that is why that process should be 
there.
  Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity of reading an article in the New 
York Times from back in February by someone who was not a fan of the 
current administration's environmental policies but was sensitive to 
the importance of having a sensible compromise in this particular 
issue. His article talks about, once again, if one is a true 
environmentalist, the goal should be to have everyone enjoying the 
opportunity of Yellowstone in winter; the environmentalist movement 
should try to get more people out into the wild, not restrict them, and 
that is why as a backpacker, as an outdoor enthusiast, as a cross-
country skier, he wanted the Bush administration's compromise to be 
upheld.
  If we pass this amendment, there will be no chance of ever moving 
forward to reaching that or any other variation of that.

                       Vrooming Into Yellowstone

                        (By Nicholas D. Kristof)

       President Bush's policy toward the environment has been to 
     drill, mine and pave it, so it's understandable that 
     environmentalists shriek when he pulls out a whetstone and 
     announces grand plans for Yellowstone National Park.
       Yet in the battle over snowmobiling in Yellowstone, it's 
     Mr. Bush who is right. And, to me at least, the dispute 
     raises a larger philosophical question: should we be trying 
     to save nature for its own sake or for human enjoyment? 
     Forgive my anthropocentrism, but I think humans trump the 
     bison and moose.
       Yellowstone National Park, a wonderland at any time of 
     year, is particularly dazzling in winter, when the geysers 
     shoot out of snowfields and the elk wear mantles of frost. I 
     took one of my sons to visit last year and I learned two 
     things that I don't believe most environmentalists realize.
       First, in winter Yellowstone is virtually inaccessible 
     except by snowmobile. Cars are banned (except for one small 
     part of the park), and Yellowstone is so big that snowshoeing 
     and cross-country skiing offer access only to the hardiest 
     backpackers, who can camp in snow and brutal cold for days at 
     a time.
       Second, a new generation of snowmobiles is available with 
     four-stroke engines, not two-stroke. These machines cut 
     hydrocarbon emissions by 90 percent--and noise by 50 percent.
       That's why the Bush administration has been pushing for a 
     sensible compromise: snowmobiles would be allowed--but mostly 
     the new four-stroke machines--only on roads and primarily on 
     guided tours. Only 950 would be permitted per day. (In 
     contrast, a busy summer day draws about 3,000 cars.)
       Now two Federal judges are hurling thunderbolts at each 
     other over this issue. A judge in Washington imposed tougher 
     rules that would have ultimately banned snowmobiles from the 
     park. Then a judge from Wyoming ordered that more snowmobiles 
     be admitted. No one knows what's going to happen.
       Environmentalists point out that one can also visit 
     Yellowstone in snow coaches, which are a bit like buses on 
     treads. But the existing snow coaches may be worse than the 
     snowmobiles in terms of noise and pollution, and they are a 
     dismal experience--you encounter nature only through fogged-
     up windows.
       The central problem with the environmentalists' position is 
     that banning snowmobiles would deny almost everyone the 
     opportunity to enjoy Yellowstone in winter--and that can't be 
     green.
       As an avid backpacker who loves the outdoors, I think the 
     environmental movement should be trying to get more people 
     out into the wild. That's why I'd like to see the Bush 
     administration's compromise upheld, so Americans can continue 
     to enjoy Yellowstone in winter. Cross-country skiers and 
     snowshoers would, of course, still have all of backcountry 
     Yellowstone for themselves, with no machines for many miles 
     around.
       Granted, snowmobiles are an intrusion. But so are cars. In 
     the summer, we accept a trade-off: we admitted about 965,000 
     people last July to Yellowstone, with all the noise, garbage, 
     public toilets and disruption that entailed, knowing that the 
     park would be less pristine but that more people would get a 
     chance enjoy it. That seems a fair trade.
       The philosophical question is the purpose of conservation: 
     Do we preserve nature for its sake, or ours?
       My bias is to put our interests on top. Thus I'm willing to 
     encroach on wilderness to give Americans more of a chance to 
     get into the wild. That's why we build trails, for example--
     or why we build roads into Yellowstone.
       All in all, I'd love to see more effort by 
     environmentalists to get Americans into the wilderness. It 
     would be nice to see a major push to complete the Continental 
     Divide Trail in the Rockies, which runs from Canada to Mexico 
     on maps--but which has never been fully built. Likewise, 
     there is talk about building a hiking trail across America 
     from west to east--it could be called the Colin Fletcher 
     trail, after the man who helped popularize backpacking in 
     America.
       Putting human interests first doesn't mean that we should 
     despoil Yellowstone, or that we should drill in the Artic 
     National Wildlife Refuge, or that we should allow global 
     warming. We have a strong human interest in preserving our 
     planet. But we should also allow ourselves to enjoy this 
     natural world around us--including the grandeur of 
     Yellowstone in winter--instead of protecting nature so 
     thoroughly that it can be seen only on television specials.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Pombo, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bishop of 
Utah was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I really did enjoy the comments of the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), because I think that they hit on 
something that has been missing in this debate. We have spent a lot of 
time talking about two-cycle versus four-cycle and what happens with 
the noise and the pollution levels, and I think that is extremely 
important in terms of the debate, but one thing that has been missing 
in this entire debate was brought up by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop), and that is that all national parks, including 
Yellowstone, are not managed for their maximum environmental 
protection. Congress has directed that all parks are managed for two 
purposes, visitor use and enjoyment and resource protection.
  The Park Organic Act of 1916 mandates the agency to balance these 
purposes, so it is illegal for the Park Service to disregard visitor 
use.
  I heard my colleague a minute ago stating that mixing up a wilderness 
area and a park and kind of trying to go back and forth between 
wilderness and park, they are not the same thing. The purpose of a 
national park also includes visitor enjoyment and the ability of 
visitors to go there and be part of that park and see what is happening 
there.
  One of the things, one of the disturbing things that has happened 
with these amendments that have been

[[Page 12909]]

brought up is they seem to constantly be trying to limit access, the 
American public to have access to these national parks and not allow 
them to get inside. That is extremely disturbing.
  The gentleman from Connecticut was right. These national parks belong 
to all of us, but if we cannot get into them, then we do not have the 
ability to enjoy them. These are not wilderness areas; these are parks, 
and part of that is building visitors' centers, it is building roads, 
it is getting people inside to enjoy them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I wanted to 
address a few of the points that have been made, including the last 
point that was just made, that if you cannot get in, you cannot enjoy 
the resources, and I think this is really quite true. But this goes to 
the air quality issue.
  When we talk about the degrading of the air quality at Yellowstone, 
we are talking about an access issue. When there are health advisories, 
when the Park Service says that if you have a respiratory condition, 
you cannot enjoy the park today, this is an access issue. This is not 
discretionary. We are saying that this park is simply unavailable for 
those who cannot breath polluted air.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to cite statistics, 
that Yellowstone has never violated Clean Air Act standards, but these 
standards are meant for the entire country. Yellowstone is intended to 
be a Class 1 airshed, the cleanest, most pristine air in the country. 
Visitors from across the country do not come to Yellowstone to breath 
the same air they get at home. I can certainly attest to that, being 
from Los Angeles. If we want dirty air, we stay home. We have plenty of 
it in L.A., we do not need to go to Yellowstone to find smog. Instead, 
we go to a place like Yellowstone because we enjoy the pristine air, 
the pristine environment, and for those who have respiratory 
conditions, it is not a question of merely enjoyment, it is a question 
of access to these precious sites.
  It should also be noted that emissions from snowmobiles actually 
threaten the health of some of the visitors, as well as the park 
employees. We have seen before the pictures of rangers forced to wear 
gas masks because of the smoke at entrance gates. These are not the 
images that we associate with Yellowstone or want to associate with 
Yellowstone. Doctors and scientists have also warned that people with 
upper respiratory conditions like asthma, that park pollution in the 
winter may be a serious threat to their health.
  A second issue I wanted to address in addition to the air quality is 
that of the economy. We have also heard from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle concerned with the economic impact of this amendment. 
But in fact, many business owners say that protecting Yellowstone's 
health is the cornerstone of a sound economic strategy for the region. 
The Rush amendment, the Rush-Holt amendment would protect Yellowstone's 
health and help diversify the area's winter economy.
  Even the Bush administration's own 2-year study concluded that the 
phasing out of snowmobiles in Yellowstone in favor of snowcoaches would 
have a short-term impact of less than 1 percent on the economy of the 5 
counties surrounding Yellowstone. And certainly, the economic impact of 
the continuing uncertainty over litigation and reregulation that has 
occurred over the last several years has a far more significant impact 
than the certainty that would be provided by this amendment, by the 
clarity it would provide in the quality of the air, and in the business 
environment, the continuing attraction of Yellowstone for people around 
the country and around the world. I have seen very few people cogently 
argue that degrading the quality of some of our most pristine areas 
will attract more visitors to the region. It simply will not.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is reassuring to hear the gentleman who just spoke 
from California now willing to use the Bush administration figures on 
the economy when for weeks, maybe months, I have sat on this very floor 
on all issues relative to the economy and unemployment and how bad 
things were, how wrong the Bush administration has been. But now, all 
of a sudden, we have a report that the gentleman from California is 
willing to adhere to, and it will only affect the economy of 
Yellowstone by 1 percent.
  I would ask the gentleman from California that if we should come up 
with a national policy which would only affect the economy of 
California by 1 percent, would the gentleman from California then be 
most willing to accept that without any argument?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I 
was mentioning, even the present administration's estimate, which I 
think generally errs far on the side of saying that any environmental 
protection would be injurious to business, even this administration's 
expectation is that it would have less than 1 percent impact. So I am 
saying that even for this very strongly, unfortunately, anti-
environmental administration, even they do not see an impact.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is not unusual, as 
the gentleman just represented and as the potential leader of the 
gentleman's party, it is not unusual for him to flip-flop back and 
forth, depending upon how the argument will fit the present issue.
  But getting to the issue that we are debating here on the Yellowstone 
National Park, not too long ago, perhaps far too long ago for certain 
people to recall, someone once said, ``and they sent hither swarms of 
agents to harass our people and eat out their substance.'' And that is 
precisely what these swarms of people from New Jersey and from other 
places east of the Mississippi River, and a few other misguided souls 
that have found their way west, perhaps are doing with this issue.
  I want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that when that report 
was written there was no such thing as a 4-stroke engine in a snow 
machine. So how convenient to use that argument when there was no 4-
stroke engine. The EPA report dealt only with 2-stroke engines, not 4-
stroke engines.
  So I would just like to remind all of those who have argued today 
that let us set the standard right here and now, and that is what we 
are doing, because I know of at least three potential national 
monuments, three wilderness areas that are coming up in my State for 
consideration, and if this is the way my colleagues are going to treat 
a well-compromised agreement over the course of 10 years and finalized 
within the last three, that with every new whim and every new Congress 
and every idea that somebody east of the Mississippi River comes up 
with wants to come and then change the order in which we agreed to that 
compromise, then I am going to start voting not only against this 
amendment, but I will vote against each and every compromise that comes 
down on anything, many of those which I was willing to at least accept 
because they were a compromise made in good faith. But if every time we 
want to change something, we decide well, this is our generation's turn 
and even though it was compromised out in 1980s on the Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness Area, now all of a sudden we are wanting 
to change that compromise. Which other compromise will we change today?
  So what we do today, Mr. Chairman, what we do today, I should say 
will set the order for every compromise that we should ever consider on 
this floor. Because once these compromises are reached, we thought they 
were agreements that were made in good faith and not to be changed at 
the whim of every new environmental organization that may need to raise 
some funds and, therefore, create a clause appropriate to raising those 
kinds of funds.
  So with that, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), if he wants to stop, if he wants to erase

[[Page 12910]]

all traces of mankind in a national park, he is just a couple of 
thousand years too late.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. HOLT. The word ``compromise'' is something of a euphemism here 
because there was a rule in place that, several years ago with the new 
administration, was rescinded, so there was not anybody compromising 
with anybody. They rolled back an existing well-considered rule and 
substituted another one.
  Mr. OTTER. Reclaiming my time, I would remind the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) that it was the agreement in the compromise that they 
were looking to at the time that caused the snowmobile industry to 
engage in research on the four-stroke engine.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I am listening to the debate as it has proceeded. I speak with the 
trepidation of somebody who is even further west than Idaho, but I do 
not think that gives me any special knowledge or wisdom or right to 
speak on this any more than my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), 
who I know to have been deeply involved with issues that deal with 
natural resources, and I know that he was not originally from New 
Jersey. My colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been deeply 
concerned with issues that relate to national resources and has a 
wildlife refuge in his district, people do not recognize is in 
Connecticut.
  I just finished a day-long conference with my colleague, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), about the future of Mt. Hood, which 
is in my district. There is a national forest. There is a national 
scenic area. We were aware of the balance, the struggle to try and deal 
with the issues of urban life, of recreation, of competing demands. But 
we concluded in our community, as have most Americans, that it is a 
fallacy to say if you cannot get in and enjoy every square inch any way 
you want that you are shut out and you cannot enjoy it.
  We are not talking about putting a gondola to the top of Mt. Hood. 
There are areas that are too sensitive to have motorized dirt bikes or 
even pedal dirt bikes, and we are working with people who deal with 
that form of recreation to work with them in a way to manage and 
respect the resources. I have a friend, an Oregonian ex-pat, Mike 
Finley, who was the superintendent of Yellowstone. I have had 
conversations with him for years about this issue.
  The ban on snowmobile use in this particular area was the result of 
extensive study, not once but twice by the Park Service. It included 
the EPA, not once but twice. There was a massive involvement of public 
input, and this is a decision that was studied and was appropriate for 
the Yellowstone area that is unique. It is outrageous what is happening 
in terms of the noise and the air pollution in some of these sensitive 
areas, and the vast majority of the American public agrees.
  I am not opposed to all motorized, mechanized forms of recreation. 
There is a place for jet skis, for snowmobiles, for mechanized dirt 
bikes. But for heaven's sake, we have to recognize that there are some 
areas where they are not appropriate. There are hundreds of miles 
immediately adjacent to the areas in question where snowmobiles are 
allowed. This Congress and the Park Service are able to work with the 
recreation industry, the manufacturers, and the people who practice 
them to be able to make sure that they are not shut out in the future. 
That is not the intention.
  This is the culmination of over a decade's work. We heard my friend 
from Idaho talk about changing signals. Well, there are an awful lot of 
people who have been involved with this for a long time who think that 
the original proposal reversed by the Bush administration was itself a 
compromise. It was itself a studied, deliberative action that was 
thrown in reverse by the Bush administration for ways that I have not 
been able to understand and I think are inimical to the expectation of 
the vast majority of the American public.
  I hope that this body has the wisdom to approve this amendment; to 
reinstate the result of a long, careful, thoughtful, deliberate action; 
to not confuse this with denying access, which it is not, and for 
heaven's sake not fall into the trap that we have to continue the way 
we have done it in the past. If anything, we need to avoid further 
exploitation of sensitive resources to mechanized activities that are 
in many cases not appropriate.
  This is a balanced amendment. It is a studied effort, and I hope that 
we will approve it when the time comes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Somebody said I cannot talk, I am too far east. Maybe we ought to 
have people who have ridden on snowmobiles and understand them, the 
only ones that can talk. I think it might have changed the debate a 
little bit today.
  Someone talked about a fair process. In 1997 the Park Service began 
the process of developing an environmental impact statement. The 
service has prepared research examining winter wildlife, snowmobile 
emissions and impacts, and visitor use. They released the draft of EIS 
on September 29, 1999, for public comment. The draft contained seven 
alternatives. None of them talked about banning snowmobiles.
  Just a couple months later in December, the service prepared a 
substantially revised alternative G, which made it rather than 
alternative B, the new preferred alternative. These changes include an 
outright ban on all recreation snowmobile use in the park. None of 
these changes had been previously shared with the public or the State 
or the county cooperators.
  The cooperating States immediately protested. Then on April 27, the 
former Secretary, John Barry, issued a memorandum directing the service 
to prohibit the snowmobile use.
  That is the process that was reacted to. That was the process that 
was considered a compromise, not a compromise.
  I was not planning to speak on this issue, but I had three 
snowmobiles for a long time, when my children were growing up and 
neighbor kids, and we had some wonderful times there. I was intrigued 
when the gentleman from California talked about wildlife watching 
because I have probably spent as much time watching wildlife as anybody 
in this Congress. As a kid, I grew up in the forest. I camped in the 
forest. In the summertime, my brothers and I slept in the forest, and I 
can tell you for hours the wonderful wildlife scenes that I saw.
  I want tell you, I will never forget the day my wife and son and 
several other people saw their first flock of turkeys up close. Yes, we 
were on a snowmobile, putting down a country lane, a road in the woods, 
and came down around the hillside and there was 15 or 20 turkeys 
scratching. They stopped and watched us, scurried off to the side as we 
went by.
  I remember seeing deer; and I taught my son, when we see wildlife, do 
not stop. Just keep moving slowly. We went by beautiful deer looking 
over us. And I will never forget the day that this big owl sat there 
fairly close to us, and I can still see him squinting with one eye, 
trying to see what we were, watching us put by on our snowmobiles. I 
have seen fleeting fox. I have seen all kinds of wildlife creatures 
because they are far less scared of you on a vehicle than they are in 
person. If I had walked around that bend, I probably would not have 
seen them because they would have seen me before I saw them. But I have 
seen more wildlife, wonderful, beautiful scenes; and if you learn not 
to react to them, they will watch you go right by.
  We have seen wildlife up closer where you actually watch their eye 
activity on a snowmobile. So those who are interested in wildlife 
watching, snowmobiles are not that big machine that is going to chase 
wildlife away. They are far less fearful of that vehicle putting down 
through the woods than they are of any one of us walking.

[[Page 12911]]

  I have spent thousands of hours out there, and I cannot tell you the 
stories I have seen of beautiful wildlife scenes on a snowmobile. So 
that argument, in my view, needs to be turned around.
  People will see scenes on a snowmobile they never dreamed of. They 
will see wildlife up very close. And I think that is an important part 
that needs to be shared.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
base bill H.R. 4568, I offer amendment jackso.004, which proposes to 
prevent ``Land Acquisition and State Assistance'' funds to be used to 
support the conveyance of, development on, or destruction of lands that 
contain historic grave sites or buildings that contain burial grounds 
of slaves, ex-slaves or soldiers of the Civil War or otherwise are 
associated with historic conflicts fought on American soil.
  I do not offer this amendment to protect African-American history, 
solely. Rather, I seek to preserve American history, in which slavery 
and warfare is embedded. I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, to 
preserve humanity. In addition to the importance of preservation, we 
must utilize our historic sites as teaching sites, and learn from them. 
Our American schools must not turn their heads at the thought of our 
tumultuous past. Rather our schools should embrace occurrences of 
warfare and enslavement as important components of our history, which 
has made us the nation we are today.
  In my district, a historic cemetery bearing the remains of the famous 
African-American Buffalo Soldiers and other African-Americans rests 
beneath a proposed Houston Independent School District construction 
site. This area of the 4th Ward, formerly known as Freedman's Town, 
stands as a pillar of the African-American community for almost 150 
years, and represents the adaptation of African-Americans to freedom 
and urban life. And in 1984 Freedmen's Town was described as the 
largest, and last remaining intact freed slave community in the nation. 
Already, plans have commenced to destroy the area and rebuild Gregory-
Lincoln Education Center and relocate the High School for Performing 
Visual Arts (HSPVA) on the site. This blatant disregard for the lives 
and remains of African Americans who fought to preserve American 
freedom, as we know and envy it, should not be tolerated, ignored or 
rewarded through the allocation of funding. Therefore, I urge the 
members of Congress to pass my amendment, which would prevent Congress 
from aiding in the destruction of American history.
  Clearly, I am in support in the improvement and expansion of 
facilities for youth in my very district. However, I can not support 
the destruction of our past for this particular endeavor, which could 
be relocated to another site. I can not support the disrespect of those 
who fought for our nation, despite the pain and suffering inflicted 
upon them by the shackles of slavery. I propose that historic landmarks 
like this one be used to teach children and adults, alike, about the 
importance of those African-Americans who fought for our freedom, as 
well as to teach us all about the importance of preserving our American 
history. I am disheartened to learn that this teachable moment is not 
being seized and has stirred such a great level of controversy among 
residents and officials. I will be even more disheartened if the 
Congress fails to intervene, and prevent this destruction. With this 
amendment, we will prevent future controversies such as these, and more 
importantly the federal government will assert its commitment to 
preserving our American history, which is too often forgotten.
  I would also urge you not disregard the spirit of the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470, Public Law 102-575). 
Failure to pass this amendment would do just that, and the National 
Historic Preservation Act seeks to protect sites like the Buffalo 
soldier cemetery.
  I ask you, Mr. Chairman, would the federal government fail to 
preserve historic sites like Arlington National Cemetery? Of course, 
not; the federal government protects this site and should protect sites 
like the cemetery of the Buffalo Soldiers. We must govern responsibly 
by closing potential loopholes and problems in our proposed 
legislation. In this case, we must protect our American history, which 
encompasses all races and creeds. It is our job as the federal 
government to protect historic sites, not leaving our localities up in 
arms to quarrel. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass 
the jackso.004 amendment to H.R. 4568, which prevents the disrespect, 
denigration and destruction of our past; and educates our future with 
the truth.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) will be postponed.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for purposes 
of a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for engaging in this 
colloquy with me about the need to increase water storage in the 
Klamath Basin and to seek balanced solutions that will allow everyone 
to get well together, rather than unfairly targeting agriculture as the 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, first allow me to clarify some inaccuracies in a 
colloquy that occurred last night involving my good friend and 
colleague from Oregon.
  Allow me to point out that the gentleman from Oregon who engaged in 
that colloquy with the chairman last evening, through which he 
professed concern about the Klamath Basin, does not represent that 
area. In fact, his district is nearly 300 miles away.
  I want to clarify that for the record because I think there was a 
misunderstanding. In fact, the three Members of Congress who actually 
do represent the citizens of that area, myself, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
do not support the position of my friend, the gentleman from Oregon.
  The studies he proposed will not provide solutions for the Klamath 
Basin. These issues have been studied and restudied. There is no 
smoking gun. While the proposed ``studies'' and other past efforts to 
regulate the lease lands are said to be benign, they are far from that. 
They were an attempt to undermine farming.
  I ask that the committee not support anything that attempts to 
misconstrue the farming situation on the refuges and wrongly imply that 
it is a problem or poses a conflict with wildlife.
  It simply ``is not'' and ``does not.'' In fact, quite the contrary. 
Agriculture and wildlife are thriving on refuges.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me clear up one other misconception. The 
Klamath Basin disaster of 2001 was not about too much demand. It was 
about an unbalanced regulatory regime and scientific failings that 
caused water to be needlessly taken from agriculture and from refuges 
from endangered species. After updating the law and the science, the 
other important step for us to achieve balance is for Congress and the 
administration to work to increase water storage.
  My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that new water supplies are not being 
pursued with the vigor and the commitment that they require. Congress 
authorized the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act nearly 5 
years ago; however, we have yet to see significant measurable progress 
towards developing new supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, we hope to have your support for encouraging the 
Secretary of the Interior to put more money and more energy into using 
this authority to aggressively pursue new storage opportunities such as 
a Long Lake Reservoir which can provide more water for all interests in 
the Klamath Basin.
  One last thing, Mr. Chairman. If any of my colleagues want to work to 
find solutions for the Klamath Basin, I want to personally invite them 
to come to the Committee on Resources' field hearing on July 17. Rather 
than an uninformed debate here on the House floor, we would talk to the 
people on the ground and engage in a thorough discussion about the real 
problems and constructive solutions.
  We would talk about what farmers are actually doing for the refuges. 
We would discuss the scientific shortcomings and how to fix them for 
the long term. We would talk about how to develop more water supplies 
to create water supply certainty for all interests.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate your support for honest debate and 
balanced solutions. I hope that we will have your support to implement 
expeditiously whatever commonsense balanced solutions might arise from 
our hearing.

[[Page 12912]]


  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with 
the gentleman and the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that what 
ultimately is done is something that will be productive and useful and 
not further fuel the controversies surrounding the Klamath program. I 
commend the gentleman for suggesting that and we certainly will work 
with him.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I would ask that the chairman engage in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as 
we all know and probably too well, water issues in the Klamath Basin 
have caused a number of conflicts, not only in the upper, mid, and 
lower basin but also right here in this House in Washington, DC.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I would like to bring to our 
attention what I believe to be a very positive step towards bringing 
some meaningful help to this issue of water throughout the Klamath 
Basin, a positive step that addresses both the issues that are 
important to farming and the issues important to fishing.
  The land management agencies have pointed out that by repairing two 
dams in the Marble Mountain Wilderness Area that we could provide extra 
cool, clean water down one of the Klamath River's most important 
tributaries. I am working with other members of the California 
delegation and our colleague from the Oregon delegation who has this 
Klamath Basin in his district to explore potentially promising 
alternatives for the Klamath Basin, and I would ask my colleagues to 
please indulge us and to help us work through this in using the 
Interior appropriations bill as the vehicle to provide whatever may 
prove to be necessary to make these good, positive steps to continue so 
we can get this behind us.
  In closing, I also would like to extend an invitation for those who 
are going to meet in the upper Klamath to discuss resource issues that 
are important to farming to please note they are welcome to come down 
to the mid- and the lower basin to hear from fishermen and fishing 
families so they fully understand what is important to the needs of the 
entire Klamath Basin.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I would be happy to work with the gentleman on exploring promising 
solutions to the Klamath situation and with the California delegation 
and the Oregon delegation, also; and I commend the gentleman for his 
work.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new title:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. Not later than July 31st, 2004, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall provide public access to the Statue of 
     Liberty and its interior that is substantially equivalent to 
     the access provided before September 11th, 2001.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve a 
point of order on the amendment.
  The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has reserved a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and his terrific 
staff, Deb Weatherly, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and 
Mike Stephens and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for 
their help with this amendment. This is quite simple, and I think it is 
something we could find broad consensus on in this House.
  On September 11, 2 years, 8 months and 6 days ago, all national parks 
in these affected areas of Washington and New York were closed. Today, 
all that time later, the Statue of Liberty, the national park that is 
closest to Ground Zero, the national park that arguably represents all 
of the things that were attacked on September 11 and represents the 
values of this country, remains closed today.
  What this amendment says is enough is enough, reopen the Statue of 
Liberty by July 31, 2004. It is not closed for lack of money. This 
House has allocated $19.6 million for security enhancements, and that 
is between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2004. There is an 
additional $10 million or so in this budget for that. The time has come 
for the Statue of Liberty to be reopened.
  It is almost mind-boggling to me that only a matter of weeks after 
September 11 the Washington Monument was reopened. The Republican 
National Convention, which by the way we would be welcoming with open 
arms to New York City, will soon be coming to New York City at least in 
part to the proximity to that attack on our country; and yet the 
National Park Service refuses to open the Statue of Liberty.
  Recently, they made the announcement that we are going to allow 
people to go into Lady Liberty and stand next to her toes, that this 
was some kind of a great victory for the people of the United States, 
despite all of the money that had been allocated for reopening. If that 
does not gall my colleagues, take a look at this.
  This is a picture of a Web site from something called the Statue of 
Liberty Foundation. They have raised more than $7 million, which by the 
way is the amount that was originally said to be the cost for opening 
Lady Liberty. Folgers sponsors it. If a person sends in a Folgers can, 
they help contribute to reopening Lady Liberty. American Express has 
been giving a few dollars. Recently, the Daily News in New York City 
ran a campaign on their editorial page. People are giving donations of 
$1, $2, $3 at a time.
  Millions of dollars have been raised for what purpose? To open Lady 
Liberty, not open her feet. Open the crown. Open the part that is most 
glorious. Open the part that should be symbolic of us getting back on 
our feet, and yet it has not happened.
  It is inexplicable. The Park Service, what have they been doing? 
Well, we are thinking about it. We are planning to make a plan. We are 
anticipating maybe coming up with an idea. The National Park Service 
should be ashamed of their inactions. We in Congress have done our job. 
We have given them money after money after money for this purpose, to 
come up with security provisions.
  We here in the House of Representatives, we had to figure out 
security as well. We have come up with some accommodations. People are 
back here and visiting. This monument is more than simply a national 
park. It is symbolic of this country. If the National Park Service is 
expecting us to believe that we are going to leave this closed ad 
infinitum, they have got another think coming. There is no way they can 
secure us in this building, they can secure us on airlines, they can 
secure us in the Washington Monument, they can secure us anywhere in 
the United States of America. Osama bin Laden is not going to keep the 
Statue of Liberty closed, and what this amendment says is we are not 
going to allow it to happen.
  Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike have all contributed to 
help get this open. The taxpayers have contributed enormous amounts to 
help get this open. We have children doing cake sales all around the 
country to get the Statue of Liberty open; and what we are being told 
is, well, maybe someday we will allow people to go in and pat Lady 
Liberty's toes. That is about as far as we are going to get.
  I believe it is outrageous. I believe it is outrageous, and we have 
to recognize something, that is, if we are going to raise money to 
reopen it, and allow people to be deceived in that way, the

[[Page 12913]]

very least we in Congress should do is say, spend the money for what 
you said it was going to be for; and if by some unimaginable set of 
circumstances, the National Park Service, United States Armed Services, 
the NYPD, the United States Congress cannot figure out a way to reopen 
this monument, I hate to use an overworked cliche, but really, the 
terrorists have won. If they manage to keep this closed, it would be a 
shame.
  I want to make one other point. I hope that when my colleagues on the 
Republican side of the aisle come visit New York, they have an 
opportunity to see the glory of traveling up to the crown of the Statue 
of Liberty, of seeing that glory, of participating in that. And what my 
colleagues will see is not only the glory of New York Harbor welcoming 
waves of new immigrants. They will see Ground Zero. It is a shame that 
when we stand at Ground Zero, the national park we see is one that is 
shamefully closed.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, while I may be 
sufficiently galled and while I appreciate the gentleman's welcome to 
New York, I must make a point of order against the amendment because it 
imposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriations bill, and therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: No amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the chairman 
of the committee and the ranking member. They have both allocated a 
remarkable amount of resources to solve this problem and deserve great 
praise.
  I would argue on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a 
change in existing law; that we, in existing law, have already 
articulated the will of this House that this monument be reopened; that 
this be a national park that we have allocated resources to. I would 
say that this is only a reiteration of existing law.
  Now it might not be in this bill, but it is existing law; and I would 
even argue that given the allocation for security enhancements that it 
is the intention of this House that steps be taken; and therefore, it 
is not legislating in an appropriation bill, and if it is, we should do 
it anyway.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
this point of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and 
the amendment is not in order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert:
       Sec.   . ``The Secretary of the Interior shall submit a 
     report to Congress 30 days after the enactment of this act 
     with a date certain of when and whether the public will have 
     full access to the Statue of Liberty including all areas that 
     were closed after 9/11.''

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment I have offered with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), and I think the chairman is 
prepared to accept it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to eliminate programs funded under Title III of the 
     Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there are times when there 
are vehicles on the floor of the House that we wish to be more 
receptive and sensitive to the many myriad of issues that face our 
communities. The Interior bill is a first stop for this effort to help 
us recognize that forestation and trees are not only valuable for 
Yellowstone, or some of our national parks, but they are, in fact, 
valuable for rural and urban America.
  One of the most detrimental aspects of living in asphalt cities is 
the fact that we do not have green trees. My amendment simply 
reinforces the idea that in urban settings or in other settings we 
should make sure that no funds are used to eliminate the funding under 
the title III of Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
  Clearly, I believe that we are threatened by the lack of urban 
forestation, and so my amendment really does speak to a point of 
importance that will ensure urban reforestation programs.
  Let me applaud the Houston Partnership who spent many hours in 
Washington trying to convince Members of Congress of the value of 
increasing the number of trees in Houston. Planting of new trees and 
proper preservation of existing trees have proven to lead to a cleaner 
air quality, lowering of temperatures by countering the urban heat 
island effect, and a reduction of flooding that will benefit both 
human- and wildlife.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues that Houston, Texas, knows 
firsthand about the heat island, and we certainly know firsthand about 
flooding. We also know firsthand the value of trees.
  As I look at the trees in my own community, some 50, 60, 70, 100 
years old, we know that they can be here today but in our community 
gone tomorrow through some hurricane or tornado, and so this amendment 
is a commitment to the city of Houston that we will find ways in our 
legislative agenda and the appropriations process to recognize the 
value of treeing our urban and rural areas.
  I would ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of Members 
making the point, even on the appropriations bill, to suggest that no 
funds should be kept from urban reforestation and that national parks, 
as I applaud and vote for amendments to protect them, should not be the 
only entity in which funding is secured as it relates to providing for 
reforestation or providing trees in our areas.
  I hope to encourage my community not only to secure funds for 
reforestation but I encourage our neighborhoods to plant trees so that 
more trees can grow in our urban areas.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared at this time to withdraw this 
amendment, hoping that I have left a point of impact and to look 
forward to working with other appropriators in actual funding for the 
reforestation of Harris County, Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city 
in the Nation, that

[[Page 12914]]

can really benefit from reforestation and to eliminate the heat island 
and the environmental effect as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my Amendment which states that 
none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to eliminate 
or restrict programs that are for the reforestation of urban areas. The 
Jackson Lee Amendment will ensure that urban reforestation programs, 
which are in dire need, will not be threatened. When many of us think 
of issues relating to the Interior we usually imagine rural areas or 
our National Parks, but it has become increasingly evident that urban 
areas also need to reap the benefits that reforestation provides. 
Planting of new trees and proper preservation of existing trees have 
proven to lead to cleaner air quality, lowering of temperatures by 
countering the Urban Heat Island Effect, and a reduction of flooding 
that will benefit both human and wildlife.
  This initiative to plant trees is one that every major metropolitan 
city should undertake for the well-being of its inhabitants. It is a 
known fact that natural plants, especially trees, help to naturally 
improve air quality, an issue that is troublesome in many parts of 
America. The people of America and all future generations deserve to 
breathe clean air and not be forced to choke on smog-filled skies.
  Many of America's largest cities unfortunately also face the 
consequences of the Urban Heat Island Effect. The Urban Heat Island 
Effect is caused in areas of low vegetation and large expanses of 
concrete and asphalt that absorb heat during the day and then release 
it to create hot-air ``domes'' over the city. The Urban Heat Island 
Effect can contribute to the temperature rising up to ten degrees 
higher; the effects of this increased temperature in the spring and 
summer months, as you can imagine, are severe. While research into this 
area is relatively new, science has shown links between the Urban Heat 
Island Effect and greater levels of bad ozone and a greater frequency 
of lightning storms as has occurred in my district in Houston. The 
planting of new trees and proper preservation of existing trees has 
proven to reduce the results of Urban Heat Island Effect. It is 
imperative that we undertake these initiatives that can help counter 
the Urban Heat Island Effect and all of its destructive consequences.
  Perhaps the greatest advantage of reforestation initiatives is that 
it will reduce the likelihood of flooding occurring. As many of you may 
know, the city of Houston is often faced with the very destructive and 
harsh effects of flooding. The planting of new trees has shown to be 
effective in significantly reducing storm water runoff, which often 
leads to large scale flooding. This is an issue that is the greatest 
environmental challenge that many large cities in America face.
  It is truly important that this body accepts the Jackson Lee 
Amendment to prohibit funds made available in this Act to be used to 
eliminate or restrict programs that are for the reforestation of urban 
areas. The effects of a lack of forestation that concern human beings 
such as air quality, rising temperatures, and flooding also are of 
concern to the survival and long-term viability of wildlife in the 
area. While some may hold the belief that the funds for the Interior 
are only intended for rural areas or National Parks, it is my belief 
that people in urban areas must also be able to reap the benefits that 
come from greater protection of natural resources such as trees. I am 
asking that this body help to protect these new initiatives on behalf 
of large cities throughout America that are in need of environmental 
relief. In the end, I feel that programs to plant and preserve trees in 
urban areas will make a difference in the type of environment that 
future generations of Americans will have to face.

                              {time}  1815

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Without objection, the amendment 
is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in title I for 
     ``Land Acquisition and State Assistance'' may be used to 
     support the construction of the Gregory Lincoln Education 
     Center located at 1101 Taft Street in the Fourth Ward of 
     Houston, Texas.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, these are meaningful issues 
not only for Houston, but I believe this should be the philosophy of 
this body, and that is the preservation of historic artifacts and 
historic places.
  This amendment goes directly to a very historic community that many 
people are aware of nationally because it is a site where the 
Emancipation Proclamation was delivered. It was a site called 
Freedman's Town where original ex-slaves lived. Now what we are 
attempting to do, and let me thank Gladyis House, one of my 
constituents who has never left Fourth Ward, we are trying to protect 
the grave sites of slaves and ex-slaves and soldiers who fought in the 
Civil War.
  I think all of us would have a soft spot in our heart when it comes 
to recognizing if a Nation disrespects its history. What does a Nation 
stand on? Some would say if you forget your history, you are doomed to 
repeat your past or not benefit from the past.
  My amendment would suggest that our American history is valuable and 
when we offer to construct new sites, we should not disrespect that 
history. In my district, an historic cemetery bearing the remains of 
famous African American Buffalo soldiers and other African Americans 
rests beneath a proposed Houston independent school district 
construction site. It is the area of Fourth Ward in Freedman's Town, an 
area almost 150 years old. In 1984, Freedman's Town was described as 
the largest and last remaining, intact freed slave community in the 
Nation.
  It has great value this new school, and I applaud it. In fact, I 
support this new school; but what I want to see happen and the reason I 
am on the floor today is to secure at least the affirmation that under 
the Interior appropriation we have the sense it is important to 
preserve and not to destroy. I support the building of this school, but 
I also believe it is crucial that we respect the burial grounds of the 
deceased, and particularly the historic nature of this.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in working through the conference and 
working with other appropriators to reinforce the value of historic 
preservation and the preserving of these artifacts and grave sites in 
the Fourth Ward in Houston, Texas, a 150-year community.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one of the objectives of this bill is in the 
area of historic preservation through the Park Service and through the 
Department of Interior. This has been something that I have worked on 
in my own district.
  I completely concur that we must protect our past, and especially 
when we have these very sensitive sites that are important to the 
people of that area and the country. I commend the gentlewoman for 
taking leadership on this issue, and pledge that we will continue to 
work with the gentlewoman on this matter.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, 
and let me acknowledge the work that the Subcommittee on Interior and 
Related Agencies has done on this, and let me also thank State Senator 
Rodney Ellis and the Houston Independent School District for meetings 
that we are having, but the Federal Government must make this kind of 
national statement on the floor of the House embedded in the 
Congressional Record and the commitment to work forward, which is that 
we do have precious sites and they must be preserved.
  I am hoping that we can find a way for this language to have some 
impact on those working in Houston so that no Federal funds will be 
able to be used to undermine these historic sites.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 12915]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment at the desk that the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) originally offered. Unfortunately, the 
mother of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is in the hospital, 
and I know she is in the thoughts and prayers of all of us at this 
moment in time.
  It is an amendment which I support, and I rise today to offer it. It 
will dedicate $500,000 for outreach and assistance in minority and 
disadvantaged communities affected by Everglades restoration. When 
Congress first passed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, it 
affirmed its commitment to clean up Florida's Everglades. That plan 
included an outreach and assistance component, which is critical to the 
success of this restoration plan.
  As the Department of Interior and Army Corps of Engineer began their 
outreach, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I and others 
believed their approach left many in minority and underserved 
communities in the dark and out of the process.
  Many constituents did not understand how the plan benefited their 
lives and few minority owned small businesses had any knowledge on how 
to access the contract dollars that are to be spent by the State and 
Federal Government in their backyard. When the House overwhelmingly 
passed the Water Resources Development Act last September, it 
authorized $3 million to be spent on outreach in minority and 
disadvantaged communities. This legislation, however, never became law, 
although the House's support for such efforts are clear.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and others have worked 
tirelessly to encourage Interior and the Army Corps to incorporate 
issues of environmental justice into their plans, and focus outreach 
and assistance efforts on minority and disadvantaged communities. To 
their credit, they have done all they can. And their work, combined 
with assistance from the office of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) and others is starting to pay off.
  Everglades restoration is the largest environmental cleanup in the 
history of our Nation. Our responsibility is to not only ensure that 
the restoration is a success, but also the process by which restoration 
occurs. The process of restoration and the restoration itself must be 
inclusive and equally benefit all communities, regardless of race, 
culture or socioeconomic status.
  Our success is often limited by our resources. With $500,000 
specifically dedicated to Everglades restoration outreach in 
disadvantaged communities, the Department of Interior can make a much 
more significant contribution to our efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage both the chairman and the 
ranking member on this issue which is of crucial importance to the 
constituents of south Florida.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his point of personal privilege and his comments on the commitment to 
the restoration of the Everglades. He and I have spoken about the 
importance of ensuring that all communities affected by this 
restoration project be involved in the decision-making process and 
understand how the project affects their lives.
  I am committed to working with him and with this bill as it goes 
forward to conference to encourage the Department of Interior and the 
Army Corps of Engineers to be sensitive to the restoration outreach and 
assistance in minority and other disadvantaged communities. I thank the 
gentleman for bringing it to our attention.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman making this 
speech, and we all regret the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is 
unable to be here today. I know both of you have been very active on 
the Everglades issue, and we want to see that all parts of the 
community, the minority and disadvantaged community, are not left out, 
and we will continue to work with you and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) to make sure this is accomplished.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their 
kind words and commitment to work with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) and myself. I believe the little amount for which we are 
asking will go a long way.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn 
and express my desire to work with the chairman and ranking member of 
the committee when this bill goes to conference.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) 
did not offer his amendment, so there is no need to have a unanimous 
consent request to withdraw it.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 18 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey); amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); amendment No. 4 offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 215, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--202

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw

[[Page 12916]]


     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bereuter
     Berman
     Conyers
     Cox
     DeMint
     Hastings (FL)
     Isakson
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Lipinski
     Nethercutt
     Oxley
     Reyes
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1849

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Messrs. HOEKSTRA, GUTKNECHT, 
BARTLETT of Maryland, and CHABOT changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, JOHNSON of Illinois, WAMP, HINOJOSA, and McDERMOTT 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 267, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--267

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder

[[Page 12917]]


     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bereuter
     Berman
     Conyers
     DeMint
     Hastings (FL)
     Isakson
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Lipinski
     Nethercutt
     Reyes
     Serrano
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1857

  Mr. SCHIFF and Mr. DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 224, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bereuter
     Berman
     Conyers
     DeMint
     Hastings (FL)
     Isakson
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     Nethercutt
     Reyes
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1905

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is important for 
everyone, because all Americans have a stake in the work of the 
agencies that if funds. But it is especially important for Coloradans 
and the residents of the other Western States that have large Native 
American populations and that are so immediately and directly affected 
by the management of the Federal lands.
  So, I would like to be able to support the bill--but, regretfully, 
the bill falls too far short of what is needed for me to be able to do 
so. My opposition to the bill does not reflect any lack of respect of 
Chairman Taylor or for our colleague from Washington, Mr. Dicks, the 
distinguished and able ranking member of the subcommittee. I think that 
in general they have done the best they could with the very limited 
allocation of funds that was made available to them.
  In particular, I think they should be commended for their efforts to 
provide funds for reducing the hazardous fuels that have built up in 
our forests and for responding to wildfires that threaten so many 
western communities. However, in many other areas the bill falls far 
short of what I think should be acceptable. It does not provide enough 
for the essential operations of the National Park System or the other 
parts of the Federal lands that provide recreational opportunities for 
so many people, as well as supplying the fresh water and sound habitats 
that are essential for fish and wildlife.
  And it conspicuously fails to make the necessary investments, 
including land acquisitions and other steps, needed to respond to the 
increased stress on open spaces and natural resources from the rapid 
and ongoing population growth in Colorado and other States. This 
failure breaks the promises of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
and flies in the face of the more recent agreement between the 
appropriations committee and the large

[[Page 12918]]

majority that voted for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act sponsored 
by our colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young. And, even worse, it also 
breaks faith with the future and with the future generations that would 
be the beneficiaries of those investments.
  For example, we should be providing funds to complete the acquisition 
of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed that the city of Golden, 
Colorado, has agreed to sell for inclusion in the National Forest 
System. We also should provide funds to complete the acquisition of the 
lands that are to become part of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and 
Preserve and to constitute the new Baca National Wildlife Refuge, as 
well as to complete other needed acquisitions in other parts of 
Colorado. But, instead, the bill includes no funds at all for these or 
any other acquisition projects--not only in Colorado but anywhere else. 
This is not acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that today is not the end of the story. The 
Senate still has to act on this appropriations bill, and I expect that 
a revised version of the legislation will come before the House at a 
later date. My hope is that the result of that progress will be a bill 
that is sufficiently improved that it will deserve the support of the 
entire body. For the time being, however, I cannot support this bill 
and will vote against it.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my steadfast support for 
the DeFazio/Turner Amendment, which will allow the Transportation 
Security Administration to properly staff security operations at 
airports this summer.
  Airline industry experts expect this summer to be the busiest travel 
period in the last four years. 65 million passengers are projected to 
travel through U.S. airports each month--a 12 percent increase over 
last year. Instead of giving TSA the flexibility necessary to 
accommodate this growth, Congress has imposed a cap on the number of 
security screeners TSA can deploy. This restriction threatens to delay 
passengers and compromise security.
  As thousands of travelers already know, too few screeners means 
delays for airport passengers, a problem that will only worsen during 
the busy summer travel season. In traveling through Mineta San Jose 
International Airport each week, I regularly witness hour-long waits at 
both passenger and baggage screening lanes that are understaffed due to 
GSA personnel shortages. In fact, at San Jose Airport, TSA is currently 
60 full time employees below the authorized FTE level of 356. And in a 
disturbing development, TSA reduced the authorized level this year from 
423 to 356--making authorized staffing levels more commensurate with 
actual staffing levels, but more disproportionate with proper staffing 
levels. San Jose Airport officials assert that 500 FTEs would more 
accurately reflect the security needs at the airport.
  Airports are not just transportation gateways--they also facilitate 
economic growth. As this Nation recovers from a devastating recession, 
the Federal cap limiting TSA staff levels must not threaten our 
Nation's mobility and economic growth. Let's untie the hand behind 
TSA's back so it can fight the war on terrorism without undue delay to 
American travelers or restraints on regional economic growth. I urge my 
colleagues to support the DeFazio/Turner Amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to voice my 
opposition to the 2005 Interior Appropriations bill because I feel this 
is a right-wing attack on so many of social and environmental programs 
that desperately need our assistance now.
  The bill provides $19.5 billion in discretionary funding for FY 2005. 
The funds appropriated in the bill are $220 million below President 
Bush's budget request and $257 million below the levels enacted for FY 
2004. Due to the massive GOP tax cuts enacted over the last 3 years, 
this bill was given an unrealistically low allocation by the House GOP 
leadership, and therefore numerous key programs are underfunded by the 
GOP bill--including national parks and conservation programs.
  The GOP bill severely underfunds national parks, providing $1.69 
billion for the operation of the national parks, which is exactly the 
Administration's request. Our national park system is in crisis--with 
the underfunding of the national park system well-documented in several 
recent studies. Indeed, under the Administration's budget, 241 of the 
388 park units in the national park system will actually receive less 
money in 2005 than they received in 2003--despite the fact that more 
and more visitors are coming to the national parks. Some of the 
national parks receiving less funding in 2005 than they received in 
2003 include the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Great Smoky Mountains, 
Shenandoah, Sequoia, Pinnacles, Zion, Redwood, and Little Bighorn.
  The GOP Interior bill breaks a bipartisan conservation funding 
agreement made in 2000. Like last year's Interior Appropriations bill, 
this GOP bill completely abandons the historic, bipartisan conservation 
funding a agreement that was reached in 2000 and included in the FY 
2001 Interior Appropriations Act (PL 106-291). This landmark agreement 
reached in 2000 as a bipartisan commitment for $12 billion in funding 
for land and water conservation funding over the next six years. This 
six-year funding commitment was to be used for preserving the great 
lands and places of America, for saving endangered and threatened 
species, and for helping States and local communities with their 
conservation and recreation programs through creative partnerships.
  In my district, one program that is going to particularly suffer is 
Opera in the Heights. This program, which brings music appreciation and 
education to low income communities, needed only $100,000 to ensure the 
successful completion of the most critical improvements to Lambert 
Hall. Opera in the Heights faces a critical time of transition. The 
company is experiencing phenomenal growth in national reputation and 
attendance and has, for all practical purposes, outgrown its home. Such 
success stories as these must be nourished, and not squashed by a 
partisan bill in which the authors seek to further their own interests.
  Right now, Opera in the Heights has a charming structure from 1923, 
as close to a small European opera house as anything available in this 
country. The opera is now committed in staying in Lambert Hall and 
working with the owners of the building to adapt the space for future 
years of use. Toward that goal, they must address the out-dated 
seating, plumbing, electricity, and ADA accessibility if this great 
historic building can continue to introduce live classical operas, 
musical concerts and other theater productions to new audiences.
  The main activity occurring in this space is performances provided by 
small to mid-sized non-profit arts organizations. For eighty years, the 
venue has been home to Opera in the Heights, its primary tenant, 
producing four fully staged, traditional operas each season in pursuit 
of its mission to provide a stage for emerging opera performers and to 
bring affordable opera to the region.
  Performing arts of great national significance, primarily through 
Opera in the Heights, occurs throughout the year in this historic 
building on the national register. Just as talented young athletes hone 
their skills on farm teams, young singers and musicians must have the 
opportunity to perform major operatic roles in regional companies like 
Opera in the Heights. Young talented singers from graduate schools 
across the country come to audition for roles. Singers have come in 
from as many as 22 States for one audition weekend hoping for the 
chance to get to learn a lead role; New York, Virginia, Florida, 
California, Indiana, and New Jersey will be represented in this 
season's casts. One of the reasons singers choose to come to Opera in 
the Heights is the reputation of their Maestro, William Weibel, who 
retired to Houston after 35 years conducting opera at San Francisco, 
Chicago Lyric, and The Met. Singers love the opportunity to learn from 
his wealth of personal experience in how a role should be sung.
  Without the experiences provided by companies like Opera in the 
Heights, singers are forced to move to Germany, where many small opera 
houses offer hundreds of singers each year the chance to learn the lead 
roles required by the larger US companies. Most people are unaware that 
US regional opera companies do not allow singers to even audition for a 
role if they haven't already performed somewhere else. Opera in the 
Heights is happy to be the ``somewhere else.''
  Helping improve Lambert Hall would contribute to continued 
preservation of examples of great architecture, as recognized by the 
National Historic Register. Lambert Hall's fine acoustics and enormous 
stained glass windows make it a venue of choice for audience members 
from all over the State, as well as family members who fly in to hear 
the singers we cast from all over the country. Eight times a year 
(twice for each opera), Lambert Hall is filled with seniors from 
assisted living centers and recreation centers, coming to hear the one-
hour versions of each opera for just $5. Admission for and length of 
the program are perfect fits with these groups, many of whom are 
disabled and can't sit for long periods of time.
  It pains me to see that this Interior Appropriations bill strikes out 
programs such as these; these pillars of our community must be 
cherished and maintained.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I considered offering an 
amendment dealing with RS 2477 claims that was printed in the Record. I 
will not offer that amendment today, but I do want to briefly explain 
the problem that it was intended to address.
  Last year, the House adopted a similar--not identical, but similar--
amendment. Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. So, the

[[Page 12919]]

original need for an amendment remains. The need is to protect not just 
Federal lands but also private property and the public interest. All 
three are threatened by the plans of the Interior Department to go 
ahead with back-room land deals that fly in the face of Congressional 
intent.
  The Interior Department would do this by issuing ``disclaimers of 
interest''--documents like deeds that cede land--under new rules that 
allow the disclaimers to be issued to applicants who wouldn't have been 
eligible before. And the Interior Department has announced it is ready 
to give those ``disclaimers'' to parties seeking them in order to clear 
the way for building roads under an 1866 law. That law--one of the 
19th-century laws to promote settlement in the West--granted rights-of-
way ``for the construction of highways'' on Federal lands.
  It later became section 2477 of the Revised Statues--or RS 2477. It 
was repealed in 1976, but the repeal did not affect existing rights, 
and did not set a deadline for claiming those rights. So, there is no 
way of telling how many claims might be made or what lands could be 
affected.
  RS 2477 claims can involve not just Federal lands but also lands that 
once were Federal but that now belong to other owners. That includes 
millions of Acres that 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. Also at risk are 
millions of acres in the National Parks, National Forests, National 
Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well 
as wilderness areas and areas that deserve protection and 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 the ``disclaimers'' I described. They started that process with 
the State of Utah. And other parties--including the current 
Administration in Colorado--are starting to ask for deals of their own. 
That is the wrong way to resolve this.
  What is needed is for Congress to settle it with new legislation--
which is what Congress told the Clinton administration when they tried 
to handle it administratively. To make sure they 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--and repeating that message would be 
the purpose of the amendment. The Administration says that message is 
irrelevant. They say they can go forward, in the face of that law 
passed by Congress. Others disagree. For starters, a recent GAO opinion 
says that the Interior Department's agreement with Utah violates that 
law. The Interior Department says they think GAO is wrong about that.
  But whether GAO is right or wrong, one thing is for sure--if the 
Interior Department goes ahead on its present course, it is headed for 
nothing but more litigation. 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 it 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. Instead of trying to side-step 
Congress, the Administration should work with the Resources Committee 
and the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to impose on the time of the House by 
calling for a vote on this amendment today. Still, the problem has not 
gone away. Congress should address it--and sooner, or later, we will 
have to address it. For the moment, however, Mr. Chairman, I will 
continue to seek to have the Resources Committee address the issue.
  I yield back any time I have remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4568, the 
Interior Appropriations bill.
  This legislation shortchanges our Nation's environment and ignores 
the important priority Americans place on protecting our pristine 
lands, parks and open space. Republicans have broken a basic commitment 
to conservation. Back in 2000, Democrats and Republicans agreed to 
provide $12 billion over six years for land and water conservation. 
These are resources dedicated to preserving lands and wilderness, 
protecting wetlands and wildlife, and creating parks and open space in 
local communities.
  Unfortunately, this bill breaks that promise. Funding for 
conservation efforts in this bill is 50 percent below what we agreed 
upon in 2000. In fact, there is no money provided to acquire and set 
aside new lands and open space. This is extremely short-sighted 
considering our growing problems with urban sprawl and Americans' 
desire to preserve natural areas. Indeed it is downright cynical when 
you consider Republican efforts to open up natural lands for drilling 
and other harmful development.
  Most tragic of all, this bill ignores the jewels that Americans 
treasure most: our national parks. For years, the National Park System 
has been overburdened by a maintenance backlog of decaying 
infrastructure, trails, and roads. Our parks have been forced to get by 
with insufficient resources for their operations. As more and more 
Americans flock to our national parks each year, this will mean 
diminished public access and less opportunity for recreation at our 
parks.
  This bill's paltry funding does little if nothing to help our parks 
or stop their decline. California is home to some of the most popular 
national parks, like Yosemite, Sequoia and the Redwoods. We should be 
increasing our funding of these national treasures. Yet under this 
bill, funding will go down. The same is true for the Grand Canyon and 
close to 250 parks throughout the country.
  This is a real shame. Americans love their National Parks and 
consistently and repeatedly ask their leaders to fully care for these 
treasures. We owe it to our children and future generations to do just 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this insufficient and irresponsible 
bill. The environment--and the American people--deserve better.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention 
that the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee was unable to include '05 
funding for a system of recreational trails surrounding Diamond Valley 
Lake, as authorized in PL 106-500.
  There are many constituents in my District who are counting on being 
able to enjoy these trails with their families and friends as a 
significant new recreational facility in one of California's fastest-
growing communities.
  I would like to ask my friend, the distinguished Chairman of the 
Interior subcommittee, if he would consider giving this project 
additional consideration during the conference on this fiscal 2005 
legislation, particularly if the Senate is able to include this matter 
in its bill?
  On behalf of the hard-working people of Riverside County, California, 
I thank the gentlemen for his consideration.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank Chairman 
Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for their hard work on this legislation. 
It is an immense challenge to be in charge of the funding of this 
Nation's homeland security and they have done the best that they can 
with this bill.
  In particular, I want to raise an issue that is of concern to me: The 
need to address and integrate psychological resiliency into our 
national readiness plans. Building psychological resilience is one of 
the most effective counter-terrorism strategies we could have, because 
it fights terrorism on the real battleground--the psyches of the 
American people.
  The Israelis have learned this and see resilience development as a 
key component of counter-terrorism. Referring to terrorism, former New 
York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said: ``This is all a question of human 
psychology. It is all a question of understanding how to manage fear. 
The most important thing to explain to people about managing fear is 
that courage is not the absence of fear, it is the management of it.''
   In Full Committee I offered an amendment to call for a report 
between the Institutes of Medicine and the Department of Homeland 
Security on resilience development and how this resiliency can be 
harmed by the ways in which the media report on terrorism, or can be 
harmed by the way terrorist threat information is communicated to the 
public.
  Although the Department is funding some University-based grants in 
this area, only one is specifically geared toward the ``behavioral'' 
aspects associated with terrorism. It is my hope that I can work with 
the Chairman and Ranking Member to address this issue further and to 
build on the work that they are doing and to expand outside the arena 
of individual Universities.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read the last two lines of 
the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

[[Page 12920]]

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman 
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 4568) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2005, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 674, he 
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 334, 
nays 86, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               YEAS--334

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--86

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cooper
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Majette
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Rahall
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Solis
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bereuter
     Berman
     Conyers
     DeMint
     Hastings (FL)
     Isakson
     Jones (NC)
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     Nethercutt
     Reyes
     Schrock
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1923

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________