[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12565-12592]
[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}  1830


                     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 Mr. Thornberry (Chairman pro 
tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1830

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). When the Committee of the 
Whole rose earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) was disposed of.
  Before the Committee resumed proceedings on unfinished business, the 
bill was opened from page 77, line 3, through page 139, line 22, and 
the Chair had queried for and entertained points of order against 
provisions in that portion of the bill.
  Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the interior appropriations bill contains a number of 
legislative provisions within the Committee on Government Reform's 
jurisdiction. I believe that in the past few days, we have established 
lines of communication and a good working relationship on these 
matters. I expect that as this bill moves forward to the other body in 
conference, we will continue this relationship and work together to 
make sure that these provisions are appropriate.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I am particularly 
concerned with section 333 regarding the implementation of the E-
Government Act. I understand the department's frustration with the 
funding of this initiative. I would like to work with the gentleman 
from North Carolina to find a way to properly implement e-government at 
the department rather than stopping this important program altogether.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman from Virginia to find a way to appropriately implement the E-
Government Act as we move towards conference.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman and urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 4568.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order on the 
section that the Chair referred to earlier. Would that be in order?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will specify the section to 
which he refers.
  Mr. CLAY. It would be section 333, page 132.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman that 
the Chair previously queried for points of order against this portion 
of the bill. The Committee has now entertained an amendment to that 
portion, so no further points of order against that portion of the bill 
may be raised.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 85, Line 3, after the dollar amount insert 
     (``increased by $1,000,000, decreased by $1,000,000'').

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very modest amendment and I 
would hope that in fact both sides could accept it. It does not add any 
more money to this bill. It simply shifts within the Rebuild America 
program $1 million dedicated to the Energy Smart Schools program which 
will encourage schools all over America to become more energy 
efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I got into this issue because a number of months ago I 
went to a high school in Vermont called U-32 outside of Montpelier, 
Vermont. They escorted me around the school after I spoke to the kids 
and what I discovered is that in that school they were heating that 
building, a large campus, with wood chips. They were heating with a 
virtually nonpollutant fuel, they were creating jobs within our local 
economy and they were saving taxpayers' money. It was a win-win-win 
situation. It turns out, I later discovered, that 23 schools in the 
State of Vermont are doing that. It seems to me that we all around our 
country have a lot to teach each other about energy efficiency, how we 
can save taxpayers' money in terms of making our schools sustainable, 
cost effective and energy efficient.
  All that this amendment does is take $1 million from the Rebuild 
America program and dedicate it to the Energy Smart Schools program. 
The Department of Energy is running a good program. It is teaching 
young people about energy efficiency. It is saving taxpayers' money. I 
would urge support for this amendment and hopefully we could have both 
sides accept it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be willing to accept it if 
the chairman will accept it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment. The gentleman makes a positive argument, but the State's 
energy program grants have been increased above the level that we have 
had and the State energy programs will be making a decision on this. We 
have tried to stay away from earmarks. In fact, many, many people have 
asked for earmarks which would take the bill in a different direction 
and we have tried to avoid any earmarks. The State energy program grant 
may well take care of what the gentleman has asked for, but I oppose 
the amendment to have earmarked $1 million in this program.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I had 
intended

[[Page 12566]]

to add an amendment later on in the bill but would not offer that in 
return for a colloquy with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from North Carolina.
  I understand there was some discussion in committee about the 
operations budget for the National Park Service. This issue is of great 
concern to me, and despite the committee's efforts to direct a greater 
proportion of the Park Service resources to the operational needs of 
individual parks, the bill does not go nearly far enough toward 
addressing the $600 million annual appropriations shortfall. As the 
gentleman knows, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I, along 
with 82 of our colleagues, requested an operations increase this year 
of $190 million from the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies 
and $50 million from the homeland security bill. The committee has 
provided only a $76 million increase, with $55 million of that amount 
directed toward base operations of the parks. In light of the parks 
having had to absorb $170 million during the last 3 years, including 
additional costs for homeland security, salaries, wasteful competitive 
sourcing studies and other new mandatory costs, this amount clearly is 
not enough. I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
offered an amendment in committee that would have added $45 million 
more for operations, but it was withdrawn. I am considering offering 
the same amendment on the floor. What are the committee's plans for 
providing additional resources for the parks during conference?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. As the gentleman knows, this committee 
has been extremely generous to the national parks. Over the last 10 
years, we have provided an additional $515 million specifically for 
park-based increases. This bill includes another $55 million. That 
amounts to a total of $1 billion for 388 park units in fiscal year 
2005.
  The committee has been concerned over the last several years that OMB 
has required the parks to absorb pay costs, antiterrorism requirements 
and costs associated with catastrophic storm damage. These absorbed 
costs total $171 million. However, there is another side to the story. 
As the gentleman may be aware, the Park Service is not managing the 
funds we have provided. The gentleman from Washington and I have raised 
issues with the Service related to excessive travel, too many large 
conferences and meetings, and the Park Service's inability to control 
major new initiatives, including the 100 partnership construction 
projects with a price tag of $300 million. These are projects that the 
Park Service has committed to without this committee or the United 
States Congress' knowledge or approval. Even if only a fraction of 
these projects went forward, they would have a devastating impact on 
both the backlog maintenance projects and park operations.
  I will be pleased to work with the gentleman and my friend and 
ranking minority member the gentleman from Washington on securing 
additional funds to address the absorption issue as we head into 
conference. This will require securing funds above the current 
allocation and not having more amendments like the Slaughter amendment 
to take money out of this program, and I hope we will be able to 
increase that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his amendment and I 
want to bring this to the attention of all the Members of the House, 
because I made a speech earlier today on the rule to point out the fact 
that the number of people that are working at the parks is going down 
because, in many cases, 90 percent of the operation account is 
personnel. Therefore, when you do not have enough of a budget increase 
to cover the COLAs, to cover these emergencies, then they have to eat 
it out of their existing budget. In fact, at Olympic National Park in 
my district, they 3 years ago had 130 summer employees they brought in 
for temporary work. This summer they have 25 because they cannot afford 
more. They have lost so much money. They are about $6 million short of 
what they need to operate the park this year.
  This has got to be dealt with. This year with the increases that we 
gave, still 241 parks out of 388 will have less money to operate than 
they did in 2003. The amendment that I proposed and that the gentleman 
proposes, the $45 million, would have given every park, all 388, an 8 
percent increase. If we could get $25 million in conference, it would 
be a 6 percent increase. This is the way we have got to do this. We 
have got to get this thing turned around. The committee has done a good 
job but we have got to do better because it is not good enough. That is 
the problem we are faced with. We are working hard. We are trying to 
work with the department.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. The National Parks Conservation Association also has done 
a lot of good work on this that really lays out what the problem is. 
The chairman has been very tough on the director and the staff down 
there trying to get them to cut out wasteful expenditures, but we can 
only go so far with that approach. Some travel is justified, some 
travel is necessary because of these emergencies. It is just the 
foreign travel that has been basically stopped. I hope that we can 
continue to work with the chairman and his staff so that we can find an 
answer to this and maybe we can get a little more allocation. But this 
is a real, serious problem that must be dealt with. I congratulate the 
gentleman for raising it here on the floor.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their leadership. We have many parks in this country 
that have been cut 30 percent in their staffing. In addition, we are 
seeing rangers transferred for homeland security reasons. There is a 
crisis in our national parks, the most popular institution in the 
country. Rangers are the most highly respected profession in the 
country, they are being slashed indirectly, and many Members of 
Congress are not even aware of that. We need to continue to raise that 
on the floor. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in times past I have come to the floor debating ways to 
deal with reducing the demand for water in the Klamath Basin while 
being able to fulfill our many obligations. The problems in the Klamath 
Basin are not going away this year. As we begin another summer, it 
looks as though there will not be enough water to go around to meet 
these multiple demands that fundamentally result from the Federal 
Government's promising more water than nature or creative plumbing can 
deliver.
  The land management on the refuges in the basin continues to be 
guided by two priorities that are not just in competition but are 
fundamentally incompatible: The reclamation of wetlands for agriculture 
and the preservation of wetlands and habitat for wildlife. The 
situation is further complicated by the Klamath Basin tribes, four of 
them, which have a longstanding and unique role in the basin which 
predates the water allocation decisions and environmental regulations.
  It is likely by the time this Congress completes the appropriations 
process we will have more conflicts in the basin. I hope not but I fear 
there may be additional fish kills and certainly another summer of dry 
refuges.

                              {time}  1845

  In the past I have come to the floor to discuss ways in the Klamath 
basin to reduce the water demands in the wildlife refuge which hosts 80 
percent of the waterfowl in the Pacific flyway.

[[Page 12567]]

They have been called The Everglades of the West. Unfortunately, they 
are the only refuges in the country where farming occurs purely for 
commercial purposes instead of including some benefit for wildlife.
  But one of the problems that has taken place in the debate, and we 
have had exhaustive discussions, has been a fundamental lack of factual 
understanding. And I thought this year, Mr. Chairman, it might be 
possible to look more broadly at the underlying challenges facing the 
wildlife refuges in terms of water use and supply.
  I have drafted language and shared it with committee staff to require 
the Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake a study of the water needs 
of the refuges both in terms of how much water and when during the year 
the water is needed. Much of the difficulty in finding common solutions 
has stemmed from our inability to have a comprehensive understanding of 
the competing demands. And I would hope that it would be possible in 
the course of a study to examine water deliveries, the amount of water 
necessary to be available to sustain the wetlands, issues that deal 
with providing the sufficient water for the wildlife refuges, 
feasibility of water storage.
  I have a series of elements here in the study, but rather than 
offering up an amendment at this point because I realize the committee 
has had a very difficult time and they have a carefully balanced item, 
but as it works its way through the process I was wondering if it would 
be possible to work with the committee and the staff to see if there is 
some way to coax this information from the process. I would, if I 
could, yield to the Chair of the subcommittee to see if this would be 
possible.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  I commend the gentleman for his work on this difficult situation. I 
will commit to working with him and the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
see what can be done to address his concerns.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman for his 
work and look forward to working with him on this issue. I realize how 
difficult this issue is in his area and complicating this, as he 
mentioned, is a drought that has affected the entire region. So I know 
how difficult this is. We all want to protect the wildlife, the 
waterfowl, the salmon, all of which are affected by this. So this is an 
important issue, and the gentleman deserves our cooperation on this.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the expressions of support 
and cooperation from my two friends. It is my intention to work with 
them to be able to find a way to provide the information we need to 
avoid unduly contentious discussions here on this floor and be able to 
craft solutions that will protect our obligations to wildlife, the 
obligations to farmers who have been lured into the basin by the 
Federal Government to farm there, not once but on several occasions, to 
meet our tribal obligations, and to avoid horrendous fish kills that we 
have seen in the past.
  I appreciate the expressions of support and look forward to working 
with the committee to see if we can provide this information to guide 
more rational decisions in the future. Hopefully, we can protect this 
jewel, the Everglades of the West.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage my friend from North Carolina in a 
colloquy regarding the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I was planning to 
offer an amendment today which would limit the increased funding for 
the BIA in this appropriations bill totaling more than $46 million. 
However, I am hoping that the chairman can help me get some real 
answers from the BIA in connection with some local tribal issues.
  There are native Americans who appear to be fully qualified for 
membership in the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. Yet they are 
being denied rights of membership so a very small handful of members 
can control a very lucrative casino. Originally, the BIA rejected their 
membership application on two occasions. However, it was approved in 
1997 although the application was ``substantially the same.'' In 2000, 
I requested a congressional investigation into the membership practices 
of the tribe. Native Americans are being denied their birthright, and 
the BIA acts as if it were none of their business. This is an outrage. 
I have followed up with correspondence with the BIA, but their response 
has been slow at best. I am frustrated by their lack of involvement in 
this issue. I am hoping that the chairman can help me navigate the BIA 
waters so that we can get some answers to some of my questions.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota for his consideration of this issue. I would be happy to 
work with my friend to look into this issue with the BIA.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this legislation to fund 
the Department of the Interior. Both the authorizing committee and 
Committee on Appropriations have addressed troublesome issues within 
the National Park Service, such as the egregious spending on foreign 
and domestic travel and a number of partnership construction projects 
that were underway without the committee's knowledge.
  And I am particularly pleased that the bill implements spending 
restrictions on those issues without keeping the National Park Service 
from continuing its mission.
  I applaud the Committee on Appropriations and particularly the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for their restoration of $15 
million in funding for the National Heritage Areas.
  For several years I have worked to establish a National Heritage Area 
along Buffalo Bayou in Houston, Texas. In 2002, Congress threw its 
support behind the proposed Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area by 
authorizing a National Park Service study into the feasibility of 
establishing a Heritage Area along Buffalo Bayou. And I thank the 
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for including the 
language in the committee report encouraging the National Park Service 
to use additional funds for this study.
  Make no mistake, this study is fully authorized by Congress, and is 
thus a prime candidate for partnership funding; and I am hopeful that 
the chairman and ranking member will work with me as we move forward in 
this process to include a hard earmark in the conference for this 
project not only for the Houstonians but also in particular the Nation 
as a whole for this worthy National Heritage Area.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds provided under this Act may be 
     used for the salaries and expenses of any employee for the 
     expenditure of any fee collected under Section 315(f) of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in Section 101(c) of 
     Public Law 104-134) for the costs, in whole or in part, of 
     the biological monitoring for a species that is included in a 
     list published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533(c)), or that is a candidate for inclusion in such 
     a list.

  Mr. HUNTER (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 (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if one drives out beyond the population 
centers in California, they will come to

[[Page 12568]]

the great California desert that lies between the coastal range and the 
Colorado River and vast areas of sand dunes, and that is a place where 
literally hundreds of thousands of Californians go to get away from the 
boss, to take the family for a weekend, to have a good time and to be 
able to off-road with their four-wheel-drive vehicles and their sand 
rails and dune buggies; and we have got places out there where families 
have gone for generations, where under one Palos Verde tree a family 
may have camped for 30 or 40 or 50 years, and it is a great getaway 
spot for Americans.
  This land is BLM land, and recently the BLM has tripled user fees for 
the folks that use this territory, for the families that go out there 
and recreate. And that amounts, Mr. Chairman, to about 30 bucks a 
weekend. They go out and before they can buy groceries or charcoal or 
anything to use for their camping, they are going to have to fork out 
over $30 to Uncle Sam ostensibly for improvements in this BLM 
recreational facility. In fact, the BLM advertises it in one of their 
national publications, ``The Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area''; and 
they talk about these windblown sands of an ancient lakecrest which is 
one of the premier off-road vehicle playgrounds in the United States.
  What this advertisement does not tell us is that the BLM has decided 
to use, having tripled the user fees for these off-roaders, a lot of 
folks having trouble coming up with that extra money to pay for a 
weekend, they have tripled the user fees, and they are using now almost 
a billion bucks of these user fees for monitoring studies which are 
used in an attempt by a number of groups to try to close down the 
dunes.
  When we passed this pilot program for user fees, we never envisioned 
that this money would be used for monitoring studies for endangered 
species that would be used to try to inhibit the use of this great 
public land that is so valued by many Americans. It is within driving 
distance of about 10 percent of America's population.
  So my amendment says very simply that we cannot use these user fees. 
We have to use them for what they were designed for and stated to be 
designed for, which is improving this recreational resource and not for 
doing biological studies which in the end are used by a number of 
groups in an attempt to close down the usage of this public area.
  So my amendment would restrict that type of usage, and right now it 
is proposed by BLM that they take $1 million out of this fund, which is 
only about $3.8 million, and pull it way from using it to improve the 
resource and instead use it for monitoring; and my amendment would 
limit that.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the 
gentleman, and I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
comments.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman tell me, what is the issue 
here? He is saying that they are using the recreation demo money that 
was collected for maintenance purposes and they are using that for 
enforcing the Endangered Species Act?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, no. For the Endangered Species Act they 
have the money to enforce. They are using it for monitoring studies 
which are used to discover the existence of endangered species which in 
turn has been used in public lands throughout the West.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman is arguing that they should 
be using the money that was appropriated for listing under the 
Endangered Species Act for this purpose, not fee demo money?
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am arguing that they should be using 
other money other than this demo money. The demo money is supposed to 
be used for the benefit of the off-road community and put into 
recreational areas, campgrounds, et cetera.
  Mr. DICKS. Maintenance and those kinds of things.
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think that was clearly the understanding 
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I had when we were 
responsible for getting this thing established some time ago. 
Obviously, the Endangered Species Act is still in place, and they have 
other money to look at these things. What the gentleman is saying is 
that is money they should use for this purpose.
  Mr. HUNTER. Exactly.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I appreciate 
the gentleman's yielding to me.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment to 
prohibit the use of recreational fees to indirectly cover any costs of 
biological monitoring for endangered, threatened, or candidate species 
under the Endangered Species Act. And as the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) said, the intention when we passed the demo fee on rec fee 
programs was to use that money to enhance the visitor experience in the 
parks. I think we all agreed on that. That was something that was very 
popular, and it is something that the Committee on Resources is working 
on right now in authorizing that program to become a permanent or a 
long-term program. It was never our intention at the time, nor is it 
now, for this money to be used in this way.
  I would like to point out that, as the gentleman from California 
said, they used almost $1 million to do this monitoring, and not only 
was it for going out and doing monitoring. This nice sand buggy that 
they have got here was purchased at the cost of $60,000 with demo fee 
money. That was never our intention when this was originally passed. 
And I believe that the gentleman's amendment is extremely important in 
protecting those demo fee moneys so that the money actually goes back 
into the facility to be used to enhance the visitors' experience in 
that facility. That was our intention then; that is our intention now. 
As the Committee on Resources moves forward with making this a more 
permanent demo fee project, we will make sure that that does not happen 
again.
  I fully support the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1900


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to adversely affect the physical integrity of Indian 
     Sacred Sites on Federal lands (as such terms are defined in 
     Executive Order 13007, dated May 24, 1996).

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, throughout this Nation, sites on Federal 
lands held sacred for religious purposes by Native Americans are being 
desecrated, often needlessly, by adverse developments. In response, I 
have introduced the ``Native American Sacred Lands Protection Act.'' 
This legislation would make the protection of Indian sacred sites on 
Federal lands a matter of Federal law and put into place a petition 
system that may lead to the designation of these sites as unsuitable 
for development.
  Tex Hall, the President of the National Congress of American Indians, 
described this bill as protecting ``the essence of what Indian Country 
is.''
  Unable to have this legislation considered under regular order and 
considering the immensity of the threat

[[Page 12569]]

posed to these sacred sites, I am now offering an amendment that would 
simply prohibit the expenditure of funds made available under the 
pending legislation for activities which would adversely affect the 
physical integrity of sacred sites.
  Long before my ancestors arrived on these shores, American Indians 
were the first stewards of this land. They respected the Earth, the 
water and the air. They understood that you take only what you need and 
leave the rest. They demonstrated that you do not desecrate that which 
is sacred.
  Most Americans understand the reverence for the great Sistine Chapel 
or the United States Capitol. Too often, non-Indians have difficulty 
giving that same reference we give to our sacred places to a mountain, 
valley, stream or rock formation.
  For example, Mount Shasta in California, considered the birthplace of 
the Earth and sacred to several California Indian tribes, is under 
threat by geothermal industries.
  The Zuni Salt Lake in New Mexico, where tribal medicine men gather 
minerals for use in sacred ceremonies, is under constant threat by 
mining interests, as is the Huckleberry Patch in southern Oregon, which 
contains plants and berries essential to the Cow Creek Tribe.
  In fact, I have received a letter from Sue Shaffer, Chairman of the 
Cow Creek Tribe, supporting this amendment of mine, in which she 
states, ``Given the traditional cultural, religious and subsistence 
significance of the Huckleberry Patch to the Cow Creek Tribe as vital 
to our identity as an Indian tribe, we appreciate your efforts in 
proposing an amendment which would protect Native American sacred sites 
on Federal lands from significant damage.''
  Now, some may ask why a Congressman from West Virginia should care. I 
care because it is morally offensive for these religious sites to be 
destroyed. It is not the American way.
  I care because the history of Appalachia is similar to the history of 
our treatment of the American Indian. Back in the days of rape, ruin 
and run, our lands were left as moonscapes and our forests were denuded 
as coal and timber was extracted and shipped out-of-state. Armed 
mercenaries stormed the homes of our coal miners, throwing women and 
children out in the cold. So I understand.
  But I also understand that we have worked to reclaim our land, to 
address the legacy of acidified streams and ravaged landscapes, to take 
back the land and restore our homes and communities, that the history 
of the past should not be the prologue of the future.
  Let that be so in Indian Country.
  So today I stand here in common cause with those from Indian Country 
who are struggling to have their voices heard in this, the Capitol of 
the United States of America.
  Today, let their voices be heard. Let their voices be heard above the 
roar of mining operations which threaten to sweep away sites that are 
sacred to them. Let their voices be heard above the din of drilling 
rigs which seek to desecrate their places of religious worship. Let 
their voices be heard above the babble of corporate greed which would 
sacrifice their lands and waters on the altar of profit and wealth.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the pending amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I can sympathize, I feel, with what I hope is the 
intent of this motion. However, the motion is so broad. If we could sit 
down prior to conference and work on this, we might be able to do 
something. But I would have to reluctantly oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians in my 
district. I work with them many times on burial sites, which are both 
outside the Reservation and in, to try to preserve those sites and do 
everything we can to honor those sites.
  In the Smokey Mountain area now, the parks, a portion of parkland 
that was deeded to the park in 1946 encompasses a number of cemeteries. 
The government promised to put a road to those cemeteries. The 
government has not honored its commitment because there are many people 
bringing numerous complaints, environmental complaints, about building 
a road that will allow people to come to those cemeteries, and I am 
working with them to try to get the respect due for those sites.
  But the Clinton executive order which addresses this issue and is 
tied to it in this amendment is so broad, it is almost impossible to 
identify what is a sacred site.
  Now, we have a 1988 report submitted by the Legacy Resource 
Management Program to the Department of Defense, for instance, and 
edited by Professor Vine DeLoria of the University of Colorado. For 
those that are not familiar with Mr. DeLoria, he is a radical Native 
American historian whose books include ``Custer Died For Your Sins'' 
and ``Red Earth, White Lies.'' We can hardly say that he is accused of 
being anti-Indian.
  In the report, he identifies several kinds of potential sacred sites 
that could have impact, for instance, on the Department of Defense, 
which would come under this bill also with the Federal wildlife 
management. Burials and ruins would be understandable. The mourning and 
condolence areas is vague. Ceremonial areas; linkage to ceremonial 
areas; creation story locations and boundaries; sacred portals 
recalling star migrations; universal center locations; historical 
migration destiny locations; places of prehistoric revelations; 
traditional vision quest sites; plant and animal relationship 
locations; historical past occupying sites; spiritual sites; recent 
historical event locations; plant, animal and mineral gathering sites; 
and sanctified ground.
  As you can see, with all these categories, every acre of Federal 
lands could almost come under this definition, as well as military 
bases.
  Now, if the gentleman is trying to protect those areas that he and I, 
I hope, would agree are sacred sites, we can sit down and try to work 
something out, because we certainly want to protect those sites. But we 
cannot pass a bill that is so broad that it may disrupt all activity in 
our national parks.
  For instance, what does this amendment do to recreation activities on 
public lands? What does the amendment do to the oil and gas drilling on 
any Federal land? What does the amendment do to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's activities on military lands? How does this amendment affect 
existing rights on Federal lands?
  I believe that this could be a lawsuit heaven, and it should not be, 
because the gentleman's argument, what he would like to do and what I 
would like to do, is to define it in some way that we could have vital 
protection of sites.
  So I have to disagree and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rahall 
amendment, which would protect Native American sacred sites on Federal 
land.
  Congress has enacted several laws designed to protect religious 
rights of Native Americans, as well as to protect the cultural and 
historic sites from poor management practices. These laws include the 
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the American Indian Free 
Exercise of Religion Act, the National Preservation Historic Act and 
the Native American Grave and Repatriation Act.
  But, Mr. Chairman, despite the enactment of these laws, many Native 
American sacred sites remain to this day under threat of desecration. I 
therefore urge my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment that would 
prevent Federal funds from being used to harm Native American sacred 
sites on Federal land.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), in 
his charge

[[Page 12570]]

that the amendment is too broadly drafted. He then referred to 
Executive Order 13007. That is the referenced executive order, of 
course, in my amendment.
  In that executive order it clearly very narrowly defines what sacred 
site means. In Section 1, Subparagraph (b), number iii, ``Sacred site'' 
means any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal 
land that is identified by an Indian tribe or Indian individual 
determined to be an appropriate authoritative representative of an 
Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious 
significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided 
that the tribe or appropriate authoritative representative of an Indian 
religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.
  So I think that is a pretty narrow definition of ``sacred site,'' as 
opposed to the broad charge leveled by the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that none of the funds made 
available by this act may be used to adversely affect the physical 
integrity of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands as such terms are 
defined in the Executive Order No. 13007, dated May 24, 1996.
  This sounds pretty straightforward and innocent enough, and who could 
vote against protecting a sacred site? The gentleman should be 
commended for his efforts to safeguard areas of cultural significance 
for Native Americans, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and myself have 
worked together on a lot of Native American issues over the past 
several years, and I appreciate their help. The gentleman should be 
commended for that.
  The problem with this amendment is simple: It has not been the 
subject of a hearing in the Committee on Resources. This is because we 
only saw this amendment for the first time yesterday. There also has 
not been a process for consultation with the tribes on this amendment, 
in which tribes have agreed to use an appropriations bill as a vehicle 
for addressing this issue.
  No one wants to allow Federal land managers to adversely affect a 
sacred site. We all wish to protect sacred sites from desecration, 
vandalism and abuse. But we are then asked to take it on faith alone 
that this amendment will result in exactly what the author intends.
  But what will this amendment do? That is the question I have. I do 
not think any of us know. The gentleman has taken an executive order 
that was intended to be implemented as policy out of the administration 
and attached a limitation on funding.
  As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) said in his 
comments, none of us really knows what that means. If there are sacred 
sites within a national park, which we know that there are in several 
cases, what does that mean on a limitation of funds on this particular 
bill? Is the Park Service going to be able to use that park? Is the 
public going to be able to use that park, if it is in any way 
determined that that is desecration to the sacred site or could in some 
way upset that particular site?
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) read what it says in 
the executive order about defining what a sacred site is. That is an 
extremely broad definition that we have to work with. What does that 
mean to the use of those Federal lands? On BLM lands, what does it mean 
if we have a limitation on using funding? What does it mean to the Fish 
and Wildlife Service if they are called in on section 7, consultation 
of the Endangered Species Act, on a military base, and that is 
determined to be a sacred site? All of those different issues, we have 
no idea what the real impact of that is going to be.
  I know what the gentleman's intention is on this particular 
amendment, and I support the gentleman wholeheartedly on what he is 
trying to do.

                              {time}  1915

  But to try to come in on an appropriations bill and attach a 
limitation on funding on to an executive order, we have no idea what 
the outcome of that is going to be.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) talked about all of the 
different laws that we have passed as a Congress to protect Native 
American sacred sites. If those laws in some way do not fulfill our 
mission, we should sit down in the committee and work out what 
amendments have to be passed on those laws in order to achieve what the 
gentleman is trying to achieve with this particular amendment.
  I think it is a big mistake to try to do this on an appropriations 
bill. For one thing, I have not had a chance to talk to any of the 
tribes about this and what the impact is going to be and how they are 
going to interpret that. They have been very vocal in their opposition 
to dealing with Native American issues with riders on appropriations 
bills. And I cannot imagine at this point in time that they would 
reverse their stance on riders on appropriations bills, even though 
they may support what the underlying issue is on this particular one.
  I reluctantly oppose the gentleman on this particular amendment, 
because I know that the gentleman's heart is in the right place with 
what he is trying to do. But I think it would be a huge mistake for all 
of us. And to my colleagues on the minority side, they have to really 
think about what this amendment is doing. It sounds good, it is 
something we all want to do, but we are talking about a limitation on 
funding attached to an executive order that was never intended to be 
used that way.
  None of us have any idea how this is going to be interpreted by the 
administration. We have no idea how it is going to be interpreted by 
the courts. And that is where this is ultimately going to end up, and 
it would be a big mistake for us to go forward with this.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Rahall, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  In response to the assertion that the Indian tribes do not like 
legislative riders on an appropriations bill, the respected chairman 
himself has been calling this an amendment throughout his remarks. So 
it is a matter of who is offering what here as to how we describe it. I 
describe it as an amendment, as the gentleman has adequately described 
it. A rider is something that the gentleman does not favor.
  So I think it has been properly described as an amendment, and I have 
already described the NCAI's position on this by the words that were 
written to both of us in regard to the substance itself.
  In regard to the feeling that the gentleman does not know how this is 
going to be interpreted, my amendment is clearly the language of an 
executive order. An executive order is pretty clear. I have already 
outlined how that executive order defines sacred site.
  As far as what it would affect, I can give the gentleman a site in 
his home State of California that would be affected by my amendment, 
and that is that the BLM could have said no to allowing a mining 
operation; under my amendment, under this executive order, that the BLM 
could have said not approved, that is, a plan of operations for a 
mining operation for the Quechan Indian Pass in California. That 
operation was allowed to proceed because my amendment was not in place 
protecting this sacred Indian site.
  So I think, again, in response to the amendment, it is pretty clear 
as to what it would do, and an executive order has been issued in this 
regard; and that is what my amendment is.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there was nothing to 
stop BLM from saying no to begin with. The gentleman's amendment tells 
them

[[Page 12571]]

they have to say no, and that is the problem. We do not know how this 
is going to be interpreted. We do not know how the administration is 
going to take this out; we do not know how the courts are going to 
interpret it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of sacred sites which are 
located on national parks, on BLM land, on Forest Service land. How is 
it going to be interpreted in the courts once a funding limitation is 
put in place that we cannot move forward with some things on those 
particular parks? It is not a negotiated settlement; it is not sitting 
down with the tribes and consulting and trying to work it out. What it 
is, the gentleman is demanding that no funds be used. That is what the 
gentleman's amendment does.
  I just do not believe that because of the process that this is going 
through, we have had the opportunity to hear out exactly how this is 
going to be interpreted by the administration and by the courts and 
where we are ultimately going to end up. I support the gentleman in 
what he is trying to do, but we cannot do this on an appropriations 
bill because we do not know what is going to come out of that. I just 
think it is a mistake to do it in this way.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, have there been hearings on this issue 
before the gentleman's committee?
  Mr. POMBO. Yes, there have been.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the gentleman, have 
there been hearings and could the gentleman describe what the status of 
the Rahall amendment in your committee is. I am an appropriator. I 
would like to see the Members deal with this issue in their committee. 
I think that is a much better way to do it than doing it on a rider on 
an appropriations bill. I agree with the gentleman.
  I am a little concerned myself about an ability for this self-
described sacred lands on Federal lands. I mean, the consequences, the 
possibilities of this are extraordinary. But I think we have to give 
some assurance to the gentleman from West Virginia that the gentleman 
is going to continue to look at this issue in the gentleman's 
committee.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from 
West Virginia is fully well aware, I have been more than fair with his 
issues over the past year and a half and will continue to work with him 
on any issues that he deems important that have come before our 
committee. Obviously, I will pledge to him, because I agree with him on 
the substance of this amendment, I will pledge to him to continue to 
work with him to try to get this done through the regular order process 
so that we can actually know where we are going to go.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is completely accurate. He has 
been fair. We have had a hearing on this, my introduced legislation. 
Several requests, however, following up to that hearing to move on the 
legislation, have thus far not been met with action. And I have no 
doubt that the chairman is sincere in what he has said, as he has been 
on a number of other issues on which we have worked together.
  But I think the issue here is of such importance to Indian country, 
and it is much like going to church. This is sacred land for them. And 
I feel compelled to press this issue at this particular time in the 
form of an amendment, knowing full well that the chairman is completely 
honest in his words about following through at another time on my 
introduced legislation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just again say 
that I urge my colleagues to really think about the way that this 
amendment is working and ask them to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the eloquence of my friend, 
the gentleman from West Virginia, and the concerns that have been 
expressed by the chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  We have had on this floor in my tenure, brief though it seems, it is 
nonetheless 8 years, we have seen a parade of items of legislation on 
appropriations, and most of them that have been successful have come 
from the majority party. If we are going to reach the point now where 
we are going to change the policy and we are not going to legislate via 
riders and amendments on an appropriations process, I think that is 
interesting and well-intended, and maybe we should think about 
changing.
  But the fact is, we have not been doing that in the past. It seems to 
me that we have had a parade of legislation that has come to this floor 
that has never gone to committee, that has been offered up by the 
majority party, that has not gone to the committee of jurisdiction, 
that there have not been substantive hearings. I can think of a wide 
range of things that have come from the Committee on Ways and Means, 
for example.
  Now, with all due respect, I think the gentleman from West Virginia 
has identified a critical area. He spoke with great eloquence about the 
special obligations that we have as Members of this assembly to be 
sensitive to the needs of native Americans. And the history of this 
country brings no great credit to the government or to this body, and 
there has been lost opportunity after lost opportunity.
  I think we ought to move forward with this amendment. It in no way 
precludes an opportunity for the Committee on Resources to come 
forward, do whatever fine-tuning they are going to do. But I think it 
is time for us to seize the moment and change the balance of power on 
this for sensitivity to Indian country.
  The gentleman from West Virginia mentioned the concerns from the Cow 
Creeks in my State. There are issues in the Klamath Basin. He mentioned 
the 1,600-acre open-pit gold mine in the Quechan Tribe at Indian Pass, 
California, which is true, BLM could have done something about, but BLM 
did not do anything about, and under the gentleman's amendment, would 
be required to. There would be some leverage to the people who too 
often do not have the leverage to meet their needs.
  I think we have seldom erred on the side of giving the benefit of the 
doubt to Native Americans. For me, as a member of this assembly and 
work that I have done in other government bodies, it is like that old 
adage in baseball, ``the tie goes to the runner.'' I have felt that if 
it is even a close policy question, I will give the benefit of the 
doubt to Native Americans who time and time and time again have been 
shortchanged by this government, by this Chamber; and they deserve 
better.
  It is my intention to support the gentleman's amendment. I hope that 
we have people act on good faith on the other side of the aisle to 
refine it as it moves through, to work in the Committee on Resources, 
if that be the will of the body, to ultimately have the last word and 
do it. But in the meantime, there is no good reason not to move forward 
to deal with this matter.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I just want to go back to the executive order and read so that 
everybody here has an understanding of how this would work.
  Sacred site means ``any specific discrete, narrowly delineated 
location on

[[Page 12572]]

Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe or Indian individual 
determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an 
Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious 
significance to or ceremonial use by an Indian religion, provided that 
the tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian 
religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.''
  So in this case, the tribe or an individual--it would not even have 
to be a recognized tribe--it could just be an individual identified 
with an Indian religion who could say, ``these are our sacred lands''; 
and the agency then, under the Rahall amendment, would have to protect 
them. This is not some way of having to come in and go through a 
process and explain that there is some history here or something else; 
it is just an individual who walks in and says, ``these are our sacred 
sites,'' and, therefore, no money could be spent.
  Now, I cannot support that. I hope that we will take time. This is 
why it is so bad to do riders on these appropriations bills that come 
right out of the wind; and in this case, I think this is going way too 
far. We need to have more time. The gentleman who is the ranking member 
of an authorization committee can get hearings on this in his 
committee, and that is where this should be dealt with.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and his amendment to the Interior 
appropriations bill. This amendment, as has been mentioned, would seek 
to preserve Native American sacred sites by putting in place 
significant protections under the law.
  Today, far too many sacred places are being desecrated or threatened 
by development, pollution, poisons, recreational activities, looting, 
vandalism, and by Federal or federally authorized undertakings.
  I have listened to some of my colleagues, and I certainly want to 
indicate that the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) has been a 
very good chairman in terms of his willingness to bring up issues and 
hear the concerns of the minority party and have hearings. But as was 
mentioned by my colleague, our ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), there have been hearings on this bill. We have 
dealt in the committee with this issue for a number of years, and we 
have not moved forward with it. So I think under the circumstances, it 
makes perfect sense for our ranking member to seek action here today 
through an amendment.
  In response to what the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Interior and Related Agencies said, I would point out that what we are 
really trying to do here, and I guess it is obvious, is to have some 
enforcement of the executive order.

                              {time}  1930

  The problem with the executive order is it has been in place since 
1996. It was actually a Clinton executive order but it is not being 
enforced. This administration simply has not enforced it. I do not 
think there is any problem with the definition. A definition existed 
under the Clinton White House for at least 4 years before the current 
President took office. No one questioned the definition then. No one 
questioned the way it was working in those 4 years. The problem though 
is that under this administration, and I think I clearly want to fault 
them for that, they have not repealed it but they have not enforced it. 
They simply do not do anything about it.
  So the only way that we have legislatively as legislators to try to 
deal with this is try to put it in the statute as part of the 
appropriations bill. That is what we are up to. That is what we want to 
enforce.
  Now, some may say that they think it should be redefined, but I do 
not think that was an issue before and I do not think it is an issue 
now.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just went through a situation like this with a tribe in 
my district, the Elwah Tribe up in Port Angeles, Washington. There was 
a major State project and it was done on an Indian burial site, and 
when we started the project we found out that there were actually 
graves there, and this was a very, very sensitive matter with the 
tribe. What I did was sit down with the Washington State officials, 
with the historic preservation people, with the tribe, the local 
community, the port of Port Angeles, and we worked this thing out, and 
we protected the tribe's interest.
  Now, I think Federal agencies are going to be sensitive since you 
have an executive order. If the tribes feel that there is some problem 
in the gentleman's State or in my State or in West Virginia, why not 
get together and work it out with the Forest Service, the BLM, 
whichever agency it is, rather than trying to do something here with a 
meat ax that is going to cut off the funding and we have not got a clue 
of who these people are that are going to come in and make these 
determinations about what is a sacred site.
  I mean, to put this into Federal law at this point, to me it just 
does not make sense. Why not go through and help the people with the 
sites that are affected and make sure that they have an opportunity to 
be heard.
  Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I have a great deal of respect for 
the gentleman, and I know he always has been in the forefront in caring 
for the concerns of American Indians.
  But I just believe very strongly that if there is not some kind of a 
hammer here, and that is why I use the term enforcement, we are never 
going to see any action on behalf of this administration. I am being 
critical. This administration has been here 4 years. They have not 
dealt with this subject. They have ignored it by simply acting as if 
the executive order was not there, and I am just fearful that unless we 
put something in the statute as part of the appropriations bill we 
simply will not see anything. The inaction will continue.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) for his comments. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
has given a perfect example of why my amendment is necessary. The 
gentleman worked it out in his State. I salute him. That is the way it 
should be. That is what the executive order is all about. But it is not 
being done like that everywhere else. The purpose of my amendment is to 
get that process working, exactly as the gentleman has said it has 
worked in his home State.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point is the tribe should go to their 
Congressman or their Senators and say, there is a problem here. Would 
you work with us, with the BLM and the Forest Service to resolve it, 
rather than putting a prohibition in an appropriations bill that says 
no money shall be spent. I think that is just overkill in this 
situation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pallone was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to stress the whole 
enforcement aspect. I understand what the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) has said and I understand a lot of the comments that are 
being made here today. But the problem is, and again I am being 
critical of this administration, without some enforcement mechanism, 
without some hammer which does not exist now with the executive order, 
we have no guarantee that any of these Federal agencies, whether it be 
BLM or any of the agencies that affect Indian Country, are actually 
going to pay attention to this executive order. That is the problem 
that we face here.

[[Page 12573]]

  Mr. Chairman, every year more and more of these sacred lands are 
being destroyed simply because our government has failed to enforce or 
enact the necessary protections to preserve them. A large number of 
these sites, and more of them, get destroyed every day. It is not like 
we can just wait around and hope something will happen because the 
Federal and other land managers routinely take into account the needs 
of developers and recreational users in making management decisions, 
but they are not so diligent in taking into account the often profound 
effect of these undertakings upon sacred and ceremonial places that are 
critical to Native American populations, tribes and cultures.
  I just say, Mr. Chairman, the time has come that this body recognize 
the spiritual and cultural significance of Native American sacred 
sites. We must stop the bulldozing of Native American culture and begin 
to afford American Indians the strong legal protections necessary to 
preserve these lands.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Rahall 
amendment. I think its time has come.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rahall amendment. In the last 
few years, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to tour this 
country and visit many Indian reservations and to discuss with Native 
Americans their concerns about the protections of sacred sites. I have 
talked to Native Americans who have been very taken with the gentleman 
from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) support for their interest and 
particularly the work that he did to protect the Valley of Chiefs in 
Montana.
  I want to say that what we often have here in this Congress is a 
collision of cultures until we understand that the broad interests of 
the American people are always connected with things spiritual. Our 
Native Americans gave to this country an understanding of the 
connection between the spiritual and the material world, and this 
discussion here today needs to reflect once again the Native American 
spiritual values.
  There is a lot of discussions in this House about spiritual values. 
Let us talk about the spiritual values which connect people to the 
privacy of the air and the water and the protection of the land, about 
the sacredness of it, the essential sacredness. These discussions here 
which the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has continued to 
bring to this House is absolutely at the root of some of the most 
important questions facing this Nation.
  Do we respect the spiritual dimensions which our Native American 
brothers and sisters depend upon for continuing a celebration of their 
cultures or are we going to auction it off to oil and gas companies and 
let their leases in effect desecrate sacred sites.
  Now, people on both sides of the aisle have celebrated spiritual 
values in this House. This is not a material question here as much as 
it is a spiritual one. And we have to be sensitive to the spiritual 
values of America's natives, of those who were here before any of us; 
and when we forget that we pay a spiritual price, I would submit.
  Literature is replete with what happens when anyone violates the 
spiritual space of Native Americans. We should not ignore that there 
are deeper themes at work here. That is why what the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has done in asking for Executive Order 13007 
to be brought into more powerful effect is absolutely essential. It is 
not only essential with respect to protecting Native American 
interests, it is essential with respect to helping to heal this Nation 
because we have hundreds of years of neglect that have resulted in not 
only the expropriation of the lands of Native Americans, but also what 
it has done is it has demeaned this country's spiritual basis.
  So I salute the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for his 
efforts here. This is a broader discussion that needs to be brought 
into this House. Essentially this becomes about the healing of America, 
and one step we take towards that is reconciling with our native 
brothers and sisters on this question of respecting their sacred sites.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Resources 
Committee, and South Dakota's lone Representative in this body, to 
commend my friend Mr. Rahall for his efforts to protect places sacred 
to Native Americans.
  During the course of the debate on this bill, we've heard a lot of 
talk about striking a balance between protecting the environment and 
allowing for smart development. Those balances are often tough to 
strike. I hope we can all agree, however, that burial sites for all 
people should be treated with respect.
  South Dakota is home to thousands of Native Americans, and I share 
their deep desire to protect sites important to their heritage. This 
amendment does that.
  Because this amendment is specific to the Interior bill, it is my 
understanding that it will not affect the operation of the Missouri 
River dams. It is important to all South Dakotans, including our tribal 
communities, that the United States Army Corps of Engineers operate the 
dams in a way that protects Native American remains and sacred sites, 
and continues to provide affordable electricity, reliable drinking 
water supplies, and recreational opportunities to all South Dakotans.
  Again, I thank Mr. Rahall for offering this important amendment and I 
look forward to serving with him on the Resources Committee to continue 
to find ways to protect sacred sites.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the planning, designing, studying, or 
     construction of forest development roads in the Tongass 
     National Forest for the purpose of harvesting timber by 
     private entities or individuals.

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
this amendment be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes pro and 10 minutes 
con.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman include all amendments 
thereto?
  Mr. CHABOT. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, would the chairman and the 
ranking member have the right to strike the requisite number of words 
once?
  Mr. CHABOT. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio limiting time for debate on this amendment to a 
total of 20 minutes, 10 minutes for and 10 minutes against and, in 
addition, the chairman and the ranking member having the ability to 
strike the requisite number of words once each?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, each year the timber industry is subsidized by millions 
of taxpayer dollars for logging in the Tongass National Forest, 
approximately $750 million over the last two decades, so that is three-
quarters of a billion dollars.
  Each year more taxpayer subsidized logging roads are built to extract 
timber and each year the road maintenance backlog gets more expensive. 
It

[[Page 12574]]

is about $900 million right now. That is on the existing roads which 
are already there.
  Established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the Tongass is 
our Nation's largest forest, about the size of West Virginia. Located 
along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often referred to as America's 
rainforest. It is home to abundant wildlife, bald eagles, grizzly 
bears, wolves and salmon, as well as old growth trees such as the giant 
Sitka spruce, western hemlock and yellow cedar.
  There are 3,579 miles of official Tongass forest road. That is enough 
road to drive across the country and part of the way back. Even the 
Forest Service acknowledges that existing roads are sufficient to 
satisfy local demand for roaded recreation, subsistence, and community 
connectivity needs.
  I know there is some concern about the importance of logging roads to 
fight fires, but I want to emphasize that this is a rainforest. They 
receive 200 inches a year in rainfall, and, therefore, wildfires are 
much less likely there than perhaps in the West where it would be much 
dryer.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would 
restrict only logging roads subsidized by the American taxpayer in the 
Tongass. It does not prevent the timber industry from building their 
own roads. It does not prohibit the Forest Service from constructing 
roads needed to access the forest for management. It does not prohibit 
taxpayer-funded recreational roads and trails. I know there are some 
that would have you believe differently, but this amendment has nothing 
to do with the roadless rule. It has everything to do with good 
government.
  This amendment is not an attempt to take away jobs from Alaska. In 
fact, between 1996 and 2002, Tongass-related timber jobs fell from 
1,559 to just 195 jobs. That means that taxpayers are subsidizing each 
timber job, that is those 195, to the tune of about $178,000 per job. 
So a subsidy of $178,000 per job, about four times the median U.S. 
household income.
  Alaskan timber revenues have declined by 50 percent since the mid-
1990s. The two pulp mills built at taxpayer expense in the Tongass have 
closed. Despite massive taxpayer subsidies, Alaskan timber continues to 
decline. That said, this amendment does not stop timber companies from 
continuing to log off the roads already built at taxpayer expense.
  In fact, the Forest Service has a supply of approximately 10 years 
worth of timber remaining off current roads if logging levels remain 
the same. As much as 30 percent of Tongass timber contracts go unsold 
annually. As many as half of the contracts that are sold only have one 
bidder. This means taxpayers spend millions of dollars for the Forest 
Service to build roads and plan sales to access timber that often they 
cannot sell.

                              {time}  1945

  Those that they do sell, sell at below-market rates.
  Mr. Chairman, I support logging in our national forests when it makes 
sense, when it is economically viable. I believe our forests should be 
actively managed so they be as healthy as possible, but while we need 
to be good stewards of our forests, we must also be good stewards of 
the American people's money.
  The Forest Service put out a Question and Answers document on the 
Tongass on April 12 of this year. In it the Forest Service states that 
``profitability is a poor yardstick for evaluating the performance of 
the national forest timber sale program.'' The Forest Service then 
cites its belief that ``timber sales also provide many benefits beyond 
the revenues earned.'' An example of these benefits, the Forest Service 
went on to say, is ``the additional income that accrues to the 
individuals and businesses'' involved.
  Mr. Chairman, if that is not an endorsement of corporate welfare by a 
Federal agency, I do not know what is. It is time to restore some 
common sense and fiscal discipline to the Tongass timber program. I 
urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayers and support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Does the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) seek to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's 
argument. I am also a fiscal conservative, but this amendment is wrong-
headed. First of all, the amendment would prevent the Forest Service 
from doing road maintenance on a large area of southeastern Alaska. 
Most of these communities have no road access to the outside world, but 
they need their Forest Service roads to get around on daily activities.
  Also, only 4 percent of the forest is suitable for commercial timber 
harvest, and only half of that amount is within the inventoried 
roadless areas. The existing forest plan allows timber harvest on only 
300,000 acres, about 2 percent of more than 15 million total acres of 
the roadless areas on the forest; and this of course is no threat at 
all.
  The Tongass National Forest is indeed a wonderful place; but under 
the existing forest management, approximately 90 percent of the 16.8 
million-acre forest, over 15 million acres, is roadless and undeveloped 
right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot), and coauthor for yielding me this time; and I urge a 
bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that it is a hotly debated topic as to whether 
there should be logging in this forest, and irrespective of how someone 
feels about this question, I think they should vote in favor of this 
amendment. If they feel, as I do, that logging is inappropriate in 
Tongass, then this amendment stops building the roads that will let 
people exploit that logging and preserves this priceless natural asset.
  But I know that there are many who believe that logging is 
appropriate in the Tongass forest; and, Mr. Chairman, I want to say 
even if they think it is appropriate, they should vote for this 
amendment, and they should vote for this amendment on several important 
fiscal grounds.
  The first fiscal ground is this is one of the worst investments the 
United States taxpayers have ever been asked to make. In fiscal year 
2002, which is the last year for which there is evidence here, the 
American taxpayers put up $36 million to build these roads, and our 
revenue, our return on our investment, was slightly over $1 million. 
For every $36 we put up, we got $1 back.
  The second point that I would make, you say, well, look, we still 
need to get this logging done. The fact of the matter is there are 
miles and miles of roads already built in the Tongass National Forest 
that do give access to logging. So if we want to see the forest logged, 
the roads are already there that would permit the forest to be logged. 
We do not need to build new ones. And if we think that we should be 
logging in the Tongass National Forest and that roads that will give 
access to the logging are not accessible, there is a reason. That is 
because there is a $900 million backlog in road maintenance for roads 
that are already there to get access to the logging.
  So colleagues, I want you to think about this. If you believe, as I 
do not, that logging the resources, exploiting the resources of this 
natural forest is the right thing to do and you need road

[[Page 12575]]

access to get there, you are throwing good money after bad. If we truly 
believe that the right thing to do is to get access to these forests, 
we will deal with the $900 million backlog to the existing roads. We 
would not put more money into building new roads.
  This amendment is favored by hunters and sportsmen who want to 
preserve the pristine nature of this place where they can pursue their 
sport. It is favored by taxpayers and budget groups across the country 
who well understand that at a time when our country is borrowing $30 
for every $100 that we spend, offering corporate welfare to the lumber 
industries is the wrong way to go; and it is favored by those who just 
favor common sense, who understand that when the taxpayers are asked to 
put up a $36 investment, they should not get a $1 return. That is the 
simple mathematics of this amendment.
  Now, for those who are moved by the environmental arguments, as I am, 
this is a foolish misuse of our public resources. This is America's 
rainforest. It is a very precious and special place, and for us to 
exploit those resources with these roads is just a horrible idea.
  But I will submit, in closing, before I yield back to my coauthor, 
that the issue here really is not whether we favor exploitation of 
these forests for logging or not. We can have that debate some other 
time. The issue here is whether we favor throwing good money after bad, 
whether we favor building more roads when the roads we already have 
need repair. It is whether we favor putting $36 into an investment that 
will get us $1 back in return. If you are an environmentalist, you 
should support this amendment, as the environmental groups do. If you 
are a taxpayer for common sense, you should support this amendment. If 
you are a sportsman or a hunter, you should support this amendment.
  Even if you favor the exploitation of these logging resources, you 
should favor this amendment because the most rational way to pursue the 
exploitation of those logging resources is to fix the roads that are 
already there, not put more money into the building and acquisition of 
new roads.
  I would urge my Republican and Democratic friends to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment. I thank my friend from Ohio for being the principal 
author.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  There is one thing that my colleague said that I would agree with, 
and that is, this is not a debate about whether or not we want to log 
in the Tongass. This is a much deeper debate than that. Unfortunately, 
this is not a debate about roadless areas either, because that is not 
what the amendment does. What the amendment does is it stops all road 
activity.
  According to the USDA, ``Wildlife habitat improvement projects on the 
Tongass often involving thinning timber stands.'' Those would be halted 
under this amendment.
  ``Fish passage restoration contracts on the Tongass, which currently 
involve about $2 million a year, would be eliminated'' under this 
amendment.
  ``Roads damaged by storms could not be repaired.'' That would be 
eliminated by this amendment.
  ``The ability to construct and maintain roads in campgrounds and 
other road-based recreation facilities, such as visitor centers, may be 
eliminated'' under this amendment.
  ``Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the 
Forest Service is required to maintain reasonable access to national 
forest system lands for rural residents dependent upon subsistence.'' 
That would be eliminated under this amendment.
  ``If the elimination of funding for road construction and maintenance 
continues for the long term, it would significantly limit the ability 
of communities to develop road and utility connection that almost all 
other communities in the United States take for granted.'' That would 
be eliminated under this amendment.
  Unfortunately, we get into these debates constantly, and we debate 
about whether to log or not to log, roadless or not to roadless, and we 
have great debates about the future of our country and what our values 
are and what we should be doing; and I think that is fantastic. We 
should do that, but when an amendment like this is introduced that, in 
my opinion, is much more far reaching than even the authors intended, 
then we end up with people making bad mistakes on it. I urge opposition 
to the amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I have no time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman offer the gentleman 
more time to answer a question?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be given another 
2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Such a request is inappropriate at this 
time. We are operating under an agreed time limit on this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I submit this letter for 
the Record.

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, Jun. 16, 2004.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House Of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. This letter is in response to your 
     request for the views of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     on the effects of a rider being considered in the FY 05 
     Interior Appropriations bill which would prohibit expenditure 
     of funds for road construction and maintenance on the Tongass 
     National Forest of Alaska.
       Such a prohibition would be interpreted as eliminating all 
     projects on the Tongass National Forest that are funded 
     through the CMRD fund code (construction and maintenance of 
     roads). Currently the Tongass spends about $20 million on 
     construction and maintenance of roads through that fund.
       Because of the dominance of Federal land in Southeast 
     Alaska, communities in the region are more dependent upon 
     national forest lands for access, recreation, economic 
     development, and for subsistence activities than communities 
     in the lower 48 states. Of the 32 communities in the region, 
     29 are unconnected to the nation's highway system. Most are 
     surrounded by marine waters and undeveloped national forest 
     system lands. The Forest Service is responsible for managing 
     the roads that connect and serve many of Southeast Alaska's 
     smaller communities.
       Some of the expected impacts include the following:
       The rider would prevent the administration of existing 
     timber sale contracts that include road construction, 
     reconstruction, or maintenance, because the expenditure of 
     federal funds is necessary to oversee the construction and 
     maintenance of those roads. The federal government could be 
     subject to substantial contract claims for breach of contract 
     on any existing contracts that could not proceed because of 
     the prohibition.
       Contracts for future timber sales could not include any 
     road construction or road maintenance. This would effectively 
     eliminate much of the opportunity for timber sales identified 
     in the current forest plan. This would significantly reduce 
     the timber sale program below what is projected in the forest 
     plan.
       Wildlife habitat improvement projects on the Tongass often 
     involve thinning timber stands. Any wildlife habitat 
     improvement projects that require road maintenance to access 
     the stands to be thinned would be eliminated. Data collection 
     and monitoring may also be affected if road access to remote 
     areas is reduced.
       Fish passage restoration contracts on the Tongass, which 
     currently involve about $2 million a year, would be 
     eliminated. These contracts seek to repair or reconstruct 
     road passages across streams to remove barriers to the 
     passage of anadromous and freshwater fish. Those fish 
     populations are important to sport, subsistence, and 
     commercial fishermen throughout the region.
       Roads damaged by storms could not be repaired. It is common 
     in Southeast Alaska for roads to be washed out, covered by 
     small landslides, or obstructed by blown down trees. Work to 
     repair or clear those roads would be eliminated. Some of 
     those communities could be effectively isolated (from other 
     communities or key facilities) if the ability to maintain 
     roads was eliminated. Access to national forest system lands 
     and other state and private land ownerships could be blocked.
       The ability to construct and maintain roads in campgrounds 
     and other road-based

[[Page 12576]]

     recreation facilities, such as visitor centers, may be 
     eliminated.
       Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
     (ANILCA), the Forest Service is required to maintain 
     reasonable access to national forest system lands for rural 
     residents dependent upon subsistence. Elimination of road 
     maintenance on roads known to be used by subsistence users 
     could be in conflict with ANILCA.
       If the elimination of funding for road construction and 
     maintenance continues for the long term, it would 
     significantly limit the ability of communities to develop 
     road and utility connection that almost all other communities 
     in the United States take for granted. Many communities have 
     long term plans for new roads and rights-of-way for utilities 
     to develop and diversify their economies.
       In addition, the timber industry in Southeast Alaska is 
     more dependent on resource development opportunities on 
     National Forest lands than their counterparts in other parts 
     of the country because there are few neighboring alternative 
     supplies of resources for Southeast Alaska.
       If a forest health problem arose, such as a significant 
     insect epidemic, the prohibition against road construction 
     and maintenance could restrict the ability of the Forest to 
     respond to the outbreak.
       Road condition surveys and bridge inspections would be 
     eliminated, thereby endangering health and safety of road 
     users throughout the region.
       The Forest road system is the primary access for 
     investigation and enforcement of timber theft, fish and game 
     related activities, occupancy and abandonment of facilities, 
     and vandalism. Road based law enforcement efforts of all 
     agencies would be hampered by the elimination of road 
     maintenance.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.
           Sincerely,

                                                     Mark Rey,

                                Under Secretary, Natural Resources
                                                  and Environment.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the 
proponents of this amendment; and if we were to concentrate or perhaps 
somehow strike the history of so-called public lands, if we were to 
somehow disallow or deny the fact that so many of our western States 
are already in the hands of the Federal Government, if we were to 
somehow render null and void the fact that 78 percent of the Tongass is 
already slated for roadless designation under the current forest 
management plan, if somehow no accommodations had been made, if, in 
fact, it were this anti-no man environment of greed that motivated 
folks or perhaps, somehow rephrased, as a return on investment, perhaps 
the proponents would have a point; but you see, Mr. Chairman, history 
does not occur in a vacuum. There are already existing safeguards for 
Tongass. Timber harvest is available on only 4 percent of the Tongass 
under current conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend from New Jersey points to road maintenance 
and suggests our energies be used there. Well, it is interesting, if he 
is an advocate of road maintenance, why is that amendment not offered? 
Why is an accommodation toward road maintenance not offered? But, no, 
it is all or nothing; and proponents of the amendment have decided on 
nothing.
  To deny the fact or fail to emphasize the fact that the Federal 
Government, in controlling lands, already maintains a substantial 
impact, that there already exists legislation to protect our 
environment, to ignore that fact and to suggest that somehow by ending 
this involvement we are somehow devoting ourselves to higher and truer 
fiscal responsibility fails to understand this fact. Life in Alaska and 
life in the western United States does not occur in a vacuum. Indeed, 
our public lands policy, our governmentally controlled lands policy 
should be predicated on the fact of rational use.
  We have already locked away this environmental treasure. There is but 
4 percent of the land available to be utilized for timber harvest. In 
the meantime, there are other communities even in an area as remote, 
even with the designation, there are others who live there, there are 
concerns that they have; but if my colleagues support this amendment, 
they turn their back on the people who live there and the underlying 
philosophy of governmental controlled lands. Reject the amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has 30 
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) has the right to close on this amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The allegation has been made that we could not do any of the 
management things on roads. The wording itself says none of the funds 
may be made available in this act, may be used for planning, designing, 
setting or construction of the forest development roads in the Tongass 
National Forest for the purpose of harvesting timber by private 
entities or individuals.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reaffirm that, that each 
one of these examples the chairman of the authorization committee used 
is not covered by the amendment. The fact of the matter is each one of 
those things that is listed is not barred by this amendment. What is 
barred by this amendment is to waste the taxpayers' money. People 
should vote ``yes.''

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
Chabot-Andrews roadless amendment. Thirteen million acres of the 
Tongass is off limits to roads; 13 million acres. And 330,000 acres are 
available to forest repractices, and now we are trying to lock that up. 
I hear all of the talk about hunters support this. I do not know how 
many Members hunt, but my hunters hunt where people timber. Old growth 
forests do not have a lot of wildlife because there is no food there. 
This amendment is simply an effort by extreme environmental groups to 
impose their will over the objections of Alaskans. The Alaskan 
delegation, including the former Democratic Governor, Tony Knowles, is 
opposed to this lockup of the Tongass National Forest. The State of 
Alaska does not support blanket roadless area designations. In fact, 
the State took the Clinton administration to court over the issue and 
won. The environmentalists lost in court, and now they are trying to 
get Congress to do it for them.
  The National Forest Management Act already outlines a process for the 
Forest Service to make decisions on whether to build a road. The 
Tongass Forest Management Plan process was locally driven, based on 
site-specific conditions such as wildlife risk, insects and disease 
outbreaks, wildlife habitat, and threatened and endangered species. 
This amendment ignores this process, ignores local input, science, and 
the experience of highly competent forest managers.
  Mr. Chairman, 78 percent of the Tongass is already roadless, 
wilderness, or nondevelopable designation. Only 2 percent of the 
landbase is open for forestry. The only people who support this 
designation are the special interest groups who want to stop all uses 
of our natural resources. They lost in court, they do not have local or 
State support, and they want Congress to make a foolish move and get 
into Alaskan business that nobody wins with.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am ashamed of my friend from 
Ohio. I told him earlier today that he did not even have the courtesy 
to talk to me about this amendment which affects my State, affects my 
people. You want to protect American jobs, and you have put 15,000 
people out of work since 1980. We had the greatest industry in the 
State gone to waste because of the environmental community.

[[Page 12577]]

  I am asking for enough timber left, and 4 percent of the total 
Tongass is all that is available, so I can retain three sawmills to 
employ about 160 people total with good-paying jobs. And this is not a 
subsidized forest any more. We pay for these roads. We paid for the 
activity in the Tongass when we had the bid. That is part of the bid. 
But this is an easy, cheap vote for somebody from Ohio, somebody who 
does not know squat about the people of Alaska, and I am disappointed. 
You are better than that.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman will 
suspend.
  The Chair reminds all Members to direct their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I will do the best I can. I have 
been here long enough to know when I am out of line; but when I am out 
of line, I am right.
  In 1980, most of you were not here. The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) was here. We made an agreement. We said we could have 
logging in the Tongass. That was an agreement made by the 
environmentalists, made by those who proposed it; and we lost, as I 
said, over the years, 15,000 jobs. Members talk about outsourcing, 
Members talk about losing American jobs. What we are doing on this 
floor by the gentleman's amendment is taking the jobs away from the 
American people that live in this great Nation and this great State.
  I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It is ill 
thought, ill conceived and wrong totally. Where it came from I know. I 
am ashamed that somebody got in bed with those that advocated over the 
years of putting us out of business, the people. This is not about big 
timber. They are all gone. These are local people that need that timber 
to maintain those jobs, to make sure we have a different economy in 
southeast Alaska.
  So I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill conceived, 
ill thought and very rude amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. 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 Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       On page 87 after line 21, insert the following provision:


                   ethanol and biodiesel fuel reserve

       The Secretary of Energy may annually acquire and store as 
     part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 300,000,000 gallons 
     of ethanol and 100,000,000 gallons of biodiesel fuel. Such 
     fuels shall be obtained in exchange for, or purchased with 
     funds realized from the sale of, crude oil from the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve.

  Ms. KAPTUR (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 Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order against the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that would 
allow the Secretary of Energy the opportunity, but without requirement, 
to purchase ethanol and biodiesel as part of our Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. I even hate to use the word ``petroleum'' because, in fact, it 
is not a very strategic reserve since over 92 percent of it is 
imported.
  America has to become energy independent here at home. Every single 
one of us, including the instrumentalities of this government, have to 
be part of this great transformation inside this country to become 
energy independent again.
  There is no cost to this amendment because any of these new fuels 
that would be obtained would be obtained through funds realized from 
the sale of crude from the strategic reserve or in exchange for that 
material that would be sold from the existing reserve.
  Let me say, 3 years ago I offered this amendment to reduce America's 
severe dependency on foreign oil, and it is a small step. At that time 
the Congress did not have the political will to do it. So today America 
again is in the throes of even a greater fuel shortage with prices 
rising. While we let the opportunity of 3 years ago slip away from us, 
today the price of crude oil is nearly 50 percent higher than it was 
when this amendment was first offered. In fact, oil has been hovering 
around $40 a barrel compared with about $24.90 a barrel when I first 
offered it. Meanwhile, the retail price of 85 percent ethanol fuel, 
called E-85, is about $1.40 a gallon, now well under what we are paying 
for refined fuels off of crude petroleum.
  This government subsidizes the petroleum-based industry, over 60 
percent of which is imported, to the tune of $100 billion a year. Had 
we adopted this amendment when I first offered it, the American people 
might have saved billions of dollars in these new fuel costs they are 
paying. We would have helped a real, new domestic industry gain a 
firmer foothold here at home. Real jobs would have been created, and 
our strategic vulnerability which grows greater every day of addiction 
to imported oil would have begun its journey to finally ending.
  Today in this amendment I am not even proposing that we mandate the 
acquisition of these fuels, but merely allow the Secretary of Energy to 
use authority to figure out a way to purchase it and store it, not in 
existing sites, but however the Secretary may designate. We do not 
prescribe that.
  Again, I ask the question, How strategic a reserve is it when 92.5 
percent of it is imported? It is really not a lifeline at all. We are 
dealing with a tourniquet that actually has with each passing day less 
and less value to us.
  Every single person in this country should be thinking about how we 
can change our habits in order to become independent again. We should 
be encouraging the development of new fuels here at home, and we 
already have technology that can be brought up all over this Nation. We 
simply do not have the will and, sometimes I fear, the imagination to 
do this. The benefits of transforming this reserve as well as others 
over time would provide us with energy security again.
  Certainly we can manufacture ethanol and biodiesel. Certainly we can 
bring renewable fuels online. Certainly we can use even existing 
petroleum infrastructure that can be transformed. We are not talking 
about a new probe to Mars. We are talking about doing something that we 
know how to do, but becoming energy independent as a national priority, 
and to do so immediately. It would bring us great economic security. 
Every year we are running over $60 billion in trade deficit in greater 
amounts of imported petroleum. In fact, the current reserve, 92.2 
percent from foreign sources, includes nearly half from Mexico, a fifth 
from the OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia, look how stable that is, and 
about a fifth from the United Kingdom. It is not even U.S. oil in the 
reserve, so what kind of a strategic reserve is it? It is fool's gold.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that perhaps the chairman of the full 
committee and the ranking member could find a way for us to allow this 
discretionary authority to the Secretary of Energy and help America 
find her way forward.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from North Carolina wish 
to be heard on his point of order?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order

[[Page 12578]]

against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule number XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties, and I ask for a ruling from 
the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds this amendment includes language conferring 
authority. 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 No. 3 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. 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. 3 offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     title:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to finalize or implement the proposed 
     revisions to subpart A of part 219 of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, relating to National Forest System 
     Planning for Land and Resource Management Plans, as described 
     in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on 
     December 6, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 72770).

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to protect our national forests and ensure that they continue 
to be managed using long-standing scientific principles. My amendment 
will stop a radical rewrite of 27 years of bipartisan forest management 
policy. It will prohibit the use of funds provided in this bill for the 
finalization of the Bush administration's proposed changes to the 
National Forest Management Act of 1976. It will allow the Forest 
Service to spend another year developing these regulations so that new 
regulations follow more closely the directives of the National Forest 
Management Act.
  The proposed regulations constitute a radical departure from the 
United States' history of sustainable forestry and from the current 
forest management policy first adopted and implemented by Congress and 
the Reagan administration over 20 years ago.
  The proposed changes will greatly reduce the amount of environmental 
analysis, wildlife protection, and public involvement currently 
required in the development and revision of forest management plans. 
Many of these changes reflect the timber industry's so-called wish 
list. In at least eight specific instances, the proposed regulations 
closely mirror policies favored by the timber industry. To name just a 
few, the proposed recommendations eliminate ecological sustainability 
as a priority of the Forest Service, reduce protections for wildlife, 
constrict the public appeals process, ignore scientific opinions, and 
render meaningless most mandatory standards for forest management.
  The National Forest Management Act established new duties to conserve 
biological diversity, to ground management decisions in sound science, 
and to ensure extensive public participation opportunities in the 
forest planning process. These measures were designed to strengthen 
Forest Service accountability.
  The proposed regulations depart in a number of ways from sound forest 
management policy that has existed since Ronald Reagan's 
administration.

                              {time}  2015

  First, the proposed regulations would effectively exempt forest 
management plans from the National Environmental Policy Act. Second, 
the administration's proposed rules would eliminate the requirements to 
maintain viable populations of native wildlife. Third, the changes 
would increase the likelihood of harmful logging projects based on 
multiple use values. Fourth, the administration's proposal would also 
reduce overall environmental standards and accountability by allowing 
management plans to be revised to accommodate individual projects.
  Finally, these changes would drastically limit public involvement and 
eliminate sound science as a basis for forest management. The current 
90-day time period in which a citizen can request an administrative 
review or file an appeal would be confined to a 30-day objection-only 
period during which a citizen would have to convince the Forest Service 
that the plan is illegal.
  The proposed regulations were developed without a Committee of 
Scientists, a statutorily authorized body that has informed the 
development of every other change in NFMA regulations since their 
inception.
  The administration's dismissal of the principles of sound science and 
NEPA highlights its contempt for public involvement and scientific 
input. The recommendations of the independent Committee of Scientists 
have guided the rewrite of every NFMA regulation since 1979. Ronald 
Reagan used a team of scientists to write the original regulations. 
Four years ago, Bill Clinton revised the regulations with significant 
input from scientists. If it was good enough for President Reagan and 
good enough for President Clinton, why does President Bush insist on 
throwing science out the window? Because the scientists will not give 
him the answers his timber industry friends want.
  These proposed regulations were developed with maximum input from the 
timber industry and minimum input from the American public and the 
scientific community. The proposed regulations received nearly 200,000 
public comments, almost all in opposition. A near-final draft leaked by 
the Forest Service in September 2003 showed that practically none of 
these comments were incorporated. These regulations were also strongly 
opposed by the environmental community, sportsmen's clubs, Republicans 
for Environmental Protections and members of the Committee of 
Scientists.
  In public comment, 325 scientists from across the Nation are urging 
the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed regulations. Given the 
administration's refusal to adequately consult the scientific 
community, let alone listen to its comments, Congress must intervene 
and stop this flawed and environmentally damaging rulemaking.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
rise in opposition to the Udall amendment.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comments, though, about the need to have 
science involved in these decisions. Perhaps he will want to support my 
Sound Science for Endangered Species Act provisions that require 
precisely that, independent, National Academy of Science panel review 
of decisions to list or de-list endangered species because I think 
science does play a role and we ought to get it right.
  We ought to get it right here, too. I am glad that he has gone back 
20 years and looked at the regulations from then, but they do not work 
now. They do not work because in a 15-year planning process under the 
Federal Forest Management Land Act, it takes 7 years of that 15 to come 
up with a plan on how to manage the forest. So you spend nearly half 
the time coming up with a plan.
  And then those who are concerned about costs, and we heard about it 
in the prior amendment, $7.5 million on average to do these plans. 
Seven years, $7.5 million and all the while if you look over here, this 
is what is happening to your forests. They are getting overgrown, you 
are getting windthrow, blowdown, disease. As we wait and fiddle and 
plan for 7 years or longer and spend millions and millions of dollars 
pushing paper through the appeals process and everything else, Mother 
Nature eventually acts and this is what you get: catastrophic fire that 
kills firefighters, destroys homes and if you like this for habitat, 
you got another think coming. This is what you get.

[[Page 12579]]

  We have to change these rules and regulations. The administration did 
receive 195,000 comments and they looked at them. They revised their 
draft plans. These regulations actually protect a wider range of 
species and are designed to promote action by Forest Service managers 
well before any need to list species under the ESA. The draft 
regulations provide for public involvement at every step of the way. 
They preserve appeal opportunities like those in the 2000 regulations 
proposed by President Clinton and go well beyond the minimum 
requirements of NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. More 
timely and transparent planning will further facilitate effective 
public participation. That is really the key, effective public 
participation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is what the Society of American Foresters says 
about this amendment by my colleague:
  ``The Society of American Foresters is opposed to efforts to 
circumvent, through funding elimination or other means, the USDA Forest 
Service's effort to implement new planning regulations.'' That is 
Michael Goergen, Executive Vice President, Society of American 
Foresters.
  Here is what the labor unions say about this. Mr. Mike Draper, Vice 
President, Western District, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
Joiners of America:
  ``If Mr. Udall's rider passes, the Forest Service will be forced to 
rely on outdated rules written in 1982 or to implement a flawed series 
of regulations from 2000.''
  Professional foresters say this rider is not the way to go. Labor 
says this rider is not the way to go. Taxpayer groups ought to be 
saying this rider on an appropriations bill is the wrong way to go. If 
you care about the cost to the taxpayer, here is a vote that you ought 
to make as a no; $7.5 million per plan, 7 years to plan what to do in a 
national forest. In the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota, 
$7.5 million and 7 years. The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest in 
Colorado, $5.5 million and 7 years. The Tongass that we were all so 
concerned about in the last vote and remain concerned about in Alaska, 
$13 million and 9 years to do the plan. We can do better than that, and 
we should. We owe it to our forests and our future to do better than 
that, to spend the money not in the planning process that goes on 
forever, that results in no action except catastrophic fire in many 
cases, but rather a planning process that produces results and actions 
that will help bring forests help, that will help protect species and 
the environment for generations to come.
  Let us spend the money on the ground, in the forests, fixing fish 
passage, fixing culverts and roads that now block this fish passage. 
Let us do the healthy forest things we all agreed in this Congress to 
do when we passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Let us get out 
there and do the thinning so that we do not end up with forests that 
are so clogged with overgrown trees, that suffer from blowdown of 
forest that you cannot get in and do anything about it. Because when we 
put off the action because we are too busy planning, the result can be, 
not always, but can certainly be catastrophic.
  I urge a no vote on the Udall amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I rise in support of the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment. I 
listened to my good friend and colleague from Oregon talk about 
concerns about how long the process takes and I think there is 
something here that strikes me as being slightly disingenuous, because 
we have seen, for example, Senator Craig in the late nineties added a 
provision in an appropriations process that forbid money to be used to 
finalize forest plans. In some of these cases, that doubled the time 
that was involved with finishing the planning process. There may well 
have been some problems that are involved here, but I would suggest 
looking at the struggle where we have some of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle who have actually been impeding this process.
  Forest management plans are long-term blueprints for broad land 
management issues that do not specify individual projects. Fire 
management plans deal with fire planning. I think that we ought to take 
a step back and deal with the reimplementation that my colleague has 
talked about. It, in fact, has functioned well under both Democratic 
and Republican administrations if Congress funds it and allows it to 
move forward. It is talking about an impact on over 8 percent of our 
landscape. These national forests are key in terms of housing 
threatened and endangered species. There are critical monitoring 
requirements of the current forest management act that are vital to 
prevent further extinction.
  I think as we have looked at the approaches that have been taken by 
our friends in the administration where the process in agency after 
agency has been dominated by the very industries from which they are 
supposed to be regulating, the forest products industry, in terms of 
mining, livestock, we have had examples after example that the media 
has filleted out where we have not had a dispassionate process, where 
we have not had independent actors, where we have found that the 
scientific experts and the panels within agencies have been dismissed, 
have been suppressed, have been overridden.
  I do not think there is any particular cause for excitement on the 
part of either the environmental community or the vast majority of the 
American public to short-circuit this process. And as my colleague from 
New Mexico pointed out, we find out not in an open process but because 
people in the inside are so frustrated by what they see, career civil 
servants are allowing the public to see via leaked documents that in 
fact the vast majority of these comments are not taken into account, 
that the public needs and interests are circumvented.
  I think that it is important for us to step forward today to 
reinstate these protections and to enter into the reasoned discussion 
that people are talking about, adequately fund the studies, do it in an 
up-front, aboveboard fashion, have the administration stop twisting 
what is happening in terms of the process. Whether it is dealing with 
natural resources or it is dealing with mercury emissions from power 
plants, I think we ought to let daylight shine in. Starting today with 
the enactment of the amendment from the gentleman from New Mexico is a 
step towards reestablishing a little balance, build some confidence and 
have the protections of the system.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I listened with 
great interest to our colleague from Oregon. Unlike my colleague from 
Oregon, I will impugn no one's motives. I believe that my friend from 
New Mexico is sincere in his wish for healthy forests. But, Mr. 
Chairman, if we pass this amendment, in my opinion we will take the 
Healthy Forests Initiative and subject it to a great big dose of 
bureaucratic flu. It is bad enough that the bark beetle is ravaging 
forests in the West. It is bad enough that my colleague's home State of 
New Mexico has been subjected to fire. It is bad enough that my home 
State of Arizona has been subjected to fire. It is bad enough that here 
we are in the midst of the worst fire season in history and yet, with 
noble intent perhaps, the net result is to increase paralysis by 
analysis. It may not be the intent of my colleagues, but that is the 
net result.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest 
Health pointed this out as we take an average look at the plans, the 
current average, 7 years, $7.5 million. This amendment, though well-
intentioned, I am sure, the net result would increase these costs and 
time requirements by an additional 30 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, at the very time we should be moving to implement the 
Healthy Forests Initiative, at the very time our forests are in such 
jeopardy, at the very time we need to move literally to put out the 
fires, we instead are going to fan the flames of bureaucratic inertia. 
Again the chairman of the subcommittee asked our friends on

[[Page 12580]]

the other side, join with us, with peer review, sound scientific 
principles. But all too often, pseudo science is employed. All too 
often the mythology that the preceding speaker offered, more political 
in nature than practical in criticism, is offered, not to debate but to 
demonize.

                              {time}  2030

  The facts simply are this: the regulations that have been outlined 
are outlined in a way to address the current crisis in the forests. Is 
it not interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the path and the road to a 
certain place where fire reigns is paved with good intentions? Maybe 
that is one roadless policy we could live with, to eliminate the intent 
and look at the result.
  The fact is the world has changed since 1982. The fact is that the 
new prohibitionists who have gone and gotten court order after court 
order to gum up the process and prevent effective management of the 
forests have achieved the paralysis by the analysis.
  And, again, I do not doubt the sincerity of my New Mexico neighbor; 
but the net result will be if one loves the story of Nero, if one loves 
to hear of ancient Rome, watch what happens if we pass this amendment 
and watch the forests burn. We hope it will not happen, but the drought 
continues. We know it is not the intent of our friends on either side 
to do that. We appreciate the instant revisionism of history. But 
changing circumstances dictate that we should change policies in a way 
that we can address the current crisis. When one's house is burning 
down, they do not need to have a committee show up to draft a report 
that can be issued 7 years later with a $7 million cost. And the very 
species of animals that so many of my friends passionately want to 
preserve, they do not have a home if it is incinerated. Air quality is 
not improved by the emissions of the pyrocumulus clouds.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment. Vote ``yes'' for rational, sound 
science and forest policy.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we appreciate my friend from Arizona's impassioned 
interest in trying to improve the performance of our fuel reduction 
program to reduce the fuel loading on our forests. But the question I 
have is, where were the Republicans an hour ago when we wanted to add 
money to the account on the Hooley amendment that would have added 
millions of dollars to get this job done and they defeated this 
amendment?
  The reason this job is not getting done is very simple. You have 
refused to appropriate the necessary money to get the job done. And 
instead of appropriating the dollars, you want to appropriate rhetoric 
attacking science. Where were you an hour ago when we tried to put more 
money in this account?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to vote for the Hooley 
amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. I wish more of the gentleman's friends would have 
followed his admonition.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield? 
Does the gentleman have the vote total, or does he expect that solely 
the opposition came on one side of the aisle? Because facts are 
stubborn things.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the facts as I know 
them is that the Republican Party is in the majority in the House of 
Representatives. I regret that situation, but it is a fact. And the 
majority party refused to put more money in the fuels reduction account 
to get this job done 60 minutes ago, and now you are on the floor of 
the House trying to have some rhetorical argument that the reason this 
job is not getting done is because the law simply requires that we 
listen to science. But you do not want to listen to science. You want 
to listen to some other force of nature.
  Let me suggest that one of the problems of the pickle we have gotten 
into in our forests with this dense situation in underbrush is because 
the Federal Government ignored science for decades, and now today you 
want to perpetuate the history of the Federal Government of ignoring 
sound science. You want to continue a situation that you started with 2 
years ago of doing in our water and allowing arsenic in our water, 
doing in our air where you want to allow mercury in our air, you want 
to now have lawless logging. You want to have logging that is not 
constrained by science or law.
  Let me suggest to my colleagues that the conservative approach on 
this issue is the approach that demands accountability of our 
government. The conservative approach demands that government respond 
to citizens by following the law. The conservative approach distrusts 
government; and when we have some innate suspicion of government, we 
make bureaucracies follow the law. But unless you pass this amendment, 
you are giving carte blanche to bureaucrats to ignore the science when 
it comes to conservation science, to ignore the science when it comes 
to ecosystems, to ignore the science when it is the right time to do 
underbrush thinning and when it is the right place to do underbrush 
thinning, and you want to give carte blanche to the bureaucrats.
  This whole national forest management plan came out of the idea of 
reform, to reform bureaucracies so they will not ignore taxpayers. We 
stand for taxpayers who say that taxpayers who pay their money are 
entitled to make sure the bureaucracies follow the law and the science. 
But you want to shortcut the science. Science is not good enough for 
you. Science is not good enough on arsenic. Science is not good enough 
on mercury, and science is not good enough in logging our national 
forests.
  We just have a simple proposition on this side of the aisle: follow 
the science and follow the law. That is why 325 scientists of the 
Society for Conservation Biology wrote a letter that urged the Forest 
Service, and by extension Congress, to not gut the National Forest 
Management Act, which you are gutting today. And we are simply here to 
say let us make sure that science rules in our forests. Let us make 
sure that the law rules on forests. Let us pass the Udall amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to get into these debates, and 
sometimes I wish we could all live in a perfect world.
  We are in the middle of a very serious crisis on our national forests 
and on our public lands. The Udall amendment is designed to prevent new 
regulations from being implemented for our national forests. Those new 
regulations were proposed for a reason; and contrary to what some of 
the rhetoric is that we have heard tonight, the reason that those new 
regulations were proposed was because of this crisis that we are in 
with catastrophic fire, with our rural communities economically hurt 
because of policies that have been adopted by this Federal Government.
  It currently takes more than 7 years to adopt a 15-year plan. I do 
not care where one is on the issue. That is ludicrous. So they are 
trying to fix that. It currently costs in excess of $7.5 million to 
adopt that plan.
  I hear people talk about the conservative thing to do. Supporting 
that is ludicrous. Cost studies demonstrate that these costs increase 
30 percent under the Clinton-Gore administration regulations that the 
Udall amendment would implement. Another study indicated that these 
2000 regulations cannot be implemented due to overly complex and 
detailed procedures, extraordinary data requirements, and scarcity of 
required technical skills.
  Increasing cost and complexity would divert scarce resources away 
from critical management activities. We all come down here, and we 
fight about where the money should go. And the more complex this is, 
the worse it is going to be. And yet the amendment would lock that in 
place.
  The Bush administration regulations are designed to reduce the time 
and cost of planning while maintaining sustainability, public 
participation, and

[[Page 12581]]

the use of the best available scientific information.
  We have to really pay attention to what these amendments do. I hear 
people come down here and say we are going to log without laws. There 
is nothing in the regulations that removes the Endangered Species Act 
or the forest management plans or any of the other environmental laws 
that have been adopted to protect wildlife and to protect our clean 
water and clean air. There is nothing that removes those. They are 
trying to make the system work better. A lot of times the rhetoric does 
not actually match what is actually in the regulations.
  I would urge my colleagues to take a serious look at this, because we 
have gone round and round on this. We all want clean air. We all want 
clean water. We all want to protect endangered species and wildlife. We 
all want to be good stewards of our public lands. What the 
administration is trying to do is fix a problem.
  When California was burning last year, a lot of people saw the light 
and said, well, maybe we ought to do something about our forests; and 
we passed the Healthy Forests initiative. This year the fires have 
started, and many think that this year is going to be worse than last 
year. We do need to get out front. We do need to do everything that we 
can to get into our forests and clean them out and have them become 
sustainable. This amendment takes away the tools that are necessary to 
speed up that process.
  This bill that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 
brought out increases the money on the thinning projects by $58 
million. It increases by $1 billion the money for firefighting. If my 
colleagues vote against the overall bill, where are they going to be 2 
hours from now when all of that money that is supposed to go to the 
things they are talking about, are they going to support it? Because 
that is the good work that has been done by this subcommittee and by my 
friends on the Committee on Appropriations, because they have 
recognized that this is a serious problem.
  I know that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) deeply cares 
about the environment and the forests, and that is something that he 
has been consistent on. But I do believe that this is a mistake to 
adopt this amendment in the way it is written, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico because I share his concern on the extent to 
which the proposed regulations would revise the system of forest 
planning put in place during the Reagan administration. There are many 
reasons to support this amendment, but I want to focus for a couple of 
minutes on the reduction of public involvement that I believe would 
result from this amendment not being passed.
  The National Forest Management Act was landmark legislation that 
greatly increased the extent to which the public could hold the Forest 
Service accountable. It included a mandate for the agency to base its 
management decisions on sound science on one hand and, on the other 
hand, to ensure extensive public participation in the forest planning 
process.
  If we truly look at these new regulations, they would downgrade 
forest plans and effectively exempt them from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and would thus limit opportunities for 
public involvement.
  This amendment, if we really look at it, would just simply impose a 
moratorium on the proposed new regulations. And I think that makes good 
sense because whatever the problems with the current planning 
regulations, I do not think they should be just swept away without more 
intensive oversight by this body and by the other body; and that has 
occurred so far.
  This is particularly important because these new regulations were 
developed without any input from a committee of scientists; and this is 
a stark departure, a stark departure, from the process that has been 
used in connection to the development of any other changes in the 
National Forest Management Act regulations.

                              {time}  2045

  In fact, during the public comment process, many of the scientists on 
whom we depend asked for the withdrawal of these proposed new 
regulations.
  So, in short, this amendment just simply maintains the public 
involvement that I think we all value and we all acknowledge has been 
important, because, as my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
pointed out, it gives the taxpayers, who, by the way, own this land, a 
chance to be involved, and if we pass this amendment, we maintain that 
public involvement while we in the Congress take time to look further 
at these proposed changes.
  There has been a lot of talk here about forests and forest management 
as we move into a new fire season. This amendment would not change the 
work that is under way in managing our forests more effectively, given 
the 100 years that we have faced of suppressing wildfire, not 
understanding the ecological processes in our forests. This does not 
prevent that planning from proceeding, it does not prevent us from 
responding.
  My colleague from Washington also talked about the need for more 
resources so we can do the requisite thinning and fight the fires when 
they start.
  So, in sum, this amendment ought to be supported. We ought to 
maintain public involvement in this important process. The past has 
proven that this process works. I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the key issue here is 
independent science in good forest management. President Reagan used a 
committee of scientists, independent scientists, to promulgate his 
regulations. President Clinton did the same thing, through a 3-year 
period, to develop them.
  When the Bush administration got in, they swept aside that 3 years of 
effort, did not use any independent scientists, had a 2-day workshop 
with internal scientists, and that is it. And that is what the key here 
is, is they do not care about the science. They have an agenda and they 
are moving it down the road.
  Forest planning can be preventive in terms of fire, can be preventive 
if you let it work. But, as we know, many of these forest plans where 
speakers have talked, where they have been delayed, it has been because 
Congress has put in amendments delaying forest planning. So you cannot 
attribute all of that delay necessarily to the Executive Branch.
  But the key here today is President Bush, through his administration 
and his Forest Service chief, now seeking to promote forest planning 
rules without independent scientific review. That is really what we are 
talking about here today.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to 
underline the point that independent scientific review has led us to 
make many of the right decisions so our forests are protected and our 
lands are managed in a way for the long-term interests of future 
generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor) for bringing forth an outstanding bill.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. Before I speak on that, I 
would like to address the concerns raised by the gentleman from 
Washington earlier about sufficiency of funding. That is just an 
absolutely false charge. As the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Pombo) pointed out, this includes an increase of $58 million for the 
hazardous fuels program, but, furthermore, it is a $70 million increase 
for

[[Page 12582]]

fire plan funding above the administration request and an increase of 
$183 million above the non-emergency funding level for fiscal year 
2004.
  If you look at the track record of this administration and this 
Congress over the last several years, the amount of money available for 
Federal hazardous fuels funding is several times what it was in any of 
the years of the Clinton administration.
  Now, turning to the Udall amendment, once again we are debating 
whether the administration should be allowed to complete a long overdue 
revision to the NFMA planning regulations. This amendment failed last 
year, and it should be defeated again this year. It would be highly 
irresponsible to prevent the Forest Service from finishing the revision 
to the planning regulations now.
  The Forest Service is drowning in paperwork and red tape. The 
previous administration proposed rules which would have made the 
situation worse. Those are the rules referred to by the gentleman from 
New Mexico. Both the forest industry and the environmental groups sued 
to block the implementation of those rules.
  Already, the Forest Service estimates that it spends more than 40 
percent of its budget and personnel hours on planning and fighting 
court battles, rather than in the forests. The previous 
administration's revisions to the planning rules would have increased 
this by an additional 30 percent.
  The current administration withdrew these unworkable regulations and 
proposed new ones in 2002 which would allow land managers to get more 
accomplished on the ground. This is especially critical right now, as 
our public lands are currently in a grave forest health crisis and are 
in need of active management to restore them.
  The 2002 proposal protects wildlife and public involvement, the 2002 
proposal provides opportunities for public input at every step in the 
planning process, and the 2002 proposal is intended to encourage early 
public involvement, rather than focusing on last minute appeals and 
objections.
  The new regulations will assure clean air, clean water and abundant 
wildlife for future generations. This will allow the Forest Service to 
respond more quickly to changing conditions, like catastrophic 
wildfires and new scientific information. They require the use of an 
adaptive management framework, as recommended by scientists and 
international organizations. They make the planning process easier to 
understand and easier to participate in.
  Completing the 2002 regulations should be a priority. Halting the 
revision process would significantly delay the efforts to implement 
improvements on the old regulations. It currently takes 5 to 10 years 
to complete a forest plan under the old planning regulations, which is 
outrageous and irresponsible.
  Recent experience with the 1982 regulations has underlined the need 
to proceed with a revision due to the time and cost involved in 
planning. The plan revision for the Black Hills National Forest in 
South Dakota cost $7.5 million and took 7 years to complete. Similarly, 
the plan revision for the Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest in 
Colorado cost $5.5 million and took 7 years to complete. Seven years to 
revise a 15-year plan is unreasonable.
  Under the 2002 proposed revised rules, the time for preparing 15-year 
plans will be cut from the current average of 5 to 7 years to about 2 
to 3 years, with corresponding cost savings.
  Mr. Chairman, this was a bad idea last year, and it is even worse 
now. Please join me in defeating this amendment and allow the forest 
management professionals to complete the effort they have been working 
on for so long.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the second year in a row, particularly this 
year since I have hardly any voice due to a cold, that I have come to 
the floor to debate this issue, not intending to come to the floor.
  My concern is that we have an extraordinary problem in the west. We 
are confronted with potentially the most catastrophic fire year in 
history. The committee has recognized that by appropriating an 
additional $500 million to fight those fires. I appreciate that. 
Unfortunately, the Senate at this point does not feel that sense of 
urgency. But that is not the issue before us right now.
  The issue before us at the moment is whether the public will 
participate in the plans for our public lands in the western United 
States. I am pretty sensitive to this, as are the people in my 
district. We live next to or in the middle of those forests, and we 
want to participate in the plans for the future.
  Now, the administration has proposed that we would totally exempt 
future forest plans from NEPA and we would allow plans to be amended 
with no notice or public comment. I do not think that that really meets 
the concerns and the very diverse views in my congressional district 
about forests, forest planning and multiple use.
  Some people want to oppose the Udall amendment by saying that this is 
about fuel reduction. It is not about fuel reduction. Remember, we had 
a vigorous debate last year and in the Congress before that about 
healthy forests and fuel reduction. In fact, we passed a very ambitious 
piece of legislation, which I voted for, H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act, which, if properly implemented, would go after the 
backlog, would go after the fuels accumulation, would reduce the risk 
of catastrophic fire and would manage our forests back toward a 
presettlement and healthy state.
  Unfortunately, the administration, having signed the bill with much 
fanfare, abandoned it when it came time to ask for the funds. Yes, the 
committee has increased the funding by $58 million, and I appreciate 
that. Unfortunately, we are still a couple of hundred million dollars 
shy. Nobody is talking about that.
  We are well short of the promise that the President made when he 
signed the bill with fanfare, that he was going to put people to work, 
protect our communities, he was going to protect the resources and we 
were going to put this debate behind us once and for all. And that bill 
contained significant changes and amendments to the processes that 
delay this work. Now, if we will only fund it, it will get done.
  But now you want to go off into another part of the forest plan which 
has nothing to do with fire, fire planning or fuel reduction, and say 
we should wipe out all protections and public participation. That is 
not right. Sure, some of this stuff could be streamlined. I get pretty 
upset with the bureaucracy. But I live in a forest, actually part of my 
land is forest, and the backyard is a forest. I am pretty concerned 
about these issues, and I am sensitive to other people who live in that 
situation.
  But we are not putting out the Federal investment, we are not putting 
our money where our mouth is, and we have a lot of mouths around here, 
but not enough money, that is for darn sure. That is where we are at 
tonight with this debate.
  As much as the committee has tried, they were not given an adequate 
amount of money to address these problems. Yes, they have done better 
by fire fighters, yes, a little better by fuel reduction, but nowhere 
near the promise of the legislation passed last year, because the 
administration did not ask for the money to deliver on that promise, 
pretty much the same as No Child Left Behind. Everybody here agrees 
with the concept of No Child Left Behind, but if you do not put the 
money behind the promise, it is a new unfunded mandate.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his 
statement here tonight. I was thinking of the same thing. There is a 
gap of several billion dollars in education. The same thing is true 
here. There is a significant gap in the amount of money necessary to go 
in and go do the thinning and the pruning, to do the adaptive 
management to reduce the fire risk. It is because the administration 
has given all the money away in incredibly large tax cuts, and now they 
cannot fund these bills.

[[Page 12583]]

  We are not funding the parks, and we are not funding this area 
either. It has nothing to do with fire fighting. It has everything to 
do with the fact that the deficit is big and they do not want to spend 
the money.
  They have all kinds of accounts in this bill that are underfunded 
because of that fact, and it is because we have a lousy allocation. We 
are $200 million below the President's budget request, which was 
totally inadequate in the first place.
  So I commend the gentleman. I also believe one thing, and we learned 
this the hard way in the Pacific Northwest. ``Scientifically credible, 
legally defensible.'' When you start walking away from the scientists, 
when the scientists start saying this does not hunt and you cannot 
change these rules and do it this way, you had better wake up, because 
you are going to go into court, they are going to testify and have that 
biologist up there, and he is going to say you have not done these 
regulations properly. This will not protect the species and the 
wildlife in the area.
  And we did not meet the scientific standard. It was not met out in 
the Northwest until the President's plan came into place. It was not 
perfect, but at least then we started protecting the species and we 
started taking care of some of the remaining old growth.
  In my judgment, the reason I support the Udall amendment is because I 
do not trust this administration and the way they have approached these 
regulations.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we need more money, 
not more rhetoric.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I love to hunt. I have hunted in Oregon, I have hunted 
in Washington State, I have trout fished up there, gotten some 
beautiful fish, and I want to protect those streams and forests. But 
let me tell where I think things have gone astray.
  In our district in San Diego we lost 3,000 homes this last fire 
season and 22 firefighters were killed. I look back, and the gentleman 
says that we want the money to clear the forests. Well, 12 years ago, 
many of us fought to have the bark beetles cleaned up. I was up in the 
area of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I was in Oregon and 
Washington and Northern California, because I was hunting deer. The 
beetles had eaten a lot of the wood and created a hazard, and they were 
going to destroy the forests.

                              {time}  2100

  We wanted to cut those, because the bark beetles were not there where 
the dead wood is. They were in just a little bit further, and that is 
what we wanted to cut; but many of the folks, the environmental groups, 
said, no, you cannot do that; you want to log indiscriminately.
  No, we did not. We wanted to stop the bark beetles, a reasonable 
conservative approach; but we were stopped doing that.
  Pine Valley, the whole town burnt down. You know how many homes and 
lives we lost up there because the bark beetles had cut through most 
all of the timber? And when you have a Santa Ana in California, which 
is the wind coming from the desert in at 40 to 50 knots and you have 
that kind of kindling of dead trees, you cannot stop it. It burnt Pine 
Valley down.
  Twelve years ago we fought to be able to clear brush, because it was 
so thick. We had nine farmers, ranchers, that asked to cut, to disk 
around their property because of the fire season. They were told no, 
they could not because of the endangered species, a bird called gnat 
catcher. Three of the farmers went anyway, and they got fined, but the 
other six that did not, guess what? All six of their ranches burnt 
down. That is not conservative; it is dumb. And we are trying to offer 
a conservative approach.
  Firemen came to us and said, can we cut access roads into our forest? 
Oh, no new roads from the environmental groups; no new roads in our 
forest. They not only wanted access so they could get to the fire; they 
wanted to get out safely. We lost 22 firemen. Now, whose fault is that 
because they did not have access?
  Now, some of that is not true, because they could not come down the 
backside of a mountain fast enough, and they were not close to a road, 
and they could not put a road in there, to be fair; but we are asking 
for conservative real things, to be able to thin the brush.
  Up in my area, if you have a place out in the woods, you are able to 
clear an area around that that will keep your house from burning down.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) and I work very closely on defense issues. Here is one 
issue that bothers me in this discussion. I know I had a study done of 
Region 6, which is Washington and Oregon. I do not think Northern 
California is in Region 6.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have minimum time.
  Mr. DICKS. Here is the problem. We do not have the money in the 
budget to do the thinning that our foresters say we should do to deal 
with this problem, and it has not been there for a number of years.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Taking back my time, that is the initial point that I 
made. Twelve years ago, and I went, we had the money and we had a 
limited forest. Take a look at all of California when you have 3 
decades of brush that is built up, when you have the number of trees 
that have been eaten by the beetles. You have not got enough money in 
the world to meet that need, and we were stopped from doing that when 
it was manageable.
  I have limited time. If I have time, I will yield.
  Mr. DICKS. But the problem is that it is not the forest regulations 
that are stopping us from doing it. The forest regulations are not 
saying you cannot go in there and thin.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Taking back my time, it has been this body, and 
mostly the other side of the aisle, that has objected to us putting in 
new roads, that have objected to us clearing brush because of the 
endangered species, that have objected to us doing these things that I 
think are conservative, reasonable approaches.
  As far as good science, take a look at the farmers and the ranchers 
and the folks that want to protect their land. They are the best 
stewards of the lands that we have. The science that I see most of the 
time coming from the other side is agenda-oriented, private science 
funded by environmental groups that have an agenda, and I think that is 
wrong.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself very frustrated tonight. I feel like I am 
in Forestry Theology 1A. I am not a forest manager. I have a district 
with one of the largest national forests in the eastern region of the 
United States, and I have firsthand dealing with how the public and the 
Forest Service and the various legitimate interest groups that use 
forests have to work with each other, and I am going to vote for this 
amendment. But I want to get some things off my chest, because frankly, 
both sides frustrate me.
  I am going to vote for the Udall amendment, because I think what it 
does is to stop a process which has in certain ways excluded the public 
from full participation in the public comment period.
  What the agency has done with public opinions expressed in a variety 
of ways are not going to count when final decisions are made. I have 
heard from conservation groups, and I have heard from their opponents, 
both who have objected to the way that public comment is being 
restricted. I think they have a point. So I am going to vote for this.
  But I just want to say one thing. I get very frustrated being 
whipsawed between the users of forests who want to use it for economic 
purposes and the recreational users of forests, the environmentalists 
on the other side. The only way that you can get rational

[[Page 12584]]

public policy in an area like the forest is to sit down and work out 
compromises.
  Now, I have seen environmental groups who are willing to challenge 
every blessed timber sale that comes up. I think that is nuts. I think 
there is a legitimate reason to cut timber in forests. But I also see 
some people on the other side who have never met an environmentalist 
that they could tolerate, and they think the forest is there simply for 
economic exploitation. And I just want to say to both sides, it makes 
no sense to have one administration go in one direction and have 
another administration come in and go in another direction, depending 
upon what the electorate decides every 4 years. We get a yinging and a 
yanging in forest policy, and nobody knows what the rules are going to 
be more than a year ahead of time. Now, that drives everybody nuts. It 
should.
  So it seems to me that rather than both sides being engaged in a 
theological debate every blessed year on this issue, sooner or later, 
for each and every forest in the country, the interested groups need to 
sit down with each other and work out reasonable compromises. I am so 
damned sick of theology on this floor, political theology invading 
every issue. And that goes for both sides on this issue, in my view. So 
I am not criticizing Members, because regardless of what party you are 
in, you are caught in this whipsaw.
  But I have seen intractable differences on forestry matters in my own 
area resolve themselves in 6 weeks when people are legitimately willing 
to sit down, deal with each other in an honorable fashion, and 
recognize that each side has legitimate interests. And I think we have 
a right as legislators to go to groups on both sides of this issue and 
say, we have had it, fellows. Get together. Work it out.
  Nine times out of ten, the only public policy that can be sustained 
over a significant period of time is policy which is first worked out 
in the private sector so that the public representatives can ratify 
those agreements. Now, once in a while that cannot happen. But these 
days, we have polarization, polarization, and polarization on every 
blessed issue that comes before this House. And that is in part the 
fault of people who occupy this House, but it is also in part a problem 
related to the fact that both sides of these issues like to make a 
living and like to generate their public support; and so they use us to 
drive their points across, and they never behave like adults and try to 
resolve their arguments.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, I am going to vote for this amendment 
because I think the policy that has been followed by the Bush 
administration has been needlessly dismissive of the public's right to 
participate. But for God's sake, people, tell whoever you are talking 
to before you give your speeches to sit down and work these things out. 
That is the only thing that serves the interests of the country.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, do we need to change this policy? We talk about the 
resistance to the Bush changes to the current policy. I happen to 
represent the Allegheny National Forest. It is about a 600,000-acre 
forest, the finest hardwood forest in America, it was, but it will not 
be for long if we do not soon manage it, because we have not been 
managing it.
  The current process of rewriting the forest plan on the ANF has been 
going on for years and years and years, and we cannot get there. The 
current plan does not work. The process of managing a forest for 
multiple use should not be complicated. It should not take decades. It 
should take a year or two to sit down and figure out where we are, what 
should happen there, and how do we manage part of it for forestry.
  That happens to be one of the most mature hardwood forests in the 
world and has some of the most valuable cherry, and that is a forest 
that only lives about 100 years; and it is about reaching that age and 
it is going to die. We had a big blow-down last year. We cannot even 
get the blow-down trees harvested because the process does not work.
  We need a new process.
  Let us look at what the current plan brings us. We had a big gypsy 
moth defoliation a few years ago; we had that for 2 or 3 years. And 
then we had other insects a few years later. So they designed the East 
Side Sale to salvage dead and dying and diseased timber and clear up 
these oak areas so they could regenerate, because they will. The 
hardwood forest in the east does not even have to be planted. If it is 
pruned properly and cut properly and managed properly, there will be a 
good forest there for our children, our grandchildren, forever. It 
grows from seed, it grows from sprouts, it comes back naturally if it 
is properly maintained. It is a renewable resource.
  Do we want to cut it off? We manage a very small portion of it. The 
Allegheny allows a cut of 90 million board feet. Some years we do not 
cut any, and some years we cut 5 or 10 million board feet. Almost 
nothing.
  But what happens? We planned the East Side Sale and a student sues 
who has a religion about trees should not be cut down. Not a soil 
scientist, not a forester, not a biologist. A student gets a free 
lawyer from a university, goes to court, and wins. We redesigned, redid 
it, totally reworked it over a couple of years, put back out again, and 
another student sues. Three years, this time they win. Not the student, 
but the Forest Service wins, after 3 years. Now we have 5 years, and we 
finally have a result. The student sues again, just thrown into a 
Philadelphia court, and we do not know whether it will ever come out of 
there.
  Folks, the process does not work.
  Now, I heard a lot about scientists. I do not think our Forest 
Service gets enough credit, because the Allegheny Forest has foresters, 
fish biologists, game biologists, soil scientists, archeologists, 
hydrologists, entomologists and ornithologists, all who play a role in 
everything we do there, whether we are going to do recreation or 
whether we are going to do forestry. They sign off. These are experts. 
Now, the people who sue and win usually have no credentials. They are 
someone with a religious philosophy that you should not cut down trees.
  I want to tell my colleagues, the unmanaged forest in the east is 
going to die. It is going to be very prone to wind storms, and it is 
going to blow over. It is not a habitat for wildlife, an old forest. 
And all of us, those of my colleagues who are concerned about 
CO2, a forest that you do not prune and manage becomes a 
CO2 emitter, just the same as a plant, just the same as us 
when we breath out. A forest that is managed is the most successful 
carbon sink in America. Active agricultural land and actively managed 
forest land absorbs tons and tons of CO2 and puts it into 
logs, locks it up; and we are averting that process on all the public 
land in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, our foresters and our scientists are leaving our system 
because they are disgusted with this Congress's involvement, because 
they cannot manage. All the science they have, all the experience they 
have, we have Congressmen who think they know better; and they are 
wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Udall) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
offer an amendment on page 47, line 8.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Arizona to go back in the reading to 
offer an amendment?

[[Page 12585]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman repeat the request?
  Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an 
amendment on page 47, line 8.
  Our amendment was changed. At the time the relevant section came and 
went, and by the time we had finished it, it had gone.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to withhold that request 
at this time. I do not want to object, but I would be constrained to at 
this time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman withdraw his request?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, yes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The request is withdrawn.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Hensarling

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

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

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. Of the funds made available to the Department of 
     the Interior by this Act--
       (1) not more than $50,000,000 shall be available for the 
     purposes of managing and maintaining Internet websites; and
       (2) none may be used to manage and maintain more than one 
     Internet website for every 10 employees of the Department of 
     the Interior.

  Mr. HENSARLING (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, for only the fourth time in the history 
of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per 
family. This figure is up from $16,000 per family just 5 years ago, 
representing the largest expansion of the Federal Government in 50 
years. Almost every government department has grown over some large 
multiple over inflation. We are experiencing an explosion of the 
Federal budget at the expense of the family budget.
  Unfortunately, too often this government spending equates to waste, 
fraud, abuse and duplication and has for decades. Mr. Chairman, I 
belong to a group known as the Washington Waste Watchers, a Republican 
working group dedicated to rooting out waste, fraud, abuse and 
duplication in the Federal Government, and it is not an easy task, 
because what has accumulated in the Federal city over many decades is 
now 10,000 different Federal programs spread across 600 different 
Federal agencies, accountable to almost no one, with little 
transparency and poor knowledge of their activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that President Bush and Secretary Norton are 
serious about this effort to root out waste in government. The 
President's management agenda is working. For example, the number of 
Federal agencies with verifiable financial data has now increased up to 
20. That is up from 10 agencies under the Clinton administration. Mr. 
Chairman, this is a major accomplishment, 100 percent improvement, but 
why has it taken decades just to get a set of books that can be 
audited?
  Recently, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) exposed 
wasteful foreign travel by employees of the National Park Service and 
for that I know the taxpayers and I are grateful. This is progress.
  Today we have another opportunity to take a small step to protect the 
American taxpayer from more wasteful Washington spending. The Inspector 
General at the Department of Interior has discovered last year that the 
department has over 31,000 different websites on the Internet. That is 
right, Mr. Chairman, over 31,000 different websites. They contain 
between three and five million pages of information. No one knows for 
sure the exact number.
  What we do know is that the Interior Department now has one website 
for roughly every two employees. One website for every two employees. 
Mr. Chairman, these numbers are staggering. I mean, they do not pass 
the smell test, the look test, the touch test, the laugh test or any 
other test, especially when you compare it to the private sector.
  Bank of America, the most visited financial services web presence in 
the world, and in the top 10 most visited web services in America, has 
80 percent fewer websites and yet they have over 3 times as many 
employees. The difference between government and the private sector is 
stark. In addition, the Inspector General has added that the department 
does not have a comprehensive inventory of its websites or of other 
components of its web presence. In addition, the Inspector General has 
found that the department had ``an excessive amount of duplicated, 
inconsistent, outdated and redundant information on its websites.''
  The Inspector General estimates that taxpayers are forced at a 
minimum to pay between $110 and $220 million annually to maintain and 
operate this web presence, 31,000 websites, again which contains 
inconsistent, outdated and redundant information.
  My amendment will limit the amount of taxpayer funding to operate the 
department's web presence to $50 million and limits funding to manage 
and maintain more than one site for every 10 Department of Interior 
employees. I think this is more than reasonable, Mr. Chairman.
  During the time of war and unparalleled Federal spending at the 
expense of the family budget, can we ask our families to pay up to $200 
million each year to fund an out of control and poorly managed web 
presence at just one Federal agency. This funding could be put to 
better use at the Department of Interior or other important priorities. 
If we use the most conservative estimate on what this amendment would 
save taxpayers, about $50 million, we could take those savings and buy 
over 31,000 Kevlar vests for our soldiers in Iraq or 1,600 Humvees with 
armor plating.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know the Department of Interior does a 
lot of good work and performs a lot of valuable services, but we as a 
body have a responsibility to strike out at waste wherever we find it. 
Mr. Chairman, we have certainly found it here. I urge my colleagues to 
pass this amendment. We must protect the family budget from the Federal 
budget.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman, since I have listened often to the 
Washington Waste Watchers it is interesting to me when one party 
controls the House and the Senate and has controlled the White House 
and the administrative branch for more than 3 years now, that he keeps 
rooting out this administrative waste. And I guess I have got to wonder 
at the dedication of the Bush administration or the Republican House or 
the Republican Senate in rooting out waste that he has to come and give 
speeches everyone night on the floor about it but seems to be able to 
do little about it.
  I guess if one party were in charge, the Republican Party, they would 
root these things out, but I guess they are not.
  I would ask the gentleman, I do have a question for the gentleman, 
since he referenced the Pentagon, if he could tell me, there is one 
agency and only one of the Federal Government which has been deemed to 
be inauditable. It cannot be audited. It cannot account for a large 
majority of expenditures. Is the gentleman familiar and can the 
gentleman name that one agency?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, frankly, Mr. Chairman, there are many agencies.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. No, can the gentleman name it? There is only one that 
has never been audited.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I disagree with the gentleman's factual assertion, 
and the gentleman's party has been in control for the years that 
created this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, the Pentagon cannot be audited. It 
in fact cannot account for a large majority of its expenditures, and 
the fact is that one party runs this government.

[[Page 12586]]

They run it with an iron fist here in the House where substantive 
amendments are often not allowed. One party runs the United States 
Senate as much as the Senate can be run. And one party runs the White 
House that will never admit it was wrong.
  I wonder why it is that the Washington Waste Watchers here cannot 
make a little more mileage with their people downtown and why they have 
to give speeches on the floor as opposed to taking real action to root 
out waste and abuse. His amendment may have merit, and I will take a 
look at it, but the point is I have heard many of his other speeches 
about things that could be accomplished administratively. I believe the 
administration, the Bush administration, which runs the Interior 
Department, could take action internally to eliminate this apparent 
plethora of excess websites.
  Why should it take an act of Congress? If we have such a responsible 
administration downtown, why will they not take administrative action? 
Why do they not limit the number of websites out there? Why do they not 
limit the expenditure?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  I assume the gentleman's amendment is prompted by the Inspector 
General's report that they are spending $100 million to $200 million 
annually on websites, and I share the concern he has. I was alarmed 
when I saw the report. The subcommittee has been working with the 
department to understand the costs of web technology and to ensure that 
technology is used only for appropriate purposes and used in the most 
economic and efficient way.
  There are good websites and bad websites and this has been 
complicated by court action that is underway right now.
  My concern with the gentleman's amendment, and I commend him for 
always trying to save taxpayers' money because I certainly try to do 
that and I encourage him throughout his career to do that, but my 
concern is that the department uses the web to conduct business both 
internally and with industry. The use of the web is consistent with the 
best practices both in government and industry. Limiting web spending 
to $50 million will prevent the department from fully using web 
technology to save both itself and public industry.
  For instance, the Minerals Management Service is implementing a web 
based system to communicate with oil and gas industry that will allow 
industry to obtain information and provide necessary filings 
electronically. Now, there are many other positive things with the 
websites. We are also, as I say, we have court action that is 
confusing. A lot of the work we are trying to do to get the department 
to eliminate those websites that are unnecessary, save the taxpayers' 
money and keep those websites that are necessary for communication.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, hearing of the chairman's concern and 
knowing of his good work in this area, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  I would also like to answer an earlier question posed. I think it is 
very interesting that the gentleman earlier had indicated an interest 
in finding waste, fraud, and abuse but fought the amendment that would 
cut 1 percent, a mere 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse from the 
Federal budget. Also, those gentlemen on the other side of the aisle 
voted to increase Federal spending over a trillion dollars in our last 
budget.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I commend the 
gentleman's action to bringing this to our attention.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas to withdraw the amendment?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment 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.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that there is a plan 
that has been agreed upon to do one more amendment this evening. I 
understand that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has a need and a 
desire to have his amendment considered before we stop our 
deliberations here this evening, and that the amendment that I was 
about to offer will be allowed to be offered first tomorrow morning.
  Under those considerations, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment and bring it back tomorrow morning.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's amendment is withdrawn 
without prejudice to his ability to offer the amendment again later in 
the bill.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
offer an amendment on page 47, line 8.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object because the majority extended a similar unanimous consent 
request to a Member of the minority earlier this evening, and I think 
it is only fair to reciprocate, but before I withdraw my objection I 
just would like to ask a question.
  I referred earlier this evening to the fact that we had reached 4 
years ago an agreement in this House to a certain funding schedule for 
a variety of conservation programs, and then the committee had walked 
away from that agreement. As I understand the gentleman's amendment, it 
is an effort to reduce some accounts in the bill in order to add some 
funding to PILT; is that correct?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. That is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
happen to agree with the desire to add more money for PILT, but the 
problem is there are a wide variety of other programs which are not 
being assisted because the budget resolution and the action of the 
committee has effectively wiped out almost $800 million in funding for 
other, equally deserving programs.
  Federal land acquisition is being cut by $170 million. State wildlife 
is being cut by $11 million; forestry legacy, cut by $57 million. We 
are seeing historic preservation in urban parks both cut significantly 
and hugely in comparison to the scheduled funding.
  So, even though I personally would like to see more money in PILT, I 
feel that it is not fair to try to provide additional funding for one 
program while the others are continuing to be put in the closet. I will 
not object procedurally, but I really question the fairness of trying 
to restore funding for only one of the six major programs involved.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Arizona will be allowed to offer his amendment at this point in the 
bill.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 47, line 8, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 99, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $13,000,000)''.
       Page 104, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the 
point he raised.

[[Page 12587]]

  He mentioned that several other areas of the bill had been cut. I am 
aware of that, precisely because I recommended some of those cuts. In 
fact, I testified both before the Committee on the Budget and before 
the Committee on Appropriations to reduce the money available for land 
acquisition, Federal land acquisition, because we keep adding Federal 
land, and it just adds to the PILT problem.
  PILT, as we all know, is short for payment in lieu of taxes. This is 
a program whereby counties in rural areas, in particular I am from 
Arizona, 87 percent of Arizona is publicly owned. Some 50 percent, 60 
percent of the State is federally owned, and counties find it difficult 
to provide the services that other counties with more private land are 
able to provide, and when we continue to add Federal land, we 
exacerbate the problem of these counties being able to fund services.
  I come from a rural area of the State and I have seen these problems 
firsthand. So what we need to do is fully fund PILT. We do not need to 
add more land for the Federal Government. That is why I made those 
recommendations, and I think it is fitting and proper that we can find 
the money in other accounts to actually fund this.
  What we have recommended is that we find savings of $13 million in 
the facilities capital account of the Smithsonian and $2 million from 
the grants and administration account of the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. Both of these accounts were increased by that same amount 
or more in this past year. So we are simply slowing the rate of growth 
in these areas and fully funding PILT.
  The PILT program has been authorized at $340 million; yet it has only 
received $226 million in this bill. That is $1 million more than last 
year's level and woefully short of what is needed. It is important to 
note that this year's budget resolution stated that the budget 
resolution can accommodate funding for the PILT at a fully authorized 
level; however, it was only increased by $1.3 million.
  As I mentioned, we are not advocating an increase in PILT overall. 
That is important to all fiscal conservatives. What we are saying is 
that we should move some of the funding and increases in areas that 
have increased over the past year and move them into this area where we 
all recognize, and the gentleman from Wisconsin said it well, that we 
ought to increase the funding in this area.
  I should note that this amendment is supported by the Western Caucus, 
and I know a few of these Members will be speaking on it shortly.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  While this may be a worthy area to consider for an increase, I cannot 
accept the offsets. I hope that we will be able to increase this as we 
go through conference. The gentleman raised an important point. As we 
have more and more government land, it takes money away from the ad 
valorem tax, as we continue to cut less and less in forest service. 
Twenty-five percent in our area used to go to schools. They lose even 
more money, and so the gentleman raises a good point, but I will have 
to object to this and oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I have to rise in very strong opposition to this. The Smithsonian 
Institute is one of the most popular agencies of government in the 
United States. Here we are, coming up on the summer season and at a 
time when people are going to come in and visit the Smithsonian, and I 
just wonder, this is cutting construction but construction goes across 
the board and affects every one of these.
  Do we really want to cut out money for the Anacostia Museum and 
Center for African American History and Culture; the Archives of 
American Art; the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, the Freer Gallery of Art; 
the Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage; the Cooper-Hewitt 
National Design Museum; the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden; the 
National Air and Space Museum; the National Museum of African American 
History and Culture; the National Museum of African Art; the 
Smithsonian American Art Museum; the National Museum of American 
History; the National Museum of the American Indian; the National 
Museum of Natural History; the National Portrait Gallery; the National 
Zoological Park; the Astrophysical Observatory; the Center for 
Materials Research and Education? I mean, the Smithsonian is important.
  This is a bad amendment. Let us defeat it and let us send the young 
man home this evening with his tail between his legs.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the date October 21, 1976, is the date that may go down 
in history, maybe in infamy, because it was the date in which the 
Federal Government changed its attitudes toward public lands. The State 
of Utah enabling act said that lands would be given to the Federal 
Government until such time as they shall dispose of that land. In fact, 
the BLM was established 70 years ago to facilitate that.
  But in 1976, we changed our attitude towards Federal land, and it is 
not insignificant that that was the same year we established PILT, the 
payment in lieu of taxes program. It was in some ways to prohibit the 
double whammy that goes on in many Western counties, specifically rural 
counties who no longer can develop their land for a tax base but still 
must provide the benefits that urban counties and eastern counties 
still provide.
  Since our attitude is to keep the land, to mandate the use of the 
land, mandate the services that have to be required, it is in essence 
nothing more than the government's saying we have rent that is due to 
this land that needs to go to those particular counties, and if we as a 
Federal Government do not pay that rent who are being hurt by it?
  In Kane County in my State only 4 percent of the land is private, and 
yet that county wanted to continue on with the hospital so the people 
in Kanab did not have to drive 70 miles to the nearest hospital so they 
created a special service district. The PILT funds help run that 
hospital for Kane County.
  Daggett County has only 2 percent of its land that is not Federally 
owned, and the 730 people of Daggett County in my State have to provide 
for 2.5 million people who come from my colleagues' States and their 
districts in there, that have to provide services and access for that, 
and because the population is so low, the funding source that we have 
within this bill even does not allow them to get the full force of the 
PILT money that we are actually allowing to them.
  Emery County in my State has only 7 percent of its land privately 
owned, and yet a travelogue that was published said Black Box in Emery 
County was a wonderful place to go rafting. Indeed, it is not. It is a 
dangerous place with deep water, the water going wall to wall. Two 
years ago, within a 6-month period of time, two people coming back from 
the East who decided to go tubing down that river in Emery County died, 
which meant that the sheriff's posse in Emery County had to go a half a 
mile into wilderness study area land, rappel down a dangerous cliff and 
risk their lives to bring those bodies back, and they had to fully fund 
the cost of all that program.
  That County of Emery, if they simply allowed greenbelt laws for the 
tax structure of that land, the cheapest type of property taxes we 
have, would generate $900,000 if we fully funded PILT. The 
appropriation we have in here will give them $300,000, even though they 
are still required to have the same kind of services as if the money 
was fully funded of that.
  It is interesting to note that the 10 States with the slowest growth 
in their education funding all have 50 percent or more of their land 
owned by the Federal Government.
  Who are we hurting when this government is not fully paying the rent 
that is due? We are hurting the elderly, we are hurting the people who 
need medical aid, we are hurting kids in the West. This is what this 
particular program is doing.

[[Page 12588]]

  I support this amendment with a heavy heart because indeed the 
Smithsonian is something I admire. I belong to it, I give to it, but 
what we did is we allowed them to find alternate sources to come up 
with some of their revenue. We have not allowed the counties in the 
West, especially rural counties, alternate forms of coming up with the 
revenue that they desperately need.
  PILT is essential for us to pay the rent that is due, and I am 
hopeful that if we would actually approve this amendment we would allow 
them to go into conference committee where they could do right by the 
Smithsonian but also do right by the counties that need that PILT 
funding. We are underfunding our rural counties, we are underfunding 
our western counties, and all it is is the rent that they are due, and 
we should have the courage to stand up and pay for that.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the amendment. The PILT program was created in 
the mid-1970s. At the time it was created, it was created in a 
bipartisan way. People recognized all of the issues about what is fair 
and what is equitable. As we have heard from the previous speaker, it 
is about the lack of an ability to collect property tax on the Federal 
land and the services that are provided by the counties.
  What has happened since the mid-1970s is our Federal lands are being 
used more and more and more. The pressures, the uses, the demands for 
county services have increased more and more and more; yet PILT funding 
has just not been maintained.
  Again, as the previous speaker said, I have great fondness for the 
Smithsonian as well, and anytime we have got to find an offset, it is a 
tough one, but in this case I think it is very important that this $20 
million, which may not sound like a lot of money relative to the total 
cost of this appropriations bill, but it is a big deal for the local 
counties in States like mine, where so much land is federally owned. It 
makes a big difference to those county budgets. It makes a big 
difference in providing those services to people who use those public 
lands.
  I encourage people to support this amendment.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The hour is late. I would like to begin just by associating myself 
with the comments by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) about where 
he spoke about the additional lands that we are acquiring and why we do 
not need that until we can take care of the lands that we have.
  I would also like to associate myself with the comments by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who was speaking about counties that 
I have represented in the past, and I personally know the problems that 
those counties have.
  I would also like to associate myself with the words of the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Matheson) who spoke eloquently about some of these 
issues.
  I want to also thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor). 
I recognize the need for him to oppose this on the basis of what the 
offsets are. I think the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) was fairly 
articulate about how we can solve that problem in conference. I urge 
the Members of this body to do so.
  I must say I was really offended by the personal attack of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) here. This is not a personal matter. This is a matter that 
relates intensely to the needs of our people.
  Let me just point out that if we look at the West, we have done a 
study in the State of Utah, Marty Stephens is the Speaker of our House, 
and he has taken a massive amount of statistical data and shown that we 
in the public lands area of the United States tax more.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of fairness. In the West, we tax more 
than we tax in the East. We still pay a lower amount per student in 
educational expenses because and only because we are dominated by 
Federal ownership of land. That means California and every west coast 
State, every intermountain State, all of us, tax more and spend less. 
It is not fair, and this body needs to redress that.
  I hope that the Members of this body will vote in favor of the 
increase in PILT; and as a big fan of the Smithsonian myself, let us 
hope we can solve the problem in conference. But we need to give more 
money to our western counties who are fighting fires because of the 
negligence of the Federal Government who are suffering with educational 
costs that we cannot meet because the Federal Government owns our land 
and we are not getting any of the other benefits that should come from 
that public land. We have an obligation, and I urge this body to meet 
that obligation by voting for the Flake amendment to increase PILT.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); amendment No. 1 printed in 
the Record of June 15 by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall); 
amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot); 
amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall); 
and amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 227, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     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
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre

[[Page 12589]]


     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     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
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     DeMint
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     LaTourette


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2211

  Messrs. TERRY, NUNES and BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. JOHN, HOYER and JEFFERSON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 251, I was unavoidably 
detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 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 209, 
noes 215, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 252]

                               AYES--209

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder

[[Page 12590]]


     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     DeMint
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     LaTourette
     Oxley
     Weller


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2222

  Mr. SKELTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 252, I was unavoidably 
detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Chabot

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) 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 222, 
noes 205, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 253]

                               AYES--222

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buyer
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--205

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Porter
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     DeMint
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     LaTourette


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi and Mr. COSTELLO changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SAXTON and Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 253, I was unavoidably 
detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 3 by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Udall) 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.

[[Page 12591]]




                             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 195, 
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 254]

                               AYES--195

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

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     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
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Blunt
     DeMint
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     LaTourette
     Terry


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2237

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 254, I was unavoidably 
detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 254 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) 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 94, 
noes 332, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                                AYES--94

     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cox
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     John
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Turner (TX)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)

                               NOES--332

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo

[[Page 12592]]


     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blunt
     DeMint
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     LaTourette


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2245

  Ms. DUNN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 255, I was unavoidably 
detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Garrett of New Jersey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, 
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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________