[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8661-8671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 818 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5386.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Kuhl) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1220


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Kuhl (Acting Chairman) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered 
read the first time.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the House floor the 2007 budget for 
the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies. This 
bill provides $25.9 billion, which is $418 million above the budget 
request and $145 million below the 2006 enacted level.
  It has been a challenging year and difficult choices were made to 
stay within our allocation for the bill. In keeping with long-standing 
tradition, this bill has been developed as a bipartisan effort and 
focuses funding increases on the operations of our national parks and 
other public lands; Indian programs, including health and education; 
forest health; and preservation of our national cultural treasures.
  In order to provide these increases, there are decreases to many 
grants programs and there are limited new construction and land 
acquisition projects. In most cases, these choices are not a reflection 
on the effectiveness of the programs being reduced, but rather reflect 
the committee's belief that mission-essential Federal programs like the 
national parks, National Forest and Native American programs must be 
the number one priority.
  While we appreciate input from the administration each year, we have 
made some significant changes to the request, including restoring funds 
for Johnson O'Malley Education Grants in the Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
restoring funds for the operations of 32 urban Indian health clinics; 
restoring funds for PILT; restoring funds for Superfund remediation and 
environmental education, and research in EPA; restoring funds for 
forest health and forest road maintenance; and restoring funds for 
National Heritage Areas and for U.S. Geological Survey mineral 
assessments.
  We have provided significant increases to support the operations of 
our national parks and the Indian Health Service, and we fully fund the 
National Fire Plan.
  One area that deserves particular mention, in which we have supported 
the administration's budget proposal, is the energy area. In the Bureau 
of Land Management, there are significant increases that will enable us 
to expedite the permitting of on-shore oil and gas exploration and 
development on Federal lands. In EPA, we were unable to provide all the 
requested increases that were associated with the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, but we have provided significant increases, including $26 million 
for the National Clean Diesel Initiative.
  This committee, and this member in particular, soundly rejects the 
administration's proposal to sell National Forest lands throughout the 
country, and we think this will not be happening.
  We have eliminated Stateside Land and Water Grants, the Forest 
Service Economic Action Program, the BLM Rural Fire Program, and the 
Asia Pacific Partnership in EPA.
  This is a responsible bill that is focused on protecting Federal 
lands, Indian programs, environmental programs, cultural programs, and 
other programs under the committee's jurisdiction. I urge you to 
support this bill.
  The Ways and Means Committee has recommended that we make a technical 
change in the appropriations language for the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank program in EPA, and we will do that in the final 
conference agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing the various 
accounts in the bill. I want to thank our staff, and my colleague, Mr. 
Dicks, and his staff for the fine work that they have done in preparing 
the bill and the cooperation they have shown.

[[Page 8662]]

TH18MY06.001



[[Page 8663]]

TH18MY06.002



[[Page 8664]]

TH18MY06.003



[[Page 8665]]

TH18MY06.004



[[Page 8666]]

TH18MY06.005



[[Page 8667]]

TH18MY06.006

 

[[Page 8668]]

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I want to thank Interior Subcommittee 
Chairman Charles Taylor and his staff for the fairness with which the 
minority has been treated in the development of this bill. We have been 
consulted throughout the process. As a result, the bill reflects our 
input in a number of places.
  From a process point of view, this bill is a model for how the 
majority and minority should work together to produce legislation. 
Unfortunately, as Chairman Taylor and I have discussed throughout the 
year, a fair process cannot produce a good bill when the Interior 
Subcommittee is given an inadequate allocation. What we were given to 
work with for 2007 is, once again, inadequate.
  The $25.9 billion allowed by the full Appropriations Committee for 
Interior and environment programs is essentially a hard freeze at the 
FY 2006 enacted level. This is roughly $800 million below the level 
necessary to maintain current services for the programs funded by the 
Interior Subcommittee.
  The result is a bill in which our parks, refuges and forests are 
again to be squeezed to cover fixed costs. It means funding for clean 
water and clean air programs at the EPA are going to be substantially 
reduced. It means critical new investments requested by the President 
in areas like homeland security and diesel emissions reductions are 
dramatically reduced or in some cases not funded at all. Assistance to 
our States with their environmental and conservation programs is 
dramatically reduced.
  It means the very real problem of global warming will not be 
adequately addressed. And I assume that when consideration of the bill 
is completed, the provision approved by the Appropriations Committee 
acknowledging the existence of global climate change and the human 
involvement in that change will no longer be part of it. I will talk 
about my disappointment over that later.
  I won't go through all the numbers today, but I think it is important 
that Members are aware of some of the most troubling recommendations. 
Despite facility maintenance backlogs of at least $15 billion in our 
parks, refuges and national forests, funding for construction projects 
throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and more 
than $400 million below the level in 2001. There is no funding at all 
for new schools on Indian reservations. Park Service construction is 
cut by $100 million.
  In most cases, this bill has only been able to fund 70 percent of the 
increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other fixed costs. As 
our recent GAO report on the parks made clear, this inevitably will 
mean cutbacks in staff and cutbacks in visitor services for people who 
visit our parks, refuges and other Federal facilities. Staffing in our 
wildlife refuges has been cut by more than 700 FTEs over the past 5 
years.
  Funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund is cut by another $200 
million below the 2006 level. Over the last 3 years, the Clean Water 
Program, which EPA cites as one of its most effective, has been reduced 
by $662 million, or nearly 50 percent. This means either that essential 
infrastructure repairs for this country's aging water infrastructure 
won't occur, or that local water and sewer rates will increase as 
communities pick up the Federal share of these costs.
  Other State grant programs broadly supported in the House are cut 
below the current rate. This includes a $14 million cut in PILT, as 
well as a significant reduction in State Wildlife grants and the North 
American Wetlands programs. Stateside Conservation grants are 
completely eliminated. Over the past 5 years, assistance to States for 
these environmental or conservation programs have been reduced by more 
than $750 million.
  Funding for Federal land acquisition and to help States preserve open 
spaces is cut by $98 million in this bill and by more than $400 million 
since 2001. Funding in this area has been cut by more than 80 percent 
in the last 4 years. These are not vast stretches of new land for the 
Federal Government to manage. Unfunded acquisitions include smaller 
parcels in icon parks such as Valley Forge, Grand Teton, and Acadia. 
These purchases are the highest priorities of the Bush administration 
and are ready to go in 2007 if we had funding.
  I want to express my strong support for the cuts totaling $20 million 
to the Smithsonian contained in this bill, which Chairman Taylor and I 
believe is the best way for the Interior Subcommittee to express our 
extreme displeasure with recent actions taken by the Smithsonian. This 
situation involves the recently negotiated commercial venture with 
Showtime, the details of which have been kept from Congress by the 
Smithsonian.

                              {time}  1230

  On a more positive note, and one our constituents who visits D.C. 
certainly will appreciate, the bill makes an important down payment 
towards the much needed improvement of the infrastructure at the 
National Zoo. This will be a multiyear task to upgrade the zoo's 
facilities to a level where they should be. In a smart move, tackling 
the most important tasks first, this bill has placed significant 
emphasis on replacing and upgrading the fire protection and suppression 
systems.
  As I mentioned earlier, Chairman Taylor and I have discussed 
previously the problems with the Interior subcommittee repeatedly being 
given inadequate allocations to meet the needs of this country in terms 
of taking care of our Federal lands and protecting the environment. 
This is not a pretty picture.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we can improve the bill as it moves forward, but 
this is not a bill in my opinion which adequately addresses our 
country's needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5386, 
the Department of Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman, Mr. Taylor, and 
his committee for including funding in the Indian Health Service 
facilities budget for joint venture projects. I believe the Service 
should take advantage of opportunities like the joint venture program 
to leverage tribal dollars with Federal dollars.
  In my State of Oklahoma, I am pleased to note that the Chickasaw 
Nation has pledged an unprecedented $135,000 million in tribal funds to 
design, construct, and equip a new state-of-the-art medical center to 
meet the needs of its people, its community, and neighboring tribes.
  Congress and the Indian Health Service should look favorably upon 
tribes willing and able to make those investments back into their 
community and provide the necessary supplemental resources.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of H.R. 5386.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the majority party believes that if we 
just keep drilling for more gas and oil then our energy crisis will be 
over. Unfortunately, they are not looking for a solution to our energy 
crisis and a solution to our rising gas prices. They are just looking 
short term for false security solutions that ultimately line the 
pockets of big oil companies.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why we are here today discussing offshore oil 
drilling instead of promoting efficient and renewable energy policies. 
The people that I am fortunate to represent in Marin and Sonoma 
Counties north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, do 
understand. They get it. The coast of my district is one of the most 
biologically productive regions in the entire world, and it would be 
threatened, threatened by oil and gas exploration if this bill passes 
as is.
  For this reason, I have introduced a bill to extend the Gulf of the 
Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries along the 
entire

[[Page 8669]]

coast of Sonoma to protect it from offshore drilling threats.
  The coastal communities in my district rely on tourism and fishing, 
industries that would be severely hurt if offshore drilling was 
permitted. If you were to visit this beautiful stretch of coast you 
would understand why, and you would know that we must protect it.
  Mr. Chairman, the people who live in my district strongly oppose 
offshore drilling. They understand that we need an energy policy that 
focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy 
sources, not on oil rigs and the endless depletion of our natural 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Capps-Davis amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank 
the chairman for the incredible job that he has done on this bill. It 
is one of the toughest pieces of legislation that comes before us every 
year, and he has done an incredible job. His staff is always willing to 
listen to all of us and put up with all of us, I thank them as well, 
and they know who I am referring to.
  But I do need to say, Mr. Chairman, that there was an amendment put 
on during this process that I think would have, could have a 
devastating effect on the State of Florida, and that it would 
potentially allow for the drilling of natural gas, potentially up to 
just 3 miles off the coast of Florida.
  And I do not need to remind everybody how important tourism is for 
the economy of Florida, $57 billion to the economy. We depend on that 
environment being pristine. There is a consensus in Florida, among the 
people in Florida and just about all of the elected officials of 
Florida, that this could be devastating for the State of Florida.
  There will be an amendment by Mr. Putnam and others to try to remedy 
that. I will support that. I want to thank the chairman and staff again 
for always listening to us, and we hope that this great bill could be 
improved by taking out that part that can be very devastating to 
Florida.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to further elaborate 
on the drilling issue that has been discussed by the last two speakers, 
Democrat and Republican.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1981, this Congress has included language in this 
Interior spending bill that says that we draw a line as far as the 
extent to which we are willing to risk oil spills off the coast of 
Florida and off the coast of the United States in return for drilling. 
It has been a matter of balance.
  This bill today contains a provision that repeals this language, that 
has been there since 1981 and, as was mentioned earlier, will allow the 
possibility of leases for oil or gas as close as 3 miles off the east 
coast of Florida and 9 miles off the west coast of Florida, my home.
  The risk of a spill to the State of Florida is devastating, and to be 
perfectly honest, it is entirely uncertain to all of us what the risk 
is. But it is a risk that we do not want to accept in Florida, 
particularly because the quantities are so modest in return as far as 
what the Nation needs.
  Now the language in the bill, which I would like to discuss, it is 
important to point out what it does and what it does not do. It gives 
the White House the authority to issue leases should it choose to do so 
right off the coast of Florida.
  The language says, it is only for natural gas. But if you look at the 
record, including the President's own leader in the Department of 
Interior, he says when you go to drill you get what you get. If you 
make an investment as a company to drill for gas and you get oil, you 
are going to take oil. So this is about having an oil spill as well as 
gas.
  Secondly, there has been a representation made that this drilling off 
the coast of Florida and other parts of the United States is going to 
lower the price at the pump. With respect to Florida, nothing can be 
further from the truth. The representation is made that if we convert 
massive amounts of our cars and trucks to natural gas, then this 
provision will lower the price at the pump.
  The price at the pump is the problem with the price of oil. This 
provision is not going to help deal with the Nation's needs as far as 
oil. It could produce enough oil to generate a spill off the coast of 
Florida, but it is not going to lower the price at the pump.
  Let me finally just say, reasonable people can disagree on where this 
line should be drawn. But the way to do that is through hearings around 
the country, in the State of Florida. We want to be part of the 
solution in terms of meeting the Nation's energy needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not question for a minute the motives behind the 
sponsor of this bill, but there is a right way and a wrong way to have 
this debate. The right way is to have an open and honest discussion in 
the committee, around the country. Come to Florida. Our beaches are not 
just a State treasure, they are a national treasure.
  But the wrong way to do it is this last one, to change a balance that 
has existed since 1981 is to have a very short debate and to simply 
erase what Congress has had in place for decades through other energy 
crises and subject the State of Florida and other parts of the country 
to the possibility of an oil spill that could be enormously 
devastating, not just to our environment, not just to our economy, but 
to our way of life.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members of Congress will choose to take 
a responsible approach to this very important issue. This is not just 
about Florida. It is about coastlines that are pristine in terms of the 
entire country as well as the rest of the coastline.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that this 
restriction, which has been in the law since 1981, was also in the 
President's budget. This was part of the President's budget.
  So we are not only overturning this congressional restriction, but we 
are also doing it in the face of the Bush administration's budget.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I do not 
think anybody on the floor of this Congress is going to accuse the 
President of being bashful about drilling. He does not support this 
drilling right off the coast of Florida.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank Chairman Taylor as well as his excellent 
staff for allowing all of the Members to participate in the drafting of 
this amendment and a debate on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there is one provision that is very harmful to my home 
State of Florida. Along with my Florida Members, we will be fighting 
the Peterson language that is attached to this bill which will allow 
offshore drilling just 3 miles off our Nation's coastlines.
  The Peterson language would overturn a 25-year bipartisan moratorium 
on such drilling. It is bad for the environment, it is bad for national 
security, and it is not the answer to our pressing energy needs.
  Three miles. That is the distance in which drilling structures could 
appear off of Florida's shoreline. These structures could blight the 
coast, damage sensitive habitat, undermine our State's economic future. 
Last year alone, 85 million people visited Florida, many to experience 
the national beauty of our sandy beaches and marine habitats.
  Offshore drilling would introduce toxins and pollutants into the 
ocean environment. The Florida delegation will unite to promote the 
Putnam amendment later today to strip the Peterson language from the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to represent the national treasures of 
the

[[Page 8670]]

Florida Keys. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is home to 
thousands of plants and animal species as well as the world's third 
largest living coral reef system. Drilling would threaten the health of 
this national marine sanctuary and undermine our efforts to foster and 
restore sensitive areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues' help in making sure that we 
can protect Florida's coastline and our Nation's ecosystem by adopting 
the Putnam amendment and rejecting the Peterson language.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank again Chairman Taylor for his time and for this 
opportunity.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the principal issue 
that is going to be before us as we deal with the overall bill is going 
to be the lifting of the moratorium, the congressional moratorium with 
respect to drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  As a supporter of a bill that Mr. Peterson and I hoped to have heard 
in the Resources Committee that will deal with the issue in a much 
broader scope, I hope I can bring some level of reality here to what 
this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the quite true, as has been mentioned by previous 
speakers who want to see this amendment taken out of the overall bill, 
that 25 years ago the question of drilling 3 miles off of Florida or 
California or anywhere was an issue, and the reason that the moratorium 
was put in was to prevent that from happening. But that was 25 years 
ago, and now the issue is up for reconsideration, not to drill 3 miles, 
but whether there is going to be any drilling at all and whether it 
should take place and under what circumstances, given what has happened 
over the past 25 years.

                              {time}  1245

  The reason the Peterson amendment is in the overall bill is to give 
us the opportunity to start that discussion. There will be no drilling 
off of Florida or anyplace else if we pass this bill. It just gives us 
the opportunity to begin a discussion as to whether we should 
reconsider that position and where it should happen. That is what is at 
issue here, lifting the congressional moratorium. There is still a 
Presidential moratorium against it; there is still a 5-year plan that 
has to be implemented. We need to consider whether we want to continue 
with that particular approach.
  So what we are asking for is every Member here to be able to vote his 
or her own views on whether we can have a discussion on this issue. Our 
problem, Mr. Chairman, is, particularly for those of us who are 
Democrats, that we are in the grip now of an assault by an 
environmental Taliban out there that has absolute revealed wisdom as to 
what is involved with us trying to achieve an independent energy source 
that we can have as an alternative energy source right now in our 
country, and not be in the grip of people around the world who wish us 
ill with regard to energy.
  All we are asking for is the opportunity to be able to discuss this 
issue. If we defeat the Peterson amendment or have it taken out and 
pass the Capps-Putnam amendment and whatever other amendments are 
associated with it, we won't have the chance to even begin a discussion 
about whether natural gas is an alternative independent source of 
energy that we need to have now.
  That is what our request is. Let us have this discussion. Keep the 
Peterson amendment in the bill so we can begin the discussion and have 
the hearings that Mr. Davis and others indicated they would like to 
have. I agree with them. I think Members know me for a long time, I 
would never try to embarrass somebody else or put somebody else in a 
position of saying, look, I am right and you are wrong and I have the 
only position possible. That is not what it is about. We need to have 
this discussion. Let us defeat the Capps-Putnam amendment so that we 
can have this discussion. Mr. Chairman, I hope that everybody 
understands this is not a Democratic-Republican issue; this is an 
American issue about independent energy resources for this Nation.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. First, let me thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy regarding 
funding for an important conservation project in New Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, the State of New Jersey has only 3 percent of its real 
estate in Federal land ownership. It is also the most densely populated 
State in the country, as everyone knows. From national parks to 
wildlife areas, our investment in conservation, preservation, wildlife, 
and recreation pay tremendous dividends every day. The coastal areas of 
our Nation are under extreme pressure from development.
  The areas surrounding the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 
is no exception. It is vital that we assist our State and local 
governments in true Federal/State/local partnerships to purchase tracts 
of land like the ones surrounding the Forsythe refuge boundary, 
environmentally valuable land that can be bought now but most likely 
will be lost permanently for public use in the very near future because 
of development.
  I appreciate the challenges that the subcommittee faced in this very 
difficult budget year. However, I am also hopeful that, Mr. Chairman, 
you will recognize the importance of this project. We have a 
responsibility to our children to ensure that green spaces remain, to 
provide clean air and water, and ample opportunities to enjoy wildlife 
and the great outdoors.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank my colleague from New Jersey 
for bringing this important project to my attention. I will be pleased 
to consider this funding need, should additional funds become available 
in conference.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this bill, which should be one of the highlights of this 
congressional session, of any congressional session, as it touches on 
things that are near and dear to the hearts of the people we represent: 
clean air, vast open space, environmental protection, investment in the 
arts, and the public lands that are so meaningful to people.
  Mr. Chairman, there are important provisions in this bill that I do 
support. I appreciate the subcommittee funding for land acquisition in 
the Columbia River Gorge which will help us honor Federal commitments 
to communities in Oregon and Washington along a priceless national 
treasure. But, sadly, overall what should be a positive expression of 
our values, our hopes, and opportunities instead is a pattern of broken 
promises to our communities. It does represent a lost opportunity and 
is a symbol of the inability of those of us in Congress this year and 
the administration to match priorities with those of our constituents 
and, most importantly, for the future.
  I appreciate the fact that there is dramatic underfunding through the 
budget allocation in the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, putting 
them in the hole from the beginning. I appreciate that the funding for 
land acquisition has been increased over the President's budget. But 
there is no reason that the billions of dollars set aside in the trust 
fund for the land and water conservation fund for that express purpose 
should not be used for those purposes.
  Without the funding, communities will lose opportunities to purchase 
ecologically rich lands and waters, preserving and protecting 
recreation and conservation and historic values.
  Remember the commitment that was made on this floor in the year 2000. 
I appreciate the leadership that Mr. Dicks exhibited with the committee 
working with Mr. Young and Mr. Miller in the CARA legislation, which 
passed overwhelmingly in the House, but a deal was brokered to 
establish funding levels. It is a point of great

[[Page 8671]]

embarrassment that that commitment that was made to realize the 
overwhelming sense of what needs to happen in this body with CARA is 
being violated with this legislation today.
  I hope that we will be able to, before we finish deliberations and 
move it through this session, go back and revisit it, because that 
commitment was made in good faith. I appreciate the work of the 
gentleman from Washington together with Mr. Young and Mr. Miller, Mr. 
Obey I see here. We should not be violating that commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we can focus more attention and have a 
healthy discussion on that in the course of these deliberations.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gil-
chrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to 
thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his work and the 
staff on the hard work they have done on this bill. Based on the 
limited allocation that they have received, I think they did a pretty 
good job.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically to a provision in the bill 
that I support, and I want to thank Mr. Dicks for putting the provision 
in the bill, and I want to thank the chairman for allowing it to stay 
in the bill.
  Basically, the provision I would like to speak to is the sense of 
Congress in this bill that deals with the fact that this Congress 
should pay attention to, work with, and try to understand the 
increasing amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and what does 
that mean.
  Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while it represents a tiny fraction 
of 1 percent of the whole atmosphere, is the chief gas that determines 
the heat balance; it determines the climate. And there is a scientific 
consensus that within the last 100 years, especially within the last 50 
years, human activity burning fossil fuel has put huge amounts of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus debilitating or changing that 
heat balance that we have known for a long time.
  An example: 10,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, it is 
calculated through analysis that there was 180 parts per million of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It took 10,000 years for that to go 
up 100 points. 10,000 years. Now, in the last 100, but especially in 
the last 50 years, it has risen 100 points. So what the natural 
environment did in 10,000 years, human activity burning fossil fuel has 
done in less than 100 years.
  Now, what does that mean? Does that mean whoever talked about global 
warming is crying Chicken Little, the sky is falling; don't worry about 
it, nothing will happen? Or does it mean we need to pursue knowledge?
  What it means is, that increase in carbon dioxide in less than 100 
years that took the natural process 10,000 years to produce, this U.S. 
Congress, this government should pay attention to that issue. And the 
sense of Congress contained in this legislation should remain in this 
legislation.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman on his statement. This is 
not an issue that should be partisan in any way. We have had six former 
EPA administrators in both parties say that this is the issue of our 
time. A former Member, former Vice President of the United States, Al 
Gore, has made a national issue out of this. I would like the gentleman 
to repeat what he said about Greenland. I thought that was very 
dramatic. I would appreciate it. I think we have more Members now. If 
you would repeat that, I think that would be important to the debate.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Greenland is an interesting place because you can go 
back several hundred years. People were tracking the increasing or 
decreasing glacier ice cap. So there is a very accurate record. We saw 
some 20 years ago that the ice cap really significantly began to melt 
and about 20 cubic miles of ice was flowing into the North Atlantic. 
Today, that has increased to 53 cubic miles of ice cap on Greenland 
flowing in the form of water, melted water, into the North Atlantic. 
The rate we are going, we are going to lose the Greenland ice cap. When 
we do lose the Greenland ice cap, sea levels will rise 23 feet around 
the globe.
  Mr. DICKS. I want that to be repeated: 23 feet. I want my colleagues 
from Florida who are sitting here on the floor to think about what that 
would mean in Florida, what that would mean in the coast of California, 
the coast of Washington.
  Mr. GILCHREST. New York City. Boston.
  Mr. DICKS. This could be a catastrophic event. Yet we are not even 
willing to have a sense of the Congress resolution that says that human 
activity may be part of the problem. I mean, we have got to wake up on 
this. It is time to wake up.
  The former Vice President has been out making speeches all over the 
country. There was a movie which opened last night on this issue. This 
could be the issue of all time. If we don't get busy and start 
realizing we have got a role and a responsibility to play here, it may 
be too late. For every one of us who either has grandchildren, or may 
have grandchildren, we have got to think about this. What legacy are we 
leaving if we don't face up to this reality?
  The authorizers simply haven't done it. That is why the chairman, I 
thought, was very kind to accept this amendment. But now I understand 
they are going to knock it out on a point of order. This is like 
putting your head in the sand. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland, who is one of the more enlightened Members of this body, for 
all the facts that he has brought to this debate today. I hope somehow 
working together we can resurrect this at some future point. I would 
hope even that maybe the chairman of the Commerce Committee might 
rethink his opposition to this sense of the Congress resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________