[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10292-10297]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2361, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
       ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 287

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
     beginning with the colon on page 46, line 3, through 
     ``account'' on line 14; section 109; page 67, line 17 through 
     the semicolon on page 67, line 22; beginning with ``That'' on 
     page 68, line 23, through ``and'' on page 69, line 3; 
     beginning with ``That'' on page 69, line 19, through the 
     comma on line 22; page 73, line 14 through line 22; section 
     413; beginning with ``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 11, 
     through the comma on line 12; beginning with 
     ``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 22, through ``laws'' on 
     line 23; beginning with ``Notwithstanding'' on page 124, line 
     6, through line 7; and page 124, line 15 through 25. Where 
     points of order are waived against part of a paragraph or 
     section, points of order against a provision in another part 
     of such paragraph or section may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph or section. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  This resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 2361, the Interior 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006, and provides for 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  For the purpose of amendments, this rule provides for priority 
recognition to Members who preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record, and the rule also allows for certain points of 
order to be raised in the course of consideration of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with filibusters in the U.S. Senate. 
Actually, Mr. Speaker, it does not, but until you say that magic word 
the media does not send its attention to the fact that the House is 
actually continuing on with the input of good government in our 
processes, so this bill actually, for which I am pleased to stand 
before the House and support the rule on the underlying legislation, is 
the Interior Appropriations Act.
  I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), and many others have put into making and putting this essential 
funding bill together, which does live within the budget discipline, 
and in fact reflects the priorities of this Congress.
  At the same time, it reflects important committee priorities within 
the budget itself. We realize that this Congress, this Nation, does not 
have the money to do everything. But what we decide to do we should do 
well.
  By prioritizing the needs, this provides, for example, an increase in 
six of the eight EPA programs for the environment. It provides for a 
$118 million increase for Indian health services, a $25 million 
increase over last year's funding level for restoration of the 
Everglades.
  These are simply examples. A few others. Provides for National 
Heritage Area grants and historic preservation, something that to an 
old history teacher I appreciate. This bill provides important 
resources to help manage our Nation's public forest resources and our 
national parks.
  It includes, for example, a $70 million increase for the national 
parks base funding, but at the same time $440 million to help reduce 
the backlog of national park maintenance. That is how these bills and 
these monies should be prioritized, to help preserve and enhance these 
unique national treasures.
  It also provides for a record amount of funding to the national fire 
plan, and gives the Department flexibility in these accounts to help 
prevent and fight the annual onslaught of raging fires on public lands 
in the West, which have plagued many areas, especially California in 
recent years.
  I am also pleased in particular that the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has been diligent in funding the vital 
Payment in Lieu of Tax Program, or PILT, which so many western and 
rural counties depend upon for these vital public services.
  Since this is an open rule, any Member will be allowed to offer 
germane amendments. This is a good rule. I think it supports a good 
bill. I strongly urge their adoption.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 10293]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of 
what it allows but rather because of what it does not allow. As my 
colleague from the majority noted, this rule permits Members to offer 
amendments to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill under 
the House's 5-minute rule if they do not need waivers of the House 
rules.
  As someone who will be offering an amendment to that bill later 
today, I appreciate that the majority structured the rule in such a 
manner. However, I am greatly concerned that the rule blocks the 
ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee, my friend the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), from offering a critical amendment 
which would have added $500 million to the bill to fully restore EPA's 
State and Tribal Grant Program, and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to 
their fiscal 2004 levels.
  These two programs allow communities around the country to repair and 
modernize their water systems, and the underlying legislation greatly 
underfunds each account.
  For the fiscally conservative in the House, the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was revenue neutral, paying for 
itself by capping the tax cut for millionaires at just over $138,000. 
The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) could have 
benefited literally millions of Americans by making their drinking 
water cleaner. But the Rules Committee, on a straight party line vote, 
prohibited the House from considering the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in trying times with enormous fiscal 
constraints, many of which have been brought upon ourselves. As the 
chairman and ranking Democrat of the Interior and Environmental 
Appropriations Subcommittee will probably note today, they did the best 
that they could with what they were given.
  Indeed they did. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) for their hard and perhaps most importantly bipartisan work on 
this legislation. I do believe that they did the best with what the 
majority gave them.
  The underlying legislation includes funding which is essential to 
Everglades restoration, in my district and throughout South Florida. 
The bill maintains funding for the National Endowment of the Arts at 
its current level, and it increases funding for the National Endowment 
for the Humanities by a little less than $500,000.
  The bill also increases funding for operations at our national parks, 
as well as a $67 million much-needed increase in funding for the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs.
  Despite these increases the underlying legislation makes major cuts 
in funding to some of our most important environmental and health 
programs. $240 million has been cut from the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund. $110 million from the State and Tribal Assistance Grant 
Account.
  Conservation funding is about $750 million below, or less than half 
of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and 
Restoration Act in 2000. Overall, EPA's budget has been cut by $300 
million.
  This is only the second of 13 appropriations measures which this body 
will consider over the next few months. It is also the second 
appropriations bill in which we can see the drastic and dramatic 
effects of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans are going to try and 
associate domestic funding cuts with the cost of the war in Iraq. It 
seems like a plausible reason, and certainly one that the public could 
believe. But the truth is that domestic spending cuts are not occurring 
to pay for the war, they are happening to pay for the President's tax 
cuts.
  The Republican budget that Congress approved 2 weeks ago only set 
aside $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The remaining 
costs, probably another $50 billion or more, if this year is any 
indication, will be funded by Congress through so-called emergency 
supplemental appropriations. These emergency costs will be added to the 
national debt, because we irresponsibly did not budget for it though we 
knew they were obvious. What has ensued is not the fault of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, it is the fault of those who 
supported the budget resolution.
  Later today, some Members will seek to improve the funding 
shortfalls, which the chairman and ranking Democrat sought to avoid.
  For example, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) will offer an 
amendment that restores the President's 33 percent cut for 
environmental justice programs to the fiscal year 2005 level.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will also 
offer an amendment that will increase funding for the cleanup of 
brownfields sites by $2 million.
  Additionally, I will offer an amendment that will require EPA to 
identify and take the necessary steps to protect minority and low 
income communities from bearing a disproportionate burden of poor 
environmental policy which adversely affects their health and well 
being.
  All communities currently do not share in the burden of health and 
environmental risks, and my amendment expresses Congress' support for 
EPA doing what is necessary to protect these communities.
  Mr. Speaker, individuals in our country on their own are not going to 
force power companies to reduce mercury emissions from smokestacks. 
Individuals on their own are not going to conduct major environmental 
restoration, and they certainly do not have the capacity to clean up 
our drinking water. But collectively, collectively, Mr. Speaker, we can 
all make this happen.
  When utilizing the Clean Air Act, EPA can force power plants to come 
into compliance with new standard reviews. When enforcing the Clean 
Drinking Water Act, EPA can require cities and counties to provide 
their residents with safe drinking water.

                              {time}  1115

  With innovation that can only occur in a consortium of stakeholders, 
the Department of the Interior can make major environmental restoration 
pro-jects a reality.
  Enforcement is not free and neither is environmental restoration. 
Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing his or 
her own fair share. Is there any Member in this body who is unwilling 
to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean 
air to breathe? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool 
his or her resources with others in his or her neighborhood to 
collectively ensure that everyone, everyone, has safe drinking water, 
or that no child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards 
polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins.
  I do not blame or fault the appropriators for the funding cuts in the 
underlying legislation; but I do fault the majority in this body for 
creating a situation in which failure to adequately fund America's 
needs has become imminent. The American people will feel the same way 
when they wake up tomorrow and realize that their children and 
grandchildren will be paying for our fiscal mismanagement for 
generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, once again with this particular rule being open, it 
allows any Member who wishes to, to bring an amendment to the floor. It 
is the wonderful prerogative of the Members to do that. It is also very 
nice to note that the Committee on Appropriations which is tasked with 
trying to prioritize needs and fund those that are truly significant in 
that prioritization, and in this particular situation, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) in a very collegial way have done just that, and have 
presented a good and balanced bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 10294]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in strong 
opposition to what I consider a very bad bill. This Department of the 
Interior appropriations bill as written is a direct assault against our 
Nation's environment, and it should be defeated.
  I am particularly outraged that the bill completely zeros out the 
stateside grant program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 
program that has been an enormous help to our local communities and the 
families who live in them.
  The stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped to preserve 
open space, slow urban sprawl, and give our children safe places to 
play. It is a true partnership with Federal grants requiring a full 
match from States and local communities. It is a program that has 
worked, and it has worked well. But this Republican bill completely 
eliminates the program. It zeros it out, walks away from our local 
communities.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, is based upon a simple 
concept: it takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and 
invests them in our Nation's public land, letting States take the lead. 
For 40 years this program has a proven track record and benefited from 
strong bipartisan support.
  When Congress decided to open the outercontinental shelf to oil 
drilling, we pledged to use some of its revenues for the public good. 
With the goal of meeting the Nation's growing need for recreation 
sites, Congress established the LWCF trust fund and agreed to reinvest 
an annual portion of OCS revenue into Federal land acquisition and 
State-assistance development programs.
  Now even though LWCF takes in $900 million annually from oil and gas 
receipts, in recent years just a fraction of this funding has been used 
for its rightful purpose. And today, the Republican leadership has 
taken their pillaging a step further by completely eliminating the 
stateside program and using the money for something else.
  This bill breaks our promise to the American people by not spending 
this funding the way we are supposed to. In all, the stateside program 
has helped communities by funding 40,000 projects nationally, success 
stories that can be found in every State and in 98 percent of U.S. 
counties.
  I urge my colleagues to ask their Governors and their mayors and 
county commissioners if they want the stateside program to be 
eliminated. If the answer is no, vote against this bill.
  This cut is particularly harmful to our Nation's underserved areas. 
In fact, in many low-income urban communities, the stateside grant 
program is responsible for virtually all parks.
  This is about priorities, Mr. Speaker. This bill demonstrates that 
for the Republican leadership, tax breaks for the wealthy few are more 
precious than open space. For this leadership, millionaires are more 
important than kids who need a safe place to play. And for this 
leadership, lobbyists win and families lose.
  We will hear the rhetoric from the other side claiming they did the 
best they could with what they had. They will complain that the 
allocation given to the subcommittee just was not big enough. They 
should save their crocodile tears because those same Members voted for 
the budget that created those allocations. They created this mess, and 
now the families of this country are paying the price. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this rule and reject this bad bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), and I commend the gentleman for the one statement he asked 
us all to do which is to go to our State and local leaders and find out 
what their priorities happen to be.
  I would like to do something unique so far in today's debate and talk 
about something that is actually in the bill, and something about which 
we will be debating later, and preface it with the comment of why, when 
we try to prioritize, should we spend new taxpayer money for new 
recreation areas and programs when some of the existing programs, long-
time recognized, long time in the bill, are not totally and fully 
funded.
  If I could, Mr. Speaker, I come from a western State that has a great 
deal of Federal land. In fact, 67 percent of my State is owned by the 
Federal Government. If we add military lands on top of that, it is 
almost 80 percent owned by the Federal Government. And, unfortunately, 
my State is not the worst situation. There are States that have more of 
their land owned by the Federal Government.
  Oftentimes I have Members come to the floor and say these lands 
belong to all of us, but the cost of maintaining those lands is not 
borne by all of us; it is borne by the citizens who happen to reside 
within those particular States.
  Now I am an old teacher, and as I look at the situation of education, 
I find a unique phenomenon that the area of this country in which 
education funding is growing the slowest, the area of this country 
where the classrooms are the largest, the area of this country where 
the student population is increasing the fastest, and the area of this 
country where State and local commitment in tax base is being paid by 
their citizens all happen to be found in the 13 States of the West. And 
the common denominator for all is the amount of public lands that 
happen to be in these particular States.
  Those Members east of the Rocky Mountains sometimes do not comprehend 
the concept because there is very little of your land owned by the 
Federal Government, and you can maximize the amount of input, but you 
cannot do it in the West.
  One of my counties has an area known as the Black Box, something that 
no one in Utah would ever try to raft down. One of our good constituent 
friends from another State decided to come and raft in the area of the 
Black Box; and, unfortunately, he lost his life doing it.
  The problem is my County of Emery had to expend its resources and 
have their rescue team risk their lives to retrieve the body. All of 
the money that was budgeted for that year's critical rescue missions 
was expended on that one individual entering from the east using all of 
these public lands. All of the cost of that was borne by the citizens 
of that particular county, which means once again these lands belong to 
all of us, but the expense attached to these lands do not belong to all 
of us.
  There is a program that we have long had called ``payment in lieu of 
taxes,'' which recognizes the burden placed upon the West and the 
burden that should be funded. From the mid-1970s until the early 1990s, 
virtually no new money was placed in this program. It was flat funding 
for almost that whole period of time. This Congress put $1.4 million of 
new money into the burgeoning problem of trying to pay for the Federal 
lands in the West. Under the direction of the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and others on the subcommittee, that has 
increased significantly, almost doubling. They have recognized the 
need, but they have never fully funded the cost imposed on western 
States through payment in lieu of tax funding.
  This last year, this program, traditionally run through the Bureau of 
Land Management, was taken over by the Department of the Interior with 
the idea of prioritizing it. They did not. Instead of prioritizing this 
program, they recommended a cut in this program and increased funding 
to the administrative overhead of the Department of the Interior.
  I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for 
recognizing the unfairness of this and by increasing the payment in 
lieu of taxes to last year's level plus $3 million, but it is still not 
close to full funding.
  I am confident and hopeful that we will discuss that particular issue 
because it is a well-established program.

[[Page 10295]]

It is not new, and we should be funding those well-established programs 
fully before we launch into new endeavors.
  I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for 
zeroing out the land acquisition budget except for necessary 
administration costs because it comes up with the same policy: we do 
not start buying new land until we fully fund those lands that we 
already own.
  We have an opportunity of expanding this in conference. This is one 
of the issues in this free-flowing open rule that we will be discussing 
later on. This is an issue where I commend the chairman for doing what 
he has done in this bill and urge him to continue on, because the 
citizens of the West, the kids in the West, the education system of the 
West have been harmed too long by policies that all of us in Congress 
for over 30 years have been implementing. It is an unfairness that must 
be dealt with.
  I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the 
committee for moving the first step forward. But I hope that we can 
look at other amendments as this debate goes forward that would look at 
funding the programs we already have that have been there for many 
years that desperately need to be fully funded before we launch into 
others, and that is specifically what an appropriations process should 
do. It should prioritize our needs. Once again, we can go back to the 
concept that we cannot fund everything, but what we fund, we should 
fund well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confuzzled by the continuing argument of my 
colleague and friend on the Committee on Rules that his State is 
impacted by virtue of education formulas. I do not disagree with what 
the gentleman says, but I find it interesting that the State of Utah, 
while the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is arguing that they are not 
getting enough money for education, the State of Utah legislature 
passed measures saying they do not want any Federal money for 
education. They need to make up their mind so we know what all they are 
doing out there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the previous question on the 
rule, and after the bill is considered, unless it is substantially 
changed, I will be intending to vote against the bill itself for a 
variety of reasons.
  My main reason is this bill represents gross negligence of our 
responsibility to clean up the Nation's air and water pollution. This 
bill provides huge cuts, 40 percent cuts over a 2-year period in the 
clean water revolving fund. If there is any Member of this Chamber who 
has a district that does not have a community that needs more loans to 
fix their sewer and water problems, would you please raise your hand. I 
would like to see one Member who thinks that they have enough money.
  I note no Member of the House present has raised his hand.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I would say there is a great deal of hypocrisy 
surrounding the budget process. Every time that those of us on this 
side of the aisle point to the shortcomings in the budget that the 
Republican majority has just passed, we hear, ``Well, we can't do 
anything about these shortages in the appropriation bills because, 
after all, we have limited resources.''
  The gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Utah, said the 
appropriations process, quote, ``should prioritize our needs.'' I fully 
agree. That is what I wanted to be able to try to do by offering an 
amendment which this rule would preclude me from offering. Because what 
I wanted to do is to change the judgment, change the priority judgment 
that the majority party made when they decided it was more important to 
give a $140,000 tax cut to someone who makes a million bucks this year, 
they decided that was more important, that was a higher priority, than 
cleaning up our air or cleaning up our water. I do not think that 
represents the priority choice that the American people would make but 
it is the priority choice that the majority party has made.
  The only way that we can change that priority judgment is by offering 
the amendment that I wanted to offer, which would have scaled back the 
size of those tax cuts for anybody making a million dollars a year or 
more. It would have scaled back those average tax cuts from $140,000 to 
$138,000. Imagine those poor souls having to get by with a tax cut of 
only $138,000. I remind you, those are people who make more than a 
million dollars.
  I do not begrudge, I do not denigrate in any way people who have 
managed to strike it rich and who are managing to make a million 
dollars a year. I hope everybody in this country at some point in their 
lives can do that. But I do believe that people who are the most 
blessed in our society ought to pay their fair share and the budget 
resolution which was imposed on this committee by this House does not 
allow us to reach that kind of fair distribution of tax burden.
  So if we object to that what I regard to be not just ill-advised but 
immoral allocation of resources, the only device that we have to try to 
change that is to try to make our point on each of these appropriation 
bills trying to get the majority party to understand that just as they 
reconsidered their unilateral actions on Ethics Committee changes a 
couple of weeks ago, we would also like them to reconsider their poor 
judgment on the budget resolution.
  Because the Rules Committee would not allow that amendment, I am 
going to vote against the previous question, and I am going to vote 
against the bill because the bill is grossly negligent in dealing with 
the air and water pollution problems facing this country. I am also not 
at all thrilled by the fact that for the first time in all the years I 
have been in Congress there will not be a single dollar provided for 
land acquisition programs. The gentleman may not want it in his State, 
but there are key tracts of land that we want the government to acquire 
in my State, there are key tracts of land we want the government to 
acquire, for instance, at George Washington's birthplace before real 
estate developers destroy that beauty for all time.
  I am an old real estate broker, so I have nothing against real estate 
developers but I do not think they ought to be able to get their gloms 
on the most pristine land in this country and turn it into a shopping 
mall when we have our population increase by one-third since I came to 
this body and when we have an increased need for resources that the 
average family can enjoy.
  But most of all the biggest problem with this bill is that it walks 
away from our obligation to help State and local governments clean up 
some of the dirtiest rivers and dirtiest lakes in the country. It walks 
away from our responsibility to prevent communities like Milwaukee from 
dumping their surplus sewage into Lake Michigan every time there is a 
storm. That is an outrageous neglect of our stewardship 
responsibilities. I think this bill makes it even easier to ignore 
those responsibilities, and I think that is a disgraceful act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider 
the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that was 
rejected in the Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would add $500 million to the bill to 
restore funding for the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program to 
its fiscal year 2004 levels. This program allows communities around the 
country to repair and modernize their water systems. I find it 
incomprehensible that we do not understand the dynamics of that or that 
most if not all of us in this body do not have communities

[[Page 10296]]

that would benefit from modernizing our water systems. The Obey 
amendment offsets these expenditures by capping at just over $138,000 
the tax cut for people making over $1 million this year. The Obey 
amendment pays for itself and adds nothing to the Federal debt while 
maintaining funding levels in every other program in the bill.
  This amendment will correct one of the most serious shortfalls in 
this bill. It is absolutely critical that this funding be restored. We 
can fix this today if we allow the Obey amendment to be considered on 
the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the 
previous question.
  I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us 
from considering the Interior Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote 
will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' 
vote will block consideration of the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote 
``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I appreciate the opportunity coming here and discussing this 
particular open rule that allows for us to discuss the prioritization 
which is the key element of what we do in every appropriations issue. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin is free to come here on the floor and talk 
about whether he believes the prioritization of this committee is 
accurate or not, whether he believes the Democrat approach would be a 
tax increase or not. But the same discussion also takes place in 
another area and it takes place in the committee process before it ever 
comes to this bill. I am here to still contend that the committee, both 
Republican and Democrat, did a good job in coming up with a 
prioritization process.
  When the gentleman from Wisconsin talks about the desire for having 
new land, I do not dispute that nor do I oppose it necessarily. What we 
are saying is it is part of the prioritization. I would support 
acquisition of new land once we finally fully fund and take care of the 
lands we have. This committee has looked into that. This committee put 
significant new money not just into national parks but to maintain the 
backlog that we have of maintenance in our national parks. That is 
prioritization.
  This committee recognized by putting PILT up to at least the level it 
was last year that there is a prioritization that takes place there at 
the same time. I was saying with PILT, and I will say it again, that 
what we have to do is fully fund it because it has been looked at for 
too long, especially when the minority party was in charge here and 
there were basically no increases in PILT funding, it has been looked 
at for too long as welfare for the West. It is not. It is rent that is 
due on that land and if you prioritize the budget, you prioritize those 
programs first before you expand anything else. I have to commend this 
committee for actually doing that.
  I think there are some areas in which I think they could go ahead and 
move forward in those particular areas but once again prioritizing 
those commitments we have already made and fully funding those first. 
That is what this committee has tried to do. Whether you like or 
dislike their end product, they should be congratulated for coming that 
close.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate the fairness of this 
open rule and urge its adoption because of that along with the 
underlying appropriation legislation. No bill is perfect. I am sure we 
can all come up with issues here and there in the appropriations bill 
or, for that matter, in any other bill we have where we would like to 
have it come out differently had we had our way, but in judging this 
bill as a whole and the process that has been through it to get to the 
point, I believe it is worthy for Members to support this particular 
piece of legislation.
  And then I do want to talk to my good friend from Florida about what 
we really did with education in Utah. He is summarizing the New York 
Times, not reality. But other than that, we will forget that point 
right now. I will talk later to him about that.
  Again, I urge Members to support this rule.
  The text of the amendment previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of 
Florida is as follows:

   Previous Question on H. Res. 287--Rule for H.R 2361 FY06 Interior 
                             Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if ofered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

  Amendment to H.R. 2361, as Reported Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount otherwise provided in this Act for 
     ``Environmental Protection Agency--State and Tribal 
     Assistance Grants'' (and the amount specified under such 
     heading for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water 
     State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act) is hereby increased by $500,000,000.
       (b) In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income in 
     excess of $1,000,000 for calendar year 2006, the amount of 
     tax reduction resulting from enactment of the Economic Growth 
     and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-16) 
     and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 
     (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 1.562 percent.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 194, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)

[[Page 10297]]


     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Boustany
     Burgess
     Cantor
     Fattah
     Gingrey
     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Keller
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Matsui
     Millender-McDonald
     Ney
     Ryan (WI)
     Shays
     Simpson
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiahrt
     Udall (CO)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1209

  Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 19, 2005, I was unable to be present for 
rollcall vote No. 190, on ordering the Previous Question to provide for 
consideration of H.R. 2361, making appropriations for the Department of 
the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 39, 2006 and for other purposes. Had I been present I 
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 190.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 190 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 190 I was 
traveling with the President in Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________