[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10357-10382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me thank the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for bringing forward a bill 
that I believe addresses many of the critical issues for the Department 
of the Interior.
  It is impossible not to note that this budget environment creates 
genuinely tough challenges for the Department of the Interior. With 
that said, I believe the subcommittee has done an excellent job in 
crafting a bill that addresses those major problems.
  Several years ago this committee provided funds for a new visitors 
center at Chickasaw National Recreation Area in my district. The bids 
came in high due to the rising cost of materials. Before the project 
could be downsized the Department of the Interior had to reprogram 
these funds for emergency wildfire suppression.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking that you consider restoring this project in 
conference should funds become available.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
understand the gentleman's concerns and the unfortunate turn of events 
which caused this project to be delayed, and I will give the request of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) every possible consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), our distinguished chairman, for 
offering to work with me and the committee to resolve this through the 
conference process.
  I believe that this is an important and critical step toward 
addressing what has been a very real injustice. I thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 128 line 12 be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 79 line 7, through page 128 line 12 is 
as follows:


                  capital improvement and maintenance

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $468,260,000, to remain available until 
     expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and 
     acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for 
     construction, reconstruction, repair, decommissioning, and 
     maintenance of forest roads and trails by the Forest Service 
     as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: 
     Provided, That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein 
     for road maintenance shall be available for the 
     decommissioning of roads, including unauthorized roads not 
     part of the transportation system, which are no longer 
     needed: Provided further, That no funds shall be expended to 
     decommission any system road until notice and an opportunity 
     for public comment has been provided on each decommissioning 
     project.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses, 
     and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, 
     in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     Forest Service, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until 
     expended.


         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived 
     from forest receipts.


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

       For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from 
     funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, 
     public school districts, or other public school authorities, 
     and for authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-
     Federal parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts, 
     pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.


                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the 
     prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on 
     lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant 
     to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6 
     percent shall be available for administrative expenses 
     associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, 
     protection, and improvements.


    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

       For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $64,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund 
     established pursuant to the above Act.


        management of national forest lands for subsistence uses

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage 
     Federal lands inAlaska for subsistence uses under title VIII 
     of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
     (Public Law 96-487), $5,467,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (1) purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition of passenger motor vehicles from excess 
     sources, and hire of such vehicles; purchase, lease, 
     operation, maintenance, and acquisition of aircraft from 
     excess sources to maintain the operable fleet for use in 
     Forest Service wildland fire programs and other Forest 
     Service programs; notwithstanding other provisions of law, 
     existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with proceeds 
     derived or trade-in value used to offset the purchase price 
     for the replacement aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 
     U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed $100,000 for employment under 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) purchase, erection, and alteration of 
     buildings and other public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) 
     acquisition of land, waters, and interests therein pursuant 
     to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers 
     in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 
     558a note); (6) the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (7) for debt collection contracts in 
     accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
       None of the funds made available under this Act shall be 
     obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close 
     any regional office for National Forest System administration 
     of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture without the 
     consent of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management 
     appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 
     under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe 
     burning conditions upon notification of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations and if and only if all 
     previously appropriated emergency contingent funds under the 
     heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' have been released by 
     the President and apportioned and all wildfire suppression 
     funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' are 
     obligated.
       The first transfer of funds into the Wildland Fire 
     Management account shall include unobligated funds, if 
     available, from the Land Acquisition account and the Forest 
     Legacy program within the State and Private Forestry account.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service

[[Page 10358]]

     in connection with forest and rangeland research, technical 
     information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall 
     be available to support forestry and related natural resource 
     activities outside the United States and its territories and 
     possessions, including technical assistance, education and 
     training, and cooperation with United States and 
     international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b, however 
     in fiscal year 2006 the Forest Service may transfer funds to 
     the ``National Forest System'' account from other agency 
     accounts to enable the agency's law enforcement program to 
     pay full operating costs including overhead.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying 
     this Act.
       Not more than $72,646,000 of the funds available to the 
     Forest Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund of the Department of Agriculture.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $2,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, $3,000,000 
     may be advanced in a lump sum to the National Forest 
     Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in 
     support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when 
     the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative expenses 
     or projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That of the 
     Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no more than 
     $250,000 shall be available for administrative expenses: 
     Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, by the 
     end of the period of Federal financial assistance, private 
     contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis funds 
     made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, That 
     the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-Federal 
     recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient 
     has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: Provided 
     further, That authorized investments of Federal funds held by 
     the Foundation may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed 
     as to both principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, 
     $2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a 
     lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without 
     regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting 
     National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service 
     programs: Provided, That such funds shall be matched on at 
     least a one-for-one basis by the Foundation or its 
     subrecipients.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law 
     enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural 
     resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such 
     amounts shall not exceed $500,000.
       An eligible individual who is employed in any project 
     funded under title V of the Older American Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service 
     shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of 
     chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
       Any funds appropriated to the Forest Service may be used to 
     meet the non-Federal share requirement in section 502(c) of 
     the Older American Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)).
       For each fiscal year through 2009, funds available to the 
     Forest Service in this Act may be used for the purpose of 
     expenses associated with primary and secondary schooling for 
     dependents of agency personnel stationed in Puerto Rico prior 
     to the date of enactment of this Act, who are subject to 
     transfer and reassignment to other locations in the United 
     States, at a cost not in excess of those authorized for the 
     Department of Defense for the same area, when it is 
     determined by the Chief of the Forest Service that public 
     schools available in the locality are unable to provide 
     adequately for the education of such dependents.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service


                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $2,732,298,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That up to $18,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic 
     Health Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $507,021,000 
     for contract medical care shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2007: Provided further, That 
     of the funds provided, up to $27,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, shall be used to carry out the loan repayment 
     program under section 108 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided in 
     this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants which 
     are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the total 
     obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds are 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 
     authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of 
     achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and 
     requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new 
     facilities): Provided further, That funding contained herein, 
     and in any earlier appropriations Acts for scholarship 
     programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal 
     organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and 
     available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations 
     until expended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, of the amounts provided herein, not 
     to exceed $268,683,000 shall be for payments to tribes and 
     tribal organizations for contract or grant support costs 
     associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts 
     or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health 
     Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to 
     or during fiscal year 2006, of which not to exceed $5,000,000 
     may be used for contract support costs associated with new or 
     expanded self-determination contracts, grants, self-
     governance compacts or annual funding agreements: Provided 
     further, That funds available for the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out 
     activities typically funded under the Indian Health 
     Facilities account: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     provided to the Indian Health Service, $15,000,000 is 
     provided for alcohol control, enforcement, prevention, 
     treatment, sobriety and wellness, and education in Alaska: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds may be used for 
     tribal courts or tribal ordinance programs or any program 
     that is not directly related to alcohol control, enforcement, 
     prevention, treatment, or sobriety: Provided further, That no 
     more than 15 percent may be used by any entity receiving 
     funding for administrative overhead including indirect costs: 
     Provided further, That the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall 
     collect from the Indian Health Service and tribes and tribal 
     organizations operating health facilities pursuant to Public 
     Law 93-638 such individually identifiable health information 
     relating to disabled children as may be necessary for the 
     purpose of carrying out its functions under the Individuals 
     With Disability Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.


                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $370,774,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be used 
     by the Indian Health Service to purchase TRANSAM equipment 
     from the Department of Defense

[[Page 10359]]

     for distribution to the Indian Health Service and tribal 
     facilities: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for 
     sanitation facilities construction for new homes funded with 
     grants by the housing programs of the United States 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 from this account and 
     the ``Indian Health Services'' account shall be used by the 
     Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian 
     Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an 
     existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health 
     Service and the General Services Administration: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated for the planning, design, and construction 
     of the replacement health care facility in Barrow, Alaska, 
     may be used to purchase land up to approximately 8 hectares 
     for a site upon which to construct the new health care 
     facility: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall 
     be placed in a Demolition Fund, available until expended, to 
     be used by the Indian Health Service for demolition of 
     Federal buildings.


            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates 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 and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefor as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities.
       In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health 
     care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service 
     facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with 
     funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the 
     facility providing the service and shall be available without 
     fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or 
     regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be 
     administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation 
     Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
       Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this 
     Act, except those used for administrative and program 
     direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations 
     directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
       None of the funds made available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act shall be used for any assessments or 
     charges by the Department of Health and Human Services unless 
     identified in the budget justification and provided in this 
     Act, or approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations through the reprogramming process. Personnel 
     ceilings may not be imposed on the Indian Health Service nor 
     may any action be taken to reduce the full time equivalent 
     level of the Indian Health Service below the level in fiscal 
     year 2002 adjusted upward for the staffing of new and 
     expanded facilities, funding provided for staffing at the 
     Lawton, Oklahoma hospital in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 
     critical positions not filled in fiscal year 2002, and 
     staffing necessary to carry out the intent of Congress with 
     regard to program increases.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal 
     organization through a contract, grant, or agreement 
     authorized by title I or title V of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
     determination contract under title I, or a self-governance 
     agreement under title V of such Act and thereafter shall 
     remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without 
     fiscal year limitation.
       None of the funds made available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule 
     published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the 
     eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health 
     Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a 
     budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with 
     the proposed final rule, and such request has been included 
     in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
       With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health 
     Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health 
     Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those 
     entities, on a reimbursable basis, including payment in 
     advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements 
     received therefrom, along with the funds received from those 
     entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may 
     be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account 
     which provided the funding. Such amounts shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain 
     total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead 
     associated with the provision of goods, services, or 
     technical assistance.
       The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service 
     may not be altered without advance notification to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                     National Institutes of Health


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For necessary expenses for the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set 
     forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended, and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986, $80,289,000.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


            toxic substances and environmental public health

       For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances 
     and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set 
     forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 
     (SARA), as amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act, as amended, $76,024,000, of which up to 
     $1,500,000, to remain available until expended, is for 
     Individual Learning Accounts for full-time equivalent 
     employees of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, in lieu of performing a health assessment under 
     section 104(i)(6) of CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may 
     conduct other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or 
     activities, including, without limitation, biomedical 
     testing, clinical evaluations, medical monitoring, and 
     referral to accredited health care providers: Provided 
     further, That in performing any such health assessment or 
     health study, evaluation, or activity, the Administrator of 
     ATSDR shall not be bound by the deadlines in section 
     104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     ATSDR to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles 
     pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 2006, 
     and existing profiles may be updated as necessary.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

                   Executive Office of the President


  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to 
     exceed $750 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $2,717,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 
     202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the 
     Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and 
     duties of the Council.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant 
     to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 
     including hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for 
     services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5 
     U.S.C. 5376, $9,200,000: Provided, That the Chemical Safety 
     and Hazard Investigation Board (Board) shall have not more 
     than three career Senior Executive Service positions: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the individual appointed to the position of Inspector 
     General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall, 
     by virtue of such appointment, also hold the position of 
     Inspector General of the Board: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Inspector 
     General of the Board shall utilize personnel of the Office of 
     Inspector General of EPA in performing the duties of the 
     Inspector General of the Board, and shall not appoint any 
     individuals to positions within the Board.

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $8,601,000, to

[[Page 10360]]

     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     provided in this or any other appropriations Act are to be 
     used to relocate eligible individuals and groups including 
     evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands residents, 
     those in significantly substandard housing, and all others 
     certified as eligible and not included in the preceding 
     categories: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     contained in this or any other Act may be used by the Office 
     of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any single 
     Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, was 
     physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development


                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title 
     XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A), 
     $6,300,000.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings, 
     facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five 
     replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for employees, $524,381,000, of which 
     not to exceed $10,992,000 for the instrumentation program, 
     collections acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the 
     National Museum of African American History and Culture, and 
     the repatriation of skeletal remains program shall remain 
     available until expended; and of which $9,086,000 for the 
     reopening of the Patent Office Building and  for fellowships 
     and scholarly awards shall remain available until September 
     30, 2007; and including such funds as may be necessary to 
     support American overseas research centers and a total of 
     $125,000 for the Council of American Overseas Research 
     Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are 
     available for advance payments to independent contractors 
     performing research services or participating in official 
     Smithsonian presentations: Provided further, That the 
     Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal appropriations 
     designated in this Act for lease or rent payments for long 
     term and swing space, as rent payable to the Smithsonian 
     Institution, and such rent payments may be deposited into the 
     general trust funds of the Institution to the extent that 
     federally supported activities are housed in the 900 H 
     Street, N.W. building in the District of Columbia: Provided 
     further, That this use of Federal appropriations shall not be 
     construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee of, a transfer 
     of risk to, or an obligation of, the Federal Government: 
     Provided further, That no appropriated funds may be used to 
     service debt which is incurred to finance the costs of 
     acquiring the 900 H Street building or of planning, 
     designing, and constructing improvements to such building.


                           facilities capital

       For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and 
     alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian 
     Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by 
     section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and 
     for construction, including necessary personnel, $90,900,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 is for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: 
     Provided, That contracts awarded for environmental systems, 
     protection systems, and repair or restoration of facilities 
     of the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with 
     selected contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor 
     qualifications as well as price.

           administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs 
     including closure of facilities, relocation of staff or 
     redirection of functions and programs without the advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current 
     space or new facility without consultation with the House and 
     Senate Appropriations Committees.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for 
     the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in 
     Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize 
     water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim 
     structural support.
       None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance written approval of the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
     with the reprogramming procedures contained in the statement 
     of the managers accompanying this Act.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     purchase any additional buildings without prior consultation 
     with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $97,100,000, 
     of which not to exceed $3,157,000 for the special exhibition 
     program shall remain available until expended.


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $16,200,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a single procurement for the Master Facilities Plan 
     renovation project at the National Gallery of Art may be 
     issued which includes the full scope of the Work Area #3 
     project: Provided further, That the solicitation and the 
     contract shall contain the clause ``availability of funds'' 
     found at 48 CFR 52.232.18.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $17,800,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration 
     of the existing features of the building and site of the John 
     F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $9,085,000.

           National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $121,264,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts through assistance to organizations and individuals 
     pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, including 
     $14,922,000 for support of arts education and public outreach 
     activities through the Challenge America program, for program 
     support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the 
     Arts ``Matching Grants'' account and ``Challenge America'' 
     account may be transferred to and merged with this account.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $122,605,000, shall be available to the National Endowment 
     for the Humanities for support of activities in the 
     humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for 
     administering

[[Page 10361]]

     the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $15,449,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $10,000,000 shall be available to the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                       Administrative Provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may 
     be used as necessary for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That the 
     Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may 
     approve grants up to $10,000, if in the aggregate this amount 
     does not exceed 5 percent of the sums appropriated for grant-
     making purposes per year: Provided further, That such small 
     grant actions are taken pursuant to the terms of an expressed 
     and direct delegation of authority from the National Council 
     on the Arts to the Chairperson.

                        Commission of Fine Arts

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,893,000: 
     Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to 
     cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall 
     be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to 
     remain available until expended without further 
     appropriation.

               national capital arts and cultural affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000: Provided, That no 
     one organization shall receive a grant in excess of $400,000 
     in a single year.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $4,860,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $8,177,000: 
     Provided, That one-quarter of 1 percent of the funds provided 
     under this heading may be used for official reception and 
     representational expenses to host international visitors 
     engaged in the planning and physical development of world 
     capitals.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

                       holocaust memorial museaum

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310), 
     $41,880,000, of which $1,874,000 for the museum's repair and 
     rehabilitation program and $1,246,000 for the museum's 
     exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

                             Presidio Trust

                          presidio trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus 
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $20,000,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended.

      White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance

       For necessary expenses of the White House Commission on the 
     National Moment of Remembrance, $250,000.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 402. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which Congressional action is not complete.
       Sec. 403. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 404. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 405. No assessments may be levied against any program, 
     budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act 
     unless notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the Committees on Appropriations and are 
     approved by such committees.
       Sec. 406. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 2004.
       Sec. 407. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for 
     the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with 
     the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
       (c) Report.--On September 30, 2006, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the 
     Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section 
     314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill 
     sites contained in a patent application as set forth in 
     subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the 
     sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party 
     contractor in accordance with the standard procedures 
     employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of 
     third-party contractors.
       Sec. 408. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by 
     Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
     277, 106-113, 106-291, 107-63, 108-7, 108-108, and 108-447 
     for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with self-determination or self-
     governance contracts, grants, compacts, or annual funding 
     agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian 
     Health Service as funded by such Acts, are the total amounts 
     available for fiscal years 1994 through 2005 for such 
     purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority 
     allocations for unmet contract support costs of ongoing 
     contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding 
     agreements.
       Sec. 409. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts:
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made 
     to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be 
     used to make a grant to any other organization or individual 
     to conduct activity independent of the direct grant 
     recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments 
     made in exchange for goods and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs and/or projects.
       Sec. 410. The National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to 
     solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the 
     United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other 
     property or services and to use such in furtherance of the 
     functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the

[[Page 10362]]

     National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such 
     gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative 
     of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the 
     proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit 
     of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in 
     each case.
       Sec. 411. (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals, including urban minorities, who have 
     historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities 
     programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income 
     below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       (c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance 
     under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
     of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that 
     priority is given to providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs 
     that will encourage public knowledge, education, 
     understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
       (d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities Act of 1965--
       (1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for 
     projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of 
     national impact or availability or are able to tour several 
     States;
       (2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15 
     percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State, 
     excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
       (3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually 
     and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each 
     grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
       (4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to 
     improve and support community-based music performance and 
     education.
       Sec. 412. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the 
     5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act.
        Sec. 413. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support Government-wide administrative functions unless such 
     functions are justified in the budget process and funding is 
     approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 414. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2005 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the 14th paragraph 
     under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of March 4, 
     1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in 
     which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or 
     to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health 
     conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in 
     the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally 
     high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing 
     risks to human safety and public health and property and 
     enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest 
     productivity, and biological integrity. The projects may be 
     completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not be 
     expended under this section to replace funds which would 
     otherwise appropriately be expended from the timber salvage 
     sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     exempt any project from any environmental law.
       Sec. 415. Other than in emergency situations, none of the 
     funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering 
     machines during core business hours unless such answering 
     machines include an option that enables callers to reach 
     promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being 
     contacted.
       Sec. 416. Prior to October 1, 2006, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of 
     subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) 
     solely because more than 15 years have passed without 
     revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary from 
     any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or any other 
     law: Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting 
     expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding 
     available, to revise a plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System, this section shall be void with respect to such plan 
     and a court of proper jurisdiction may order completion of 
     the plan on an accelerated basis.
       Sec. 417. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to 
     conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under 
     either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
     within the boundaries of a National Monument established 
     pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where 
     such activities are allowed under the Presidential 
     proclamation establishing such monument.
        Sec. 418. Extension of Forest Service Conveyances Pilot 
     Program.--Section 329 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (16 U.S.C. 580d 
     note; Public Law 107-63) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``40'' and inserting 
     ``60'';
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``13'' and inserting 
     ``25''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``2008'' and inserting 
     ``2009''.
       Sec.  419. In entering into agreements with foreign 
     countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior are authorized to enter into 
     reciprocal agreements in which the individuals furnished 
     under said agreements to provide wildfire services are 
     considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the 
     country receiving said services when the individuals are 
     engaged in fire suppression: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior shall not enter 
     into any agreement under this provision unless the foreign 
     country (either directly or through its fire organization) 
     agrees to assume any and all liability for the acts or 
     omissions of American firefighters engaged in firefighting in 
     a foreign country: Provided further, That when an agreement 
     is reached for furnishing fire fighting services, the only 
     remedies for acts or omissions committed while fighting fires 
     shall be those provided under the laws of the host country, 
     and those remedies shall be the exclusive remedies for any 
     claim arising out of fighting fires in a foreign country: 
     Provided further, That neither the sending country nor any 
     legal organization associated with the firefighter shall be 
     subject to any legal action whatsoever pertaining to or 
     arising out of the firefighter's role in fire suppression.
        Sec. 420. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer 
     made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any 
     other appropriations Act.
        Sec. 421. In awarding a Federal contract with funds made 
     available by this Act, notwithstanding Federal government 
     procurement and contracting laws, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (the 
     ``Secretaries'') may, in evaluating bids and proposals, give 
     consideration to local contractors who are from, and who 
     provide employment and training for, dislocated and displaced 
     workers in an economically disadvantaged rural community, 
     including those historically timber-dependent areas that have 
     been affected by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands 
     and other forest-dependent rural communities isolated from 
     significant alternative employment opportunities: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding Federal Government procurement and 
     contracting laws the Secretaries may award contracts, grants 
     or cooperative agreements to local non-profit entities, Youth 
     Conservation Corps or related partnerships with State, local 
     or non-profit youth groups, or small or disadvantaged 
     business or micro-business: Provided further, That the 
     contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is for forest 
     hazardous fuels reduction, watershed or water quality 
     monitoring or restoration, wildlife or fish population 
     monitoring, or habitat restoration or management: Provided 
     further, That the terms ``rural community'' and 
     ``economically disadvantaged'' shall have the same meanings 
     as in section 2374 of Public Law 101-624: Provided further, 
     That the Secretaries shall develop guidance to implement this 
     section: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall 
     be construed as relieving the Secretaries of any duty under 
     applicable procurement laws, except as provided in this 
     section.
        Sec. 422. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     acquisition of lands or interests in lands may be expended 
     for the filing of declarations of taking or complaints in 
     condemnation without the approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That this provision 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated to implement the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 
     1989, or to funds appropriated for Federal assistance to the 
     State of Florida to acquire lands for Everglades restoration 
     purposes.

[[Page 10363]]

        Sec. 423. (a) Limitation on Competitive Sourcing 
     Studies.--
       (1) Of the funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Department of the Interior for fiscal year 2006, not more 
     than $3,450,000 may be used by the Secretary of the Interior 
     to initiate or continue competitive sourcing studies in 
     fiscal year 2006 for programs, projects, and activities for 
     which funds are appropriated by this Act and such funds shall 
     not be available until the Secretary submits a reprogramming 
     proposal to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, and such proposal has been 
     processed consistent with the reprogramming guidelines in 
     House Report 108-330.
       (2) Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not more than 
     $2,500,000 may be used in fiscal year 2006 for competitive 
     sourcing studies and related activities by the Forest 
     Service.
       (b) Competitive Sourcing Study Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``competitive sourcing study'' means a study on 
     subjecting work performed by Federal Government employees or 
     private contractors to public-private competition or on 
     converting the Federal Government employees or the work 
     performed by such employees to private contractor performance 
     under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or 
     any other administrative regulation, directive, or policy.
       (c) Competitive Sourcing Exemption for Forest Service 
     Studies Conducted Prior to Fiscal Year 2006.--Notwithstanding 
     requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     76, Attachment B, the Forest Service is hereby exempted from 
     implementing the Letter of Obligation and post-competition 
     accountability guidelines where a competitive sourcing study 
     involved 65 or fewer full-time equivalents, the performance 
     decision was made in favor of the agency provider; no net 
     savings was achieved by conducting the study, and the study 
     was completed prior to the date of this Act.
       (d) In preparing any reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations on competitive sourcing activities, agencies 
     funded in this Act shall include the incremental cost 
     directly attributable to conducting the competitive sourcing 
     competitions, including costs attributable to paying outside 
     consultants and contractors and, in accordance with full cost 
     accounting principles, all costs attributable to developing, 
     implementing, supporting, managing, monitoring, and reporting 
     on competitive sourcing, including personnel, consultant, 
     travel, and training costs associated with program 
     management.
       Sec.  424. Estimated overhead charges, deductions, reserves 
     or holdbacks from programs, projects and activities to 
     support governmentwide, departmental, agency or bureau 
     administrative functions or headquarters, regional or central 
     office operations shall be presented in annual budget 
     justifications. Changes to such estimates shall be presented 
     to the Committees on Appropriations for approval.
        Sec. 425. None of the funds in this Act or prior Acts 
     making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies may be provided to the managing partners or 
     their agents for the SAFECOM or Disaster Management projects.
        Sec. 426. (a) In General.--An entity that enters into a 
     contract with the United States to operate the National 
     Recreation Reservation Service (as solicited by the 
     solicitation numbered WO-04-06vm) shall not carry out any 
     duties under the contract using:
       (1) a contact center located outside the United States; or
       (2) a reservation agent who does not live in the United 
     States.
       (b) No Waiver.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not waive 
     the requirements of subsection (a).
       (c) Telecommuting.--A reservation agent who is carrying out 
     duties under the contract described in subsection (a) may not 
     telecommute from a location outside the United States.
       (d) Limitations.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     apply to any employee of the entity who is not a reservation 
     agent carrying out the duties under the contract described in 
     subsection (a) or who provides managerial or support 
     services.
        Sec. 427. Section 331, of Public Law 106-113, is amended--
       (1) in part (a) by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2009''; and
       (2) in part (b) by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2009''.
       Sec. 428. Section 330 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-
     291; 114 Stat. 996; 43 U.S.C. 1701 note), is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``2008'';
       (2) in the third sentence, by inserting ``, National Park 
     Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,'' after ``Bureau of Land 
     Management''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``To 
     facilitate the sharing of resources under the Service First 
     initiative, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 
     may make transfers of funds and reimbursement of funds on an 
     annual basis among the land management agencies referred to 
     in this section, except that this authority may not be used 
     to circumvent requirements and limitations imposed on the use 
     of funds.''.
       Sec. 429. The Secretary of Agriculture may acquire, by 
     exchange or otherwise, a parcel of real property, including 
     improvements thereon, of the Inland Valley Development Agency 
     of San Bernardino, California, or its successors and assigns, 
     generally comprising Building No. 3 and Building No. 4 of the 
     former Defense Finance and Accounting Services complex 
     located at the southwest corner of Tippecanoe Avenue and Mill 
     Street in San Bernardino, California, adjacent to the former 
     Norton Air Force Base. As full consideration for the property 
     to be acquired, the Secretary of Agriculture may terminate 
     the leasehold rights of the United States received pursuant 
     to section 8121(a)(2) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 999). 
     The acquisition of the property shall be on such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture considers 
     appropriate and may be carried out without appraisals, 
     environmental or administrative surveys, consultations, 
     analyses, or other considerations of the condition of the 
     property.
       Sec. 430. The Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the 
     House Committee on Appropriations a report detailing the 
     Federal expenditures pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public 
     Lands Management Act (section 4(e)(3) of Public Law 105-263) 
     for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
       Sec. 431. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     prepare or issue a permit or lease for oil or gas drilling in 
     the Finger Lakes National Forest, New York, during fiscal 
     year 2006.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to pending 
provisions of the bill?


                            Points of Order

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against section 413 of H.R. 2361, on the grounds that this provision 
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, and 
therefore is legislation included in a general appropriation bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The Chair finds that this section prescribes a legislative condition 
on the availability of funds. The section therefore constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the 
bill.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I raise a point of order against the 
provision beginning with ``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 11, 
through the comma on line 12, on the grounds that this provision 
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and 
therefore is legislation included in a general appropriation bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on this point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have three other points of 
order. I will raise them individually.
  I have a point of order against the provision beginning with 
``notwithstanding'' on page 121, line 22, through the word ``laws'' on 
line 23, on the grounds that this provision also changes existing law 
in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard? The Chair finds 
that this 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. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against the provision beginning with the word ``notwithstanding'' on 
page 124, line 6 through line 7, on the grounds that this provision 
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on this point of 
order?
  Hearing none, the Chair finds that this provision explicitly 
supersedes existing law. The provision therefore constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order

[[Page 10364]]

against the provision on page 124, lines 15 through 25, on the grounds 
that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of 
House rule XXI, therefore it is legislation included in a general 
appropriation bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on this point 
of order?
  Hearing none, the Chair finds that this provision includes language 
imparting direction to certain agencies. 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.


                 Amendment Offered No. 7 by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. 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. 7 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the designing or construction of forest 
     development roads in the Tongass National Forest for the 
     purpose of harvesting timber by private entities or 
     individuals.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to a forest 
     development road for which construction is initiated before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment under rule XXI, clause 2.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of House of today, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt, 
the Tongass is our Nation's largest forest, about the size of West 
Virginia. Located along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often 
referred to as America's rain forest and is home to abundant wildlife, 
bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, and salmon, as well as old growth 
trees such as the giant Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and yellow 
cedar.
  Mr. Chairman, each year the timber industry is subsidized by millions 
of tax dollars, taxpayer, hard working funding tax dollars for logging 
in the Tongass National Forest, approximately $850 million since 1982.
  Each year more taxpayer subsidized logging roads are built to extract 
the timber, and each year the road maintenance backlog gets more 
expensive. It is about $100 million right now. There are already about 
5,000 miles of roads in the Tongass.
  That is enough road to drive from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles and 
most of the way back. Even the Forest Service acknowledges that 
existing roads are, quote, sufficient to satisfy local demand for road, 
recreation, subsistence, and community connectivity needs, unquote.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would 
stop the Forest Service from constructing new logging roads at taxpayer 
expense. Let me repeat that, at taxpayer expense, in the Tongass.

                              {time}  1745

  It does not prevent the timber industry from building their own 
roads. It does no prohibit the forest service from constructing roads 
needed for forest management, community connectivity, or for 
recreation. I know there are some who would have my colleagues believe 
differently, but this amendment has nothing to do with the roadless 
rule. It has everything to do with good government and fiscal 
responsibility.
  This amendment is not an attempt to take away jobs in Alaska. In 
fact, between 1998 and 2004, Tongass-related jobs fell from over 1,500 
to less than 300. That means that taxpayers are subsidizing each 
existing timber job to the tune of about $163,000 per job, about four 
times the median U.S. household income. Despite massive taxpayer 
subsidies, Alaskan timber continues to decline.
  That said, this amendment does not stop timber companies from 
continuing to log off the roads that the American taxpayers have 
already built for them. In fact, the Forest Service has a 10-year 
supply of timber remaining off current roads.
  Between 1998 and 2004, half of Tongass timber contracts went unsold. 
This means taxpayers spend millions of dollars for the Forest Service 
to build roads and plan sales to access timber they often cannot even 
sell; and those they do sell, they do so at below-market rates. In 
fact, the Forest Service is offering to let logging companies cancel 
contracts already sold because the companies do not want the timber.
  Mr. Chairman, I support logging in our national forests when it makes 
sense, when it is economically viable. I believe our forests should be 
actively managed so that they may be as healthy as possible; but while 
we need to be good stewards of our forests, we must also be good 
stewards of the American people's money.
  It is time to restore some common sense and fiscal discipline to the 
Tongass timber program. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the 
American taxpayers and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. 
Under the amendment, the limit on funds does not apply to roads under 
construction on the date of enactment of this bill
  Making this determination is far from simple. The Tongass National 
Forest is 16 million acres and access is basically limited to boat and 
plane. Compliance with this provision would require Forest Service 
personnel field visits to numerous locations where road contracts are 
in effect to determine if or when road construction has begun.
  Therefore, determining the construction status of roads in the 
Tongass would take considerable effort on the part of the Forest 
Service. This new substantial duty makes this amendment legislative in 
nature.
  I ask the Chair to sustain my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). Does any Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is recognized.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the point of order be 
rejected on grounds that the language my friend cites explicates and 
explains a limitation. This is a limitation amendment, and the language 
in the amendment simply establishes the scope of the limitation.
  The test is not whether the limitation is difficult to figure out. 
The test is whether it imposes a new obligation. This language does 
not, and I would urge rejection of the point of order.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be heard very briefly.
  I acknowledge, I recognize, I would agree with everything that the 
gentleman from New Jersey just said. I also might bring to the 
attention the fact that this is essentially the same amendment that was 
offered and held in order in the last Congress.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point 
of order? The Chair will rule momentarily.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) makes a point of order that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) proposes 
to change existing law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, section 52, even 
though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from 
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it 
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or 
make judgments or determinations not otherwise required of them by law, 
then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point 
of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The proponent of a limitation carries the burden of establishing that 
any duties imposed by the provision either

[[Page 10365]]

are merely ministerial or are already required by law.
  The Chair finds that limitation proposed in the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) does more than merely decline to 
fund a certain activity. Instead, it requires the officials concerned 
to discern or discover the dates on which various road-construction 
projects were commenced within the periods in which they were 
authorized to commence.
  On these premises, the Chair concludes that the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) proposes to change existing law.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment is 
not in order.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
stand as the judgment of the committee?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
motion.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the appeal is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. 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. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SALE OR SLAUGHTER OF 
                   FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used 
     for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and 
     burros (as defined in Public Law 92-195).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. Chairman, America is blessed with a rich natural heritage. Part 
of that heritage are the herds of wild horses, direct descendants of 
animals that came here with early explorers and missionaries, which 
still roam the ranges in parts of the American West.
  In 1971, Congress formally protected these wild horses and mandated 
that they could not be sold or processed into commercial products, in 
effect, slaughtered.
  Since that time, when the Bureau of Land Management has determined 
that the wild horse population is excessive to the ability of the range 
to support them, captured animals have been offered to the public 
through adoption.
  All of that changed as a result of a rider tucked away in the dead of 
night in the massive omnibus appropriations bill enacted last December.
  With no public notice or comment, this rider trashed 33 years of 
national policy and lifted the prohibition on the commercial sale of 
America's wild horses.
  Today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and I, along with 
our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), are offering this amendment 
to restore that prohibition, to stop the slaughter.
  There is an urgency here. So far this year, 41 wild horses that we 
know of have been sent to one of the three foreign-owned 
slaughterhouses in this country. Moreover, the BLM has estimated that 
8,400 horses need to be sold to comply with the recent change in the 
law.
  To what end? To what end, I ask? So their meat can end up on menus in 
France, Belgium and Japan where it is considered a delicacy.
  Incredible, simply incredible. We do not allow the commercial sale of 
horse flesh in this country for human consumption, but we are exporting 
horse meat for that purpose abroad.
  Since introducing the legislation which is the basis for this 
amendment, I have received an impressive volume of heartfelt letters 
and e-mails from across the Nation.
  The very notion that wild American horses would be slaughtered as a 
food source for foreign gourmets has struck a chord with the American 
people.
  They see in this issue the pioneering spirit and the ideals of 
freedom, and the current policy has created disillusionment with many 
over how their government works and what their elected leaders stand 
for.
  From Florida, Stacey wrote, ``Knowing that the horses won't be there 
for my kids has made me feel sad, hurt and angry at our government.''
  A former West Virginian named Valerie who now resides in Nevada 
wrote, ``I, and our friends, have enjoyed going on to the desert to see 
wild horses roaming free.''
  Jeremy from Oregon wrote, ``Your support will help to restore the 
public's confidence by assuring us that Congress operates under the 
principles of for the people and by the people.''
  We must restore the people's faith. We must stop the slaughter of 
these American icons.
  A week and a half ago, an annual rite of spring was held called the 
Running of the Kentucky Derby, a uniquely American institution.
  I am wearing on my lapel a pin here, a symbol which bears the 
likeness of Ferdinand who won the 1986 Derby and the 1987 Breeders' Cup 
Classic, notable achievements. Yet his reward was to end his life in a 
Japanese slaughterhouse. Ferdinand was not a wild horse, true, from the 
American plain, but the issue is one in the same.
  As children, many of us recall reading the compelling story in the 
book ``Misty of Chincoteague.'' What type of message would we be 
sending today's youth if Misty was rounded up and sent to be 
slaughtered.
  For Misty's sake, for America's sake, vote for the Rahall-Whitfield 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time very much; and as he so aptly stated, we would not be 
here today except for the action of Senator Conrad Burns in the last 
omnibus bill.
  What this motion and amendment that we are proposing today is really 
about, it is not so much about a few wild mustangs and burros, only 
31,000 remaining in the wild western grazing lands. But what this is 
really about, it is about the fact that we have 18,000 permits issued 
by the Bureau of Land Management to ranchers in the West on 214 million 
acres of land, of which these ranchers are paying less than six cents 
per acre, per year. Now that is a good deal, and I can understand why 
they would be excited about it. They are grazing over 8 or 9 million 
cows on this land, and we are talking about 31,000 wild mustangs and 
burros on this 214 million acres of land, and the ranchers do not want 
any wild mustangs or burros on this land. That is really what this is 
all about.
  The question becomes, is it in the heritage of America to protect the 
few remaining wild mustangs and burros? This amendment simply reverses 
the Burns amendment and restores 37 years of public policy of 
protecting wild mustangs and burros.
  I can tell my colleagues I have a lot of cattle ranchers in my 
district in Kentucky, and they are in Tennessee and Florida and Texas 
and Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and all around this country, 
and all of them pay a lot more than six cents per acre per year for 
these permits and for land.
  I might also add that these 18,000 permits of ranchers on these 
grazing lands in the West provide only 2 percent of the cows 
slaughtered in America, and we all like a good steak. We want to 
continue slaughtering cows for steaks because they are raised for that 
purpose; but we also have a responsibility to protect wild mustangs and 
burros who are native to this country, who have been protected in this 
country.

[[Page 10366]]

They simply lost that protection because of a 4,000 page omnibus bill, 
and none of us was aware that the Burns amendment was in it.

                              {time}  1800

  So that is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to get briefly to the point.
  We can all have our differences as it relates to this issue, but as 
my colleagues have pointed out so appropriately, surreptitiously last 
year, snuck into the omnibus bill, is a piece of legislation that many 
of us have disagreement over. We all agree in this appropriation 
process that that is not the way Congress ought to go about doing its 
business and, worse yet, that legislation overturned decades, indeed 
generations of Congressional policy.
  Now, we can argue the substance and the differences as to whether 
this is economically feasible and right, and whether this is humane or 
not, but the fact of the matter is it was surreptitiously snuck in, it 
ought not to have happened, I believe it violates policy for more than 
a generation and 30 to 40 years of Congressional intent. We ought not 
to let that happen. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. 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 myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is about the proper management of wildlife 
and public lands, and the Committee on Appropriations is in charge of 
trying to adequately fund the United States agencies. If we want to get 
into the question of whether or not the six cents is being paid for 
grazing land or anything else, you need to go to the authorizing 
committees and have a debate there and get it changed and so forth.
  We in the Committee on Appropriations have a situation where wild 
horses and burros cost the taxpayers $40 million annually. Now, this is 
more than BLM spends on all wildlife management activities on public 
lands. There are currently 24,000 wild horses and burros that are kept 
in short-term, or long-term, either way, holding facilities. They are 
not roaming free. They are being housed in these short-term facilities, 
and that is costing $20 million, and they are living there until they 
die.
  BLM has the authority to sell the older or unadoptable animals. Now, 
if they are 10 years or older, or if they have been offered three times 
for sale and been turned down, then this would give BLM the authority 
to sell these older, unadoptable animals and conserve the $40 million 
that we are talking about. That is what we are asking, and we think 
that is a prudent measure, so we urge our colleagues to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I come from the district that has by far and away more wild 
horses in it than any district in the United States, bar none. Of the 
30,000 horses we are talking about, 20,000 of them are in the Second 
District of Nevada. This amendment, if it is passed, will be a rule of 
unintended consequences on what happens to the management of these 
horses.
  My colleagues, in Nevada horses do not always look beautiful like the 
horse that we see in Black Beauty. Sometimes they are misshapen. 
Sometimes they are deformed. That is because we cannot manage 20,000 
horses on land which does not look like Kentucky, does not look like 
West Virginia. These horses get starved, they are weakened, they become 
diseased and, of course, they are not as easily adopted as before.
  If this amendment is passed, the unintended consequence will be to 
prevent the Bureau of Land Management from properly managing. And today 
this amendment is moot. The Bureau of Land Management today announced 
strict new rules for the sale of wild horses. These changes will ensure 
America's wild horses and burros go to good homes, and the new rules 
will expressly prohibit the sale of these animals for slaughter.
  Specifically, before horses are sold buyers must sign a contract that 
will bind them to providing humane care for the horse or burro. Buyers 
cannot sell or transfer ownership of any of the purchased horses or 
burros to any person or organization that intend to process them for 
commercial products. Anyone falsifying or concealing information in 
that contract is subject to criminal penalties under U.S. law.
  Additionally, the BLM is working to ensure that all three U.S. horse 
processing plants make certain any BLM horses, which are easily 
identified by a unique brand under its mane, are turned away and the 
proper authorities are notified.
  In sum, the new BLM rules will make it a crime to sell wild horses 
for slaughter, yet will allow for the sale of these animals to buyers 
seeking to provide them good caring homes.
  I applaud the Bush administration and the Bureau of Land Management 
for taking responsible action to assure America's wild horses and 
burros are cared for, and I would like to thank the Ford Motor Company 
and the Take Pride in America Program, which this amendment will stop 
dead in its tracks, for supporting BLM in this effort and creating the 
Save the Mustangs Fund.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, and I certainly am one who is not in favor of the 
slaughtering of wild horses, but I am also as a fiscal conservative who 
is concerned about what happens along the way, because we are looking 
at a price of somewhere on the order of $20 million a year to take care 
of the horses that nobody wants to adopt right now.
  There are some 37,000 wild horses and burros roaming on BLM managed 
lands in 10 western States. That is 9,000 more than the carrying 
capacity of the land. In the few seconds I have left, I want to show my 
colleagues this photo. This is from Nevada. This cage was put over this 
grass, and this is what the wild horses have done all around it, in 
terms of what happens in a fairly wet area. You get into the dry areas, 
and they completely overrun the rangeland.
  What we need to do is, if there is a problem with someone violating 
the law, we need to put the criminal penalties back in so they can be 
prosecuted, but the BLM have said they will not issue any contracts 
that will allow for any slaughter. Taking away their ability to sell 
the wild horses, however, will create a huge fiscal burden to the 
Federal Government and the taxpayer and not allow us to properly manage 
these herds.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this debate should be about one of public 
lands and wildlife management and nothing more. And I will be the first 
to say that I do not like to see these wild horses taken off the range, 
but at the same time they have to be properly managed.
  Over the years, we in Congress and those in State governments have 
created a variety of methods to help control animal populations, 
whether it is placing a species under the protection of the Endangered 
Species Act when the numbers are dwindling or allowing increasing 
hunting for various species when the numbers of the species are too 
great. Wild horses should be no different.
  We must remember that wild horses have virtually no natural predators 
and the herd sizes can double every 5 years. If these herds are not 
managed,

[[Page 10367]]

wild horse numbers will increase at alarming rates. Left unmanaged wild 
horses not only degrade our public lands but they also create 
conditions where many times these horses would be unable to survive on 
their own.
  In order to be good stewards of our public lands, these animals must 
be managed, and the only way to manage these herds is to take some of 
these animals off the range. The primary method for controlling horse 
populations has of course been adoption. But, unfortunately, adoptions 
have not kept up with our expanding wild horse and burro herds.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment and support our 
public lands.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on this issue.
  Our public lands are of multiple use and must be managed for a 
variety of purposes, including hunting, grazing, fishing, recreating, 
wildlife, and many other uses. The Horse and Wild Burros Act recognized 
that horses and burros would have to coexist with these other uses and 
have been managed thusly since 1960.
  Unfortunately, horse populations have far exceeded the desirable 
levels for years, causing serious resource damage. Serious-minded 
conservation groups, such as the National Association of Conservation 
Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 
the Nature's Conservancy, and others have recognized the damage caused 
by these horses.
  Balanced management must be restored in the public lands where wild 
horses roam. In an effort to achieve this balance, Congress gave the 
BLM the authority to sell the excess. All this, Mr. Chairman, has been 
said before, and I am not going to go into it again, except I will tell 
you that without this authority the only feasible option is leaving 
unadopted excess animals in contracted long-term holding facilities 
that we are now doing to the cost of at least $9 million a year.
  The loss of this new tool in selling would only mean that priority 
funding will keep going to care for and feed unadoptable animals 
instead of managing the number on the range and in balance with the 
demands of our other resources.
  I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues would see the wisdom 
in turning back this probably well-intended but misdirected amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I might add that BLM has already told us 
that under the Burns language they have no criminal penalties available 
to them. Even though they may put in a contract that a horse cannot be 
taken to slaughter they have no recourse if someone does it.
  I would remind people once again that these are public lands, 214 
million acres of land. We are talking about 30,000 wild horses we need 
to protect. We have companies like Ford Motor Company taking in horses 
now, and we have over 214 entities out in the country doing it. I think 
that there is plenty of money available.
  Also, we would urge the BLM to euthanize horses rather than send them 
to slaughter. That is an option also. But this is a well-intended 
amendment and it would reintroduce the policy that has been the 
accepted policy in the U.S. for 37 years.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky has just 
touched upon a very important point, and that is that there are 
alternatives available to the outright slaughter; adoption and 
euthanization. These are alternatives rather than the slaughter of 
these animals.
  In regard to what the gentleman from Nevada said, that BLM has 
recently done, what BLM has proposed in the last day or two in an 
effort to head off the successful passage of this amendment is illegal 
under the change in law that was made by the omnibus appropriation bill 
last year.
  And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in 
defense of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself on the 
authorizing committee, this change was made in an appropriation bill, 
not in an authorization bill. Therefore, it is incumbent the change or 
reversal be done in an appropriation measure.
  So I would urge that my colleagues look at the humane side of this 
amendment, look at what is only fair to these American icons and vote 
for the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman 
of Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our 
opponents are trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is 
usually the case in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite 
of what is being advocated.
  So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of Interior's 
authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather 
than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of 
ensuring their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption 
efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old unadoptable horses will 
stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities, or as the 
gentleman from Kentucky suggested, euthanized. Oh, that makes a lot of 
sense.
  But this is what you get. This is what you get with this kind of 
policy, horses that are starving to death on the range. The BLM has 
conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program and 
determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses from 
the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production, and poor 
health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005.

                              {time}  1815

  In Cedar City, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed 
from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation.
  It is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2,000 
horses this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this 
amendment are trying to repeal.
  If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses 
will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the 
explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has 
resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of 
their lives in long-term facilities unsuitable for wild horses. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are 
trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case 
in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite of what is being 
advocated.
  So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of the Interior's 
authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather 
than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of 
ensuring that their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption 
efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old, unadoptable horses will 
stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities. Horses on the 
range will, most likely, starve to death.
  BLM has conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program 
and determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses 
from the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production and poor 
health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005. 
In Cedar city, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed 
from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation. It 
is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2000 horses 
this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are 
trying to repeal.
  If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses 
will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the 
explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has 
resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of 
their life in long term unsuitable for wild holding facilities.

[[Page 10368]]

  Because of the overwhelming cost of these facilities at the expense 
of the federal government, the number of horses on the range is still 
well above the appropriate management levels called for in law. 
furthermore, one-half of the entire wild horse and burro operating 
budget is used to take care of ``unadoptable'' horses held in these 
facilities. This amendment would only cause those costs to skyrocket at 
the expense of the adoption program.
  Last year, Congress enacted a law that allowed BLM to sell 
unadoptable horses that are over 10 years old or have been offered 
unsuccessfully for adoption three times, until the appropriate 
management level is reached. These proceeds are then used by BLM to 
help promote and finance their adoption program.
  Currently there are 8400 horses in these long term facilities that 
need to be moved on through the program in order to prevent 
malnutrition and starvation that is associated with the overpopulation 
of the range land herds. By denying the funds to implement the sale 
program for wild horses and burros, this irresponsible amendment would 
eliminate a far more efficient tool in the management of the program. 
By not allowing BLM to keep the herd in manageable numbers, this 
amendment endangers the welfare of the wild horses by exacerbating the 
deplorable conditions these animals must try to survive in where their 
only escape is death by starvation.
  Vote for the welfare of the wild horses. Vote ``no'' on the Rahall-
Whitfield Amendment.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, today I will vote in support of the 
amendment to the FY06 Interior Appropriations Bill, offered by Mr. 
Rahall, that will prevent the Secretary of the Interior from expending 
funds to conduct sales of wild horses for the next fiscal year. That 
said, I am not categorically opposed to the sale of wild horses that 
live on federal lands and will seek to work with my colleagues to find 
a feasible solution to the federal land management challenges that 
underlie this issue.
  Initially, let me indicate that I believe the process by which Wild 
Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act was amended, with language inserted in 
an omnibus appropriations act without any public hearings or comment, 
was extremely inappropriate and that fact alone is grounds for Congress 
to revisit this issue.
  I strongly believe that we must provide the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) and all federal land management agencies the tools and the 
resources they need to conserve our precious public resources. 
Ultimately, this may mean granting horse-sale authority to the BLM. I 
do not believe, however, that these wild horses should end up in 
slaughterhouses. The fact that forty-one wild horses were recently 
slaughtered at a foreign-owned processing facility, and an additional 
fifty-two barely escaped the same fate, clearly demonstrates that the 
current sale program is flawed, despite BLM efforts to implement 
safeguards and pursue a measured approach in administering the sale 
authority.
  Humane alternatives to slaughter obviously exist, and federal 
agencies already have the authority to carry out such humane actions as 
adoption, sterilization, relocation, and placement with qualified 
individuals and organizations. Federal land managers may simply lack 
the resources they need to carry out these alternatives, but the 
answers to such questions are currently unclear. I urge Chairman Pombo 
of the House Committee on Resources to hold hearings on this matter so 
that we can ascertain the status of the BLM's management authorities 
and resources. I pledge to work with him to find solutions to this 
issue. In the meantime, because I believe that a one-year moratorium on 
BLM's sale authority for wild horses is needed to allow this debate, I 
offer my support to the Rahall Amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the 
amendment to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill being 
offered by Mr. Rahall and Mr. Whitfield to help save a national 
treasure--the wild horse. The wild horse is known throughout the world 
as a symbol of the American west, and we should be doing everything we 
can to protect it.
  At the turn of the 20th century there were more than one million 
horses roaming the vast lands of our west, however by 1971 that number 
dropped to approximately 60,000 due to the actions of their main 
predator--humans. Public outcry and the work of a group of citizens 
lead by Wild Horse Annie forced Congress to find a solution and pass 
the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Protection Act to protect the 
wild horse. Throughout the years this law has been eroded, and 
currently, there are only 35,000 wild horses living on our lands today. 
Current law will only make this number decrease more rapidly.
  I was saddened to learn about the provision in last year's omnibus 
appropriations bill that would allow the sale of any wild horse that 
has been rounded up and is more than ten years old. Because of this 
provision, at least forty-one wild horses have needlessly been 
slaughtered. If we do not pass this amendment to ensure that no tax 
dollars are used for any sale of wild thousands more could lose their 
lives.
  There is no need for this senseless slaughter. There are other 
options that we can explore rather than killing this majestic animal. 
The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over one hundred herd 
management areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size 
of the herds manageable. There is simply no reason for these horses to 
be slaughtered for use as meat in other countries.
  The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved 
literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of 
adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our 
history. William Shakespeare once stated that horses were, ``As full of 
spirit as the month of May, and as gorgeous as the sun in Midsummer.'' 
I can say it no better and encourage all of my colleagues to join me 
and support the Rahall-Whitfield amendment and help save the wild 
horse.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Rahall 
amendment. Although I appreciate the good intentions of this amendment, 
I am deeply concerned about its potential for unintended consequences. 
In restricting the ability of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 
sell wild horses and burros under the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, 
we are also restricting opportunities for responsible owners or groups 
to purchase horses that might have otherwise been sentenced to spend 
their lives in holding facilities or to starve on our rangelands. I 
disagree with the actions of individuals who purchased horses under the 
Act and then sold them to a slaughter plant; however, I do not believe 
that we should prohibit responsible people from purchasing wild horses 
due to the actions of a few.
  This morning, the BLM announced new regulations that will strictly 
prohibit individuals who purchase wild horses from sending these 
animals to slaughter. The BLM has also entered into a partnership with 
Ford Motor Company to help protect these wild horses for future 
generations. I applaud the BLM for their proactive stance on this 
issue, and I am hopeful that their initiatives will be successful so 
that other horses are sent to slaughter.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in Nevada, a state that is home 
to more wild horses than all other states combined. Although I agree 
that wild horses are a symbol of the American West, I also believe that 
it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these animals are 
managed, protected, and controlled in an effective manner. It is a fact 
that the current number of wild horses in the nation greatly exceeds 
the ability of the BLM or the land to handle these animals. This 
explosive growth causes significant resource damage, as well as damage 
to the animals themselves. The adoption authority granted under the 
Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 has historically failed to keep up 
with the growth of the wild horse population. We must work to maintain 
responsible and humane alternatives, such as sale authority, in order 
to ensure that these animals are properly cared for.
  Our wild horses are already competing for scarce sources of food and 
water on rangelands in arid states like Nevada, causing many of them to 
waste into skin and bones. I believe that some of these horses should 
be allowed to be sold to good homes, where they can receive proper 
nourishment and veterinary care, as opposed to competing for little 
food and water in the wild or being held in long-term holding pens. 
This is why I am developing legislation that would offer an incentive 
for responsible people who would like to adopt or purchase a horse 
under the Wild Horse and Burro Act. This incentive will be dependent on 
a number of requirements, one of which will be that these animals 
cannot be sold to slaughter. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on this issue.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) will be postponed.

[[Page 10369]]

  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. 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. Doolittle:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:

       Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Department of the Interior may be used to implement the 
     first proviso under the heading ``United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service-land acquisition''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations 
bill that is the subject of this amendment would allow the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to sell public lands in the Lower Klamath and Tule 
Lake Wildlife Refuges, and use the profits from the land sales to buy 
water rights.
  None of the delegation, which, I might add, is represented by four of 
us from the areas that represents this area, had approved this 
provision; and the Department of the Interior failed to communicate 
their desire to implement this program to the relevant Members of 
Congress.
  As Members of Congress whose constituents would be affected by a 
provision such as this, we feel it is necessary to have time to review 
the proposal in order to ensure that the proposed program best suits 
the needs of the local communities in our districts. I might add that 
this event represents a trend of continuous poor communication by the 
Department of the Interior and therefore we must ask that our amendment 
be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
bringing this to our attention, and we have no objection to the 
gentleman's amendment at this time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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. Hastings of Florida:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Executive Order 12898 (Federal 
     Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
     Populations and Low-Income Populations) or to delay the 
     implementation of that Order.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2361 that is 
of critical importance to the health and well-being of minority and 
low-income communities throughout the United States.
  In an effort to cut down on the time constraints, let me just briefly 
explain the amendment. It prohibits the EPA from using funds in this 
bill to work in contravention of Executive Order 12898 and delay the 
implementation of that order.
  My amendment makes clear Congress's support for the executive order 
and its original intention to achieve health and environmental equity 
in minority and low-income communities.
  Mr. Chairman, to seek out environmental justice is an effort to 
achieve health and environmental equity across all community lines. In 
adopting my amendment, Congress will call on EPA to move forward with 
the identification of at-risk minority and low-income communities so 
appropriate steps can be taken to improve their health and well-being.
  Justice should never be reserved only for those who can afford to 
help themselves. I ask for my colleagues' support to ensure EPA takes 
the appropriate steps to protect minority and low-income communities 
from continued environmental injustices.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires 
EPA to comply with the executive order by the first President Bush 
dealing with environmental justice. We have no objection to the 
amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the 
findings of the EPA Inspector General Report and those in support of 
the amendment.

 Evaluation Report: EPA Needs To Consistently Implement the Intent of 
the Executive Order on Environmental Justice--Report No. 2004-P-00007--
                             March 1, 2004


                           Executive Summary

     Purpose
       In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, 
     ``Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
     Populations and Low-income Populations,'' to ensure such 
     populations are not subjected to a disproportionately high 
     level of environmental risk. The overall objective of this 
     evaluation was to determine how the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) is integrating environmental justice 
     into its day-to-day operations. Specifically, we sought to 
     answer the following questions:
       How has the Agency implemented Executive Order 12898 and 
     integrated its concepts into EPA's regional and program 
     offices?
       How are environmental justice areas defined at the regional 
     levels and what is the impact?
     Results in brief
       EPA has not fully implemented Executive Order 12898 nor 
     consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-
     to-day operations. EPA has not identified minority and low-
     income, nor identified populations addressed in the Executive 
     Order, and has neither defined nor developed criteria for 
     determining disproportionately impacted. Moreover, in 2001, 
     the Agency restated its commitment to environmental justice 
     in a manner that does not emphasize minority and low-income 
     populations, the intent of the Executive Order.
       Although the Agency has been actively involved in 
     implementing Executive Order 12898 for 10 years, it has not 
     developed a clear vision or a comprehensive strategic plan, 
     and has not established values, goals, expectations, and 
     performance measurements. We did note that the Agency made an 
     attempt to issue an environmental justice toolkit; endorsed 
     environmental justice training; and required that all 
     regional and programmatic offices submit ``Action Plans'' to 
     develop some accountability for environmental justice 
     integration.
       In the absence of environmental justice definitions, 
     criteria, or standards from the Agency, many regional and 
     program offices have taken steps, individually, to implement 
     environmental justice policies. This has resulted in 
     inconsistent approaches by the regional offices. Thus, the 
     implementation of environmental justice actions is dependent 
     not only on minority and income status but on the EPA region 
     in which the person resides. Our comparison of how 
     environmental justice protocols used by three different 
     regions would apply to the same city showed a wide disparity 
     in protected populations.
       We believe the Agency is bound by the requirements of 
     Executive Order 12898 and does not have the authority to 
     reinterpret the order. The Acting Deputy Administrator needs 
     to reaffirm that the Executive Order 12898 applies 
     specifically to minority and low-income populations that are 
     disproportionately impacted. After 10 years, there is an 
     urgent need for the Agency to standardize environmental 
     justice definitions, goals, and measurements for the 
     consistent implementation and integration of environmental 
     justice at EPA.
     Recommendations
       We recommended that the Acting Deputy Administrator issue a 
     memorandum reaffirming that Executive Order 12898 is an

[[Page 10370]]

     Agency priority and that minority and low-income populations 
     disproportionately impacted will be the beneficiaries of this 
     Executive Order. Additionally, EPA should establish specific 
     time frames for the development of definitions, goals, and 
     measurements. Furthermore, we recommended that EPA develop 
     and articulate a clear vision on the Agency's approach to 
     environmental justice. We also recommended that EPA develop a 
     comprehensive strategic plan, ensure appropriate training is 
     provided, clearly define the mission of the Office of 
     Environmental Justice, determine if adequate resources are 
     being applied to environmental justice, and develop a 
     systematic approach to gathering information related to 
     environmental justice.
     Agency comments and OIG evaluation
       In the response to our draft report, the Agency disagreed 
     with the central premise that Executive Order 12898 requires 
     the Agency to identify and address the environmental effects 
     of its programs on minority and low-income populations. The 
     Agency believes the Executive Order ``instructs the Agency to 
     identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse 
     human health or environmental, effects of it (sic) programs, 
     policies, and activities.'' The Agency does not take into 
     account the inclusion of the minority and low-income 
     populations, and indicated it is attempting to provide 
     environmental justice for everyone. While providing adequate 
     environmental justice to the entire population is 
     commendable, doing so had already been EPA's mission prior to 
     implementation of the Executive Order; we do not believe the 
     intent of the Executive Order was simply to reiterate that 
     mission. We believe the Executive Order was specifically 
     issued to provide environmental justice to minority and/or 
     low-income populations due to concerns that those populations 
     had been disproportionately impacted by environmental risk.
       A summary of the Agency's response and our evaluation is 
     included at the end of each chapter. The Agency's complete 
     response and our evaluation of that response are included in 
     Appendices D and E, respectively.
                                  ____

                                                     May 19, 2005.
     Re support the Hastings Environmental Justice Amendment.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of our organizations, 
     members, and supporters nationwide, we write to express our 
     support for Representative Alcee Hastings' (D-FL) 
     environmental justice amendment that will be offered to the 
     Interior-EPA Appropriations bill.
       The Hastings amendment will ensure that funds spent at the 
     U.S. EPA cannot be spent in any way that conflicts with the 
     1994 Executive Order ``Federal Actions to Address 
     Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
     Populations.'' EO 12898 directs each federal agency to 
     develop an environmental justice strategy ``that identifies 
     and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human 
     health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, or 
     activities on minority populations and low-income 
     populations'' with the goal of achieving equity in federally-
     funded programs for those communities.
       The Hastings amendment is needed to get EPA to take the 
     next steps that are needed to achieve the promise of fairness 
     and equal treatment for minority and low-income communities 
     in federal environmental programs.
       Studies conducted by both government and non-government 
     panels, including the National Academy of Sciences and the 
     United Church of Christ have found that minority and low-
     income communities experience greater and more frequent 
     exposures to unhealthy levels of environmental pollutants 
     than other communities.
       This problem was first addressed at EPA in 1992 when 
     President George H.W. Bush created the Office of 
     Environmental Equity at EPA (now the Office of Environmental 
     Justice); it was addressed a second time by President 
     Clinton, when he issued the Executive Order in 1994. Yet the 
     EPA has so far failed to adopt needed measures to 
     meaningfully address and correct this unequal treatment under 
     environmental laws. The agency's failure to move forward on 
     the important issue of environmental justice has been 
     documented recently by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 
     and the EPA's Office of the Inspector General.
       The Hastings amendment does not place new requirements on 
     the EPA, but rather provides direction for the agency to 
     fulfill its longstanding obligation to ensure that minority 
     and low-income populations are not exposed to dangerous and 
     disproportionately high levels of air pollution, water 
     contamination, toxic hazards, or other environmental and 
     health threats in their communities.
       We urge you to cast your vote in support of the Hastings 
     environmental justice amendment.
           Sincerely,
       Roger Rivera, President, National Hispanic Environmental 
     Council; Robert D. Bullard, Director, Environmental Justice 
     Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University (Atlanta, GA); 
     Ansje Miller, Director, Environmental Justice & Climate 
     Change Initiative (Oakland, CA); Beverly Wright, Director, 
     Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, Dillard 
     University (New Orleans, LA); Craig Williams, Director, 
     Chemical Weapons Working Group (Berea, KY); Martin Hayden, 
     Legislative Director, Earthjustice; Michael Greene, Director, 
     Center for Environmental Health (Oakland, CA); and David 
     Christian, President, Serving Alabama's Future Environment 
     (Jacksonville, AL).
       Hilary Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau, NAACP; Martina 
     Cartwright, Director, Environmental Law & Justice Center, 
     Texas Southern University (Houston, TX); Peggy Shepherd, 
     Executive Director, West Harlem Environmental Action (New 
     York City, NY); Henry Clark, Director, West County Toxics 
     Coalition (Richmond, CA); Tom Stephens, Director, National 
     Lawyers Guild, Sugar Law Center (Detroit, MI); Luke Cole, 
     Director, Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment (San 
     Francisco, CA); Rufus Kinney, President, Families Concerned 
     About Nerve Gas Incineration (Anniston, AL); and Reverend 
     N.Q. Reynolds, President, Calhoun County Chapter of the 
     Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Anniston, AL).
       Robert O. Muller, President, Vietnam Veterans of America 
     Foundation; Evelyn Yates, President, Pine Bluff for Safe 
     Disposal (Pine Bluff, AR); John Nunn, President, Coalition 
     for Safe Disposal (Worton, MD); Karyn Jones, President, GASP 
     (Hermiston, OR); J. Daryl Byler, Director, Mennonite Central 
     Committee Washington Office; Vernice Miller-Travis, Miller-
     Travis & Associates, (Washington, DC); Donele Wilkins, 
     Executive Director, Detroiters Working for Environmental 
     Justice; and Monique Harden, Co-Director, Nathalie Walker, 
     Co-Director, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights (New 
     Orleans, LA).
       Jeanette Champion, President, Citizens for Environmental 
     Justice (Anniston, AL); Sara Morgan, President, Citizens 
     Against Incineration at Newport (Newport, IN); Jason 
     Groenwald, Director, Families Against Incinerator Risk (Salt 
     Lake City, UT); Peter Hille, President, Kentucky 
     Environmental Foundation (Berea, KY); Douglas Meiklejohn, 
     Executive Director, New Mexico Environmental Law Center 
     (Santa Fe, NM); Rev. Anthony Evans, Director, National Black 
     Church Initiative; and National Black Environmental Justice 
     Network.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the idea behind environmental justice is 
simple. People of color and people of limited means bear more than 
their fair share of environmental problems--like exposure to 
pollution--and are denied more than their fair share of environmental 
benefits--like access to natural areas or clean water.
  It is also important to point out that if you were to look at both 
race and poverty to see which one would best predict locations of 
environmental contaminants in the air or water, you would find race to 
be the better predictor, according to studies dating back to 1987.
  Here's another way to look at it: Many studies have found that 
middle-income people of color live near more contamination than low-
income white people. Enforcement of environmental laws is also less 
prevalent and weaker in communities of color. Penalties for hazardous 
waste violations were found to be roughly 500 percent higher when those 
violations happened in mostly white communities than when they happened 
in communities of color.
  In 1992, then President Bush created an Office of Environmental 
Justice in the EPA precisely to begin to deal with this problem. In 
1994, President Clinton expanded the directive's scope and 
applicability, again, in recognition of the seriousness of the problem.
  But now, the Executive Order and the EPA's Office of Environmental 
Justice are being ignored to death by the Administration. The National 
Environmental Justice Advisory Council is withering away. The EPA 
Inspector General in 2004 found that the EPA failed to comply with the 
Executive Order and changed their interpretation of the order to avoid 
an emphasis on people of color and low-income people. The U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights found in 2002 that federal agencies did not 
incorporate environmental justice into their core missions as directed 
by the Executive Order. Congress must step in to restore these efforts 
and take them to the next level.
  The Hastings amendment would do exactly that. Every community, every 
person deserves equal access to clean air, clean water, natural areas, 
and healthy food. I urge my colleagues to support the Hastings 
amendment.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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


[[Page 10371]]

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act (other than 
     appropriations required to be made by a provision of law) are 
     hereby reduced by $261,591,250.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is identical to those I have offered to 
appropriations bills for the past couple of years. The amendment trims 
outlays for H.R. 2361 by 1 percent under the Holman Rule, which means 
if the amendment passes, it will be up to the administration to 
determine where the cuts will fall.
  I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member. As always, 
they have done a solid job of this. I understand the dynamics of 
bringing a bill out of committee. They have done a good job. They are 
below what would have been expected, but we are still not at a balanced 
budget; and so I offer this amendment.
  In fact, just the other day a Democratic colleague mentioned this 
bill and said the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is ``as 
tight as a snare drum,'' and I take that as an extreme compliment. That 
said, I do not think the funding levels of this bill are reflective of 
a country with a $340 billion deficit.
  The amendment would trim a penny on the dollar across the agencies 
funded by this bill. Despite the stripped-down character of the bill, I 
think there are still some areas worthy of examination.
  For example, the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts. Some years ago 
as a member of the House Interior Committee, I heard testimony on de-
accessioning the Kennedy Center from the National Park Service. James 
Wolfensohn, its director and later head of the World Bank, pleaded with 
the subcommittee to cut the center loose. He said the center needed 
millions of dollars in structural repairs, yet he could not move 
forward on them because of the Park Service contracting requirements 
and inflated costs. ``Let us raise our own funds and we will be able to 
do this much more efficiently,'' he said. And so we did.
  We got rid of the Kennedy Center, except that we did not really. The 
only National Park Service cut loose in the past 20 years, supposedly, 
and yet in this bill it includes $17.8 million for operation and 
maintenance at the Kennedy Center and $10 million for construction.
  Now, I know the Kennedy Center has serious structural problems, but 
given the legislative history of this issue, I would like to know how 
long we are going to continue to have this center that we have to fund. 
That is just one example.
  I question whether the various agencies really need all of the new 
vehicles authorized in this bill. I estimate at least $5 million for 
those. I question some of the administrative accounts.
  The chairman has done a fine job in reining in costs, particularly in 
the area of land acquisition; but at a time of a $300-plus million 
deficit, we need to do more. This amendment would do that. Even in a 
small way, I encourage support of this amendment.
  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.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The 
gentleman makes good points, and if he and I were the only two Members 
of Congress, we could probably sit down and come up with a tighter 
bill. There are 435 Members in the House, and we have 100 over in the 
Senate. We have tried to put together a balanced bill. Because of that, 
we have cut many things and had a very difficult time in doing it. I 
would have to strongly object to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have fought over the last few years to reinsert 
funding for the Park Service to take care of their uncontrollable 
costs, and we had a hard time doing that. We find out that 1 percent, 
when it is added up, is $261 million. That is a very significant hit on 
these accounts in this important agency.
  I would urge that Members support the chairman and we vote this 
amendment down.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. 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. Hefley) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. 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. 5 offered by Mr. Stupak:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to finalize, issue, implement, or enforce the 
     proposed policy of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     entitled ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
     (NPDES) Permit Requirements for Municipal Wastewater 
     Treatment During Wet Weather Conditions'', dated November 3, 
     2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 63042).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment would stop the EPA from moving forward 
with a dangerous proposal that would allow more partially treated 
sewage into our waterways. This morning the EPA issued a statement 
saying it will not finalize its current proposal. The EPA has been 
mulling over this policy change for nearly 2 years.
  I am pleased to see that the EPA has now recognized that this policy 
proposal is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for 
business. Now Congress needs to seal the deal by passing our amendment 
to make sure this misguided proposal is gone for good.
  Let me clarify something that has been misunderstood. Our amendment 
will not cost a thing. It will not change a thing. It leaves things 
just the way they are right now.
  Currently, clean water rules say during major wet weather events, 
sewage treatment plants are allowed to combine the filtered but 
untreated human sewage with fully treated waste water before discharge, 
in a process known as ``blending,'' when no other feasible alternative 
exists.
  The EPA's 2003 proposal would weaken current environmental standards 
by allowing facilities to discharge largely untreated sewage virtually 
anytime it rains. Our amendment simply stops the EPA from weakening 
existing environmental standards and requires that sewage be 
effectively treated to remove the viruses, parasites, and bacteria that 
make people sick.
  I know many of my colleagues are hearing that this amendment will 
pose astronomical costs on local communities. That is simply not true. 
This amendment will not cost communities a dime. Our amendment would 
maintain the current policy. It would not prevent utilities from 
blending under any of the current allowable legal circumstances. It 
would merely support

[[Page 10372]]

current safeguards which do not allow blending when full treatment is 
feasible. Let me repeat that. Our amendment will not ban blending.
  We have a clear policy choice. Should we provide effective treatment 
for sewage, remove pollutants that poison drinking water sources, close 
beaches, contaminate shellfish, make people sick, and rob the water of 
oxygen the fish need to breathe? Or should we allow routine discharges 
of inadequately treated sewage virtually every time it rains? To ask 
the question is to answer it. The choice is clear just as it has been 
under the Clean Water Act for the past 30 years.
  Congress needs to send a strong, clear message on behalf of our 
constituents. We do not want human waste in the water we drink and swim 
in. As a step in the right direction, vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan 
Stupak/Shaw/Pallone/Miller amendment.

            Groups Weighing in Against EPA's Sewage Proposal

       American Littoral Society; American Public Health 
     Association; American Shore and Beach Preservation Assoc.; 
     American Rivers; Children's Environmental Health Network; 
     Citizens Campaign for the Environment; Clean Ocean Action; 
     Clean Water Action; Coast Alliance; East Coast Shellfish 
     Growers Association; Earthjustice; US Conference of Catholic 
     Bishops; Environmental Integrity Project; and Coalition on 
     the Environment and Jewish Life.
       Lake Michigan Federation; League of Conservation Voters; 
     National Fisheries Management Institute; Natural Resources 
     Defense Council; New York Rivers United; Pacific Shellfish 
     Growers Association; Physicians for Social Responsibility; 
     Riverkeeper, Inc.; Sierra Club; Surfers' Environmental 
     Alliance; Surfrider Foundation; The Ocean Conservancy; US 
     PIRG; and US Conference on Catholic Bishops.

  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this concern and want 
to clarify this issue for him.
  The short answer is ``no.''
  My amendment would not change the existing requirements for CSO 
communities, which are outlined in the 1994 CSO Policy and were 
incorporated in the CWA in 2000.
  The CSO policy allows combined sewer systems to bypass secondary 
treatment when it is not feasible to provide full treatment for sewage.
  Bypassing is allowed under the CSO policy as part of a long-term plan 
to minimize sewer overflows and maximize treatment.
  EPA's proposed sewage dumping policy is inconsistent with the 1994 
CSO policy because it would allow bypassing full treatment even when it 
is feasible.
  The proposed policy would undercut those communities investing in 
long-term solutions that are protective of public health, the 
environment, and downstream economies.
  The proposed policy would also allow separate sanitary sewer systems 
to bypass secondary treatment and discharge largely untreated sewage 
even if full treatment would be feasible, as it should be under normal 
operating conditions for most well operated and maintained separate 
sanitary systems.
  Given the heavy load of viruses, parasites, bacteria, toxic 
chemicals, and other contaminants in sewage, it is critical that sewage 
treatment plants strive to achieve full treatment, not just discharge 
poorly treated sewage because it is cheaper to do so.
  I also incorporated Mr. Meehan's statement relating blending policy 
to this statement.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  First I all I would like to read a letter from the Assistant 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency:
  ``Dear Chairman Taylor:
  ``This is regarding the November 2003 Draft Blending Policy which 
addresses the management of peak wet weather flows at municipal 
wastewater treatment facilities. The draft policy received extensive 
public comment and has been the subject of considerable ongoing 
discussion and debate, including being the focus of a recent hearing 
before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
  ``Based on our review of all of the information received, we have no 
intention of finalizing the blending policy as proposed in November 
2003. We continue to review policy and regulatory options to manage 
this issue.''
  I think this letter is self-explanatory.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), is a good man and a good friend of mine and I 
think he is well intentioned, but I think my colleagues should know 
that this amendment is opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the 
National Rural Water Association, and 38 other national and State water 
organizations whose job it is to protect the environment and provide 
communities with clean water.
  Let me tell you why these organizations oppose this amendment. 
Communities all over the country have wastewater treatment plants that 
are designed and permitted to allow blending during extreme wet weather 
events. That is only a very small percentage of the time, usually maybe 
2 or 3 percent.
  These plant designs allow communities to prevent sewer overflows and 
meet all Clean Water Act standards in a cost-effective way. If blending 
is prohibited, then cities like Atlanta, Detroit, Cincinnati, Tacoma, 
Portland, Oregon, Boston and many, many others would have to spend 
billions of dollars to change their wastewater treatment plant designs, 
all to deal with extreme wet weather events that occur only once or 
twice a year. Some individual cities could have to spend as much as 
$100 million on this or perhaps even more.
  Blending has been mischaracterized as the discharge of raw sewage. 
This is not true. Here are the facts. During normal dry weather 
operation of a typical wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater 
receives three stages of treatment: solids removal, biological 
treatment, and disinfection. During extreme wet weather events, 
wastewater flows can exceed the capacity of the biological treatment 
unit. In those cases a plant then treats it twice. This blending does 
not mean the discharge of raw sewage into any river or waterway. These 
flows are recombined and blended with wastewater chemical treatments 
and so forth and disinfection so that it meets all Clean Water Act 
water quality and technology-based treatment standards.
  This practice is not a bypass around treatment because it is part of 
the plant's permitted treatment design.
  We held a hearing on this. Let me just tell you a few quotes from 
some of the experts.
  One person from the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 
said, ``In the case of the Ohio River, without our blending policy more 
untreated overflows would occur and the water quality impacts of wet 
weather would be more damaging.''
  The head of an agency in California said, ``With blending, our member 
communities can provide the maximum clean water treatment possible to 
unpredictable, exceptionally heavy rains and snowmelt, while still 
meeting permit limits which are set to protect public health and the 
environment.''
  A water executive from Little Rock, Arkansas, said, ``Blending 
protects public utility infrastructure by preventing washout of 
sensitive biological systems and protects public health and private 
property.''
  Another official said, ``A prohibition of blending will result in the 
need for extremely expensive facility upgrades that will not result in 
any meaningful improvement to water quality or protection of the public 
health.''
  If we prohibit blending, it will cause worse environmental trouble 
than if we allow these experts and these utilities to proceed with it. 
There is a lot of misunderstanding on this issue. What we should do is 
we should work with the gentleman from Michigan because what he wants 
to accomplish and what we want to accomplish is really the same thing. 
We need to have more work on this before we leap into this very 
complicated situation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.

[[Page 10373]]


  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to offer this amendment along with my 
colleagues because the EPA's proposed guidance would hurt water 
treatment practices already in place in my home State of Florida.
  Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection support this amendment. I am not here to impose any added 
costs to treatment plants. There is a rumor, as has just been expressed 
by my friend from Tennessee, that our amendment would cost upwards of 
$200 billion in added costs to cities. This is just plain wrong. Our 
amendment does not impose any new regulations. It simply allows cities 
and States to maintain their current level of water treatment 
practices. Florida has a higher level of treatment and should not be 
forced to step back.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Stupak-Shaw-Pallone-
Miller amendment. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for safe, clean water.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), also a cosponsor of our amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  Let me be very clear. This amendment would not ban all blending. In 
fact, it would have no effect on any currently permitted uses of 
blending. The Clean Water Act already says you can blend but only 
during a serious rain event. The EPA's proposed policy change, however, 
would let sewer operators bypass secondary treatment anytime it rains. 
That is what really could add a lot more sewage to our waters.
  I have been fighting this proposal every step of the way and the EPA 
has finally said they are not going to do it. However, we must make 
sure that they do not. I understand that the EPA is now saying they are 
no longer going to finalize this proposed policy change, but they could 
change their mind tomorrow.
  It should be a very easy vote for Members. We are saying that this is 
a bad idea. The EPA is now saying it is a bad idea. We are just making 
sure that the EPA actually does what it says it will do, because, who 
knows, tomorrow they may change their mind. But I do not want anybody 
here to think that all blending is going to be banned. You can still do 
it during a serious rain event, but you should not be allowed to do it 
anytime you want because that is going to increase tremendously the 
volume of material that does not have secondary treatment. And you will 
not have secondary treatment if you allow this policy to go ahead. It 
will be able to make an exemption anytime you please, and that is the 
problem. Our waters will get dirty. It will affect our tourism, our 
shellfish in coastal States around the country. Do not allow it to 
happen.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Does the gentleman intend his amendment to have any impact on the 
policies of the EPA regions and States that allow blending today and 
have issued permits allowing blending?
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question, but 
our amendment does not intend to have any impact on any of the existing 
policies of EPA regions and States that allow blending or on any Clean 
Water Act permit that allows blending. We are saying maintain the 
status quo.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we 
would accept the gentleman's amendment under that representation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Miller), also a coauthor of this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank my good friend for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously we are here tonight to talk about just a 
commonsense issue in regards to this blending issue. I, in fact, have 
been involved in the construction of and the management of wastewater 
treatment plants. Blending is used obviously in very high water times 
and I think that that is an issue that we have heard raised tonight. We 
are not in any way trying to stop the issue of blending during the 
storm season, but the fact of the matter is, in 2003 there were more 
than 18,000 closings or advisories around the United States and that 
was 5,000 more than ever at any time before. These closings were due to 
fecal coliform increases in bacterial levels outside of the norm.
  The fact of the matter is it does not take a medical degree to 
understand that this is a health issue for our families and our 
children that are out there that are actually swimming sometimes in 
this waste. In fact, we are looking at the blending of untreated solid 
free waste with treated sewage. The Clean Water Act already allows for 
that blending to take place.
  As the gentleman from Michigan says, we are not trying to change the 
last resort issue. What we are trying to do is to set up an issue where 
we cannot have these wastewater treatment plants continue to dump more 
less treated or smaller treated wastewater into our waterways.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
offered by my colleagues which will prevent the EPA from finalizing a 
policy that may increase the risks of waterborne illness and harm our 
Nation's waterways. Thirty-three years after the passage of the Clean 
Water Act, the EPA should not be implementing policies which will allow 
more sewage into our waterways. Such a policy could result in water 
systems with more pathogens, viruses, bacteria and parasites that make 
people sick, contaminate our drinking water supplies, harm fish and 
other aquatic life.
  I believe this is a misguided policy. The use of secondary biological 
treatment to remove bacteria and pathogens from sewage has been in 
place for decades in order to protect the public from waterborne 
illnesses, and I believe we must preserve these longstanding standards. 
Blending waste streams at times other than natural emergencies will 
result in an unnecessary discharge of harmful contaminants into our 
waters. We have a responsibility to fully treat all wastewater, and the 
EPA's proposal to bypass the crucial second treatment step and allow 
more bacteria into our local water sources is just plain wrong.
  We should be focused more on strengthening the federal commitment to 
water infrastructure, which we all know has been stagnant for many 
years now.
  I plan soon on reintroducing my bill, the Clean Water Infrastructure 
Financing Act, which will authorize funding levels in the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund which better reflect the considerable depth of our 
Nation's wastewater infrastructure needs.
  I urge strong support for this amendment because we must invest in 
effective sewage treatment to help ensure that our constituents are 
protected from health hazards. Effective sewage treatment will reduce 
the risk of waterborne illness and protect public health.
  Again, I thank my colleagues Mr. Stupak, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Miller and Mr. 
Pallone for offering this important amendment and urge strong support 
from my colleagues.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dicks and 
their staff for their hard work with the difficult task of putting this 
bill together.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) who supports the 
amendment.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina for agreeing to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, water is one of the most precious resources Floridians 
possess. Representing several of the State's largest water reserves, 
protecting the quality and availability of our water has always been a 
top priority.
  Unfortunately, the EPA is proposing this dumping rule that would 
damage

[[Page 10374]]

the integrity of America's water. The proposed rule which they now have 
said that they are not going to implement was not a very well thought 
out one. The blended wastewater concept would then be discharged into 
our waterways. The consequences of this strategy could be very dire. 
Certainly in a State like Florida where we have more than our share of 
heavy rains during rainy season, and you can be darn sure we are going 
to have a lot of hurricanes again, it would be virtually playing 
Russian roulette every time that citizens would be drinking tap water.
  I cannot in good conscience allow the rule to go forward and have 
that communicated to the EPA. I am very delighted that today a letter 
did come from them that they are not going forward with this. But 
keeping it in the legislation is very wise policy.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who has been helping us on this 
amendment.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in 
strong support of the Stupak amendment to the Interior appropriations 
bill. This amendment will stop the EPA's ill-advised proposal to allow 
treatment plants to dump untreated sewage into our Nation's waterways.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA's proposed change is just plain a bad idea. In 
fact, just this morning as we have heard, the EPA recognized just how 
bad an idea it was and announced that it was reconsidering its 
proposal. It is a bad idea to permit our water to contain bacteria, 
viruses, parasites and intestinal worms capable of causing cholera, 
hepatitis, gastroenteritis and dysentery. The EPA steps backward when 
it advocates for polluters to discharge halfway-treated sewage into our 
Nation's waters. Notwithstanding today's EPA decision to reconsider its 
proposed policy change, it remains necessary to pass this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and ensure 
that the EPA does not change its mind again and attempt to impose an 
imprudent sewage blending policy on America at some point in the 
future.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who has been very helpful on this 
amendment.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I 
want to really applaud the gentleman from Michigan for putting together 
a truly bipartisan amendment that not only put together a broad 
coalition of Members in this House, including the chairman of the 
subcommittee, who has accepted the amendment, to stop this blending 
regulation.

                              {time}  1845

  We all saw when Milwaukee dumped over 4 billion gallons of sewage 
into Lake Michigan just last year and an incredible rise in the number 
of beach closings along the Illinois shoreline: Nine in Glencoe, 12 in 
Wilmette, 34 in Winnetka, a rising tide of dirty water that would have 
been increased with this.
  But what this bipartisan amendment has done is it has backed down the 
EPA. Thanks to his work and Members on both sides of this aisle, the 
EPA has largely accepted what this amendment would have already laid 
out and have stopped this regulation. It is going to listen to the 
Congress on environmental protection, and I really want to thank my 
subcommittee chairman for accepting this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The time of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Taylor) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Can the chairman clarify that the intent of our amendment is to 
ensure that all EPA regions and all the permits that are written will 
comply with the current Clean Water Act rules and safeguards? Is that 
his intent also?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is 
my understanding, but I would like to talk with the gentleman. This is 
a new area, a new part of the committee, and I would like to work with 
him as we go on with the bill toward conference. But that is my 
understanding.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
with the understanding, and it is certainly our understanding, that all 
EPA regions and all permits that are written must comply with the Clean 
Water Act rules and safeguards, and that is the only thing we are 
trying to do here. We are not trying to change anything. So with the 
assurances from the chairman that he will make sure that that is what 
we are going to do and we have some time to clarify this even further, 
we will not ask for a recorded vote. We accept his courtesy that he 
will accept our amendment and make it a part of the bill, and we look 
forward to working with him on this and other related matters.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) also for 
his work in this area, along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) and the Members on our side.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman's activity. We will work with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I had intended to offer an amendment to 
the Stupak amendment because I am certainly in support of the content. 
But given the agreement that has been reached between the two parties, 
there is no need for me to offer that amendment.
  I would simply observe, however, that I hope we do not kid ourselves. 
It is very good that this amendment is being adopted, but it again 
illustrates the need for, in fact, increasing, rather than reducing, 
the amount of money that we put into the Clean Water Revolving Fund, 
and I would hope that we would remember this as the bill goes through 
the system because we can avoid controversies such as this. We can 
avoid putting EPA into a position of even considering such an 
outlandish regulation if we are providing much more by way of financial 
help to the communities so that they will not be concerned about 
stiffening EPA regulations to protect public health.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. 
We have an agreement. I do not think we can strike the last word when 
we have a time agreement.
  Would the chairman rule on that and inform me?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House of earlier today, 
only the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
Related Agencies may offer a pro forma amendment to a pending 
amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan, for his commitment to protecting public health 
and the environment.
  Over the last century, the nation's wastewater infrastructure has 
resulted in enormous strides in improving public health.
  I represent the Merrimack Valley region of Massachusetts.
  The Merrimack River was once among the most polluted waterways in the 
nation.
  Moreover, the northeast is ridden with outmoded sewer infrastructure 
that is designed to overflow into public waterways.
  During heavy weather, these combined sewer systems steer raw, 
untreated sewage into rivers like the Merrimack, and bays such as Casco 
bay in Maine.
  The challenge to control cso's has been both of technical and 
financial feasibility.
  Some treatment plants use a blending bypass during periods of heavy 
weather so that cso's receive some treatment rather than none at all.
  In economically-distressed communities such as Lawrence, Haverhill, 
and Lowell that have combined sewer systems, it is not currently 
possible to provide full treatment for all sewage during wet weather.

[[Page 10375]]

  I seek assurance from the gentleman from Michigan that his amendment 
would not prohibit cso communities from blending if it is authorized by 
their permits in accordance with the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the 
Stupak/Shaw anti-sewage dumping amendment. Each year, 850 billion 
gallons of contaminated sewage poisons lakes, rivers, and oceans each 
year. Discharging inadequately treated sewage into our waterways harms 
the environment, our constituents' health, and even our economic 
growth. By permitting ``blending'' during standard weather systems, we 
are providing our citizens with a false sense of security that we are 
furnishing them with safe conditions. When the secondary treatment of 
sewage water is sidestepped, the citizens face exposure to viruses, 
parasites, bacteria, and toxic chemicals that can cause Hepatitis A and 
Giardia. Further, this puts small children, the elderly, and those 
already vulnerable by other illnesses with additional life threatening 
conditions. Not only is health at risk, but the economy. Many 
industries work from lake and ocean commodities. Subsequently, blended 
sewage in the water would destroy much of their viable product. In my 
own district, in the heart of Chicago, routine blending will inhibit my 
constituents' use of the lakefront beaches, harm our water industries, 
and make the drinking water dangerous and even deadly.
  These devastating and misguided decisions will damage not only the 
current, and already failing situation, but also our long term 
solutions. By allowing routine blending, it will only increase the 
concentration of the contaminant in our environment. Other solutions 
must be considered. For example, constructing additional facilities to 
hold sewage until it is fully treated can transfer some of the overflow 
problem. Therefore, I urge my fellow colleagues to prohibit these 
policies from being changed. With our continued efforts, we can 
continue to provide a healthy and productive environment for our 
citizens.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much farther are we going to have to 
roll back the clock before we realize the harm that we are doing to our 
environment? Do we have to get to the point of rivers catching on fire 
again?
  The EPA, the agency that is supposed to be protecting our 
environment, is attempting to turn back the clock by releasing a new 
policy that will increase waterborne diseases and deaths.
  This latest EPA policy to allow sewage treatment plants to routinely 
divert untreated sewage into our rivers and oceans, where we get our 
water and where we swim is not something that appeals to me.
  Instead of turning back the clock and allowing sewage to flow freely 
in our rivers, we must increase our investment in upgrading wastewater 
treatment plants. Ironically, this bill actually decreases the amount 
of federal funding for upgrading wastewater treatment plants.
  It is time that we started moving forward and not backward on 
protecting our rivers and our oceans. I urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our communities are on the front lines in 
their attempts to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
  Hundreds of billions of dollars are needed to meet real and pressing 
needs, and the federal government is not paying its fair share.
  As a former Mayor and lifelong resident of Paterson, NJ, I can 
personally attest that our cities are struggling to make ends meet. The 
money to make any wastewater upgrades must come from somewhere, and the 
Congress needs to step up to plate.
  The funding levels in this bill reflect almost a half billion dollars 
in cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund over the past two 
years. My state of New Jersey will have lost $20 million alone.
  EPA's state and tribal assistance grant program is also slashed by 
almost half a billion dollars.
  Enacting these cuts and ignoring these needs undermines our ability 
to treat sewage, particularly during wet weather events.
  It is important that we have uniform clean water regulations across 
our nation. I do believe that our communities need a thoughtful 
blending policy.
  However, the November 2003 policy the EPA has proposed is not the 
right one at this time. If the Stupak Amendment comes to a vote, I will 
support it.
  The EPA can do better, and the Congress should demand better.
  But all sides need to be pragmatic. It is imperative that common 
ground can be found to develop a solution we can all live with.
  A limiting amendment which stops work on the blending issue will not 
benefit our environment and it will not benefit the public health.
  It will certainly not benefit communities and public water utilities 
trying to do the best they can with the limited resources they have 
available.
  I would like to thank my friend from Michigan for bringing this 
amendment to the House floor. He is truly a champion in our quest for 
clean water and should be commended for his work protecting the Great 
Lakes.
  I would also like to thank my Chairman of the Water Resources 
Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan. He is also a champion for clean water, and a 
leader in our quest to provide assistance to local communities for 
their treatment systems.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan would prohibit 
the Environmental Protection Agency from spending any of the funds 
provided by this bill to finalize any new policy related to sewage 
blending.
  Mr. Chairman, when EPA proposed to issue a new policy document on 
sewage blending, I was concerned that it could cause an increase in the 
frequency of blending by those communities that current use the 
practice, and an increase in the number of communities that use the 
practice. That is why I thought the policy was flawed. I do not believe 
that there currently is enough information available to EPA and state 
permit writers to know that any increase in the use of blending is 
protective of human health and the environment. That is why I believe 
that issuing a policy that could increase the use of blending is wrong.
  Sewage blending is the practice of taking partially treated 
wastewater, mixing it with fully treated wastewater, and then relying 
on the dilution to meet discharge limits. I do not believe that sewage 
blending is what was intended when the secondary treatment requirements 
for publicly owned treatment works were put in place by Congress in 
1972.
  Congress intended that all domestic sewage receive a minimum of 
secondary treatment, and greater levels of treatment where water 
quality demanded it. Since sewage blending is a process that is used 
only during periods of high flows, then the question presents itself as 
to whether blending complies with the secondary treatment requirements. 
Even the proponents of blending acknowledge that blending is used only 
in limited high flow circumstances--at all other times the sewage 
otherwise receives full secondary treatment
  The current, acknowledged limitations on the use of blending lead to 
the question--if blending constitutes secondary treatment, then why is 
it not acceptable all the time, or if it does not constitute secondary 
treatment, why is it allowed at all?
  Recently, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water acknowledged, 
``the heart and soul of the Clean Water Act, is that dilution is not 
the solution to pollution, that you need to treat the sewage. Blending 
isn't the solution. It's a short-term fix. [EPA] want[s] to make sure 
that it only occurs in the very limited, narrow circumstances and that 
it meets all requirements in their Clean Water Act permit, and that 
water quality standards downstream are also maintained.''
  Mr. Chairman, increasing the use of blending is not an acceptable 
long-term solution to meeting secondary treatment requirements. I 
support the amendment to bring the expanded use of blending policy to a 
halt.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. 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. 8 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to promulgate regulations without outside auditing to 
     determine the authenticity of the scientific methods used to 
     develop such regulations.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order against the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last year our trade deficit surpassed $670 billion. Our Federal 
budget deficit was more than $300 billion, and we saw too many high-
quality, good-paying

[[Page 10376]]

jobs go overseas. It has become more and more difficult to keep and 
create jobs and small businesses here in America. And when we look 
around at what the world is doing, unless we change the environment 
here in America we are going to become a third-rate economy.
  Over the last generation, starting in the 1960s, Congress has created 
barriers to keeping and creating jobs. We must remove those barriers.
  Mr. Chairman, one of those barriers created by Congress is 
bureaucratic red tape. Others are rising health care costs, education 
policy, research and development policy, energy policy, unenforceable 
trade policy, tax policy, and lawsuit abuse. My amendment goes to the 
heart of the problem centered around the unnecessary bureaucratic red 
tape.
  My amendment is designed to require an outside audit to determine 
that science is used to develop regulations at the EPA that are 
unbiased and well substantiated. At a minimum major rules by the EPA 
should go through a Science Advisory Board and rules should then be 
audited by a neutral third party to ensure that our environmental 
regulations are based on scientific facts and not emotional theory.
  There are reporting rules promulgated by the EPA that do nothing to 
protect the environment or the health and well-being of the citizens 
but cost American businesses hundreds of millions of dollars and 
thousands of jobs.
  One example of an unnecessary burden to the American small businesses 
is the EPA's toxic release inventory lead rule. The rule requires that 
businesses report annually on how much lead is used. Not how much lead 
is emitted into the atmosphere, but how much lead the business uses. In 
June, 2002, a small business owner from Baltimore, Maryland testified 
before the Regulatory Reform and Oversight Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Small Business on how this particular EPA reporting rule 
causes harm to her business. We can see how ridiculous and wasteful 
this EPA rule is to our economy without making our air any cleaner. 
Nancy Klinefelter is president of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. Her 
small business specializes in printing small quantities of custom glass 
and ceramic ware for special occasions. Some of Nancy's work can even 
be found in the House gift shop and some is sold in the EPA's gift 
shop. When they print mugs or glasses for customers, they sometimes use 
lead-bearing colors on the outside surface. These colors are expensive, 
so they use a minimum amount of paint, just that which is needed to 
color the surfaces and they try to reduce waste. And the finishing 
process ensures that none of the lead leaches out. So their products 
are safe for anyone who uses them.
  But because of the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory lead rule, Nancy's 
business is forced to compile daily records on how much color is used 
for the mugs because the color contains a very small amount of lead. 
Each year her small business has to report to the EPA how much lead has 
been used. It costs her about $7,000 annually and across the Nation 
about $70 million every year. And what do the Americans get for the 
millions that are spent? Cleaner air? No. Less lead being used? No. 
Less exposure to lead by children? No. The answer is none of these. But 
all the American people get from these thousands of reports are 
estimates on how much lead is being consumed, but our air is not any 
cleaner.
  Mr. Chairman, with the hopes of working during the conference 
committee report, I intend to withdraw this amendment because I know it 
is subject to a point of order. I hope that we can work together with 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) in the conference 
report to try to remove some of these unnecessary regulations.
  So, in conclusion, we must not move forward with our government to 
implement regulatory burdens like this on the American public because 
it drives jobs overseas, it increases the trade deficit, it reduces the 
Federal revenue, and it moves us toward a third-rate economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Pombo

  Mr. POMBO. 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. 9 offered by Mr. Pombo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following new section:

       Sec. __. The funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     following headings are available only to the extent provided 
     for in authorizing legislation enacted before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act or on or after such date:
       (1) ``Bureau of Land Management--Range Improvements''.
       (2) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Resource 
     Management''.
       (3) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Cooperative 
     Endangered Species Conservation Fund''.
       (4) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Neotropical 
     Migratory Bird Conservation''.
       (5) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--
     Multinational Species Conservation Fund''.
       (6) ``National Park Service--Historic Preservation Fund''.
       (7) ``United States Geological Survey--Surveys, 
     Investigations, and Research''.
       (8) ``Bureau of Indian Affairs--Indian Land and Water Claim 
     Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians''.
       (9) ``Indian Health Service--Indian Health Services''.
       (10) ``Indian Health Service--Indian Health Facilities''.
       (11) ``Executive Office of the President--Council on 
     Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Appropriations without authorizations or that exceed authorized 
levels violate House rule XXI, clause 2. This amendment enforces this 
rule by not allowing moneys to be spent for 10 specified programs 
within the Committee on Resources' sole jurisdiction which are not 
authorized to be funded in fiscal year 2006 until the Committee on 
Resources authorizes them. The money remains in the bill but cannot be 
obligated by the agencies until the authorizing committee authorizes 
them to do so.
  Because the Interior appropriations bill often combines both 
authorized and unauthorized programs in a single number, such as 
funding for survey activities of the U.S. Geological Survey, the 
amendment assures that these programs which are authorized by fiscal 
year 2006, their funding cannot continue.
  For those programs which are authorized but the amount appropriated 
exceeds the authorized level, such as in the case for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, then the amendment restricts the funding to the 
authorized level.
  The purpose of this amendment is to give us the ability to go back 
and authorize a number of these programs that have not been authorized 
for years and in some cases in excess of a dozen years. One of the 
major problems that we have is the Committee on Appropriations gets in 
the position of having to continue to appropriate money on these 
unauthorized programs because they are important programs. But in this 
case what we are talking about is $5.3 billion that is being 
appropriated. So this is a fiscal issue.
  I believe that the taxpayer demands that we do our job in authorizing 
these programs and make sure that the public is getting their money's 
worth out of these different programs. Currently, I do not believe that 
is the case. And it gives us the ability to go back and authorize those 
programs.
  I believe this is something that is extremely important. The 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) have worked with us on a number of different 
things that are in this bill over the past year. But when it

[[Page 10377]]

comes to some of these major programs that we have not been able to get 
an authorization on, I believe the time is now for us to move forward 
and begin to fence off those moneys until we can get an authorization 
done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment. I do it with great respect for the chairman, but I just 
worry about what the consequences of his amendment would be to this 
bill.
  Therefore, 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 therefore 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 Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does any Member 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the gentleman is correct when 
he talks about authorizing an appropriations bill and the effect that 
my amendment would have. But I would urge the Chair to rule the 
amendment in order because what I am trying to do is strip out and put 
fencing around appropriations for unauthorized programs. It seems kind 
of ironic that my amendment that goes after unauthorized programs would 
be ruled out of order for the very reason that I have been going after 
those programs.
  I urge the chairman to rule the amendment in order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard, the Chair 
is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment requires new duties. 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.

                              {time}  1900


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Solis

  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Solis:
       Add at the end of the bill (preceding the short title) the 
     following:
       Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency--
       (1) to accept, consider, or rely on third-party intentional 
     dosing human studies for pesticides; or
       (2) to conduct intentional dosing human studies for 
     pesticides.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency 
could not use funds in this legislation to accept, consider, or rely on 
studies from outside parties that intentionally expose human beings to 
pesticides. It would also ensure that the EPA could not spend any funds 
conducting its own studies which intentionally expose humans to 
pesticides.
  According to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson back in 2001, EPA 
``believes that we have a more than sufficient database, through use of 
animal studies, to make licensing decisions that meet the standard, to 
protect the health of the public, without using human studies.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if we withdraw any 
objection to this amendment, is the gentlewoman envisioning a rollcall 
vote or just a simple voice vote?
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, no rollcall vote.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any objection 
to this amendment.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit the remainder of my statement for the 
Record, and I would ask that Members of the House approve this 
amendment. It is long overdue. I am very grateful to accept support 
from the other side of the aisle.
  Despite this statement, the EPA can devise and conduct studies where 
humans--children and adults--are exposed to pesticides.
  Current practices also allow the EPA to accept studies from the 
pesticide industry and other outside sources so these studies can be 
used to help develop regulations or approve pesticides.
  Right now, the United States Environmental Protection Agency--the 
agency in charge of protecting public health from environmental 
toxins--is encouraging industry to use human beings as guinea pigs.
  What may be the greatest offense yet, is that the EPA is conducting 
and engaging in these studies with no binding safeguards to make sure 
these tests protect public health.
  The EPA has chosen to go against the recommendation of the National 
Academy of Sciences and against the wishes of its own Science Advisory 
Board and Science Advisory panel.
  Not only are there no binding safeguards for EPA conducted studies, 
but many of the outside studies which the EPA accepts fail to meet 
minimum international standards established in the Nuremberg Code and 
in the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association.
  This behavior is deplorable, unethical, and wrong.
  Our amendment is critical because, in the absence of binding 
standards at EPA, the pesticides industry has increased its use of 
human testing studies and putting more humans at risk for what are 
frequently statistically invalid studies.
  The trend of using humans--both children and adults--as guinea pigs 
is a trend that needs to stop.
  The EPA needs to have binding safeguards in place, and we need to 
have information about how a better understanding of how dangerous and 
toxic these pesticides are for our children.
  Without these safeguards the EPA should not be conducting tests which 
dangerously expose humans to pesticides nor should it be developing 
policy based on third party studies which fail to meet even basic 
internationally accepted standards.
  My colleagues, the Solis-Bishop amendment is supported by 
environmental and diverse religious organizations and among more than 
80,000 others who have written to me saying they oppose the CHEERS 
study and support a moratorium on this type of testing.
  I urge you to support our amendment and prevent the unregulated and 
unethical testing of pesticides on humans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop), the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from California for her leadership on this issue and for yielding me 
this time, and I want to thank the chairman for accepting our 
amendment.
  I have a statement that I will submit for the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), 
for yielding and introducing this amendment, which I'm proud to 
cosponsor.
  Mr. Chairman, how do you make a bad idea worse? If you're EPA, offer 
families $970 to videotape their children reacting to bug sprays, 
carpet cleaners, and other household pesticides.
  Then, invite the American Chemistry Council as a partner in this 
study, knowing that in exchange for $2 million paid toward the study, 
it wants looser regulations for the pesticide industry, which in turn 
wants to use humans instead of animals so it can justify relaxed 
exposure limits.

[[Page 10378]]

  EPA's study is as poorly conceived as its acronym: CHEERS--which 
stands for the Children's Health Environmental Exposure Research Study. 
It's a trifecta of unethical, immoral, and unscientific research.
  It violates the post World War II ``Nuremburg Code,'' which outlawed 
medical testing, including pesticide testing on people.
  It advances private rather than medical interests, putting industry 
ahead of public health.
  And despite EPA's own Science Advisory Board and Scientific Advisory 
Panels recommendening strict safeguards for human testing, EPA failed 
to adopt them.
  Mr. Chairman, we all want to understand how common chemicals like 
those found under the kitchen sink can hurt children, the elderly and 
the most vulnerable to poisoning. But the way to collect that 
information should not involve hurting the very people we want to 
protect.
  The government should not be asking families to turn their babies 
into lab rats. We should be protecting children, not exposing them to 
pesticides.
  Although we passed this amendment by unanimous consent two years ago, 
EPA resurrected the study when the fiscal year expired in October.
  We need to pass the Solis-Bishop amendment to ensure EPA's research 
is based on sound science with the highest ethical standards.
  Our amendment is supported by a broad coalition of environmental 
advocates, including the Alliance for Human Research Protection in my 
home state of New York.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, again 
thank the gentlewoman from California for her excellent work.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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. 3 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 Federal employees at any single conference occurring 
     outside the United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The CHAIR recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the one question that I get when I go back to my 
district is, what is it that the Federal Government and Congress spend 
all their money on, and some of the things that we hear about sometimes 
is excess of spending in various areas.
  One of the things that raises the ire of a lot of people is when they 
hear about trips by Members of the executive branch and others going 
overseas for maybe notable and worthwhile causes, but in excess of the 
number of people that we really need to send there. We have heard 
examples in past Congresses, and we have raised this amendment in past 
Congresses when we heard about 100, 150, 200 members of the executive 
branch going over for various causes.
  We present an answer to this problem by saying that whenever an 
agency decides to send someone overseas for a trip, we should limit the 
number of Federal employees that go. My amendment will do that very 
simply. It will limit the number of Federal employees that are sent to 
international conferences funded under this bill to 50.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman 
for his concern about the excessive foreign travel. This subcommittee 
has conducted extensive oversight using the Inspector General and the 
Government Accountability Office on the use of foreign travel on large 
conferences. I accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
accepting the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Costa

  Mr. COSTA. 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. Costa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Department of the Interior may be used to enter into or 
     renew any concession contract except a concession contract 
     that includes a provision that requires that merchandise for 
     sale at units of the National Park System be made in any 
     State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In 2004, approximately 263 million Americans and people throughout 
the world visited our Nation's 388 national parks, memorials, and 
national monuments. This summer, we know, as we approach the Memorial 
Day weekend, that additional hundreds of millions of Americans and 
other visitors from throughout the world will continue to visit our 
national parks.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that when American families and those from 
throughout the world visit our wonderful treasures across the United 
States, that it would be nice if the souvenirs that they take home with 
them were actually made in our country. I believe that it is patriotic 
that our souvenirs that we bring home from our national treasures, in 
fact, be made by American workers.
  The amendment before us would require that all souvenir products sold 
in America's national park system prospectively be made in America. 
Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection at 
this time to this amendment.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that there are no other amendments 
left to the bill, and I simply want to say that I think the chairman of 
the subcommittee has been very fair and balanced in the way he has 
approached the bill. I think the bill is not fair and balanced, not 
because of anything the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) did, 
but simply because it could not be under the budget adopted by the 
majority party 2 weeks ago.
  How any Member votes on this bill is, in my view, up to that Member. 
I am not going to be asking any Member to vote any way on any 
appropriation bill, but I will be voting ``no,'' and I would like to 
briefly explain why.
  I am simply not going to vote to gut the main program that we use to 
help

[[Page 10379]]

local communities to deal with a $300 billion-plus backlog of decrepit 
sewer and water systems. I am not going to vote to leave 200 of our 544 
wildlife refuges without a single staff person. I am not going to vote 
to cripple EPA enforcement programs to the tune of $400 million.
  This bill does all of those things, not because the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) wanted to, but simply because of what the 
majority leader said 2 weeks ago when he said, ``This is the budget the 
American people voted for when they voted for a Republican House, a 
Republican Senate, and a Republican White House.'' I do not agree with 
Mr. DeLay on much, but I agree with him in that assessment.
  So I would simply say, if Members are comfortable with implementing 
that kind of a budget that puts $140,000 tax cuts for millionaires 
ahead of protecting American children from dirty drinking water, then 
they ought to feel comfortable voting ``yes.'' I am not, and I will 
vote ``no.''


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the 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 Mr. Rahall of West Virginia;
  Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 159, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 196]

                               AYES--249

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--159

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Barrow
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Culberson
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Poe
     Radanovich
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1937

  Messrs. BAKER, SCHWARZ of Michigan, CARDOZA, JENKINS and SULLIVAN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LoBIONDO, Mrs. MALONEY, and Messrs. CLEAVER, JOHNSON of Illinois, 
ORTIZ, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Messrs. BACA, TURNER, BARTLETT of 
Maryland, FORBES, WAMP, BOOZMAN, HOBSON, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mrs. 
MYRICK, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 196, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 196, I was 
delayed in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 196.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). 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 redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 10380]]

  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 90, 
noes 326, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 197]

                                AYES--90

     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--326

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     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
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     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
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     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)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Clay
     Cox
     Harman
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Radanovich
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1946

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will read 
the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to 
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 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, had directed him to report the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that 
the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     2316, to the Committee on Appropriations to report the same 
     promptly with an amendment to provide an additional 
     $242,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and 
     $110,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will take only 1 minute. The budget 
resolution passed earlier this year told the Congress to find a way to 
meet the targets in that resolution, even if we had to gut the Clean 
Water program and to cut the STAG grants.
  What this motion says is that the committee ought to go back to the 
drawing board and find a way to meet these targets without cutting 
either the STAG grants or the Clean Water Revolving Fund. It would 
simply ask the committee to provide an additional $242 million to the 
Clean Water Revolving Fund and $110 million for State and

[[Page 10381]]

Tribal Assistance Grants, returning both programs to last year's level.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the motion to recommit, and I wish we did not have to have a rollcall 
vote.
  This motion to recommit kills the bill by adding $352 million, and I 
oppose this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote on 
the question of final passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 228, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 198]

                               AYES--191

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

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     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
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     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 (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     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 (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clay
     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Radanovich
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2008

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the passage of 
the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 329, 
nays 89, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                               YEAS--329

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey

[[Page 10382]]


     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--89

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chandler
     Conyers
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Solis
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Clay
     Harman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Marchant
     Millender-McDonald
     Radanovich
     Shays
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2018

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

                          ____________________