[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8651-8660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5386, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
       ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 818 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 818

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 
     73, lines 3 through 8; section 425; and title V. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 376, 
     and until a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2007 has been adopted by the Congress, the provisions of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 376 and its accompanying report 
     shall have force and effect in the House for all purposes of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as though adopted by the 
     Congress.
       (b) Nothing in this section may be construed to engage rule 
     XXVII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 5386, 
the Interior Appropriations Act for 2007. It provides for 1 hour of 
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except for certain legislative provisions which are specified 
under the text of the rule.
  For purposes of the amendment, the rule provides for priority 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to stand and introduce this 
rule as well as the underlying legislation. I appreciate the hard work 
and the hard choices that have been done by the subcommittee members, 
specifically Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks, as well as the 
full committee under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and many others 
who have played a essential role in putting this budget together, which 
actually comes in at $145 million less than last year's enacted levels.
  This important measure provides funding for the entire Department of 
Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, for the U.S. Forest 
Service within the Department of Agriculture, for the Indian Health 
Service within the Health and Human Services Department, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other programs.
  At the same time, this measure provides for a moderate increase over 
the President's proposed budget for the Forest Service, for the 
National Park Service, EPA, Environmental programs and management.
  This budget provides for $5.9 billion to programs for Native 
Americans, including three new health centers in underfunded and 
depressed areas. It provides for a fully-funded National Fire Plan, 
eliminating duplications, which will result in the stopping of 
wildfires from getting out of control and becoming more expensive and 
damaging to both people, as well as wildlife and the environment.
  There is land acquisition, which has been reduced to $60 million for 
in-holding, which is significant and important to do, but it is 
significant that it does not add inventory to our public land policies 
that are above and beyond what we can already afford.
  There is one particular note of significance to me I wish to address, 
that this bill provides $228 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes 
Program at the Department of Interior. This figure is $30 million above 
what the President requested, and I appreciate the efforts of Chairman 
Taylor, ranking member Dicks and the entire committee in providing the 
restoration of funds. However, it is still below the $332 million that 
was provided for in last year's budget, and significantly below the 
authorized level of $350 million, which would be there today.
  If one were to draw a line from Montana through New Mexico on the 
map, everything west of that line has 57 percent ownership by the 
Federal Government. Everything east of the line is 4 percent ownership 
by the Federal Government.
  When the western States, which I live in one, entered this country 
under their enabling acts, there were legal commitments that were made, 
that in the 1950s the Federal Government unilaterally changed and since 
that time have been repeatedly changing. In fact, there are several 
amendments that have been threatened to be only the floor today which 
would increase that change in commitment.
  No one who does not live in that area understands the significance of 
Federal ownership of that particular land. Chairman Taylor though, 
having a significant amount of Forest Service land in his district, is 
one of those that is empathetic to this situation, and we are 
appreciative of all his efforts in this particular area. I wish the 
administration were the same. In dealing at one time with an 
administrative official, he asked me why I was so concerned about all 
this Federal land; it was simply useless land and no one lived there 
anyway.
  It has to be realized that half of the West is essentially tied up in 
Federal lands and is controlled by it. Payment in lieu of taxes is not 
charity, it is simply rent on land that is due to compensate for 
economic problems created by the Federal Government, created by Federal 
Government actions, and in contradiction to the deals that were made 
when these States originally came into the Union.
  The Department of Interior took the concept of payment in lieu of 
taxes from the BLM as an effort, in their words, ``to ensure 
appropriate emphasis,'' and that it would be a benefit accrued to both 
Congress, the Department, BLM and to the counties of the West as well.
  Since that time, that has not been the case. In fact, in each of the 
last 2 years, the administration and the OMB have actually cut this 
particular program, only to have it restored by Congress, which once 
again I thank Chairman Taylor, his committee and his staff for their 
efforts in that area.
  In like contrast though, it is unusual that even though the overall 
funding for the Interior Department has been around 7 percent over the 
past 5 years, if my math is correct, the Department of Interior's 
administrative budget has increased 100 percent in that same time, from 
$64 million to $118 million today.
  While I may disagree with this portion of the bill, we will be 
joining with

[[Page 8652]]

other western Congressmen later on today to try to present an amendment 
through regular order that will address this one particular issue.
  I am appreciative once again to Chairman Taylor and the ranking 
member from the State of Washington who have been understanding of this 
situation, empathetic of this situation, and very helpful to us, as we 
move forward to try and find some kind of redress with this particular 
situation.
  Mr. Speaker, while I have a few disagreements obviously that I have 
just stated, overall that is only one aspect of this important 
underlying bill that will be presented by this rule. We will be trying 
to address that agreement at some other time.
  Still, the overwhelming majority of this bill is very positive and it 
does move us forward, and it was a responsible result of a lot of 
bipartisan work done on the part of this particular subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend Mr. Bishop, 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of 
what it allows, but rather because of what it blocks. I am also 
inclined to oppose the underlying legislation, not because of the 
process, but rather because of the lack of progress which we have made 
in the last year in our efforts to protect and improve our environment.
  Nearly 1 year ago to the day, I stood on this floor also with the 
gentleman from Utah when the House considered the fiscal year 2006 
Interior, Environment and related agencies appropriations bill. Under 
that bill, $240 million had been cut from the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund. Conservation funding was approximately $750 million 
below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the 
Conservation and Restoration Act of 2000, and, overall, EPA's budget 
had been cut by $300 million.
  Today, the House is being asked to consider an Interior 
appropriations bill that is even worse. Indeed, this is not by any 
fault of the Appropriations Committee, but it is the fault of the 
majority in this body, which has tied our hands in a knot of fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  If this rule passes, the House will be forced to consider an Interior 
appropriations bill that not only includes the massive cuts from last 
year, but actually cuts these programs even more, so that my friends in 
the majority can pay for their massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest 
2 percent of Americans.
  The underlying legislation cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
by another $199 million, to a level that is more than $660 million less 
than it was in 2001. The bill cuts funding for the Land Water 
Conservation Fund by $28 million, to a level that is $90 million less 
than it was in 2001. Overall funding for Federal land acquisition aimed 
at helping States preserve open spaces is cut in this bill by $98 
million, a level that is more than $400 million less than 2001. This is 
an 86 percent cut in funding, Mr. Speaker; 86 percent.
  Certainly it just can't be true that only Democrats care about 
preserving our lands so that future generations will enjoy them. Yet 
where is the outrage from the majority Members of the other side of the 
aisle?
  Yesterday evening, the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations 
Committee submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that restored 
$800 million in funding cuts to these and other critically needed 
environmental programs. Mr. Obey's amendment, most importantly, was 
revenue neutral and would have required not one penny of additional 
cuts in this or any other bill. During the hearing, however, Rules 
Committee Republicans, along a straight party line vote, blocked 
Representative Obey from offering his amendment.
  I am also troubled by language in the bill which overrules 
longstanding Presidential and Congressional moratoria for drilling for 
natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. This provision will permit 
drilling to occur as close as 3 miles to the shores of coastal States, 
including my home State of Florida. In doing so, the health of 
Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our 
State, will be in direct danger.
  Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: Drilling for natural 
gas on the Outer Continental Shelf will have zero impact at the gas 
pumps. It will not under any circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon 
of gasoline.

                              {time}  1045

  I say if supporters of lifting those moratoria are serious about 
reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies then they should 
join me and others in calling for increased fuel conservation and 
investment in mass transit and alternative energy sources.
  Mr. Speaker, while I cannot speak on behalf of every Member of 
Florida's delegation, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of 
us in Florida and our citizens and our Governor do not want offshore 
oil drilling in Florida, and we intend to do whatever is necessary to 
strip this provision from the bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I am 
extremely grateful that under this bill Congress furthers its 
commitment to restoring Florida's Everglades. This is a project that is 
absolutely crucial to the environment and to the potable fresh water 
supply of many south Florida and Treasure Coast communities in my 
district.
  My constituents and I deeply appreciate Chairman Taylor and 
Representative Dicks' continued efforts in this area. Equally. I was 
also very pleased to learn that the committee has restored the 
President's proposed budget cut for the Office of Environmental Justice 
at EPA and included the limitation language that I offered last year 
ensuring that EPA respects the needs of the environmental justice 
community.
  Yet despite these positive provisions, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an 
overall disappointment. I firmly believe that the appropriators did the 
best they could do with what we gave them to work with.
  Nevertheless, I find it offensive that the majority of this body is 
more concerned today about protecting $114,000 tax cuts for people 
making more than $1 million than fully funding programs which ensure 
that all Americans have access to clean air and drinking water.
  Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. 
Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing her or 
his own share. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay 
just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to 
breathe and safe water to drink? If given the chance, who would not be 
willing to pool her resources with others in her neighborhood to 
collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no 
child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by 
dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins?
  If the budget is about priorities, Mr. Speaker, then appropriations 
bills are about fiscal reality. The fiscal reality of this bill and the 
appropriations bill that will soon follow are that America is in 
trouble with the majority at the helm. Their fiscal mismanagement has 
placed the wishes of wealthy individuals, and I question that. I do not 
know whether wealthy people have made these requests. Most wealthy 
people I know are willing to share their resources for the collective 
needs of their respective communities.
  Is there something in the DNA here in the majority that allows them 
to decide that wealthy people ought be prioritized over the collective 
needs of a community? The underlying legislation is, unfortunately, 
only the first of 11 installments this year of the grim reality of 
which Democrats have warned for the last 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to understand that before we 
finish this appropriations process all of us will understand those grim 
realities, for the chickens are coming home to roost.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 8653]]


  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Utah for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and I rise to support the 
underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to speak to at 
this point is in the underlying bill there is a provision which states 
that this body, that there is a sense of Congress that we should 
recognize that there is an ongoing problem with the amount of carbon 
dioxide, CO2 that is being emitted as a result of burning 
fossil fuel and that the United States should take steps to reduce that 
emission of CO2.
  Now, carbon dioxide makes up a fraction of less than 1 percent of the 
atmosphere, and yet that one element in the atmosphere, less than 1 
percent, a fraction of 1 percent, pretty much determines the heat 
balance or the climate of the planet.
  CO2 is increasing, especially over the last 100 years, as 
a result of burning fossil fuels. We are having a dramatic impact on 
the heat balance of the planet. Let us just look at some simple 
scientific observations.
  This is data that is conclusive among the scientific community. 
10,000 years ago we were at the end of the last ice age, and we can 
measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 10,000 years 
ago. It was 180 parts per million. 180 parts per million of 
CO2 in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago.
  Now, let us fast forward almost 10,000 years. It was 280 parts per 
million 100 years ago. So almost 10,000 years it took to increase 
CO2 into the atmosphere from natural processes 100 points, 
from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million 100 years ago.
  Now, let us fast forward 100 years to today. It is 380 parts per 
million. So what took 10,000 years to increase in the last 100 years, 
we have done that that fast, from 280 parts per million to 380 parts 
per million in just 100 years.
  What we are saying is that dramatic increase is attributed to human 
activity burning fossil fuel. That dramatic increase has resulted in 
glaciers receding traumatically around the planet, the warmest 10 years 
on record from the 1990s. Hurricanes are getting stronger and more 
fierce, and all we have to do is take a look at what happened in New 
Orleans, lower Louisiana, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Florida, et cetera, et 
cetera, because the atmosphere is warming as a result of an increase in 
CO2.
  The seas, the oceans are warming as a result of increasing 
CO2 into the atmosphere that is directly attributed to 
fossil fuel burning by human activity. The polar ice cap is melting. In 
the last 20, 25 years it has decreased in volume by 40 percent. Twenty 
years ago, the amount of water running off the ice caps of Greenland 
was 20 cubic miles a year. Now it is 53 cubic miles a year flowing off 
Greenland.
  If Greenland's ice cap melts, that is a 23-feet sea level rise, try 
to imagine that, depending on where you live. Human activity, the 
burning of fossil fuel, is increasing CO2, and so the idea 
that we should have a sense of Congress that this is an observable 
problem and we should take a look at it is only reasonable.
  The U.S. is losing competitiveness, economic opportunities for 
advanced technologies unless we move forward with this. I support the 
underlying rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend and fellow member on the Rules Committee, the gentlemen from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Maryland who just 
spoke that I agree with almost everything he just said, except when he 
said that he was going to vote for the underlying rule, because the 
rule specifically does not protect the global warming language.
  So I do not know how the gentlemen can feel on the one hand very 
passionately about doing something about global warming and having us 
look into the issue, and on the other hand go ahead and vote for a rule 
that will allow anybody on this floor to strike it.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a year since we considered the 
Interior appropriation, the last Interior appropriations bill. One year 
ago I joined with my colleagues in voicing my outrage at the inadequate 
funding levels for critical environmental and conservation programs, 
and last year, like this year, we were told that because of the budget 
allocation this was the best that we could do, we will try to do better 
next year.
  So here we are today in the wake of having the Republican leadership 
ram through a martial law rule in order to take up a budget resolution 
that just like last year's version slashes programs in areas of 
education, job training, conservation, public health and medical 
research and social services.
  Another year has gone by, but it is still the same old story. And so 
I rise today, sadly, in opposition to the fiscal year 2007 Interior 
appropriations bill. This bill is an assault against our environment 
and it should be defeated.
  Once again, it significantly cuts funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and completely eliminates the Stateside Grant 
Program. That is right, zero dollars for the Stateside Land and Water 
Conservation Program. I am simply not interested in hearing the same 
old argument that this is simply the best we can do given the budget 
allocation.
  The budget allocation does not just fall from the sky, this Congress 
voted on the budget yesterday. The Republican majority chose to slash 
environmental programs. The Republican majority chose to eliminate the 
State grants for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Republican 
majority chose to pass a budget that requires a completely inadequate 
allocation for the Department of Interior and environmental programs.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the results of those choices before us today. We 
could have done better. We could have chosen to move away from the 
deliberate policy of putting the privileges of millionaires ahead of 
the needs of our communities and families.
  Since 1964, LWCF funding has been used to support the acquisition and 
maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and public 
domain lands, and the stateside program has helped to preserve open 
space, slow urban sprawl and given our children safe places to play.
  This program has broad bipartisan support, and success stories can be 
found in every single State and every single community throughout this 
country. In fact, this year I joined with my colleagues from New York 
(Mr. King) and New Jersey (Mr. Holt) in urging the committee to restore 
funding to the Stateside Grant Program. One hundred fifty Members 
shared this concern and signed on to a bipartisan letter.
  Mr. Speaker, it is all about priorities: Tax breaks for the wealthy 
few or open space and environmental protections for the majority of 
Americans. I commend Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dicks for the good in this 
bill, but the good is not enough to outweigh the bad.
  The Republican majority in this House have made their choices. It is 
the wrong choice. I urge my colleagues to hold true to their promise to 
the American people and reject this bill. We must do better.

                                Congress of the United States.

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2006.
      Hon. Charles Taylor.
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, RHOB, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Norm Dicks,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, 
         LHOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge the Subcommittee 
     to restore funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     (LWCF) state and local grant program to $100 million for FY 
     2007.
       The LWCF state assistance program provides matching federal 
     grants to states and local communities to develop outdoor 
     recreation facilities and resources. This competitive grant 
     program provides funds to the states that choose local 
     projects based on need and quality of the project. 
     Unfortunately, the FY 2007 budget eliminates funding for the 
     state assistance program. An inadequate funding level for 
     this program has

[[Page 8654]]

     had detrimental effects on communities across America, a 
     number of which have been unable to begin certain new 
     projects or to complete recreational projects already begun. 
     This lack of funding would also mean that youth sports teams 
     trying to access more facilities to relieve the stress of 
     over-crowded fields and resources won't be able to find such 
     fields, or community service organizations needing public 
     recreation resources won't have them.
       The recently revised USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines call for 
     30 minutes of regular physical activity to promote health, 
     psychological well-being, and a healthy body weight. Every 
     American needs to take this call to heart, and for most 
     Americans, local public parks and recreation areas are the 
     place they would most like to do their daily physical 
     activity. Our communities need funding for this program, 
     which will increase opportunities for adults and children to 
     have better access to close to home health promotion and 
     disease prevention resources.
       The Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance 
     program has aided local recreation projects in over 98% of 
     all U.S. counties, and the federal investment has been 
     matched many times over with local funds in 40,000 sports 
     fields, community recreation facilities, and natural parks. 
     We believe that this program is vital to assisting 
     communities that are trying to provide close to home places 
     for all Americans to get active and stay healthy.
       The LWCF matching grants especially help those communities 
     that are facing the problems associated with exploding growth 
     such as a critical lack of sports fields and lack of 
     necessary community planning. These grants also assist many 
     small communities to build possibly their only public 
     recreation facility, a facility or park that would not exist 
     with out the federal funds that match their local funds and 
     make the investment possible.
       Given the national obesity crisis and the need for all 
     Americans to have access to public places and spaces to have 
     a place to get active and stay healthy, we strongly urge you 
     to support an appropriation of $100 million in FY 2007 for 
     the LWCF state assistance program.
           Sincerely,
       James McGovern, Peter King, Rush Holt, Neil Abercrombie, 
     Gary Ackerman, Thomas Allen, Robert Andrews, Brian Baird, 
     Tammy Baldwin, Melissa Bean, Xavier Becerra, Shelley Berkley, 
     Timothy Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Sherwood Boehlert, Leonard 
     Boswell, Rick Boucher, Jeb Bradly, Henry Brown, Sherrod 
     Brown, Dave Camp, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Benjamin 
     Cardin, Dennis Cardoza, Russ Carnahan, Julia Carson, Ed Case, 
     Ben Chandler, Donna Christensen.
       Wm. Lacy Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, John 
     Conyers, Jerry Costello, Joseph Crowley, Henry Cuellar, 
     Elijah Cummings, Jo Ann Davis, Susan Davis, Tom Davis, Peter 
     DeFazio, Diana DeGette, William Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, John 
     Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Michael Doyle, Rahm Emanuel, Eliot 
     Engel, Anna Eshoo, Lane Evans, Mike Ferguson, Michael 
     Fitzpatrick, Harold Ford, Jeff Fortenberry, Vito Fossella, 
     Barney Frank, Wayne Gilchrest, Charles Gonzalez.
       Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Raul Grijalva, Luis Guitierrez, 
     Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings, Brian Higgins, Tim Holden, 
     Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, William Jefferson, 
     Tim Johnson, Sue Kelly, Dale Kildee, Ron Kind, Dennis 
     Kucinich, John Kuhl, James Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick Larsen, 
     John Larson, Barbara Lee, Sander Levin, John Lewis, Daniel 
     Lipinski, Frank LoBiondo, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn McCarthy, 
     Betty McCollum.
       Thaddeus McCotter, Jim McDermott, Mike McIntyre, Cynthia 
     McKinney, Michael McNulty, Carolyn Malone, Ed Markey, Jim 
     Marshall, Jim Matheson, Doris Matsui, Mike Michaud, Juanita 
     Millender-McDonald, George Miller, Dennis Moore, Jerrold 
     Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal, James Oberstar, 
     Solomon Ortiz, Tom Osborne, Frank Pallone Jr., Donald Payne, 
     David Price, Nick Rahall II, Silvestre Reyes, Tom Reynolds, 
     Mike Ross, Tim Ryan, John Salazar, Bernie Sanders.
       Jim Saxton, Janice Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Allyson 
     Schwartz, John J. H. Schwarz, David Scott, Robert Scott, 
     Christopher Shays, Brad Sherman, Rob Simmons, Ike Skelton, 
     Louise Slaughter, Adam Smith, Vic Snyder, Mark Souder, John 
     Spratt, Pete Stark, Ted Strickland, Bart Stupak, Ellen 
     Tauscher, Lee Terry, John Tierney, Edolphus Towns, Stephanie 
     Tubbs-Jones, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Chris Van Hollen, James 
     Walsh, Diane Watson, Melvin Watt, Henry Waxman, Jerry Weller, 
     Lynn Woolsey.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend, the ranking 
member of the relevant subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for the consideration 
of H.R. 5386, the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Environmental 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that this is an open rule, I am 
deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee did not protect a 
provision for which I specifically asked for such protection. I also 
strongly oppose the self-enacting clause which puts into place the cuts 
contained in the budget resolution passed on a strictly partisan basis 
last night.
  Mr. Speaker, the provision I sought for, section 425 of the bill, 
results from an amendment I successfully offered in the Appropriations 
Committee that simply expresses the sense of the Congress that global 
climate change is in part due to human activity. I think that is pretty 
self-evident.

                              {time}  1100

  The provision also stated that this reality of climate change may 
result in a comprehensive and mandatory program to reduce the impact of 
human activity on global warming.
  Let me repeat. The provision was nonbinding. The provision would have 
resulted in no change in spending by the agencies funded by the 
Interior and Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee. This provision 
authorizes nothing. In fact, it was the same language that the other 
body adopted last year during consideration of the energy bill that was 
dropped during conference.
  I still think it is important that the House go on record as 
acknowledging that we are in part responsible for the recent increases 
in global air and ocean temperatures. And I want to associate myself 
with the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland. Although the amendment 
I offered and the Appropriations Committee accepted would not lead 
directly to any actions by the Federal Government, it remains an 
important first step. At least the House Appropriations Committee is on 
record as facing the truth on climate change. I see that as a victory. 
But we still have the responsibility to go beyond a sense of the 
Congress resolution and launch the necessary comprehensive program the 
United States must take to lead the world in reversing the threat of 
global warming.
  I am also let down that the Rules Committee chose not to protect the 
provision accepted by the Appropriations Committee that seeks to 
correct an undue windfall being reaped by the oil and gas industry due 
to erroneously written contracts by the Mineral Management Service. 
These faulty contracts could cost the Federal Government $7 billion in 
royalties between now and 2011. Because of these shortcomings in the 
rule and the self-enacting clause, I will have to vote ``no'' on its 
passage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to 
the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, my 
very good friend, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, 4 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives enters the land of 
make believe. Since April, the majority party has been trying to pass 
its misbegotten budget resolution, and they have had a very difficult 
time doing that because their more moderate Republican brethren in the 
Senate have regarded the budget pushed by the majority party as being 
extreme, and it is something that they don't want to take home to their 
constituents.
  Last night, in a very interesting kabuki dance, the majority party 
managed to finally find the votes some more than a month late to pass 
their budget resolution in this House. But it still has not been passed 
by the Senate, and I think objective observers feel it is not likely to 
ever pass the Senate.
  So now we have a problem. The appropriations bills are not supposed 
to move forward until we have a budget resolution passed by both 
chambers in place. So what do our friends on the majority side of the 
aisle decide to do? They use this rule to deem as passed the budget 
resolution which they have not been able to pass. In other words, the 
rule says ``Let us pretend that in spite of the fact that the Congress 
hasn't passed its budget, it has.'' That is what we are doing.

[[Page 8655]]

  And so I think that is reason enough to vote against this bill and 
this rule. Unless, of course, you think it is right to provide $40 
billion in tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year, while at 
the same time we are cutting needed domestic programs such as 
education, health care, science, and environmental protection by $13 
billion below the current service level. Unless you think, of course, 
that it is perfectly justifiable to cut the clean water revolving fund 
by 50 percent, as this bill will do, at the same time that you are 
giving the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country who make over 
$400,000 a year $64 billion in tax cuts. The average person making over 
$1 million a year will get a tax cut well over $100,000.
  If you make $42,000 a year, the tax break that you are going to get 
in the bill that the majority passed last week is about 80 cents a 
week; but if you make over $1 million, your tax cut is going to be as 
large as the entire salary of that person who made $42,000. I don't 
think that is the kind of budget that I want to take home to my 
constituents.
  So I would say the underlying bill itself is bad enough with what it 
does to the clean water revolving fund, the way it shreds land 
acquisition programs, the way it hems in EPA's ability to enforce the 
law against polluters, it is bad enough to vote against as is. But when 
you add to it this ``Let's Pretend'' fiction that the House has passed 
a budget which it hasn't passed, it therefore becomes an endorsement of 
that budget. I don't think the American people want that budget. I 
certainly don't want that budget. I intend to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield to my good friend from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 3 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I want to address 
that portion of the pending appropriations bill concerning the Office 
of Surface Mining, and specifically the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
Fund.
  In regard to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, there exists an 
unexpended balance in the AML trust fund approaching $2 billion, and it 
is my hope that in conference this particular appropriation will be 
increased.
  With respect to the Office of Surface Mining, I would observe that 
just yesterday news emerged that the President intends to nominate John 
R. Correll to serve as the agency's director. I have not met the 
gentleman, and I look forward to doing so. But what immediately catches 
the eye is that, since 2002, Mr. Correll served as the deputy assistant 
secretary of labor and was responsible, according to the 
administration's press release yesterday, of all aspects of the mine's 
safety health administration.
  Now, it is no secret that 26 coal miners have perished this year, a 
rate that this Nation has not witnessed in recent memory. It is also no 
secret that many of these fatalities could have been avoided if MSHA 
had been doing its job. Mr. Correll had been part of the leadership of 
MSHA during the time when the policy floor fell out. Under his 
leadership, the philosophy at MSHA changed from one of oversight and 
compliance to one of partnership and complicity. Rule-makings were 
abandoned, opportunities to improve coal mining safety were closeted 
away, and Mr. Correll and others within the Bush Labor Department 
advocated partnering with industry to address safety concerns rather 
than to enforce the law. In fact, in 1998 Mr. Correll testified before 
the House Committee on Education and Workforce, Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protection, advocating fewer inspections, incentives over 
penalties, and cooperation over regulation.
  While other nations have soared ahead in mine safety, incorporating 
new technologies to ensure and improve protections for their most 
precious mining resource, their workers, this Nation through a cultural 
shift at MSHA remained at the dust. It has been a shameful record that 
I would be loathe to see carried over to OSM.
  The health and safety of the residents in our mining communities 
should not be gambled on in the way that the health and safety of our 
mine workers has been. It is time that concern and compassion and 
correctness for our miners take precedent over loyalty to industry and 
loyalty to this administration.
  So it is passing strange, to say the least, that the Bush 
administration would nominate as OSM director a person who presided 
over MSHA during the worst rash of coal miner fatalities in recent 
times. One must wonder if this person will bring the same philosophy to 
overseeing the environmental protection of coalfield citizens.
  I urge opposition to this rule for many other reasons that have been 
stated by my colleagues.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve one more time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota, my classmate and 
friend, Mr. Pomeroy.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it has only been a few hours since we resolved the vote 
on the budget. To the disappointment of many of us, the budget was 
passed, and the fifth debt limit increase, the second since March of 
this year alone, has now been authorized.
  But there are other features in this budget passed last night that 
many of us found objectionable, including those steep, steep cuts in 
nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for those tax cuts 
disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest people in this country. 
Those who need the help the least get the most help in terms of huge 
tax cuts, and vital programs to this country get savaged under the 
spending cuts moved forward.
  I want to elaborate on the earlier debate carried by our ranking 
member, Dave Obey, in the Appropriations Committee, because in this 
rule there is language which incorporates the spending limits of the 
House-passed budget last night. I want to make this point very clear, 
because there were 12 Members of the majority that voted against that 
budget. There was another group that got nonbinding language saying 
some of the money may somehow, somewhere, possibly be put back. Well, 
now we know that nonbinding language means nothing at all. The rule 
carries forward enforcement of these cuts.
  And so if you are a moderate Republican or a member of the minority 
that believes going down this path is unwise and sells out priorities 
of the American people, then you should not vote for this rule today. 
Anyone voting against that budget with concerns about these devastating 
cuts in nondefense discretionary spending should vote against this 
rule. It imposes the cuts on the appropriations process.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to try to correct an 
inaccuracy that was stated a little bit earlier.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I rise to support the rule. I would like to commend the committee and 
staff for good work in tough times.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this House better get used to tough budgets if 
we are going to get a handle on the Federal deficit. We are not going 
to have a lot of surpluses, we are going to have to pass budgets and 
appropriations bills that leave us all a little painful because it is 
important that we get a handle on the fiscal affairs of this country.
  In this bill there is a provision that was mentioned by the gentleman 
from Florida that removes the congressional moratorium for producing 
energy on the outer continental shelf. Now, why would I propose that in 
the committee? I am pleased to tell you why.
  The industries of this country that provide the very best jobs we 
have left in America are being made noncompetitive and have been 
noncompetitive for several years because of high natural gas prices. 
Five years ago, the price of natural gas in America averaged $2. Last 
year, the average price was $9.50. You don't have to be

[[Page 8656]]

very good in math to know that was a huge, huge increase. If it was 
gasoline at the pump, it would be $7 gasoline to fill our cars.
  This is preventing Americans from being warm in their homes, it is 
preventing Americans from being warm in their businesses. I was at a 
lot of businesses where it was 60 degrees and they were wearing jackets 
running their retail businesses. America cannot afford to be warm with 
energy prices increasing that fast.
  Businesses, the petro-chemical industry, 55 percent of their cost is 
natural gas both as an ingredient and a fuel. Fertilizer, as high as 70 
percent to make nitrogen fertilizer, the cost of natural gas. The steel 
industry, the aluminum industry, the glass industry, the brick industry 
will not remain in America unless we provide affordable natural gas.
  Now, here is the tragedy. What people don't realize, when we pay $75 
for oil, the whole world does. When we paid $9.50 for gas last year and 
for 4 months it was $14 and $15, Europe was at $6, China and Taiwan was 
at $3.50, South America at $1.80, Russia and North Africa at 90 cents.
  Folks, we are driving the best blue collar working people jobs out of 
this country because they cannot afford to stay here. We have lost 
between three and five paper mills since the first of the year because 
of energy costs, and some of them put in new units within the last 1\1/
2\ years.

                              {time}  1115

  Energy can make a company noncompetitive overnight because of the use 
of energy. This government is the reason we are in trouble. We expanded 
the use of natural gas 10 or 12 years ago before I got here to make 
electricity.
  Now a huge amount of our natural gas makes electricity, close to 20 
percent. We did not open up supply. We are the only country in the 
world that has locked up the Outer Continental Shelf. I had a visitor 
from the U.K. yesterday. He said, Why do you people not produce in the 
OCS? Everybody does. Canada does right off the coast of Maine, right 
off the coast of Washington. Canada has been drilling for gas in Lake 
Erie since 1913 and selling the gas to us currently because we buy 17 
percent of our gas this year from Canada.
  Natural gas we are rich with. We have chosen to lock it up, and 
caused our homeowners to pay double and triple heating costs, our small 
businesses to become nonprofitable, and our large corporations to 
literally move away. We have lost several million jobs already because 
of energy costs, and we are going to lose millions more.
  What I am going to tell you is it will not be the America we grew up 
in with lots of opportunity. The America we are going to leave is an 
America that decided to starve itself on the cleanest fuel known to 
man, the cleanest fossil fuel. Natural gas is the least polluting fuel, 
and those who today were talking about CO2 and global 
warming, it produces much less CO2 than all the other fossil 
fuels.
  So, if we had the price down, it can become a major player in our 
transportation system. Not 5 years down the road, tomorrow. Every 
gasoline engine can run on natural gas. Our buses, our short-haul 
trucks, our construction vehicles could all be on natural gas with a 
modest change.
  Natural gas can be the bridge to all the alternatives that are slowly 
moving forward. It can quadruple the savings that we can do with CAFE, 
and I am probably going to support that this time, but it is an 
immediate thing. Natural gas is what can keep America competitive until 
we get a handle on the other energies that can replace oil.
  I urge you to not remove the moratorium. It does not threaten our 
coastline. We still have a presidential moratorium. We still have a 5-
year plan that takes 2 years to implement and it is not the end of 
that. It is the first step in saying we are going to deal with natural 
gas and energy in this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to understand that 
tourism is the major industry in Florida, and offshore gas drilling is 
nothing but the nose under the tent. There is no such thing as just gas 
drilling, and I do not have enough time, if you could get some time 
from Mr. Bishop, I would be happy to engage you ad nauseam on this 
subject, but when Mr. Peterson says that it is not going to be 
environmentally harmful, offshore gas drilling routinely dumps into the 
ocean spent drilling muds containing vast quantities of mercury and 
other toxins, contaminated produced waters that often contain radium 
and other dangerous substances, and additional harmful marine 
discharges that include benzene, toluene, lead, cadmium, and zinc.
  Maybe Pennsylvania does not have the tourist industry that we do 
because that is right, you do not have an offshore. We do in Florida, 
and we are going to protect it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my good friend.
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, certainly I am very grateful to my dear 
friend from the State of Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which does not 
protect the language added in committee regarding global climate 
change.
  Global climate change is one of the most serious environmental 
threats of our time. Yet, this House has failed repeatedly to act on 
this issue or even acknowledge the bleak outlook voiced by many 
scientists.
  Global temperatures are rising. This fact is indisputable. As we 
speak, sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, and polar bears are 
drowning in the Arctic. There is a growing scientific consensus that 
human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have 
contributed to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.
  The effects of global warming are devastating. Approximately 160,000 
people die each year from the side effects of global warming, which 
range from malaria to malnutrition to heat exhaustion in our seniors. 
If temperatures continue to rise, coastal flooding and drought could 
occur, and the intensity of hurricanes could increase.
  In my neighborhood alone in Indianapolis, Indiana, we have finally 
got the EPA to look at the fact that it is the environment that is 
snapping away people's lives prematurely.
  We have seen that voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions simply 
do not work. This bill currently includes language that recognizes our 
responsibility to establish a national program of mandatory, market-
based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases.
  Mandating reductions in carbon emissions will spur innovation and 
help slow this moving trend. We have a moral imperative, Mr. Speaker, 
to future generations to address this threat because the cost of 
inaction is too high. We cannot let our legacy be one of destruction.
  Thank you very much for your attention and your consideration. Vote 
against the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), 
my very good friend.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his outstanding work on this issue and so many others.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule. In this rule, the Rules 
Committee failed to report out important amendments that were approved 
by the Appropriations Committee, including the important Dicks-Obey 
language expressing the need to address global climate change. Why in 
the world can you not include that important issue in this bill?
  This bill is woefully underfunded at $800 million below the level 
needed to maintain current services, and I must say that a very 
important amendment that would save taxpayers money, the Hinchey 
amendment, was not included, although the committee supported it. His 
amendment would suspend the royalty relief program and authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate existing leases.

[[Page 8657]]

  This would save taxpayers dollars. It would save dollars in our 
Treasury. Right now, in New York and L.A. and across this country, a 
gallon of gas costs more than $3, while the oil and gas companies 
continue to make record profits. All of this is happening while the 
taxpayers are losing out in billions of dollars in royalty payments 
from oil and gas taken from land owned by the American people.
  Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that the Federal 
Government will lose at least $7 billion over the next 5 years in 
undercollected royalty payments. Why in the world will the majority not 
correct this program that would put money into the budget for student 
loans, to help the disadvantaged, to help our seniors? Yet, they would 
not include it and the underpayment continues, and that money 
rightfully belongs to the American people.
  We are talking about oil and gas extracted from land owned by the 
American people with rip-off leases to the oil and gas companies where 
they are reporting record profits. What is wrong with having those 
leases negotiated to express fair market value so that the taxpayers 
and the Federal Government can have that money for the services that 
the people need?
  It is a really terrible rule. They did not even include amendments 
that were passed out by the Appropriations Committee. Please vote 
``no.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule 
so we can consider Mr. Obey's amendment to restore vital funding to the 
Interior appropriations bill, the amendment that was rejected in the 
Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations 
bill is currently funded at $145 million below the fiscal year 2006 
level and $800 million below the level that is needed just to maintain 
current services. These shortfalls will negatively impact our national 
parks and forests, critical environment and conservation programs, 
clean water programs, and services for Native Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would restore $800 million to the 
bill to ensure that these vital programs and services are able to 
continue at current levels, and that amendment is fully paid for by 
reducing the tax break given to those fortunate individuals among us 
with incomes more than $1 million annually. Their generous tax savings, 
which average $114,000, would be reduced by $2,000, certainly a small 
sacrifice to maintain these essential programs and services.
  I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us 
from considering the Interior appropriations bill under an open rule, 
but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on Representative Obey's 
amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this 
amendment to restore severe funding shortfalls in this bill.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I find these opportunities exhilarating to say the least. There are a 
couple of things that I would like to point out.
  We have spent a great deal of time talking about one of the 
provisions that is in this bill that deals with the drilling of natural 
gas, which is far different than the drilling of oil would be. It seems 
in Congress sometimes that we talk so much about the problem of heating 
in winter. We appropriate billions of dollars for the LIHEAP program so 
that Federal money can go directly through an individual over to the 
utility companies, when it would seem logical or at least rational to 
try to explore in some way a way of increasing the availability so that 
all people have to pay less for heat for their homes in the winter, and 
that instead of trying to subsidize the poor, we try to solve the 
problem at its root.
  It is difficult to sometimes be here and have people criticize the 
lack of natural energy, wanting to consume more without producing more, 
at the same time being critical of any efforts to actually increase 
that consumption possibility. Not only is this an issue that hits 
individuals in trying to heat their homes, but it also hits businesses, 
much of which runs on natural gas.
  I have farmers in my constituency that cannot fertilize this year 
because there is not enough fertilizer being produced and because 
natural gas becomes a critical element in its production and its 
distribution form. Industries are not being able to operate because of 
that.
  I do, though, want to thank Mr. Hastings for the very end talking 
about increasing fund because this is, after all, a funding bill. I do 
want to also talk about two issues that were raised in defense of the 
bill and defense of the position of the Rules Committee.
  Section 2 of the resolution says that it is essential to allow the 
House to have the so-called deeming resolution, which means we deemed 
the budget resolution which was passed by the House last night as 
having force and effect until we can get a conference report. It is 
essential to move that forward if there is to be any kind of parameters 
and discussion over the debate. If we do reject this rule and 
subsequent rules on appropriations items which do that, we simply have 
the net effect of this body of postponing any rational discussion in a 
logical and determined way of any of the appropriations items.

                              {time}  1130

  We might as well just dust off the old omnibus bill, because that 
will be the end result of not moving forward in a rational and logical 
approach on each and every one of these budget areas. I don't think 
that is the appropriate tact that we as a body wish to take.
  Secondly, I want to talk also about a couple of other provisions that 
have been criticized. In section 2 clause b it says: ``A provision 
changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriations 
bill.'' Over in rule 4 it says, ``A bill or joint resolution carrying 
an appropriations may not be reported by a committee not having 
jurisdiction to report the appropriations.''
  What it basically means is that appropriation bills are supposed to 
be appropriating, authorizing bills should be for authorizing, and the 
function of the Rules Committee is to try and make sure those 
distinctions are clear. To be honest, we sometimes will fudge on that 
and put authorization language in an appropriation bill if the 
authorizing committee agrees and does not object. In this particular 
situation, the Rules Committee did what it was supposed to do and 
simply said, where an authorizer objects to a provision in an 
appropriation bill they will have the opportunity to come forward and 
do just that.
  One of the speakers said we pulled out certain amendments, or that we 
did not allow certain amendments to be in the bill. No, they are still 
in the bill. We did allow an authorizer to come in and exercise his 
right under the rules to protest that authorization language in an 
appropriation bill, and then we will deal with that issue when the time 
comes.
  I am telling you that what I think the Rules Committee has done here 
with this open rule, so that any amendment that actually deals with the 
appropriation side is legitimate, is to protect the process as written 
in our rules. And if appropriators wish to be authorizers and 
authorizers wish to be appropriators, maybe they should look at trying 
to rearrange their committee schedules to accommodate that process.
  This rule is a good rule because it follows the rules, it defends the 
process that we have, and it moves us forward in the debate. I feel 
comfortable with

[[Page 8658]]

that. I feel comfortable with much of the actual appropriations in this 
particular bill.
  I did have times when I was given a kind of start. As an old teacher, 
every time they said the word education my ears perked up, because I 
was wondering where education fits into this bill. And then I realized 
we are debating a whole lot of other issues not necessarily related to 
this appropriations process.
  I do want to say something that is extremely personal to me as it 
deals with potential taxes. The last time my party did not control the 
House and the Senate and the Presidency, the solution to our budget 
situation was the largest tax increase in the history of this country, 
and it started out with the concept of taxing the rich. I was a school 
teacher. My taxes increased at a greater percentage and with a greater 
dollar amount than ever in my lifetime. My wife had just taken a part-
time job that year. Everything she made in that part-time job went to 
pay for the tax increase, supposedly on the rich.
  I guess I should be grateful to the Congress that at that time, as a 
schoolteacher, I was labeled as one of the rich in this country. But 
that was the reality. And if indeed we never go back to those days 
again, I will be grateful and I will be happy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. This is a good bill. It will be 
talked about at length today, and I am sure will be amended in 
appropriate ways as time goes on, but it is still a good bill and I 
urge the adoption of the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res. 818--Rule for H.R. 5386 the Interior, 
      Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2007

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:

                   Amendment to H.R. __, as Reported

            (Interior and Environment Appropriations, 2007)

                    Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

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

  TITLE VI--ENHANCED APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSERVATION, RECREATION, THE 
                   ENVIRONMENT, AND NATIVE AMERICANS

       Sec. 601. In addition to the amounts otherwise made 
     available by this Act, the following sums, to remain 
     available until expended, are appropriated:
       (1) $300,000,000 for clean air and water programs 
     administered by the Environmental Protection Agency as 
     follows:
       (A) $250,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, 
     as authorized by title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act.
       (B) $50,000,000 for clean diesel and homeland security 
     programs, as requested in the President's budget.
       (2) $300,000,000 for protection of Federal lands 
     administered by the Department of the Interior and the United 
     States Forest Service as follows:
       (A) $100,000,000 to address maintenance backlogs within the 
     national parks, refuges, forests, and other lands of the 
     United States.
       (B) 150,000,000 for acquisition and preservation of 
     priority lands within the national parks, refuges, and 
     forests when such lands are threatened by development 
     activities that could restrict access to such lands in the 
     future by the American people.
       (C) $50,000,000 to address staffing shortages for visitor 
     services at national parks and national wildlife refuges.
       (3) $30,000,000 for grants to States administered by the 
     National Park Service for support of conservation and 
     recreation programs within the States.
       (4) $20,000,000 for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 
     program administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service.
       (5) $50,000,000 for ``Payments in Lieu of Taxes'' as 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior and as 
     authorized by sections 6901 through 6907 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (6) $50,000,000 for ``Indian Health Services'' for support 
     of expanded clinical health services to Native Americans.
       (7) $50,000,000 for ``Bureau of Indian Affairs--Operation 
     of Indian Programs'' for support of educational services to 
     Native Americans.
       Sec. 602. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of 
     $1,000,000, for calendar year 2007 the amount of tax 
     reduction resulting from the enactment of Public Laws 107-16, 
     108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 1.94 percent.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and, with gratitude that we are done at this point, I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adoption of H. Res. 818, if ordered; and motion to suspend the rules on 
H. Res. 795.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 191, not voting 23, as follows:

[[Page 8659]]



                             [Roll No. 160]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     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
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--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
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bachus
     Brady (TX)
     Cardin
     Cummings
     Davis, Tom
     Evans
     Fattah
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Moran (VA)
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak
     Weldon (PA)
     Wolf
     Wynn

                              {time}  1158

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. DeGETTE, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. BALDWIN and 
Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi, HOLT, and JACKSON of Illinois changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 160, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 192, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 161]

                               AYES--218

     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)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     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
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     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)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette

[[Page 8660]]


     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     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

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Brady (TX)
     Cardin
     Cummings
     Davis, Tom
     Evans
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Hoyer
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     McCaul (TX)
     McKinney
     Moran (VA)
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak
     Wolf
     Wynn

                              {time}  1207

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

                          ____________________