[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10337-10357]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287 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. 2361.

                              {time}  1502


                     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. 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, with Mr. Shimkus (Acting 
Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier

[[Page 10338]]

today, the bill had been read through page 53, line 17.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except:
  Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
  Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 
17;
  Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1 subject to a 
modification to the amendment as printed in the Record, 4, 5, and 14, 
which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) regarding 
environmental justice, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding a 
$500 million increase in Clean Water State Revolving Fund and tax 
matters;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding a 
$100 million increase in Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which shall 
be debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) regarding State 
and Tribal Assistance Grants;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) or the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) regarding the Tongass National Forest, 
which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) regarding 
making spending on certain accounts subject to authorization;
  An amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) regarding 
intentional dosing;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to amendment 
No. 5;
  An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) regarding 
concession sales;
  An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) or the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) regarding Lower Klamath and 
Tule Lake; and
  An amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) 
regarding funding levels.
  Each amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the request 
or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record 
or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to 
amendment, except as specified, and except that the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies each may 
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 105. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and 
     natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the 
     eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located 
     outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer 
     Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
     2002.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Istook

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Istook:
       Page 53, line 24, after the period, insert the following: 
     ``This section shall not apply on and after any date on which 
     the Energy Information Administration publishes data (as 
     required by section 57 of the Federal Energy Administration 
     Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 790f) demonstrating that net imports 
     of crude oil account for more than two-thirds of oil 
     consumption in the United States.''.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as we heard earlier, a major reason that we have 
skyrocketing energy prices in the United States is because this bill 
has been used for a vehicle for 30 years to restrict the ability to 
explore in the Outer Continental Shelf. When those restrictions were 
first adopted, America was importing 28 percent of its oil from foreign 
shores. Today, that has risen to 58 percent and it continues to climb 
dramatically each year.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, says it is about time that we create a 
commonsense trigger. At such time as two-thirds of our energy 
consumption is coming from overseas, then we will lift the moratorium 
in the area that has the most promise, which in this case is the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the big issue to people is, is it 
environmentally safe to do so? I realize that is the concern and I 
would like to focus on that. America has not had any major spill from 
an offshore oil well since 1969. Why? It is not because we are not 
drilling offshore. We are getting 25 percent of our oil from offshore, 
actually 30 percent of oil and a fourth of the natural gas. But we are 
not allowing drilling in most of the areas. Ninety percent of the 
coastal areas in the lower 48 States are closed by these moratoria. To 
drill offshore, however, you have to obtain 17 major Federal permits. 
You have to obey 90 sets of Federal regulations which have been put in 
place during the years of these moratoria. All of those are designed to 
protect the environment. They have been 99.999 percent effective in 
keeping the environment safe. Less than one one-thousandth of 1 percent 
of the oil that is produced offshore has been spilled. Who else has a 
safety record like that, 99.999 percent? We also are able to produce it 
from fewer offshore platforms because we have horizontal drilling that 
allows multiple wells to be drilled from a single location. And of the 
oil spills, the very few that have happened, 97 percent are of less 
than one barrel of oil.
  We are talking about drilling at least 10 miles offshore in Federal 
waters. In most of these cases, we are talking about drilling 100-plus 
miles offshore. There is enormous potential for this. The official 
estimate says there is 76 billion barrels of oil and 406 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. But 90 percent of 
these resources in the lower 48 have been placed off-limits.
  This is not about the oil or gas industry. This is about our national 
security. This is about the fact that we are spending $180 billion a 
year to bring in foreign oil when we ought to be producing so much more 
of that here and employing hundreds of thousands more people in the 
United States, bringing about better availability, lower prices, more 
jobs, and all in a way that we have proven through the offshore 
production that is happening, we have proven it can be done in an 
environmentally safe manner, it is being done in an environmentally 
safe manner.
  The amendment says it is time to say, this is not a perpetual ban. 
When we reach a point, which we will in a few years, that two-thirds--
two-thirds--of the oil and gas we use is coming from foreign shores, is 
it not about time that we find a commonsense approach to lift the bans 
and have environmentally clean and responsible ways to produce this 
energy America needs?
  Mr. Chairman, the recent steep rise of energy prices has convinced 
consumers that America needs more energy, and we need to be producing 
it ourselves. We don't want to rely on supplies halfway around the 
world, and we don't want to ship tens of billions of American dollars 
overseas each year to buy foreign oil. We're spending $180 billion 
dollars each year to buy foreign oil. If we could spend those billions 
right here in the USA, to produce more of the energy we use, we could 
add hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs.

[[Page 10339]]

  Why aren't we doing this? Unfortunately, some well-intentioned 
concerns for the environment have grown into ungrounded fears. Rather 
than balancing environmental issues with our need to produce more 
energy, we've let things get out of kilter. One of our biggest failures 
is that we've placed so much of our oil and gas reserves off limits. 
We've done that by including provisions in this Interior appropriations 
bill--provisions we've had in it now for decades--that have banned 
drilling in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. What's worse, we 
have failed to review and adjust those provisions, to recognize that 
things are different now than when we first adopted those restrictions.
  There is no longer a conflict between our ability to protect the 
environment and our ability to produce energy by drilling offshore. 
We're talking about areas at least 10 miles offshore, and usually much 
farther offshore, 100 miles, even 200 miles and more.
  Our failure to review and adjust these offshore drilling bans is now 
costing this country dearly. Every time you pay your utility bill or 
buy gasoline, remember that these prices would not be so high if 
Congress had simply used common-sense, years ago, to let us drill more 
offshore areas in an environmentally-responsible way. Instead of 
promoting safe ways to drill, we've totally banned that drilling in 
most of our offshore areas.
  My amendment doesn't lift the ban immediately, but creates a way for 
us to plan ahead. It establishes a tipping point for ending the ban in 
the most promising area--the eastern Gulf of Mexico, saying that the 
ban will end if imports rise to two-thirds of the oil we use. We're at 
58% today, and going up at the rate of 1% to 2% each year.


                          environmental safety

  People naturally ask, ``Is this environmentally safe?'' The answer is 
``Yes.''
  America has not had any major spill from an offshore oil well since 
1969.
  Why is this? It's not because we're not drilling offshore; it's 
because we have succeeded in protecting the environment while we drill. 
Oil and gas operations in the Outer Continental Shelf are among the 
most tightly regulated economic activity in the world.
  Despite the moratoria that has closed many areas, America still 
produces almost one-third of its oil (30%) and almost one-fourth (23%) 
of its natural gas from offshore wells. There's a lot of coastal 
drilling, and it is safe drilling, and it would be just as safe to 
drill in the areas where it's being banned.
  To drill offshore, you must obtain 17 major federal permits and obey 
90 sets of federal regulations, all designed to protect the 
environment. Most of those went into effect in 1975, and they have been 
99.999% effective in keeping the environment safe. That's because less 
than \1/1,000\ of 1% of the oil produced offshore has been spilled. 
What other industry has a safety record like that--99.999%!
  We also produce more from fewer offshore platforms, thanks to 
horizontal drilling that allows multiple wells to be drilled from a 
single platform. Technological advances during the past 30 years allow 
us to extract more resources with less impact on the environment.
  And most of them are tiny--97% of the offshore spills are of less 
than one barrel of oil.


                             ocs background

  The Outer Continental Shelf is composed of lands generally beyond the 
3-mile area of state jurisdiction and 10-mile area of state 
jurisdiction in Florida and encompasses about 1.76 billion acres. About 
25% of the oil and gas produced in the United States comes from the 
OCS. But there's a lot more potential than that. About 60% of America's 
remaining oil and 41% of our remaining gas resources are in the OCS.
  The official estimate is that there are 76 billion barrels of oil and 
406 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the OCS. But we have placed 
about 90% of the areas offshore the lower 48 states off-limits, banning 
drilling in those areas. Imagine that--as Americans pay high prices, 
Congress says that 90% of this huge resource is off-limits, and 
drilling is banned. So we pay sky-high prices because we depend on 
foreign oil, and we ship hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas, along 
with tens of billions of dollars each year.
  Congress has restricted drilling in the OCS for over 30 years. During 
this time, the percentage of net imports of petroleum has risen from 
28% to 58% today.


                            foreign sources

  And what does it mean if we don't have those resources?
  Domestic energy independence isn't just about the energy industry. 
It's about our national security. Currently, about 58% of our net 
petroleum imports came from foreign sources. During the past ten years, 
this percentage has risen by one percentage point on average each year. 
So ten years ago we imported about 48% and today it's about 58%. The 
Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2025, dependence on 
petroleum imports is projected to reach 68% of net imports.


                           economic security

  This not only affects our national security, it also affects our 
economic security. Last week, consumers were paying an average $2.18 
for a gallon of motor gasoline. That's a 62 cent a gallon increase in 
just five years!
  Natural gas prices have been even more devastating for consumers. 
Residential prices have doubled in the past four years. Commercial and 
industrial prices have tripled. 90,000 jobs in the chemical industry 
have been lost along with $50 billion of business because of natural 
gas prices in the U.S.
  When we talk about the need for domestic energy production, or 
independence, it's not just about the energy industry. It's about all 
of us. If we want gasoline prices to stop skyrocketing we must act. If 
we want to stop losing manufacturing jobs, we must act.
  We all know that China, India, and other countries' economies are 
expanding and their demand for oil and natural gas worldwide will 
continue to grow. As the demand for oil grows globally, the United 
States cannot be left behind by limiting its supply.


                               Conclusion

  Why aren't we pursuing this offshore oil and gas? It's because this 
appropriations bill has several provisions banning offshore drilling. 
Not just one ban, but a whole series of them. And we've been including 
these bans in this bill for over 30 years.
  This amendment would protect our national security. This amendment 
would only open up a portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and only 
when the Energy Information Administration publishes data showing that 
more than two-third of net imports of crude oil come from foreign 
sources.
  My amendment singles out only one of these many areas where drilling 
has been banned, namely the eastern Gulf of Mexico. That area is 
selected for two simple reasons: First, it has the largest oil land gas 
deposits. Second, it's the farthest offshore, away from the coastline 
and the beaches. In all cases more than 10 miles offshore, land in most 
cases more than 100 miles offshore. It is not in state waters. It is in 
federal waters.
  Congress has restricted activity in the OCS for over 30 years. During 
this time, the percentage of net imports of petroleum has risen from 
28% to 58% today. Our constituents all feel the pinch that higher 
energy prices bring to their budget.
  Let's use common sense and create a plan to end the moratorium in an 
environmentally sound way, as I've proposed in this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my 
point of order, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, hardworking American families are paying a 
high price at the gas pump today because of our Nation's dependence 
upon foreign oil. Unless we get tough and show OPEC nations that 
Americans are serious about becoming less dependent upon their self-
serving oil cartel, our working families and our Nation's economy will 
continue to be the victims of high energy costs. That is why I am 
supporting the Istook amendment.
  Environmentally safe drilling for oil and natural gas in the Outer 
Continental Shelf in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be possible under 
this amendment. This production could be done safely and cleanly. It 
does not require new technology. It is not some type of new experiment. 
The fact is that already Outer Continental Shelf production represents 
30 percent of all U.S. domestic oil production and 23 percent of our 
natural gas production.
  What OCS energy production does do is provide 42,000 Americans with 
good jobs and brings this $6 billion a year to our U.S. Treasury. With 
more energy production that puts more Americans to work, we can send a 
clear message to the OPEC cartel that we are fed up with their cartel 
which is busting the budgets of America's working families.
  It is time to say we are sick and tired of the OPEC tax which costs 
American families $20 billion for every 25-cent increase in the price 
of gasoline. Tapping major oil and gas reserves in the eastern Gulf, 
something we are already doing off the Texas and Louisiana coasts, will 
create thousands of new American jobs, bring in billions of dollars to 
reduce the Federal deficit and

[[Page 10340]]

our terrible trade deficit, and save working families money every time 
they go to the gasoline pump. That is a good deal and a smart deal for 
millions of hardworking American families.
  By voting ``yes'' on the Istook amendment, we are voting ``no'' on 
the OPEC tax, which is hurting most those who can least afford it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to first correct some statements that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma made in his arguments. He said that 40 percent 
of the OCS gas is unavailable to leasing. As he knows, Minerals 
Management Service conducts a survey every 5 years and the latest 
assessment of resources on the Outer Continental Shelf was done in the 
year 2003. It includes estimates of undiscovered technically 
recoverable oil and natural gas. This assessment shows that 81 percent 
of the Nation's undiscovered technically recovered OCS gas is located 
in the central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico where drilling 
is allowed.

                              {time}  1515

  And he also claims that it is such a safe industry. I would like to 
remind him, those of us who live on the central coast of California 
remember with an indelible mark the 1996 oil spill of platform A that 
devastated our economy and our environmental resources for decades. We 
are still living with some of the results of this.
  This is an amendment in which the House had a vote just a few years 
ago, a similar kind of amendment in the 107th Congress. Seventy 
Republicans joined 176 Democrats to block oil and gas developments in 
the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A vote against this amendment will 
accomplish the same thing, a vote to protect the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
from new drilling. This amendment is the first step to drilling in 
areas now off limits, including North Carolina, New Jersey, California, 
and even the Great Lakes.
  So we should reject this amendment and not weaken existing 
protections for our coastal waters. This amendment guts the 
longstanding bipartisan moratoria that currently protects our Nation's 
most sensitive coastal marine areas.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I point out that the U.S.-produced nitrogen fertilizer that American 
farmers have historically relied upon is being outsourced to foreign 
producers. Of the 16\1/2\ million tons of nitrogen fertilizer 
production capacity that existed in this country prior to the year 
2000, nearly 20 percent has been closed permanently and there are 
another 4 million tons, 25 percent again at risk of closing within the 
next 2 years.
  We have outsourced our nitrogen fertilizer protection to foreign 
countries like Venezuela and Russia, where they are subsidizing their 
natural gas. Here we refuse to develop our natural gas. And now we are 
faced with Chinese involvement in the Western hemisphere, who are 
involved in capital investment, and I know that there is drilling going 
on offshore for Cuba. I do not know if it is affected by this bill. But 
I know this: The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) was right. It 
is not the question of whether we are going to drill for this oil. We 
will do it sometime. It is just a question of whether we do it before 
or after we lose the jobs, before or after we lose the production of 
this natural gas to foreign countries.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment and would like to again point 
out that this Congress has already taken a very significant step 
towards addressing the need for additional drilling for oil and gas in 
the Gulf of Mexico. We are currently drilling in the central and 
western Gulf. This Congress has passed additional financial incentives 
for deepwater drilling. This is an important step towards addressing 
the problem of supply.
  This amendment goes much further than that and exposes areas for 
drilling just a few miles off the coast of Florida without any clear 
indication that there will be no risk to the beaches of Florida. This 
is very important to our economy. Many Members of Congress are rising 
today to defend the economy in their State. No one is going to stand on 
this floor and say that the beaches of Florida are not the most 
important part of our economy in addition to the work skills of our 
Floridians.
  We do not want to take this risk. There is a very small proportion of 
supply available off the coast of Florida. There is an enormous 
proportion available in the central and western Gulf. This Congress has 
already acted. We provide additional financial incentives to get the 
supply where it is to be had.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, my neighbor, for yielding me this time.
  It is interesting that there is potential production of our natural 
resources that people oppose. This amendment only covers the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico. It only covers off the coast of Florida. Not 
California, not the northeast United States, even though there may be 
potential there. This is just the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  I just do not understand what is going to happen to our country if we 
continue to import more and more oil, and obviously we are having to 
import more and more natural gas. I do not know what the folks in 
California are going to do about energy. I know they have high prices. 
Get ready to have them even higher, unless we can start bringing 
production on line that is domestic production, and right now the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Texas's 
(Mr. Edwards) amendment is the best potential because off the western 
coast of Florida is some of the most productive potential for natural 
gas and oil fields.
  I guess it is frustrating because off the nation of Cuba we have 
Chinese and Spanish companies that are drilling closer to Florida than 
U.S. companies can drill close to Florida. So we have a foreign country 
who can drill closer to Florida. This only covers the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico, and that is why I think some people will say no to anything. 
And I do not know what is their solution. More windmills? I love 
windmills and we can do that. We need energy, no matter whether that 
comes from oil, natural gas, windmills, or anything else.
  The United States produces some of the safest energy that we can. The 
nations of Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom are 
successfully producing oil and gas from their coastal waters, and yet 
we leave a great deal of ours except off of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Alaska.
  So, again, even though those beaches may be pristine, because I like 
the beaches in Texas and I consider them pristine, but we do not need 
to keep our head in the sand of those beaches and not realize we have 
to have more energy resources in our country.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, those who support this amendment should 
really look at solving the current energy crisis. If they wanted to, 
they would invest in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and 
conservation. For example, providing tax incentives for the 
construction of energy efficient buildings and manufacturing energy 
efficient heating and water heating equipment could save 300 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas over 50 years. This is more than 12 times the 
Department of Interior's mean estimate of economically recoverable gas

[[Page 10341]]

outside the central and western Gulf of Mexico.
  So why are we here today discussing offshore oil drilling instead of 
promoting efficient and renewable energy sources? It could be that we 
are pandering to big oil companies.
  We not only have to worry about oil spills from offshore oil rigs, we 
also have to worry about the damaging way that they drill for oil and 
natural gas. An average of 180,000 gallons per well of drilling muds 
that are used to lubricate drill bits and maintain downhole pressure 
are dumped untreated back into the surrounding waters. Water brought up 
from a well along with oil and gas typically contains a variety of 
toxic pollutants.
  I will vote against this amendment. I consider it dangerous and it is 
absolutely no solution to our gas and energy shortage.
  Mr. ISTOOK. 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. Cunning-
ham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not an extreme environmentalist. I 
am a conservationist. And that is why I find it difficult, most of the 
time on fighting some of the people who are speaking against this 
amendment, that I find myself allied with them on this particular 
issue.
  Most of the time we quote studies. The first thing we do is see who 
did the study, who paid for it, and what is their agenda. The National 
Academy of Sciences is neither pro-business nor pro-environment. They 
are pro-science, and they are peer reviewed. The National Academy of 
Science: Gas and oil exploration will, not may, will, cause irreputable 
damage to the environment and to the economy off the coast of 
California.
  I understand the gentleman from Texas. I trained with the Navy in 
Texas. Their beaches are not pristine like Florida and California. That 
is why all of their folks come to California for the good weather and 
the nice beaches, and we want to keep it that way. We want them to come 
back to California.
  But I want to tell the Members something. The moratorium that we have 
had has protected the shorelines. During the gas debate, I talked about 
Batigitos Lagoon and our beaches. A lot of our economy is based on 
tourism. I heard, well, it is just the oil tankers leaking in Long 
Beach or it is seepage. It is not. The National Academy of Sciences 
said if we drill those new leases, then it is going to cause 
irreputable damage.
  They have slant drilling, but when they have the technology to stop 
the damage, I will be along with them.
  Nancy, my bride, and I walk along the beaches. That is what we do for 
fun with the kids. I have walked at Long Beach. And it took me 2 weeks 
to get the oil off of my Jack Russell terrier, and the bottom of our 
feet. We have to use kerosene. That is what we are trying to protect. 
And if they want to do something, I read where an oil company from the 
United States had a $12 billion profit the first quarter. I am pro-
business, but I am not for pro-rip-off, and that is what we ought to 
look at in the cost of gas.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I read the National Academy of Sciences' studies very 
differently. In fact, they say that two-thirds of the oil in the oceans 
is natural seepage and very little of it comes from the drilling that 
we are describing.
  To those who say we never want to drill in these offshore areas, they 
should be honest with their constituents, and they should say ``It is 
fine with us for you to pay the skyrocketing energy prices. It is fine 
with us to spend $180 billion a year to bring most of our oil across 
the oceans overseas and bring it to America and send American jobs and 
American money over there in their place.''
  It is environmentally safe. We have made so many advances since 
people made these moratoria, and yet people do not want to look at 
those. It is time we take an honest look at it. We should not say that 
these areas are off limits forever. As the oil import problem rises, we 
should be looking at drilling in these offshore areas.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossel-
la). The time of the gentleman has expired.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, and we certainly 
would not want that. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law . . . 
''
  The amendment poses additional duties.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Hearing none, the Chair finds that this amendment includes language 
requiring a new determination. 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.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 106. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural 
     gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
     Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
       Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service shall not develop or implement a 
     reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel 
     through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate 
     local non-recreational passage through units of the National 
     Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and 
     permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  For the purpose of engaging in a colloquy, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor) for yielding to me to engage in a colloquy concerning 
a devastating event that recently occurred on the Crow Creek 
Reservation in my home State of South Dakota.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
would be happy to discuss this matter with the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, in the middle of the night on April 24, a 
fire broke out in a school dormitory on the Crow Creek Reservation in 
Stephan, South Dakota and did extensive damage to the structure. This 
dormitory on the campus of the Crow Creek Tribal School housed 230 of 
the students who attend that school, the only high school on the 
reservation.

                              {time}  1530

  Fortunately, even miraculously, no one was seriously injured in this 
fire.
  School officials scrambled to find housing for the seniors who were 
attending the school at the time, but the students in the other grades 
could not be accommodated. For many of them, the school year simply 
ended
unceremoniously on April 24.
  The facility that burned also contained the kitchen and dining 
facilities for the school. The Crow Creek middle and high schools are 
now left without any dormitory, kitchen, or dining space for the more 
than 430 students enrolled there.
  The needs that have been created by this tragic event are dire and 
immediate. I am asking the chairman to join me in urging officials at 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to reprogram existing funds so school 
officials can immediately begin construction of adequate temporary 
dormitory facilities for the students at this school.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the 
devastating fire that occurred on the Crow Creek Reservation. I agree 
with the

[[Page 10342]]

gentlewoman that it is vital that the BIA begin construction of 
temporary facilities immediately so that they can be ready for the 
beginning of the school year this fall. Reprogramming requests for Crow 
Creek Tribal education facilities that come before this committee will 
be reviewed and approved as quickly as possible.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that Congress has 
granted the BIA certain emergency authorities to reprogram funds from 
other accounts when situations such as this arise. I would certainly 
consider a devastating fire that threatened the educational mission of 
the only high school on an Indian reservation as a situation that would 
trigger BIA's emergency authorities.
  The Office of Management and Budget may also seek to approve any BIA 
reprogramming requests to address these needs, and I ask the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) to join me in urging OMB to review 
these questions as quickly as possible. Does the gentleman agree with 
me on these points?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with 
the gentlewoman that this fire was unexpected and devastating to the 
school, and that that is precisely the type of event that would trigger 
the emergency authority of the BIA to reprogram funds, and I join the 
gentlewoman in urging the OMB to review these requests as soon as 
possible.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his recognition 
of the serious nature of the situation and for his willingness to work 
with me to address the very real needs of the children and students on 
the Crow Creek Indian Reservation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossel-
la.) The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 108. Appropriations made in this Act under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any unobligated balances 
     from prior appropriations Acts made under the same headings 
     shall be available for expenditure or transfer for Indian 
     trust management and reform activities, except that total 
     funding for historical accounting activities shall not exceed 
     amounts specifically designated in this Act for such purpose.
       Sec. 109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of reducing the backlog of Indian probate cases 
     in the Department of the Interior, the hearing requirements 
     of chapter 10 of title 25, United States Code, are deemed 
     satisfied by a proceeding conducted by an Indian probate 
     judge, appointed by the Secretary without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing the 
     appointments in the competitive service, for such period of 
     time as the Secretary determines necessary: Provided, That 
     the basic pay of an Indian probate judge so appointed may be 
     fixed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing the classification and pay of 
     General Schedule employees, except that no such Indian 
     probate judge may be paid at a level which exceeds the 
     maximum rate payable for the highest grade of the General 
     Schedule, including locality pay.
       Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal 
     Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal 
     year 2006. Under circumstances of dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
       Sec. 111. Funds appropriated for the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs for postsecondary schools for fiscal year 2006 shall 
     be allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet 
     need of the schools as determined by the Postsecondary 
     Funding Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education 
     Programs.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority 
     provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms 
     of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and 
     use any such reimbursement until expended and without further 
     appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all 
     activities authorized by Public Law 100-696; 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
       Sec. 113. The Secretary of the Interior may use or contract 
     for the use of helicopters or motor vehicles on the Sheldon 
     and Hart National Wildlife Refuges for the purpose of 
     capturing and transporting horses and burros. The provisions 
     of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959 (18 U.S.C. 
     47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use. Such use shall be 
     in accordance with humane procedures prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 114. Funds provided in this Act for Federal land 
     acquisition by the National Park Service for Shenandoah 
     Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Ice Age 
     National Scenic Trail may be used for a grant to a State, a 
     local government, or any other land management entity for the 
     acquisition of lands without regard to any restriction on the 
     use of Federal land acquisition funds provided through the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as amended.
       Sec. 115. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
       Sec. 116. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when such pedestrian use is consistent with 
     generally accepted safety standards.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds in this or any other Act can be 
     used to compensate the Special Master and the Special Master-
     Monitor, and all variations thereto, appointed by the United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia in the 
     Cobell v. Norton litigation at an annual rate that exceeds 
     200 percent of the highest Senior Executive Service rate of 
     pay for the Washington-Baltimore locality pay area.
       Sec. 118. The Secretary of the Interior may use 
     discretionary funds to pay private attorneys fees and costs 
     for employees and former employees of the Department of the 
     Interior reasonably incurred in connection with Cobell v. 
     Norton to the extent that such fees and costs are not paid by 
     the Department of Justice or by private insurance. In no case 
     shall the Secretary make payments under this section that 
     would result in payment of hourly fees in excess of the 
     highest hourly rate approved by the District Court for the 
     District of Columbia for counsel in Cobell v. Norton.
       Sec. 119. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     shall, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect 
     threatened and endangered species of salmon, implement a 
     system of mass marking of salmonid stocks, intended for 
     harvest, that are released from Federally operated or 
     Federally financed hatcheries including but not limited to 
     fish releases of coho, chinook, and steelhead species. Marked 
     fish must have a visible mark that can be readily identified 
     by commercial and recreational fishers.
       Sec. 120. Such sums as may be necessary from ``Departmental 
     Management, Salaries and Expenses'', may be transferred to 
     ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource 
     Management'' for operational needs at the Midway Atoll 
     National Wildlife Refuge airport.
       Sec. 121. (a) In General.--Nothing in section 134 of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002 (115 Stat. 443) affects the decision 
     of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in 
     Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250 (2001).
       (b) Use of Certain Indian Land.--Nothing in this section 
     permits the conduct of gaming under the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) on land described in 
     section 123 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 944), or land 
     that is contiguous to that land, regardless of whether the 
     land or contiguous land has been taken into trust by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       Sec. 122. No funds appropriated for the Department of the 
     Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study 
     or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the 
     water level of the lake below the range of water levels 
     required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam.
       Sec. 123. Notwithstanding the limitation in subparagraph 
     (2)(B) of section 18(a) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 2717(a)), the total amount of all fees imposed by 
     the National Indian Gaming Commission for fiscal year 2007 
     shall not exceed $12,000,000.
       Sec. 124. Notwithstanding any implementation of the 
     Department of the Interior's trust reorganization or 
     reengineering plans, or the implementation of the ``To Be'' 
     Model, funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006 shall be 
     available to the tribes within the California Tribal Trust 
     Reform Consortium and to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 
     Community, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 
     Flathead Reservation and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky 
     Boys Reservation through the same methodology as funds were 
     distributed in fiscal year 2004. This Demonstration Project 
     shall continue to operate separate and apart from the 
     Department of the Interior's trust reform and reorganization 
     and the Department shall not impose its trust management 
     infrastructure upon or alter the existing trust resource 
     management systems of the above referenced

[[Page 10343]]

     tribes having a self-governance compact and operating in 
     accordance with the Tribal Self-Governance Program set forth 
     in 25 U.S.C. 458aa-458hh: Provided, That the California Trust 
     Reform Consortium and any other participating tribe agree to 
     carry out their responsibilities under the same written and 
     implemented fiduciary standards as those being carried by the 
     Secretary of the Interior: Provided further, That they 
     demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that they 
     have the capability to do so: Provided further, That the 
     Department shall provide funds to the tribes in an amount 
     equal to that required by 25 U.S.C. 458cc(g)(3), including 
     funds specifically or functionally related to the provision 
     of trust services to the tribes or their members.
       Sec. 125. Notwithstanding any provision of law, including 
     42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq., nonrenewable grazing permits 
     authorized in the Jarbidge Field Office, Bureau of Land 
     Management within the past 9 years, shall be renewed. The 
     Animal Unit Months contained in the most recently expired 
     nonrenewable grazing permit, authorized between March 1, 
     1997, and February 28, 2003, shall continue in effect under 
     the renewed permit. Nothing in this section shall be deemed 
     to extend the nonrenewable permits beyond the standard 1-year 
     term.
       Sec. 126. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands, 
     waters, or interests therein including the use of all or part 
     of any pier, dock, or landing within the State of New York 
     and the State of New Jersey, for the purpose of operating and 
     maintaining facilities in the support of transportation and 
     accommodation of visitors to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty 
     Islands, and of other program and administrative activities, 
     by donation or with appropriated funds, including franchise 
     fees (and other monetary consideration), or by exchange; and 
     the Secretary is authorized to negotiate and enter into 
     leases, subleases, concession contracts or other agreements 
     for the use of such facilities on such terms and conditions 
     as the Secretary may determine reasonable.
       Sec. 127. Upon the request of the permittee for the Clark 
     Mountain Allotment lands adjacent to the Mojave National 
     Preserve, the Secretary shall also issue a special use permit 
     for that portion of the grazing allotment located within the 
     Preserve. The special use permit shall be issued with the 
     same terms and conditions as the most recently-issued permit 
     for that allotment and the Secretary shall consider the 
     permit to be one transferred in accordance with section 325 
     of Public Law 108-108.
       Sec. 128. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     National Park Service final winter use rules published in 
     part VII of the Federal Register for November 10, 2004, 69 
     Fed. Reg. 65348 et seq., shall be in force and effect for the 
     winter use season of 2005-2006 that commences on or about 
     December 15, 2005.
       Sec. 129. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate more than 34 full time equivalent employees in the 
     Department's Office of Law Enforcement and Security. The 
     total number of staff detailed from other offices and 
     reimbursable staff may not exceed 8 at any given time.

               TITLE II--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                         science and technology

       For science and technology, including research and 
     development activities, which shall include research and 
     development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs 
     and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate 
     payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project, 
     $765,340,000 which shall remain available until September 30, 
     2007.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Terry

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Terry:
       In the item relating to ``ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--
     science and technology'', after the second dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $130,000,000)''.

       In the item relating to ``ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--
     hazardous substance superfund'', after the second dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $130,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the EPA's Superfund dollars by 
10 percent over the amount in the underlying bill. This extra funding 
would help provide the cleanup of the Nation's worst hazardous waste 
sites.
  I thank the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) for the $11 million Superfund increase in the committee-
approved bill, but I believe more should be done.
  My amendment provides Superfund with an additional $130 million. This 
extra funding is offset from the EPA's Science and Technology Account 
which received $765 million in the committee-approved bill.
  My district is home to one of America's largest residential 
environmental cleanups. In early 2003, a large section of East Omaha, 
Nebraska was placed on the Superfund list after hundreds of children 
and thousands of yards tested positive for high lead levels. A nearby 
lead-refining plant, which operated from the early 1870s until 1997, is 
likely to blame for what HHS estimates to be as many as 1,600 children 
in eastern Omaha with harmful levels of lead there in their bodies.
  Let me be clear. I support the philosophy of polluter pays. While I 
am encouraged that more than 70 percent of all Superfund sites are 
cleaned up by those responsible for the pollution; in some cases, such 
as in my district, Omaha, Nebraska, and in about 20 other States other 
than Nebraska, those who did the actual polluting are either insolvent 
or no longer in business.
  More dollars in the national Superfund is the only hope for 86,000 
Omaha residents, including 15,000 children who live within the 
Superfund designated area. Without adequate funds, this cleanup could 
take more than a decade. These children and these families should not 
wait that long.
  But the same is true for the other 1,243 Superfund sites across this 
country. Nationwide, it is estimated that 11 million people, including 
3 million to 4 million children, live within a mile of a hazardous 
Superfund site. All these Americans need assurances that sufficient 
resources will be dedicated to their cleanups.
  Some will oppose the amendment. I expect the chairman of the 
subcommittee, my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, to perhaps 
oppose this amendment. Now, while I support the EPA's Science and 
Technology Account, it is not my mission to destroy this fund, but 
simply create or state what the priorities should be, and that should 
be to clean up these hazardous areas in the fastest time possible to 
protect those families.
  Make no mistake: the Superfund needs more than these additional 
funds. It also needs structural reform. Earlier this year, I introduced 
what would not only boost the Superfund by $620 million over 5 years, 
but would also cap the Superfund's administrative costs at the 2002 
fiscal level so that more Superfund dollars could be spent for actual 
cleanup. This is in response to a recent report by the EPA Inspector 
General revealing that the Superfund administrative expenses have 
increased $37 million over the last 5 years, while actual Superfund 
cleanup expenditures have decreased by $174 million.
  Today, however, we must focus on the funding of this vital program. I 
urge my colleagues, especially my colleagues who have Superfund sites 
in their districts, one of the 1,243 sites, to support this amendment. 
It is time we dedicate the resources necessary to protect our children 
by cleaning up the Nation's worst and pressing environmental and health 
risks in a timely fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment would increase funding for the Superfund program at the 
expense of EPA's research program

[[Page 10344]]

funded under the Science and Technology Account.
  I note that the Superfund program received an $8 million increase 
over the 2005 level under the committee's recommendations, while the 
total amount for EPA is $348 million below the 2005 level, so the 
Superfund site received much better treatment than most of our 
programs. The bill as a whole is more than $800 million below the 2005 
level.
  Now, we have received many requests from Members of Congress asking 
that we fund programs for EPA's research, and we are able to do so only 
to a limited extent, and many people want the science and technology 
area just as well. A cut of the $130 million in science and technology 
would decimate the program's restorations. These research programs 
provide critical support to all other EPA programs, including the 
Superfund program.
  The Superfund program was treated the same as the Science and 
Technology Account in that limited increases were provided for proposed 
initiatives associated with homeland security. The committee bill 
balances the many competing needs of the EPA within a constrained 
allocation. And while I understand the gentleman's concern, given the 
funding we have already done and the limited funding we have totally, I 
cannot accept the gentleman's amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. In general, I do think we should fund the Superfund cleanup 
program at levels higher than what is contained in this bill. However, 
the budget allocation that we are dealing with today prohibits us from 
agreeing to the gentleman's proposal to increase Superfund by a 
whopping $130 million at the expense of the EPA's science and 
technology programs, which he uses as an offset.
  This bill provides Superfund with $1.26 billion for 2006, which is an 
$11 million increase over this year's funding level. I understand that 
there are transfers contained in this bill from the Superfund program 
to EPA science and technology research and to the EPA Inspector 
General's Office, but these transfers are for Superfund-related 
activities.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect my friends from Washington and 
North Carolina, and I understand the delicacy of the numbers which have 
been assigned to these respective programs.
  I stand here for the families that are affected in these, or next to 
these, Superfund sites, including the constituents in my district and 
their children, the 1,600 children estimated to have high levels of 
lead in their bloodstreams, creating immediate risk and health risks to 
them. Immediate, now.
  The fund, the science and technology fund, does provide a great 
service to America, including the $60 million worth of earmarks to a 
lot of our universities, as well as paying the salaries for 2,513 
bureaucrats within this agency.

                              {time}  1545

  My thought is that perhaps for this one time we can just slide a 
little bit of their $765 million budget to the more immediate and 
pressing health issues facing constituents, our constituents, and 
American families, and that is what I am here asking.
  I understand the delicacy of balancing these type of numbers in this 
type of bill. So I do ask that my colleagues, for the sake of these 
families that have immediate health risks, that we increase the number 
of dollars by $130 million to begin cleanup or continue at a faster 
pace the cleanups that have already begun in those areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if there 
are other speakers?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossel-
la). The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has yielded back.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Terry) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 environmental programs and management

       For environmental programs and management, including 
     necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel 
     and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5 
     U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; 
     library memberships in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members; construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; and not to 
     exceed $9,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $2,389,491,000, which shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2007, including administrative costs of the 
     brownfields program under the Small Business Liability Relief 
     and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.


                Amendment Offered No. 17 by Mr. Grijalva

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Grijalva:
       Page 64, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,903,000) (decreased by 
     $1,903,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that shifts funding 
within the EPA environmental program and management account.
  Although the rules of the House prevent me from specifying in the 
amendment where the funding will go, it is my intention to restore 
funding for EPA's environmental justice program.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $85,000 per project, $37,955,000 to remain available 
     until September 30, 2007.


                        buildings and facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $40,218,000 to remain available until expended.

[[Page 10345]]




                     hazardous substance superfund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; 
     $1,258,333,000, to remain available until expended, 
     consisting of such sums as are available in the Trust Fund 
     upon the date of enactment of this Act as authorized by 
     section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to $1,258,333,000 
     as a payment from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund for purposes as authorized by section 517(b) of 
     SARA, as amended: Provided, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading may be allocated to other Federal agencies in 
     accordance with section 111(a) of CERCLA: Provided further, 
     That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     $13,536,000 shall be transferred to the ``Office of Inspector 
     General'' appropriation to remain available until September 
     30, 2007, and $30,606,000 shall be transferred to the 
     ``Science and technology'' appropriation to remain available 
     until September 30, 2007.


                leaking underground storage tank program

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project, 
     $73,027,000, to remain available until expended.


                           oil spill response

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $15,863,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       On page 66 after line 20, insert the following new section:

                    Clean Water State Revolving Fund


                      (including revenue offsets)

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available in this 
     Act, $500,000,000 shall be available for making 
     capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving 
     Fund under title IV of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, as amended: Provided, that, notwithstanding provisions 
     of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 and the 
     Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, 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 such acts shall be reduced by 1.562 
     percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve a 
point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago this House chose to make $140,000 tax 
cuts for persons who make more than a million dollars a year a higher 
priority than dealing with the $300 billion-plus backlog that our 
States and communities have in dealing with their sewer and water 
problems.
  When I came to this Congress, the population of this country was 203 
million people and our principal program to attack the lack of clean 
water was a multi-billion dollar grant program to local communities.
  Today, our population is 35 percent higher, and yet we have moved 
principally to a loan program to our local communities represented by 
the Clean Water Revolving Fund.
  And yet, despite that huge population increase, that huge increase in 
demand, the committee has chosen to cut this key program by 40 percent 
over a 2-year period. I am simply asking this House to reconsider its 
earlier priority decision. I am asking them to approve an amendment 
that will scale back that $140,000 tax cut to $138,000.
  What do we do with that money? Do we expand the clean water program? 
No. All we are trying to do is to bring it back to the level that it 
was at 2 years ago before we went on this cutting binge. I know that 
this amendment is subject to a point of order, because the Rules 
Committee chose not to protect it.
  I would hope, however, that no Member of the House would lodge that 
point of order. If they do not, we would be able to make this 
priorities change and send it on to the Senate. It seems to me that if 
you ask any man or woman on the street in this country whether they 
think it is more important to provide a $140,000 tax cut for the most 
fortunate 1 percent of people in this country or whether they would be 
willing to settle for a $138,000 tax cut so we have enough money in the 
budget to clean up our dirty water for our local communities, they 
would certainly choose the latter.
  I am tired of reading headlines in newspapers like the Milwaukee 
Journal, for instance, reporting on the cryptosporidium outbreak in 
Milwaukee because of a bad sewer and water system. I am tired of seeing 
communities dump their overflow sewage into Lake Michigan or Lake 
Superior or any other lake in this country every time they have a 
storm.
  It is about time that we make mature choices, and I think this 
amendment is an effort to push the Congress into making one.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore 
violates clause 2, rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order in changing existing law, the 
amendment modifies existing powers and duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Budget Act was to force the Congress 
to make tough trade-off choices, by making trade-offs between 
individual programs on the spending side and by making trade-offs 
between revenue levels and spending levels.
  The problem with the way the budget process is being approached these 
days is that instead of forcing Congress to look at those trade-offs 
clearly, the process has been fragmented so that spending decisions 
occur at one point in the year, revenue decisions occur at another, and 
the public is therefore never aware of the connection that exists 
between the two.
  Unfortunately, because that is the way the majority has proceeded it 
means that this amendment is subject to a point of order if any Member 
chooses to make one, and so I very regretfully concede the point of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   state and tribal assistance grants

                    (including rescissions of funds)

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $3,127,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $750,000,000 shall be for 
     making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended (the ``Act''), of which up to 
     $50,000,000 shall be available for loans, including interest 
     free loans as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)(A), to 
     municipal, inter-municipal, interstate, or State agencies or 
     nonprofit entities for projects that provide treatment for or 
     that minimize sewage or stormwater discharges using one or 
     more approaches which include, but are not limited to, 
     decentralized or distributed stormwater controls, 
     decentralized wastewater treatment, low-impact development 
     practices, conservation easements, stream buffers, or 
     wetlands restoration; $850,000,000 shall be for 
     capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving 
     Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as 
     amended, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of the funds made 
     available under this

[[Page 10346]]

     heading in this Act, or in previous appropriations Acts, 
     shall be reserved by the Administrator for health effects 
     studies on drinking water contaminants; $50,000,000 shall be 
     for architectural, engineering, planning, design, 
     construction and related activities in connection with the 
     construction of high priority water and wastewater facilities 
     in the area of the United States-Mexico Border, after 
     consultation with the appropriate border commission; 
     $15,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of Alaska to 
     address drinking water and waste infrastructure needs of 
     rural and Alaska Native Villages; $200,000,000 shall be for 
     making grants for the construction of drinking water, 
     wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for water 
     quality protection (``special project grants'') in accordance 
     with the terms and conditions specified for such grants in 
     the joint explanatory statement of the managers accompanying 
     this Act, and, for purposes of these grants, each grantee 
     shall contribute not less than 45 percent of the cost of the 
     project unless the grantee is approved for a waiver by the 
     Agency; $95,500,000 shall be to carry out section 104(k) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including grants, 
     interagency agreements, and associated program support costs; 
     $4,000,000 shall be for a grant to Puerto Rico for drinking 
     water infrastructure improvements to the Metropolitano 
     community water system in San Juan; $10,000,000 for cost-
     shared grants for school bus retrofit and replacement 
     projects that reduce diesel emissions: Provided, That 
     beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, the 
     Administrator is authorized to make such grants, subject to 
     terms and conditions as the Administrator shall establish, to 
     State, tribal, and local governmental entities responsible 
     for providing school bus services to one or more school 
     districts; and $1,153,300,000 shall be for grants, including 
     associated program support costs, to States, federally 
     recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and 
     air pollution control agencies for multi-media or single 
     media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related 
     activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions 
     set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for 
     making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for 
     particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities 
     of which and subject to terms and conditions specified by the 
     Administrator, of which $52,000,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, and $20,000,000 shall be 
     for Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, 
     including associated program support costs, and $15,000,000 
     shall be for making competitive targeted watershed grants: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2006, State authority 
     under section 302(a) of Public Law 104-182 shall remain in 
     effect: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 
     603(d)(7) of the Act, the limitation on the amounts in a 
     State water pollution control revolving fund that may be used 
     by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to amounts 
     included as principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal 
     year 2006 and prior years where such amounts represent costs 
     of administering the fund to the extent that such amounts are 
     or were deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for 
     separately from other assets in the fund, and used for 
     eligible purposes of the fund, including administration: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2006, and 
     notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act, the Administrator 
     is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal 
     year under section 319 of that Act to make grants to Indian 
     tribes pursuant to sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2006, notwithstanding 
     the limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the Act, up to 
     a total of 1\1/2\ percent of the funds appropriated for State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of that Act may be reserved by 
     the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of that 
     Act: Provided further, That no funds provided by this 
     legislation to address the water, wastewater and other 
     critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United 
     States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made 
     available to a county or municipal government unless that 
     government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or 
     other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the 
     development or construction of any additional colonia areas, 
     or the development within an existing colonia the 
     construction of any new home, business, or other structure 
     which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary 
     infrastructure: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such funds that were appropriated 
     under this heading for special project grants in fiscal year 
     2000 or before and for which the Agency has not received an 
     application and issued a grant by September 30, 2006, shall 
     be made available to the Clean Water or Drinking Water 
     Revolving Fund, as appropriate, for the State in which the 
     special project grant recipient is located: Provided further, 
     That excess funds remaining after completion of a special 
     project grant shall be made available to the Clean Water or 
     Drinking Water Revolving Fund, as appropriate, for the State 
     in which the special project grant recipient is located: 
     Provided further, That in the event that a special project is 
     determined by the Agency to be ineligible for a grant, the 
     funds for that project shall be made available to the Clean 
     Water or Drinking Water Revolving Fund, as appropriate, for 
     the State in which the special project grant recipient is 
     located: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, heretofore and hereafter, after 
     consultation with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and for the purpose of making technical 
     corrections, the Administrator is authorized to award grants 
     under this heading to entities and for purposes other than 
     those listed in the joint explanatory statements of the 
     managers accompanying the Agency's appropriations Acts for 
     the construction of drinking water, wastewater and storm 
     water infrastructure and for water quality protection.


                            Points of Order

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order to the language 
beginning with quote, except that notwithstanding section 1452(n) on 
page 67, line 17 through water contaminants on line 22, violates clause 
2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives prohibiting 
legislation on appropriation bills.
  The language that I have cited says that notwithstanding the 
provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act none of the money in the 
fiscal year 2005 Department of Interior appropriations bill or even 
previous appropriations acts may be reserved by the EPA Administrator 
for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants.
  This language clearly constitutes legislating on an appropriations 
bill, and as such, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that the provision explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I have two more points of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order to the language 
beginning with, that beginning in fiscal year 2006 on page 68 line 23, 
through school districts on page 69 line 3 violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives prohibiting 
legislation on appropriation bills.
  The language that I have cited authorizes the Administrator of the 
EPA to set terms and conditions for grants concerning the retrofitting 
and replacement of diesel engines in school bus services that contract 
with communities.
  This language clearly constitutes legislating on an appropriations 
bill, and as such violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Hearing none, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision includes language conferring 
authority. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the language 
beginning with, quote, that for fiscal year 2006 on page 69, line 19 
through ``further'' on line 22 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the 
House of Representatives prohibiting legislation on appropriations 
bills.
  The language that I have cited provides for State authority to remain 
in effect under section 302(a) of Public Law 104-182 allowing States to 
swap a portion of their drinking water and waste water trust funds 
between accounts.
  This language clearly constitutes legislating on an appropriations 
bill and as such violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point

[[Page 10347]]

of order? Hearing none the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision includes language conferring 
authority. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The provision is stricken from the 
bill.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       1. On page 67, line 1 with respect to the funding level for 
     the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, strike the figure 
     $750,000,000 and insert $850,000,000.
       2. On page 68, line 5 strike the figure $200,000,000 and 
     insert $100,000,000:

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike the previous amendment, which I would have 
preferred, this amendment is not subject to a point of order. And let 
me explain what it does.
  This amendment simply eliminates one-half of the cut that the 
committee recommendation would make in the Clean Water Revolving Fund, 
and pays for it by taking $100 million out of STAG grants.
  Now, I know everyone in this House likes STAG grants. I like them 
myself. The problem is that if you take a look at last year's committee 
report, for instance, you will find over 10 pages listing hundreds of 
individual tiny grants, $75,000, $100,000, $125,000 a piece, tiny 
little grants to communities all over the country to supposedly help 
them pay for their sewer and water problems.

                              {time}  1600

  The problem is that we are fooling ourselves because those STAG 
grants are being paid for by reductions in the basic loan program that 
we use to assist communities all over the country deal with the same 
problem.
  What it means is that each Member is able to go home and dangle a 
little grant that we have gotten for our district--and I have done it 
myself, I will get whatever money I can for my district--but we go home 
and dangle that tiny little bit of money when, in fact, what we need is 
to have a major increase in the loan program that every community in 
this country applies for from time to time.
  The fact is that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is the crucial 
program for helping local communities with sewage treatment plants 
infrastructure. It is a keystone of the Clean Water Act; and yet this 
committee is recommending with the cut in the bill this year that we 
effectively cut this program by 40 percent over 2 years. It was already 
cut 19 percent last year. I think that is a terrible, terrible decision 
to make.
  Our communities have more than $300 billion in backlog requirements 
to clean up their sewer and water systems. There are communities in my 
district that right now are having difficulty, for instance, even 
allowing the Park Service to attach its new headquarters to the sewage 
system in one of the cities in my district because that system is so 
out of compliance that the State Department of Natural Resources is 
urging that they hook up no further users.
  We have seen, as I said earlier, stories of overflow, sewage overflow 
every time there is a huge storm. In the Milwaukee Journal, there was a 
picture of a huge sewage plume in Lake Michigan after heavy storms just 
last year.
  We are being incredibly negligent if we do not add money to this 
fund, rather than cut it; and yet today, because of the budget 
resolution, we are prevented from adding money. We would at least like 
to reduce the size of the cut by 50 percent, by moving money over from 
the STAG grant program.
  As I say, I have nothing against the STAG grant program, but if you 
fund STAG grants by cutting your basic loan program, you are literally 
robbing Peter to pay Peter, and I think that makes no sense whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  The amendment would increase the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by 
$100 million and cut special project grants under the State and Tribal 
Assistance programs by $100 million.
  The committee's recommendation for the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund is identical to the level in the House bill for this program in 
fiscal year 2005.
  Almost every Member of Congress wrote to the subcommittee requesting 
one or more STAG projects. These projects are often the only recourse 
for rural communities that, for whatever reason, are unable to qualify 
for a loan under the Clean Water or Drinking Water revolving funds.
  I admire the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) willingness to 
sacrifice special STAG projects to increase the Clean Water Fund. The 
Committee has a very difficult time in making these decisions. I do not 
believe it is an appropriate approach, given that these projects 
address critical infrastructure needs that otherwise might never be 
addressed, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the tougher issues in our 
bill. I feel that we are inadequately funding the State revolving 
grants, and this program goes out to each of the States and they are 
able to make loans to the local communities at low interest rates in 
order to fund projects that are crucially important.
  I know in my own district I have got cities like Shelton and 
Hoodsport, Belfair, Tacoma, all of which depend on this source of 
funding. STAG grants are important, and I support the program.
  I wish we could do more in both areas. It is just unfortunate that, 
unlike when EPA was first created, we had 3 or $4 billion of funding 
for grants at a 90-10 Federal match; and yet we moved away from those 
programs. I do not believe we are funding this adequately. This means 
less money to the States and then less money goes out to the 
communities. I hope that as we go further in the process we can find a 
way to help correct this problem.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has his approach, which I am 
supporting; and I think this is one of the jobs that appropriators have 
to do. We have to make difficult choices, and this is a very difficult 
choice; but I think it is the correct one.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my friend, for allowing me this time.
  The purpose of these amendments, this one and the one previous to it, 
in part at least, is to demonstrate how misaligned the priorities of 
this Congress have become and how far we have devolved, how we have 
regressed from a period in the 1970s when the Clean Water Act was 
passed and this Congress demonstrated its concern and understanding of 
the environmental needs of our Nation.
  In the last 3 years, this fund has been cut by almost 50 percent; and 
prior to those 3 years, it had been cut previously, leaving the States 
with little or no money to deal with the issue of clean water.

[[Page 10348]]

  Thirty years ago, we recognized that the waters of this country 
should be swimable, fishable and drinkable. The waters of this country 
are becoming less so in each of those three categories as a result of 
the mismanagement of funding by this Congress, by the devolution of our 
philosophy in this Congress, and by the priorities set by the 
leadership of this Congress.
  People in this country are experiencing conditions that are less 
safe, less secure, and less healthy as a result of the mismanagement of 
the people's funds. My colleagues are more concerned with cutting taxes 
for millionaires than providing safety and security and good drinking 
water for the American people. These priorities must change.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would repeat, the special grants program under STAG would be cut by 
$100 million under this amendment. As I mentioned, these projects are 
often the only recourse for rural communities that, for whatever 
reason, are unable to qualify for a loan under the Clean Water or 
Drinking Water state revolving funds.
  It is a difficult decision in our bill in allocating money. The STAG 
grants are one way that we can answer the needs made by their 
representatives who are elected to this Congress. To oppose this, I 
think, is taking away the right of the membership to look in their 
districts for those needs which maybe go beyond the official needs, and 
I oppose this amendment and hope everyone else will also.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not in any way criticize the subcommittee chairman 
for decisions he has made. The problem does not lie with his decisions. 
The problem lies with the budget resolution which imposes those 
decisions on him.
  I certainly understand Members asking for STAG grants if that is 
their only access, and I have no objection to that, but my objection is 
simply this: the budget resolution, which the majority party voted for, 
decided that it was so important to provide tax cuts of $140,000 a year 
to people who make over a million bucks that they are willing to cut 
back the basic program that helps communities deal with their sewer and 
water problems by 40 percent over a 2-year period.
  Then what they do after they have imposed those kind of cuts on this 
program, then they go to the STAG program. They get a tiny little 
$100,000 or $150,000 program for their districts. They go to their 
districts, they say, ``Oh, look, what a good boy am I, look what a 
friend I am for clean water.'' Meanwhile, the votes that they have cast 
on the budget resolution have gutted the ability of this Congress to 
provide meaningful help to communities who need real help on sewer and 
water.
  I think we are sort of chasing our tail; and so, as the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) says, this is a very difficult priorities 
choice, and I do not fault the gentleman from North Carolina at all for 
the choice he has made. I think we have an obligation to try to put 
some more money back into the basic program first. That is what the 
amendment tries to do, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
amendment. Three weeks ago, by a bare three-vote margin, the House of 
Representatives approved the Republican budget. Today, we're dealing 
with the consequences of that vote and the majority's misguided 
priorities. The budget that was agreed to contained more than $100 
billion in additional cuts--the vast majority of which 
disproportionately benefit the very richest individuals in this 
country. At the same time, the budget calls for billions of dollars in 
spending cuts, nearly all of which were not specified.
  Well, the chickens have come home to roost. The bill before the House 
contains a $241 million cut in Clean Water funding, a reduction of 22 
percent. This cut comes on top of the Clean Water funding reductions 
that were approved last year.
  There was a time during the 1970s and 1980s when the Federal 
Government provided most of the funding to upgrade water treatment 
plants and improve sewer infrastructure around this country. Today, 
there is really only one Federal program left to help communities 
improve sewer infrastructure to keep pollution out of our lakes, rivers 
and streams, and that's the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Program.
  Let me tell you what this program has done in my district. In the 
mid-1990s, fourteen communities in my district were confronted with the 
difficult necessity of upgrading the Twelve Towns Drain. The problem 
was that whenever there was a significant storm in Southeastern 
Michigan, the Drain would quickly overflow and spill millions of 
gallons of partially treated sewage into the Clinton River. The result 
was deteriorating water quality in the Clinton River and beach closures 
at the River's terminus in Lake St. Clair.
  The solution was to expand the retention basin to prevent the sewage 
overflows, but the cost was enormous: $130 million.
  The Twelve Towns Drain improvements could not have been accomplished 
without the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The communities involved 
with this project borrowed more than $100 million from the revolving 
fund. Giving these communities the ability to borrow the needed money 
at below-market interest rates is the least the Federal government 
could do, and that's what the State Revolving Fund makes possible. 
Thanks to the Revolving Loan Program, this massive water infrastructure 
effort will be completed later this year. This is an example of the 
kind of water quality work that will be sacrificed unless we approve 
this amendment.
  Earlier this week, I received a letter from the Director of the 
Michigan Department on Environmental Quality. This is what he says: 
``Discharges from aging and failing sewerage systems, urban storm 
water, and other sources continue to pose serious threats to Michigan's 
lakes, rivers, and estuaries, endangering our public health, tourism, 
and recreation areas.'' He goes on to say that the proposed State 
Revolving Fund cuts ``will likely severely impede the amount of water 
infrastructure projects that can be funded in the state of Michigan.''
  There isn't a Member of this House who supports polluted waterways or 
beach closures, but there is a chasm between rhetoric and reality when 
it comes to providing the needed resources. If this Congress wants to 
be on the side of rivers, lakes and streams that are drinkable, 
swimmable and fishable, it's time to put your money where your mouth 
is. Vote for the Obey amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, more than ever before, our wastewater 
treatment systems are failing. Effluent from wastewater treatment 
plants is contaminating our rivers with chemicals like Triclosan--a 
germ toxin added to countless consumer products; hormones such as the 
active ingredient in estrogen therapy; the insect repellant DEET; and 
an anti-epileptic drug (Environmental Science and Technology, 36 (6), 
1202-1211, 2002 http://pubs.acs.org/cgibin/jtextd?esthag/36/6/html/
es011055j.html).
  As these chemicals are released from treatment plants into our 
rivers, lakes and oceans, they are finding their way into the natural 
resources on which we heavily depend. New studies show that they are 
starting to show up in our drinking water (``Pollutants in New Jersey's 
Drinking Water,'' Environmental Science and Technology, December 8, 
2004 (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2004/dec/
science/pt_nj.html); ``Pharmaceutical Data Eludes Environmental 
Researchers,'' Environmental Science and Technology, March 16, 2005). A 
Baylor University study in Texas found a prescription drug in fish 
tissues (``Frogs, fish and pharmaceuticals a troubling brew'' November 
14, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/14coolsc.frogs. 
fish/).
  At the same time that these new challenges are emerging, we are still 
trying to overcome the well-established wastewater contaminants from 
aging and broken sewer systems that continue to contaminate water with 
E. coli and other water borne diseases. By EPA's 2003 estimate, the 
need for sewer upgrades alone is so great and so widespread that the 
funding required to alleviate it is $181 billion (``Wastewater 
Treatment: Overview and Background,'' Congressional Research Service, 
February 7, 2005). In fact, the infrastructure is so old in many places 
that when it rains, wastewater treatment plants can't handle the 
increased volume. The result is that untreated or poorly treated sewage 
flows into our waters, causing our beaches to be closed in order to 
protect public health. Forty three percent of the communities dealing 
with this are on the Great

[[Page 10349]]

Lakes, which holds 20% of the world's fresh water supply.
  So what is the solution proposed by this Administration and 
Republican leadership in Congress? Reduce funding for wastewater 
infrastructure by $350 million. Ohio alone would lose $20 million in 
revenue and roughly 650 jobs from FY 05 if the proposed cuts to the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund come to pass.
  While the need to upgrade our wastewater infrastructure to deal with 
emerging problems increases, the proposed cuts in this bill take us in 
the opposite direction. Lets improve our health and the environment, 
not make it worse. I urge my colleagues to support the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund and the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Again, I say this is a very difficult 
choice to make, and the committee has tried to be as bipartisan as 
possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gillmor

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gillmor:
       Page 71, line 21, strike ``Provided'' and all that follows 
     through page 72, line 6, and insert the following:

     Provided further, That notwithstanding this or previous 
     appropriations Acts, after consultation with the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations and for the purposes of 
     making technical corrections, the Administrator is authorized 
     to award grants to entities under this heading for purposes 
     other than those listed in the joint explanatory statements 
     of the managers accompanying the Agency's appropriations Acts 
     for the construction of drinking water, waste water and storm 
     water infrastructure, and for water quality protection.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am offering this amendment today to clarify some language in the 
bill that is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. It is a good amendment that I hope we can adopt today.
  As part of the debate on this amendment, I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related 
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  First, however, let me thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor) for his patience and express my appreciation both to 
him and to his staff for the fair way that they have worked with me and 
my staff to remove authorizing provisions in the appropriations bill, 
which are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILLMOR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to work with 
the authorizing committee chairman.
  I want to assure the chairman that I will work to remove or modify 
objectionable provisions under his jurisdiction as we move the bill 
into conference.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this, and I also 
note that the amendment I am offering today represents a compromise on 
a provision dealing with corrections to the State and Tribal grants 
technical correction authority to make it clear that it applies solely 
to earmarked grants in the conference agreement that are incorporated 
by reference in the appropriations bill and that the authority does not 
apply to future appropriations.

                              {time}  1615

  I understand the chairman's need for language that allows him to 
conduct some technical housekeeping of some grant provisions in 
predecessor spending bills. I look forward to further discussions with 
him regarding the terms ``for other purposes'' to ensure that this 
language is clearly and narrowly understood as applying to corrections 
that are technical in nature and not broadly defined to include changes 
in policy.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I have reviewed the gentleman's amendment and am 
willing to accept it. I have already notified the Senate of the changes 
we agreed upon with respect to the ``special projects'' correction 
authority, and I look forward to working with the gentleman as the bill 
moves forward this year and on future appropriation bills.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILLMOR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman. I think it 
is a good amendment and concur with our chairman that we should accept 
it.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their cooperation and support and I urge 
passage of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McHugh). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
  The amendment was agreed to.


     Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas:
       Page 68, line 14, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)'' 
     after ``$95,500,000''.
       Page 69, line 4, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' after 
     ``$1,153,300,000''.
       Page 69, line 14, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' after 
     ``$52,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson of Texas).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will provide an additional $2 million for 
brownfield assessments and cleanups, while fully funding grants for 
States to administer their voluntary cleanup programs.
  The assessment and cleanup of brownfields are critical to the 
economic and environmental health of communities across the Nation. 
Brownfields represent lost opportunity where they exist.
  In 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief 
and Brownfields Revitalization Act. That bill authorized $200 million 
annually in Federal assistance to States and local communities to 
assess brownfield sites and to conduct cleanup where the assessment 
indicated that cleanup was warranted. The law also authorized $50 
million annually in grants to States to assist States in implementing 
voluntary cleanup programs.
  The committees that wrote this legislation, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, following years of hearings, discussions and considerations, 
determined an assessment on cleanup of brownfields required at least 
$200 million annually and that State voluntary cleanup programs should 
be supported at $50 million annually.

[[Page 10350]]

  The bill before the House provides $52 million for the State programs 
and only $95.5 million for assessment and cleanups. My amendment simply 
transfers this unauthorized $2 million in grants to the State 
bureaucracies to the actual assessment and cleanup of brownfield sites, 
and I believe that it will be more useful to do that.
  When the President signed the Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002, 
it represented the centerpiece of the administration's environmental 
agenda. It was widely praised and received broad bipartisan support. 
According to the Government Accountability Office, there are well over 
500,000 brownfields across the country.
  These abandoned and underused sites represent a blight to 
neighborhoods, pose health and safety threats, and create a drain on 
economic activity. Brownfield grants generate economic returns in 
excess of five to one.
  The City of Dallas, which I represent, one of the first cities 
designated as a Brownfield Showcase Community by the Environmental 
Protection Agency, has used assessment and remediation grant programs 
to redevelop 35 sites in the core of the city.
  A Federal investment of less than $2 million has leveraged more than 
$370 million in private investment and created or helped to retain 
close to 3,000 permanent full-time jobs. Over 1,600 units of housing, 
including 134 units of affordable housing, have been developed on 
former brownfield sites. The program has brought new vitality to long 
distressed portions of the city, boosting the tax base and bringing 
important economic opportunities to the neighborhoods.
  Unfortunately, this bill, and the administration budget request it 
represents, prefers to fund more State bureaucracy rather than more 
actual cleanup and economic redevelopment. Mr. Chairman, the inadequate 
funding level for cleanup that was in the President's budget is just 
another example of the administration touting authorization legislation 
and failing to follow through with the actual funding.
  According to the Conference of Mayors, EPA regularly turns away about 
two-thirds of the applicants for brownfield assistance because of the 
lack of available funds. So I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding 
me this time.
  This amendment will provide more funding for brownfield site 
assessments and cleanup and bring the appropriation for State voluntary 
cleanup programs in line with the level authorized by the Small 
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act.
  This Brownfields Revitalization Act was legislation which came 
through our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I 
have the privilege to chair and on which the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) serves as the ranking minority member, and 
the Congress passed this legislation in 2002.
  Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment are very important to our 
communities and the economy. There are hundreds of thousands of 
brownfield sites around the Nation waiting to be cleaned up. We need to 
continue directing funds toward cleaning up and revitalizing these 
sites by fully funding State voluntary cleanup programs.
  The gentlewoman's amendment helps accomplish this goal, and I urge 
all Members to support this amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further 
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume simply to say that with such persuasive statements 
from the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Tennessee, I have no 
objection to this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by Ms. 
Johnson of Texas, the Ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. The amendment moves $2 million from grants for state 
administrative expenses to grants for communities to conduct actual 
cleanup of contaminated brownfields.
  The Bush administration has called the federal brownfields program, 
enacted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 2001, 
``one of the administration's top priorities and a key to restoring 
contaminated sites to productive use.'' Yet, despite this praise, the 
administration's budget requests for the cleanup of brownfields 
demonstrate its lack of commitment to the cleanups necessary to reduce 
the risks to human health and the environment.
  In fiscal year 2006, the administration requested $210 million for 
Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program; however, of this 
amount, approximately 45 percent, or $90 million, is earmarked for 
Federal and state bureaucrats to manage the program. That leaves only 
$120 million of a $210 million request devoted to actual cleanups--
shovels in the ground--and this bill further reduces that amount by 
about 20%.
  Since 2001, the Bush administration has consistently requested far 
less than the fully-authorized levels for assessment and cleanups, yet 
attempts to take credit for fully-funding the brownfields program.
  While the budgetary constraints of the House Republican Leadership 
prevent us from fully-funding brownfields cleanups, the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, shifts dollars away 
from the management of the program to actual cleanups.
  The amendment reduces, by $2 million, the amount appropriated for 
State Response programs under section 128 of the Superfund law to $50 
million, the total authorized level of funding for these programs.
  The amendment adds $2 million to the site assessment and cleanup 
portion of the brownfields program, raising this level from $95.5 
million to $97.5 million. Under current law, the brownfields sites 
assessment and cleanup program is authorized at $200 million annually 
by section 104(k) of the Superfund law, so even this increase leaves 
the program at less than 50 percent of its authorized funding level.
  Mr. Chairman, the brownfields program is critical for the restoration 
and reuse of the legacies of this Nation's industrial era, many of 
which have plagued our cities and communities for decades.
  In this time of scarce Federal resources, it is important that we 
devote what limited dollars are available to actually accomplishing 
what the brownfields program set out to do over five years ago--
redeveloping the underused and abandoned brownfields across this 
country.
  I strongly support the amendment offered by Ms. Johnson, and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For an additional amount for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Fund, $100,000,000 shall be made available from the 
     rescissions of multi-year and no-year funding, previously 
     appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     availability of which under the original appropriation 
     accounts has not expired, and $100,000,000 in such funding is 
     hereby rescinded: Provided, That such rescissions shall be 
     taken solely from amounts associated with grants, contracts, 
     and interagency agreements whose availability under the 
     original period for obligation for such grant, contract, or 
     interagency agreement has expired based on the April 2005 
     review by the Government Accountability Office.


                       administrative provisions

       For fiscal year 2006, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and 
     6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement 
     directly Federal environmental programs required or 
     authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal 
     program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
     recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if 
     authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the 
     Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs 
     for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that 
     no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds 
     designated for State financial assistance agreements.

[[Page 10351]]

       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is 
     authorized to collect and obligate pesticide registration 
     service fees in accordance with section 33 of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (as added by 
     subsection (f)(2) of the Pesticide Registration Improvement 
     Act of 2003), as amended.
       Notwithstanding CERCLA 104(k)(4)(B)(i)(IV), appropriated 
     funds for fiscal year 2006 may be used to award grants or 
     loans under section 104(k) of CERCLA to eligible entities 
     that satisfy all of the elements set forth in CERCLA section 
     101(40) to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser 
     except that the date of acquisition of the property was prior 
     to the date of enactment of the Small Business Liability 
     Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2001.
       For fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the Administrator may, 
     after consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, 
     make not to exceed five appointments in any fiscal year under 
     the authority provided in 42 U.S.C. 209 for the Office of 
     Research and Development.

                      TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                      forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $285,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds provided, $62,100,000 
     is for the forest inventory and analysis program.


                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     including treatments of pests, pathogens, and invasive or 
     noxious plants and for restoring and rehabilitating forests 
     damaged by pests or invasive plants, cooperative forestry, 
     and education and land conservation activities and conducting 
     an international program as authorized, $254,875,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by law of 
     which $25,000,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund: Provided, That none of the funds provided 
     under this heading for the acquisition of lands or interests 
     in lands shall be available until the Forest Service notifies 
     the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate 
     Committee on Appropriations, in writing, of specific 
     contractual and grant details including the non-Federal cost 
     share: Provided further, That of the funds provided herein, 
     $1,000,000 shall be provided to Custer County, Idaho for 
     economic development in accordance with the Central Idaho 
     Economic Development and Recreation Act, subject to 
     authorization.


                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, $1,423,920,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 
     percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances 
     under this heading available at the start of fiscal year 2006 
     shall be displayed by budget line item in the fiscal year 
     2007 budget justification.


                        wildland fire management

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands 
     under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuels reduction on 
     or adjacent to such lands, and for emergency rehabilitation 
     of burned-over National Forest System lands and water, 
     $1,790,506,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds including unobligated balances under this 
     heading, are available for repayment of advances from other 
     appropriations accounts previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That such funds shall be 
     available to reimburse State and other cooperating entities 
     for services provided in response to wildfire and other 
     emergencies or disasters to the extent such reimbursements by 
     the Forest Service for non-fire emergencies are fully repaid 
     by the responsible emergency management agency: Provided 
     further, That not less than 50 percent of any unobligated 
     balances remaining (exclusive of amounts for hazardous fuels 
     reduction) at the end of fiscal year 2005 shall be 
     transferred, as repayment for past advances that have not 
     been repaid, to the fund established pursuant to section 3 of 
     Public Law 71-319 (16 U.S.C. 576 et seq.): Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, $8,000,000 
     of funds appropriated under this appropriation shall be used 
     for Fire Science Research in support of the Joint Fire 
     Science Program: Provided further, That all authorities for 
     the use of funds, including the use of contracts, grants, and 
     cooperative agreements, available to execute the Forest and 
     Rangeland Research appropriation, are also available in the 
     utilization of these funds for Fire Science Research: 
     Provided further, That funds provided shall be available for 
     emergency rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuels 
     reduction activities in the urban-wildland interface, support 
     to Federal emergency response, and wildfire suppression 
     activities of the Forest Service: Provided further, That of 
     the funds provided, $286,000,000 is for hazardous fuels 
     reduction activities, $9,281,000 is for rehabilitation and 
     restoration, $21,719,000 is for research activities and to 
     make competitive research grants pursuant to the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $41,000,000 is for State fire 
     assistance, $8,000,000 is for volunteer fire assistance, 
     $15,000,000 is for forest health activities on Federal lands 
     and $10,000,000 is for forest health activities on State and 
     private lands: Provided further, That amounts in this 
     paragraph may be transferred to the ``State and Private 
     Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', and ``Forest and 
     Rangeland Research'' accounts to fund State fire assistance, 
     volunteer fire assistance, forest health management, forest 
     and rangeland research, vegetation and watershed management, 
     heritage site rehabilitation, and wildlife and fish habitat 
     management and restoration: Provided further, That transfers 
     of any amounts in excess of those authorized in this 
     paragraph, shall require approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with reprogramming 
     procedures contained in the report accompanying this Act: 
     Provided further, That funds provided under this heading for 
     hazardous fuels treatments may be transferred to and made a 
     part of the ``National Forest System'' account at the sole 
     discretion of the Chief of the Forest Service thirty days 
     after notifying the House and the Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That the costs of 
     implementing any cooperative agreement between the Federal 
     Government and any non-Federal entity may be shared, as 
     mutually agreed on by the affected parties: Provided further, 
     That in addition to funds provided for State Fire Assistance 
     programs, and subject to all authorities available to the 
     Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry 
     Appropriations, up to $15,000,000 may be used on adjacent 
     non-Federal lands for the purpose of protecting communities 
     when hazard reduction activities are planned on national 
     forest lands that have the potential to place such 
     communities at risk: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may authorize 
     the transfer of funds appropriated for wildland fire 
     management, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $9,000,000, 
     between the Departments when such transfers would facilitate 
     and expedite jointly funded wildland fire management programs 
     and projects: Provided further, That funds designated for 
     wildfire suppression, shall be assessed for indirect costs, 
     in a manner consistent with such assessments against other 
     agency programs.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina:
       On page 75, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert, 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $1 million for the National Forest 
System, and I believe we have agreement on both sides.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise that we do agree with the 
amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Beauprez

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Beauprez:

[[Page 10352]]

       In title III of the bill under the heading ``WILDLAND FIRE 
     MANAGEMENT (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)'', insert after the 
     first dollar amount on Page 76 the following ``(increased by 
     $27,500,000)''
       Insert after the first dollar amount on page 77 
     ``(increased by $27,500,000)''
       In title III of the bill in the item relating to ``NATONAL 
     ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS--GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION'', insert 
     after the first dollar amount on Page 106 the following 
     ``(reduced by 30,000,000)''

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding for the National 
Endowment of the Arts by $30 million and transfer the funds to the 
United States Forest Service for thinning projects to reduce the threat 
of catastrophic wildfires.
  As Members of this Chamber will certainly remember, the summers of 
2000 and 2002 were the two largest and most destructive fire seasons in 
the last 50 years. According to information presented by the United 
States Forest Service Chief, Dale Bosworth, in 2002, some 73 million 
acres of the 192 million acres managed by the United States Forest 
Service remain at risk to catastrophic wildfire. That is greater than 
the size of the entire State of Arizona.
  The Wall Street Journal reported that parts of the National Forest 
System contain more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre, or 10 times the 
manageable or appropriate level. Disease and insect infestations have 
also attributed to an increase in combustible fuels. In Colorado alone, 
surveys have recorded that approximately 1.2 million trees have been 
killed by mountain pine beetle outbreaks in 2004. This is nearly 100 
times the mortality rate reported in 1996.
  This is the kind of timber that turns small fires into kinds of 
infernos that have devastated Colorado and other western States in 
recent years, destroying homes, poisoning the air, scorching critical 
habitat, and choking streams and rivers with tons of soot and sediment.
  Positive steps have been made recently, most notably the passage of 
the Healthy Forest Act, which enabled forest managers to begin the 
process of restoring our forests to more sustainable and natural 
states. This legislation has helped land managers cut through the red 
tape that has delayed badly needed thinning projects.
  However, even with increased attention to thinning and fuels 
treatment efforts, more funding is needed. Since the majority of our 
forests are federally owned, the burden to protect our States and local 
communities from the devastating effects of forest fires lies with the 
Federal agencies designated to protect them. Congress must fully fund 
their needs.
  While cooler temperatures and increased moisture have brought some 
relief to the West this past winter, we cannot forget the need to 
continue to support responsible forest management. Another dry season 
is just one hot summer away. The human consequences from past fires 
have taught us we must continue to be proactive with our forest 
management. It far outweighs the devastating economic, ecological, and 
social cost of forest fires.
  In 2002, hundreds of homes and other structures were destroyed and 
thousands more were evacuated. Twenty-three firefighters lost their 
lives, and the American taxpayer spent in excess of $1.5 billion 
containing 2002's record-setting blazes. Rural economies that rely on 
tourism suffered significant losses.
  This amendment is a modest attempt to provide additional funding that 
can be used on the ground immediately in a way that will help ensure 
cleaner air and water, protection of sensitive ecosystems, keep western 
communities safe from catastrophic wildfire, and improve the health of 
our forests and watersheds. Simply, it reduces funding for the NEA by 
$30 million and transfers funds to the United States Forest Service for 
thinning projects.
  The question arises, why take funds from the NEA. I applaud the 
progress that has been made recently by the NEA in repairing a very 
damaged image in the view of many Americans. One of my sons is actually 
a student of the arts, and my wife and I are certainly avid arts 
supporters and particularly appreciate ``public art.''

                              {time}  1630

  However, a very small percentage of artistic funds comes from the 
Federal Government. Still, since fiscal year 2000, NEA funding from the 
Federal Government has increased by 19 percent. In 2001, the NEA budget 
as a percentage of total revenues in the nonprofit arts sector was less 
than 0.4 percent.
  Most of the funding happens to come from everyday patrons of the arts 
who enjoy them, philanthropists and corporate donations that foster the 
development of artistic communities.
  I commend these individuals and organizations for doing so. However, 
it should be a greater priority of Congress to ensure the safety of our 
western communities, prevent forest fires, and save lives rather than 
spend taxpayer dollars for artistic endeavors, enjoyable as they may 
be.
  When Congress spends so much annually to put out wildfires, does it 
not make more sense to spend that money on additional thinning 
treatments that could help prevent forest fires from starting in the 
first place? I was pleased when the Healthy Forest Initiative was 
passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. However, I 
worried that we still lacked the economic incentives that could make 
the management of our forests, the removal of dead fuel for an inferno, 
an opportunity. That incentive now exists.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and ask my colleagues 
to join me in voting ``aye.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I share the gentleman's concern for forests. The Department of the 
Interior bill has focused on forest health and wildlife management. We 
have large increases for the most important parts of the national fire 
plan. The bill has substantially increased due to the administration's 
Healthy Forest and National Fire Plan Initiatives. The bill has a $33 
million increase in funding over the last year for hazardous fuel 
management. This is a serious increase. We have increased hazardous 
fuel funding dramatically in the last 4 years. It is not clear that the 
proposed increase could be used efficiently.
  I share the gentleman's interest in caring for public lands. A large 
part of my district is national forests and national parks, so I 
understand we need to take care of this important land.
  The Department of the Interior bill also increases funding for other 
wildlife programs and forest health management. This is a tight 
allocation, and I think we have done a careful balancing act. As I 
opposed the amendment to increase funding in the arts earlier, trying 
to balance our concerns, I must also reluctantly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks). 
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. Make no mistake, the principle purpose of this 
amendment is to cut the National Endowment for the Arts. I absolutely 
share the gentleman's concern that the forest system and BLM have 
sufficient funding to meet the challenge of fighting fires.
  In fact, last year I worked closely with the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) to provide 2 years of emergency funding to 
fight wildfires which totaled $1 billion. This bill does not contain 
that emergency money, but non-emergency firefighting is increased by 
$116 million when compared to the non-emergency funding in 2005. Of 
course, I do worry that an extremely bad fire season could exhaust this 
increased funding. However, I do not think the NEA is the place to 
augment firefighting funding. But again, I

[[Page 10353]]

think the purpose of this amendment is more to raise issues about the 
NEA.
  I appreciate the gentleman saying he is a supporter of the arts. I 
wish we had the emergency money that we have had the last 2 years, but 
we do not. I think I would say to the gentleman as we look and see how 
the season unfolds, we may have to do something further in conference; 
but I think this amendment is the wrong approach. I strongly support 
our chairman and urge that the committee defeat the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have always been a strong supporter of 
funding for arts programs and will continue to be. The arts community 
in my district is vibrant, and funding for the National Endowment for 
the Arts is an invaluable part of education and social enrichment 
throughout Oregon. I was pleased to see the amendment offered by 
Congresswoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dicks, which would increase 
funding for the NEA, approved by a voice vote.
  But we have an unresolved crisis on our public lands that needs to be 
addressed. A lot of members would probably like to believe that by 
passing the Healthy Forests restoration Act, Congress solved the forest 
health and hazardous fuel build-up problem. Nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  I fought hard to get funding for fuel reduction projects included as 
part of HFRA. That bill eventually authorized $760 million annually for 
critical fuel reduction, but Congress hasn't even begun to approach 
that commitment as evidenced by the appropriations bill we're 
considering today.
  This Interior bill contains $211 million in hazardous fuel reduction 
for the Bureau of Land Management and $286 million for the Forest 
Service. That's an increase of $9.8 million and $23.5 million 
respectively. I very much appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member 
for including these increases in the bill, but they fall far short of 
what is needed to reduce hazardous fuel and the yearly threat of 
wildfire throughout the West.
  The GAO recently stated that at these anemic spending levels we will 
continue to fall further and further behind. The GAO says that if we 
doubled the funding for fuel reduction, we would only stay even with 
the problem. Earlier this year when the agency testified before the 
Forests Subcommittee on which I serve, they said we would need to 
triple the funding for fuel reduction if we wish to begin to address 
the build-up of dangerous trees and shrubs in our national forests.
  If we tripled the overall funding, more than 60 percent of that money 
could be spent under the expedited environmental analysis and judicial 
review authorized by HFRA, instead of using budget gimmicks to only 
claim that we are fully funding that important law. But the 
administration thus far has used that authority on less than 10 percent 
of projects. And the vast majority of those projects are simply burning 
rangeland, which does virtually nothing to improve forest health and 
reduce wildfire risk. The bottom line is that we are not even beginning 
to address the fuel build-up problem on forested federal land and we 
won't start with this bill. We gave them the authority to get more done 
in an expedited way, now let's give them the money necessary to do it.
  The administration plans to treat only about 1 percent of the acres 
that they claim are in need of fuel reduction. The money in the 
amendment offered by Mr. Beauprez would be small compared to the need, 
but every additional dollar helps. This amendment would allow them to 
do 60,000 more acres of fuel reduction next year. And not of only 
burning sagebrush, but actually treating 60,000 more acres of forested 
lands which are overstocked tinder boxes that could result in 
catastrophic fires and threaten our communities.
  Congress needs to get serious about funding hazardous fuel reduction 
projects and fullfil the commitment made when it passed HFRA. This 
amendment would be a small but important step toward that goal and I 
urge its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Walden of Oregon). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Beauprez) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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 Colorado (Mr. Hefley); amendments offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson); amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry); amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey); and amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Beauprez).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 311, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               AYES--109

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Cox
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--311

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos

[[Page 10354]]


     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Conaway
     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1701

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan, Mr. RENZI, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. 
LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, and Messrs. CARTER, SMITH of Texas and 
RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PETERSON of Minnesota, GINGREY, SULLIVAN, YOUNG of Alaska, 
Miss McMORRIS, and Mr. KUHL of New York changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendments Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The Clerk designated the amendments.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 262, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                               AYES--157

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--262

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Conaway
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Weldon (PA)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1709

  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 191 and 192, I am not 
recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Terry

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr.

[[Page 10355]]

Terry) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 344, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 193]

                                AYES--76

     Akin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Boren
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Chocola
     Costello
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     LoBiondo
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Ramstad
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwartz (PA)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Weller
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--344

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Peterson (PA)
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1716

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 235, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 194]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     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
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

[[Page 10356]]



                               NOES--235

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     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
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     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
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Shays
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1726

  Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Beauprez

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Beauprez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122, 
noes 298, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 195]

                               AYES--122

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cox
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Udall (CO)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--298

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (UT)
     Butterfield
     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach

[[Page 10357]]


     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. ROSS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________