[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8707-8760]
[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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5386.

                              {time}  1553


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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. Foley (Acting 
Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) had been postponed and the bill 
had been read through page 73, line 8.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of 
the House of today, which is at the desk.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          General Provisions, Environmental Protection Agency

        Sec. 201. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of, or to delay the implementation 
     of, Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994 (59 Fed. 
     Reg. 7629; relating to Federal actions to address 
     environmental justice in minority populations and low-income 
     populations).
        Sec. 202. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3) or to delay 
     the implementation of that section.

                      TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $280,318,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds provided, $62,329,000 
     is for the forest inventory and analysis program.

                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     including treatments of pests, pathogens, and invasive or 
     noxious plants and for restoring and rehabilitating forests 
     damaged by pests or invasive plants, cooperative forestry, 
     and education and land conservation activities and conducting 
     an international program as authorized, $228,608,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by law of 
     which $9,280,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund: Provided, That none of the funds provided 
     under this heading for the acquisition of lands or interests 
     in lands shall be available until the Forest Service notifies 
     the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate 
     Committee on Appropriations, in writing, of specific 
     contractual and grant details including the non-Federal cost 
     share.

                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, $1,445,659,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 
     percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances 
     under this heading available at the start of fiscal year 2007 
     shall be displayed by budget line item in the fiscal year 
     2008 budget justification.

                        wildland fire management


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands 
     under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuels reduction on 
     or adjacent to such lands, and for emergency rehabilitation 
     of burned-over National Forest System lands and water, 
     $1,810,566,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds including unobligated balances under this 
     heading, are available for repayment of advances from other 
     appropriations accounts previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That such funds shall be 
     available to reimburse State and other cooperating entities 
     for services provided in response to wildfire and other 
     emergencies or disasters to the extent such reimbursements by 
     the Forest Service for non-fire emergencies are fully repaid 
     by the responsible emergency management agency: Provided 
     further, That not less than 50 percent of any unobligated 
     balances remaining (exclusive of amounts for hazardous fuels 
     reduction) at the end of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be 
     transferred to the fund established pursuant to section 3 of 
     Public Law 71-319 (16 U.S.C. 576 et seq.) if necessary to 
     reimburse the fund for unpaid past advances: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $8,000,000 of funds appropriated under this appropriation 
     shall be used for Fire Science Research in support of the 
     Joint Fire Science Program: Provided further, That all 
     authorities for the use of funds, including the use of 
     contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, available to 
     execute the Forest and Rangeland Research appropriation, are 
     also available in the utilization of these funds for Fire 
     Science Research: Provided further, That funds provided shall 
     be

[[Page 8708]]

     available for emergency rehabilitation and restoration, 
     hazardous fuels reduction activities in the urban-wildland 
     interface, support to Federal emergency response, and 
     wildfire suppression activities of the Forest Service: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided, $296,792,000 is 
     for hazardous fuels reduction activities, $5,000,000 is for 
     rehabilitation and restoration, $22,800,000 is for research 
     activities and to make competitive research grants pursuant 
     to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $43,000,000 is for State 
     fire assistance, $12,810,000 is for volunteer fire 
     assistance, $14,800,000 is for forest health activities on 
     Federal lands and $10,000,000 is for forest health activities 
     on State and private lands: Provided further, That amounts in 
     this paragraph may be transferred to the ``State and Private 
     Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', and ``Forest and 
     Rangeland Research'' accounts to fund State fire assistance, 
     volunteer fire assistance, forest health management, forest 
     and rangeland research, vegetation and watershed management, 
     heritage site rehabilitation, and wildlife and fish habitat 
     management and restoration: Provided further, That transfers 
     of any amounts in excess of those authorized in this 
     paragraph, shall require approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with reprogramming 
     procedures contained in the report accompanying this Act: 
     Provided further, That the costs of implementing any 
     cooperative agreement between the Federal Government and any 
     non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by 
     the affected parties: Provided further, That in addition to 
     funds provided for State Fire Assistance programs, and 
     subject to all authorities available to the Forest Service 
     under the State and Private Forestry Appropriation, up to 
     $15,000,000 may be used on adjacent non-Federal lands for the 
     purpose of protecting communities when hazard reduction 
     activities are planned on national forest lands that have the 
     potential to place such communities at risk: Provided 
     further, That included in funding for hazardous fuel 
     reduction is $5,000,000 for implementing the Community Forest 
     Restoration Act, Public Law 106-393, title VI, and any 
     portion of such funds shall be available for use on non-
     Federal lands in accordance with authorities available to the 
     Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry 
     appropriation: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the 
     transfer of funds appropriated for wildland fire management, 
     in an aggregate amount not to exceed $9,000,000, between the 
     Departments when such transfers would facilitate and expedite 
     jointly funded wildland fire management programs and 
     projects: Provided further, That of the funds provided for 
     hazardous fuels reduction, not to exceed $5,000,000, may be 
     used to make grants, using any authorities available to the 
     Forest Service under the State and Private Forestry 
     appropriation, for the purpose of creating incentives for 
     increased use of biomass from national forest lands: Provided 
     further, That funds designated for wildfire suppression shall 
     be assessed for indirect costs on the same basis as such 
     assessments are calculated against other agency programs.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Beauprez

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Beauprez:
       In title III of the bill under the heading ``wildland fire 
     management (including transfer of funds)'', insert after the 
     first dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $28,700,000)''.
       In title III of the bill under the heading ``National 
     Endowment for the Arts--Grants and Administration'', insert 
     after the first dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by 
     $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, simply put, this amendment will reduce funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts by $30 million and transfer those funds 
to the United States Forest Service to reduce the threat of 
catastrophic wildfires.
  Earlier this week, I was pleased to support the passage of the Forest 
Emergency Recovery and Research Act because it will expedite the 
restoration of forest land affected by catastrophic wildfires. However, 
we can all agree that prevention comes first. Additional resources are 
needed if we are to get a handle on the wildfire crisis gripping the 
West.
  In 2002, the American taxpayers spent over $1.5 billion containing 
these devastating blazes. When Congress spends so much annually to put 
out wildfires, doesn't it make more sense to spend that money on 
additional thinning treatments that could help prevent these fires from 
starting in the first place?
  According to the House Resources Committee, 190 million acres of BLM 
and Forest Service land are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. To put 
that in perspective, this area is larger than the States of California 
and Arizona combined.
  The Wall Street Journal reported that parts of the National Forest 
system contained more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre, or 10 times 
the manageable or appropriate level. Disease and insect infestation 
have also contributed to an increase in combustible fuels.
  In Colorado alone, my State, surveys have recorded that approximately 
1.2 million trees were killed by mountain pine beetle outbreaks in 
2004. This is nearly 100 times the mortality rate reported in 1996, the 
first year a study was released by the Colorado Forest Service on pine 
beetles damage.
  Unfortunately, beetle kill leaves behind the kind of timber that 
turns small fires into the kinds of infernos that have devastated 
Colorado and other western States in recent years, destroying homes, 
poisoning the air, scorching critical habitat, and choking streams and 
rivers with tons of soot and sediment.
  Even with increased attention to thinning and fuel treatments efforts 
with legislation like the Healthy Forest Initiative, more funding is 
needed.
  Since the majority of our forests are federally owned, the burden to 
protect our States and local communities from the devastating effects 
of forest fires lies with the Federal agencies designated to protect 
them. Congress must fully fund their needs.
  The question arises, Why take funding from the NEA? I actually 
applaud the progress that has been made recently by the NEA in 
repairing a very damaged image in the view of many Americans. It is 
important, however, to recognize that only a small percentage of 
funding for the arts comes from the Federal Government. In 2001, 
Americans spent $27 billion on nonprofit arts funding. At $124 million, 
the NEA funding is just a drop in the bucket for an art industry that 
seems to be doing exceedingly well.
  Congress has to choose its fiscal priorities and obligations 
responsibly. This amendment amounts to one-tenth of one percent of 
total arts funding, but it is a massive help to ensure the safety of 
our western communities, prevent forest fires and save lives.
  Anyone who has witnessed the devastation to life, property, wildlife, 
water and air from the monster that is a forest fire understands that 
investing in prevention infinitely outweighs the incalculable long-term 
costs of a forest fire. This amendment allows us to invest in 
prevention, Mr. Chairman, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, no one is a stronger supporter of the National Forests 
health and wildfire management. But this amendment goes too far. The 
amendment cuts the NEA funding drastically, and this is much too much 
of a cut.
  The President's budget in the committee bill is a fair amount, is 
level funding with the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. We did raise it 
slightly and agreed to that.
  But that remains to be seen. We should support the NEA. The reforms 
which this committee put in place are working. The new chairman of the 
NEA is doing an excellent job of ensuring that important works are 
supported and that funding is well distributed.
  The bill makes a very strong contribution to the National Fire Plan. 
It is something that Members can be proud of. The bill increases 
overall

[[Page 8709]]

wildfire funding $80 million over last year. That includes a large $70 
million increase for Forest Service fuel reduction, and this is $34 
million above the 2005 level.
  I agree with the gentleman that this work is essential, but the 
agencies can only ramp up so fast. So extra funding is not necessarily 
needed this year.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is incorrect when he says that the fire 
funding is down 14 percent from 2005. His calculations may have 
included the $500 million in emergency funding provided that year. Not 
counting the emergency fire suppression funds, this bill is $145 
million above the 2005 funding level, and this is enough for these 
fiscally tight times.
  I also want to point out that this bill has increased funding for 
forest health management, an important key for preventing forest fires 
by $31 million above the President's request, and I want to point out 
that the Forest Service was able to carry over extra wildfire 
suppression funds from 2005 to this year.
  So they have or should have plenty of funds for the fire season 
absent a catastrophic season. Despite the good intentions behind this 
amendment, we do not need this additional increase for the fund's work 
at this time. We should not gut the administration's effort in the NEA.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentlemen, our 
committee has been a great advocate for money for fire. There is $2 
billion, 579 million, for fire in the bill. $500 million of the fire 
emergency funds are still available.
  We just increased the NEA by $5 million to $129.4 million, and NEA 
still is $40 million below its high point back in 1994. We fund 
programs in all States. This would be a devastating cut, and we do not 
need the money for fire. And I have offered amendment after amendment 
after amendment to put emergency fire money in when it is necessary.
  Also, the agencies can borrow money internally if necessary to deal 
with the problem. So I urge a no on this amendment. I think it is well 
intended, but simply not necessary and would do great damage to the 
NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman. I will be 
brief. I respect and appreciate the effort put forth by both the 
minority as well as the majority side of the committee on this issue.
  But with all due respect, I would point out again that the private 
sector, and a very large private sector, supports our arts industry. 
The public sector, we in government, have an obligation to look after 
the government's assets and people's lives, and that is what is at 
stake with this amendment.
  With all due respect to the comments that have already been made, no 
one looks after our national forests other than we in government, and I 
would encourage both the chairman and the ranking member at the next 
opportunity to come out to the West and visit and see the devastation 
the pine beetle damage has created in our forests. We are sitting 
literally on a matchbox awaiting someone to light the first match.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment. I think it is common sense. I 
think it is about us in government establishing priorities to protect 
and defend our Nation's assets and our citizens' lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from North 
Carolina has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with what the gentleman from Colorado 
is saying. There has been devestation in our forests. We do need the 
funding for firefighting and so forth. But I will tell you that taking 
it out of the NEA is the wrong place in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, they have done a tremendous job under the chairmanship 
of Gioia. They have brought the NEA back to what we originally intended 
it to be, and that is a means of getting the arts out to the rest of 
America, to rural America, particularly.
  And if you will look at some of the programs that they have, their 
masters program and the Shakespeare program and others, they have done 
a great job of getting the rest of rural America exposed to those types 
of things. That is what the NEA is all about.
  And yes, there is private organizations that fund a lot of these. But 
oftentimes it is in conjunction with private and public financing. 
Sometimes they just finance a very small portion of it. So I think that 
while I agree with the gentlemen's intent in terms of fire protection, 
taking the money out of the NEA, which is substantially below what it 
was in its high peak as was mentioned, I think is the wrong direction 
to go and would set this program back, when it is moving in the 
direction that we all hope it will go.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I will be 
voting against it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  capital improvement and maintenance


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $411,025,000, to remain available until 
     expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and 
     acquisition of, buildings and other facilities, and for 
     construction, reconstruction, repair, decommissioning, and 
     maintenance of forest roads and trails by the Forest Service 
     as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: 
     Provided, That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein 
     for road maintenance shall be available for the 
     decommissioning of roads, including unauthorized roads not 
     part of the transportation system, which are no longer 
     needed: Provided further, That no funds shall be expended to 
     decommission any system road until notice and an opportunity 
     for public comment has been provided on each decommissioning 
     project: Provided further, That $7,400,000 of the funds made 
     available in section 8098(b) of Public Law 108-287, to 
     construct a wildfire management training facility in San 
     Bernardino County, shall be transferred within 15 days of the 
     enactment of this Act to the Forest Service, ``Wildland Fire 
     Management'' account and shall be available for hazardous 
     fuels reduction, hazard mitigation, and rehabilitation 
     activities of the Forest Service in the San Bernardino 
     National Forest so long as this funding is used in addition 
     to, and not in place of, all normal funding allocated to this 
     Forest.

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses, 
     and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, 
     in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     Forest Service, $7,500,000, to be derived from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Forest Service may not use funds 
     in fiscal year 2007, including funds made available in Public 
     Law 96-586 or any other Act, to purchase land for the 
     Homewood Conservation Project in Lake Tahoe, California.


               acquisition of lands for national forests

                              special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $1,053,000, to be derived 
     from forest receipts.


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

       For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from 
     funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, 
     public school

[[Page 8710]]

     districts, or other public school authorities, and for 
     authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-Federal 
     parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts (16 U.S.C. 
     4601-516-617a, 555a; Public Law 96-586; Public Law 76-589, 
     76-591; and 78-310), pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until 
     expended.


                         range betterment fund

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


    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

       For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $63,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund 
     established pursuant to the above Act.


        management of national forest lands for subsistence uses

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage 
     Federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII 
     of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
     (Public Law 96-487), $5,311,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (1) purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition of passenger motor vehicles from excess 
     sources, and hire of such vehicles; purchase, lease, 
     operation, maintenance, and acquisition of aircraft from 
     excess sources to maintain the operable fleet for use in 
     Forest Service wildland fire programs and other Forest 
     Service programs; notwithstanding other provisions of law, 
     existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with proceeds 
     derived or trade-in value used to offset the purchase price 
     for the replacement aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 
     U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed $100,000 for employment under 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) purchase, erection, and alteration of 
     buildings and other public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) 
     acquisition of land, waters, and interests therein pursuant 
     to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers 
     in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 
     558a note); (6) the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (7) for debt collection contracts in 
     accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management 
     appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 
     under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe 
     burning conditions upon notification of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations and if and only if all 
     previously appropriated emergency contingent funds under the 
     heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' have been released by 
     the President and apportioned and all wildfire suppression 
     funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' are 
     obligated.
       The first transfer of funds into the Wildland Fire 
     Management account shall include unobligated funds, if 
     available, from the Land Acquisition account and the Forest 
     Legacy program within the State and Private Forestry account.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development in connection with forest and rangeland research, 
     technical information, and assistance in foreign countries, 
     and shall be available to support forestry and related 
     natural resource activities outside the United States and its 
     territories and possessions, including technical assistance, 
     education and training, and cooperation with United States 
     and international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying 
     this Act.
       Not more than $73,052,000 of funds available to the Forest 
     Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund of 
     the Department of Agriculture. Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall prohibit or limit the use of reimbursable agreements 
     requested by the Forest Service in order to obtain services 
     from the Department of Agriculture's National Information 
     Technology Center.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $2,500,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, $2,500,000 
     may be advanced in a lump sum to the National Forest 
     Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in 
     support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when 
     the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative expenses 
     or projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That of the 
     Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no more than 
     $100,000 shall be available for administrative expenses: 
     Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, by the 
     end of the period of Federal financial assistance, private 
     contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis funds 
     made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, That 
     the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-Federal 
     recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient 
     has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: Provided 
     further, That authorized investments of Federal funds held by 
     the Foundation may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed 
     as to both principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, 
     $2,250,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a 
     lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without 
     regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting 
     National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service 
     programs. Such funds shall be matched on at least a one-for-
     one basis by the Foundation or its subrecipients.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2), 
     and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not 
     to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the 
     General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel 
     and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance 
     or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings, 
     training sessions, management reviews, land purchase 
     negotiations and similar non-litigation related matters. 
     Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and 
     the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums 
     previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law 
     enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural 
     resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such 
     amounts shall not exceed $500,000.
       An eligible individual who is employed in any project 
     funded under title V of the Older American Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service 
     shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of 
     chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
       Any funds appropriated to the Forest Service may be used to 
     meet the non-Federal share requirement in section 502(c) of 
     the Older American Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)).
       Funds available to the Forest Service, not to exceed 
     $45,000,000, shall be assessed for the purpose of performing 
     facilities maintenance. Such assessments shall occur using a 
     square foot rate charged on the same basis the agency uses to 
     assess programs for payment of rent, utilities, and other 
     support services.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service


                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $2,830,136,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That up to $18,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic 
     Health Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $536,259,000 
     for contract medical care shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2008: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $27,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be used to carry out the loan repayment 
     program under section 108 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided in 
     this Act

[[Page 8711]]

     may be used for one-year contracts and grants which are to be 
     performed in two fiscal years, so long as the total 
     obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds are 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 
     authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of 
     achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and 
     requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new 
     facilities): Provided further, That funding contained herein, 
     and in any earlier appropriations Acts for scholarship 
     programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal 
     organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and 
     available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations 
     until expended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, of the amounts provided herein, not 
     to exceed $270,316,000 shall be for payments to tribes and 
     tribal organizations for contract or grant support costs 
     associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts 
     or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health 
     Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to 
     or during fiscal year 2007, of which not to exceed $5,000,000 
     may be used for contract support costs associated with new or 
     expanded self-determination contracts, grants, self-
     governance compacts or annual funding agreements: Provided 
     further, That the Bureau of Indian Affairs may collect from 
     the Indian Health Service and tribes and tribal organizations 
     operating health facilities pursuant to Public Law 93-638 
     such individually identifiable health information relating to 
     disabled children as may be necessary for the purpose of 
     carrying out its functions under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.).


                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $363,573,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be used 
     by the Indian Health Service to purchase TRANSAM equipment 
     from the Department of Defense for distribution to the Indian 
     Health Service and tribal facilities: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service 
     may be used for sanitation facilities construction for new 
     homes funded with grants by the housing programs of the 
     United States Department of Housing and Urban Development: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 from this 
     account and the ``Indian Health Services'' account shall be 
     used by the Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for 
     the Indian Health Service and tribal facilities in 
     conjunction with an existing interagency agreement between 
     the Indian Health Service and the General Services 
     Administration: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 
     shall be placed in a Demolition Fund, available until 
     expended, to be used by the Indian Health Service for 
     demolition of Federal buildings.


            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefor as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities.
       In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health 
     care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service 
     facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with 
     funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the 
     facility providing the service and shall be available without 
     fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or 
     regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be 
     administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation 
     Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
       Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this 
     Act, except those used for administrative and program 
     direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations 
     directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
       None of the funds made available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act shall be used for any assessments or 
     charges by the Department of Health and Human Services unless 
     identified in the budget justification and provided in this 
     Act, or approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations through the reprogramming process. Personnel 
     ceilings may not be imposed on the Indian Health Service nor 
     may any action be taken to reduce the full time equivalent 
     level of the Indian Health Service below the level in fiscal 
     year 2002 adjusted upward for the staffing of new and 
     expanded facilities, funding provided for staffing at the 
     Lawton, Oklahoma hospital in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 
     critical positions not filled in fiscal year 2002, and 
     staffing necessary to carry out the intent of Congress with 
     regard to program increases.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal 
     organization through a contract, grant, or agreement 
     authorized by title I or title V of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
     determination contract under title I, or a self-governance 
     agreement under title V of such Act and thereafter shall 
     remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without 
     fiscal year limitation.
       None of the funds made available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule 
     published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the 
     eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health 
     Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a 
     budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with 
     the proposed final rule, and such request has been included 
     in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
       With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health 
     Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health 
     Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those 
     entities, on a reimbursable basis, including payment in 
     advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements 
     received therefrom, along with the funds received from those 
     entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may 
     be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account 
     which provided the funding. Such amounts shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain 
     total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead 
     associated with the provision of goods, services, or 
     technical assistance.
       The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service 
     may not be altered without advance notification to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                     National Institutes of Health


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For necessary expenses for the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set 
     forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended, and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986, $79,414,000, of which $3,000,000 
     for individual project grants shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2008.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


            toxic substances and environmental public health

       For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances 
     and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set 
     forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as 
     amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
     amended, $76,754,000, of which up to $1,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended, is for Individual Learning Accounts 
     for full-time equivalent employees of the Agency for Toxic 
     Substances and Disease Registry: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, in lieu of 
     performing a health assessment under section 104(i)(6) of 
     CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may conduct

[[Page 8712]]

     other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or activities, 
     including, without limitation, biomedical testing, clinical 
     evaluations, medical monitoring, and referral to accredited 
     health care providers: Provided further, That in performing 
     any such health assessment or health study, evaluation, or 
     activity, the Administrator of ATSDR shall not be bound by 
     the deadlines in section 104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided 
     further, That funds paid for administrative costs to the 
     Centers of Disease Control and Prevention shall not exceed 
     7.5 percent of the funding provided under this heading: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be available for ATSDR to issue in excess 
     of 40 toxicological profiles pursuant to section 104(i) of 
     CERCLA during fiscal year 2007, and existing profiles may be 
     updated as necessary.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

                   Executive Office of the President


  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to 
     exceed $750 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $2,627,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 
     202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the 
     Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and 
     duties of the Council.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant 
     to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 
     including hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for 
     services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5 
     U.S.C. 5376, $9,208,000: Provided, That the Chemical Safety 
     and Hazard Investigation Board (Board) shall have not more 
     than three career Senior Executive Service positions: 
     Provided further, That in fiscal year 2007 and thereafter, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency Inspector General shall not serve as the 
     Inspector General for the Board: Provided further, That up to 
     $600,000 of the funds provided herein may be used for 
     personnel compensation and benefits for the Members of the 
     Board.

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $5,940,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development


                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title 
     XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A), 
     $6,703,000.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings, 
     facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five 
     replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for employees, $517,094,000, of which 
     $10,000,000 is for facilities maintenance at the National 
     Zoological Park; of which not to exceed $9,964,000 for the 
     instrumentation program, collections acquisition, exhibition 
     reinstallation, the National Museum of African American 
     History and Culture, and the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program shall remain available until expended; and of which 
     $2,077,000 for fellowships and scholarly awards shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2008; and including such funds 
     as may be necessary to support American overseas research 
     centers and a total of $125,000 for the Council of American 
     Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated 
     herein are available for advance payments to independent 
     contractors performing research services or participating in 
     official Smithsonian presentations.


                           facilities capital

       For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and 
     alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian 
     Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by 
     section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and 
     for construction, including necessary personnel, 
     $107,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $20,000,000 is for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     construction of facilities at the National Zoological Park, 
     and of which not to exceed $10,000 is for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That contracts awarded 
     for environmental systems, protection systems, and repair or 
     restoration of facilities of the Smithsonian Institution may 
     be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded on the 
     basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.


           administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs 
     including closure of facilities, relocation of staff or 
     redirection of functions and programs without the advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current 
     space or new facility without consultation with the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for 
     the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in 
     Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize 
     water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim 
     structural support.
       None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the statement of the 
     managers accompanying this Act.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     purchase any additional buildings without prior consultation 
     with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     execute any contract or legal agreement with a for-profit 
     entity which has the effect of significantly limiting access 
     by the public to Smithsonian personnel or to Smithsonian 
     collections unless such agreement has been publicly noticed 
     at least 30 days prior to entering into such contract or 
     agreement and has been approved by the Regents of the 
     Smithsonian Institution after reviewing any public comments 
     that have been received during the public comment period. 
     This section does not limit the Smithsonian's existing 
     authority to grant or deny any specific request, by any 
     organization or individual for access, based on its judgment 
     of the appropriateness of the use of Smithsonian resources 
     being proposed in a specific application.
       None of the funds in the Act shall be used to administer or 
     otherwise facilitate the payment of compensation to any 
     officer or employee of the Smithsonian or any of its 
     subsidiary organizations at an annual rate of pay, including 
     any bonuses or similar cash or in-kind amounts, in excess of 
     the rate of pay of the President of the United States.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates

[[Page 8713]]

     or prices and under such terms and conditions as the Gallery 
     may deem proper, $101,794,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,239,000 for the special exhibition program shall remain 
     available until expended.


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $14,949,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a single procurement for the Master Facilities Plan 
     renovation project at the National Gallery of Art may be 
     issued which includes the full scope of the Work Area #3 
     project: Provided further, That the solicitation and the 
     contract shall contain the clause ``availability of funds'' 
     found at 48 CFR 52.232.18.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $18,909,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration 
     of the existing features of the building and site of the John 
     F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $19,800,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $9,438,000.

           National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $124,412,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts, including arts education and public outreach 
     activities, through assistance to organizations and 
     individuals pursuant to section 5 of the Act, including 
     $14,097,000 for support of arts education and public outreach 
     activities through the Challenge America program, for program 
     support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the 
     Arts ``Matching Grants'' account and ``Challenge America'' 
     account may be transferred to and merged with this account: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated herein shall be 
     expended in accordance with sections 309 and 311 of Public 
     Law 108-108.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $126,049,000, shall be available to the National Endowment 
     for the Humanities for support of activities in the 
     humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for 
     administering the functions of the Act, to remain available 
     until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $14,906,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $9,648,000 shall be available to the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                       Administrative Provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may 
     be used as necessary for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That the 
     Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may 
     approve grants up to $10,000, if in the aggregate this amount 
     does not exceed 5 percent of the sums appropriated for grant-
     making purposes per year: Provided further, That such small 
     grant actions are taken pursuant to the terms of an expressed 
     and direct delegation of authority from the National Council 
     on the Arts to the Chairperson: Provided further, That 20 
     U.S.C. 954(e) shall not apply to grants and contracts funded 
     solely with nonappropriated monies.

                        Commission of Fine Arts


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,951,000: 
     Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to 
     cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall 
     be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to 
     remain available until expended without further 
     appropriation.


               National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (20 U.S.C. 956a), as amended, $6,534,000.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $5,118,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,623,000: 
     Provided, That one-quarter of 1 percent of the funds provided 
     under this heading may be used for official reception and 
     representational expenses associated with hosting 
     international visitors engaged in the planning and physical 
     development of world capitals.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Museum


                       holocaust memorial museum

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310), 
     $43,415,000, of which $515,000 for the equipment replacement 
     program shall remain available until September 30, 2009; and 
     $1,900,000 for the museum's repair and rehabilitation program 
     and $1,264,000 for the museum's exhibition design and 
     production program shall remain available until expended.

                             Presidio Trust


                          presidio trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus 
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $19,256,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended.

      White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the White House Commission on the 
     National Moment of Remembrance, $200,000.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title IV be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title IV is as follows:

       Sec. 402. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which Congressional action is not complete other than to 
     communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 
     1913.
       Sec. 403. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 404. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 405. Estimated overhead charges, deductions, reserves 
     or holdbacks from programs, projects, activities and 
     subactivities

[[Page 8714]]

     to support government-wide, departmental, agency or bureau 
     administrative functions or headquarters, regional or central 
     operations shall be presented in annual budget justifications 
     and subject to approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 
     Changes to such estimates shall be presented to the 
     Committees on Appropriations for approval.
       Sec. 406. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer 
     made by, or transfer provided in, this Act or any other Act.
       Sec.  407. None of the funds available to the Forest 
     Service or the Bureau of Land Management may be used in 
     fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 to plan, prepare, or 
     offer for sale timber from trees classified as giant sequoia 
     (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located on National 
     Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands in a manner 
     different than such sales were conducted in fiscal year 2005.
       Sec.  408. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for 
     the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with 
     the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
       (c) Report.--On September 30, 2007, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the 
     Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section 
     314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill 
     sites contained in a patent application as set forth in 
     subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the 
     sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party 
     contractor in accordance with the standard procedures 
     employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of 
     third-party contractors.
       Sec.  409. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by 
     Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
     277, 106-113, 106-291, 107-63, 108-7, 108-108, 108-447, and 
     109-54 for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     contract support costs associated with self-determination or 
     self-governance contracts, grants, compacts, or annual 
     funding agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the 
     Indian Health Service as funded by such Acts, are the total 
     amounts available for fiscal years 1994 through 2006 for such 
     purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority 
     allocations for unmet contract support costs of ongoing 
     contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding 
     agreements.
       Sec.  410. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the 
     5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act.
       Sec.  411. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2006 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the 14th paragraph 
     under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of March 4, 
     1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in 
     which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or 
     to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health 
     conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in 
     the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally 
     high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing 
     risks to human safety and public health and property and 
     enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest 
     productivity, and biological integrity. The projects may be 
     completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not be 
     expended under this section to replace funds which would 
     otherwise appropriately be expended from the timber salvage 
     sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     exempt any project from any environmental law.
       Sec. 412. Other than in emergency situations, none of the 
     funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering 
     machines during core business hours unless such answering 
     machines include an option that enables callers to reach 
     promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being 
     contacted.
       Sec.  413. Prior to October 1, 2008, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of 
     subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) 
     solely because more than 15 years have passed without 
     revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System. Nothing in this section exempts the Secretary from 
     any other requirement of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) or any other 
     law: Provided, That if the Secretary is not acting 
     expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding 
     available, to revise a plan for a unit of the National Forest 
     System, this section shall be void with respect to such plan 
     and a court of proper jurisdiction may order completion of 
     the plan on an accelerated basis.
       Sec.  414. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to 
     conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under 
     either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
     within the boundaries of a National Monument established 
     pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where 
     such activities are allowed under the Presidential 
     proclamation establishing such monument.
       Sec.  415. In entering into agreements with foreign 
     countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior are authorized through the end of 
     fiscal year 2010 to enter into reciprocal agreements in which 
     the individuals furnished under said agreements to provide 
     wildfire services are considered, for purposes of tort 
     liability, employees of the country receiving said services 
     when the individuals are engaged in fire suppression. The 
     Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall not enter into any agreement under this provision 
     unless the foreign country (either directly or through its 
     fire organization) agrees to assume any and all liability for 
     the acts or omissions of American firefighters engaged in 
     firefighting in a foreign country. When an agreement is 
     reached for furnishing fire fighting services, the only 
     remedies for acts or omissions committed while fighting fires 
     shall be those provided under the laws of the host country, 
     and those remedies shall be the exclusive remedies for any 
     claim arising out of fighting fires in a foreign country. 
     Neither the sending country nor any legal organization 
     associated with the firefighter shall be subject to any legal 
     action whatsoever pertaining to or arising out of the 
     firefighter's role in fire suppression.
       Sec.  416. In awarding a Federal contract with funds made 
     available by this Act, notwithstanding Federal Government 
     procurement and contracting laws, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (the 
     ``Secretaries'') may, in evaluating bids and proposals, give 
     consideration to local contractors who are from, and who 
     provide employment and training for, dislocated and displaced 
     workers in an economically disadvantaged rural community, 
     including those historically timber-dependent areas that have 
     been affected by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands 
     and other forest-dependent rural communities isolated from 
     significant alternative employment opportunities. 
     Notwithstanding Federal Government procurement and 
     contracting laws the Secretaries may award contracts, grants 
     or cooperative agreements to local non-profit entities, Youth 
     Conservation Corps or related partnerships with State, local 
     or non-profit youth groups, or small or micro-business or 
     disadvantaged business. The contract, grant, or cooperative 
     agreement is for forest hazardous fuels reduction, watershed 
     or water quality monitoring or restoration, wildlife or fish 
     population monitoring, or habitat restoration or management. 
     The terms ``rural community'' and ``economically 
     disadvantaged'' shall have the same meanings as in section 
     2374 of Public Law 101-624. The Secretaries shall develop 
     guidance to implement this section. Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as relieving the Secretaries of any duty 
     under applicable procurement laws, except as provided in this 
     section.
       Sec.  417. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     acquisition of lands or interests in lands may be expended 
     for the filing of declarations of taking or complaints in 
     condemnation without the approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That this provision 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated to implement the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 
     1989, or to funds appropriated for Federal assistance to the 
     State of Florida to acquire lands for Everglades restoration 
     purposes.
       Sec. 418. (a) Limitation on Competitive Sourcing Studies.--
       (1) Of the funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Department of the Interior for fiscal year 2007, not more 
     than

[[Page 8715]]

     $3,450,000 may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to 
     initiate or continue competitive sourcing studies in fiscal 
     year 2007 for programs, projects, and activities for which 
     funds are appropriated by this Act until such time as the 
     Secretary concerned submits a reprogramming proposal to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, and such proposal has been processed 
     consistent with the reprogramming guidelines included in the 
     report accompanying this Act.
       (2) Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not more than 
     $2,500,000 may be used in fiscal year 2007 for competitive 
     sourcing studies and related activities by the Forest 
     Service.
       (b) Competitive Sourcing Study Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``competitive sourcing study'' means a study on 
     subjecting work performed by Federal Government employees or 
     private contractors to public-private competition or on 
     converting the Federal Government employees or the work 
     performed by such employees to private contractor performance 
     under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or 
     any other administrative regulation, directive, or policy.
       (c) Competitive Sourcing Exemption for Forest Service 
     Studies Conducted Prior to Fiscal Year 2006.--The Forest 
     Service is hereby exempted from implementing the Letter of 
     Obligation and post-competition accountability guidelines 
     where a competitive sourcing study involved 65 or fewer full-
     time equivalents, the performance decision was made in favor 
     of the agency provider, no net savings was achieved by 
     conducting the study, and the study was completed prior to 
     the date of this Act.
       (d) In preparing any reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations on competitive sourcing activities, agencies 
     funded in this Act shall include all costs attributable to 
     conducting the competitive sourcing competitions and staff 
     work to prepare for competitions or to determine the 
     feasibility of starting competitions, including costs 
     attributable to paying outside consultants and contractors 
     and, in accordance with full cost accounting principles, all 
     costs attributable to developing, implementing, supporting, 
     managing, monitoring, and reporting on competitive sourcing, 
     including personnel, consultant, travel, and training costs 
     associated with program management.
       (e) In carrying out any competitive sourcing study 
     involving Forest Service employees, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall--
       (1) determine whether any of the employees concerned are 
     also qualified to participate in wildland fire management 
     activities; and
       (2) take into consideration the effect that contracting 
     with a private sector source would have on the ability of the 
     Forest Service to effectively and efficiently fight and 
     manage wildfires.
       Sec. 419. None of the funds in this Act or prior Acts 
     making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies may be provided to the managing partners or 
     their agents for the SAFECOM or Disaster Management projects.
       Sec.  420. Section 331 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted 
     into law by section 1000(a)(3) of Public Law 106-113; 113 
     Stat. 1501A-196; 16 U.S.C. 497 note), as amended, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2007''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       Sec. 421. The Secretary of Agriculture may acquire, by 
     exchange or otherwise, a parcel of real property, including 
     improvements thereon, of the Inland Valley Development Agency 
     of San Bernardino, California, or its successors and assigns, 
     generally comprising Building No. 3 and Building No. 4 of the 
     former Defense Finance and Accounting Services complex 
     located at the southwest corner of Tippecanoe Avenue and Mill 
     Street in San Bernardino, California, adjacent to the former 
     Norton Air Force Base. As full consideration for the property 
     to be acquired, the Secretary of Agriculture may terminate 
     the leasehold rights of the United States received pursuant 
     to section 8121(a)(2) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 999). 
     The acquisition of the property shall be on such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture considers 
     appropriate and may be carried out without appraisals, 
     environmental or administrative surveys, consultations, 
     analyses, or other considerations of the condition of the 
     property.
       Sec. 422. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to study, complete a study of, or enter into a 
     contract with a private party to carry out, without specific 
     authorization in a subsequent Act of Congress, a competitive 
     sourcing activity of the Secretary of Agriculture or the 
     Secretary of the Interior, including support personnel of the 
     Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, 
     relating to wildfire management or wildfire suppression 
     programs.
       Sec. 423. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to work on or enter into a contract with a private 
     party to carry out, the Fire Program Analysis system, unless 
     both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
     Interior certify, in writing to the Comptroller General, that 
     this funding will accomplish the existing work plan, as 
     determined by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, and that 
     State wildfire agencies will be full participants in the use 
     and development of the system.
       Sec. 424. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     officer or employee of the Smithsonian Institution or any of 
     its subsidiary organizations shall be compensated directly or 
     indirectly at an annual rate of pay in excess of the 
     statutorily established rate of pay of the President of the 
     United States.
       Sec. 425. (a) The Congress finds that--
       (1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are 
     causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the 
     range of natural variability and are posing a substantial 
     risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric 
     and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity 
     of floods and droughts;
       (2) There is a growing scientific consensus that human 
     activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas 
     accumulation in the atmosphere; and
       (3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the 
     growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
       (b) It is the sense of the Congress that there should be 
     enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of 
     mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of 
     greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of 
     such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not 
     significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will 
     encourage comparable action by other nations that are major 
     trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order that the 
language contained in section 425 beginning with ``the Congress finds 
that,'' on page 125, line 3, through ``contributors of global 
emissions'' on page 125, line 25, violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the 
rules of the House representing prohibited legislation in appropriation 
bills.
  The language that I have cited contains congressional findings and a 
sense of Congress on global warming. This language clearly constitutes 
legislation in appropriations bill, and such violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order. This is my amendment, and I want the gentleman to understand 
that this doesn't have anything to do with authorizing language either 
for Interior or for Agriculture and that this amendment is a sense of 
the Congress.
  Now, I don't see, and it would seem to me that the gentleman from 
Alaska would be more concerned about the global warming issue because 
of the consequences for his State. So I am very surprised that he is 
offering this point of order against my amendment, and I would hope he 
would reconsider.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alaska wish to be heard 
further?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I will not reconsider. The language clearly 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and you know I do 
not like legislation on appropriations bills, period. I have been up 
here before, and I will be up here again every time on legislation on 
appropriations bills.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  The Chair finds that this section states a legislative sentiment of 
the Congress. The section therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and 
the section is stricken from the bill.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 125, after line 25, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 426. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount available for Environmental 
     Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and

[[Page 8716]]

     Management, and increasing the amount made available for 
     Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and 
     Management, by $1.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment simply to have an 
opportunity to comment on what has just transpired on the House floor.
  My great mentor and friend through most of my public life has been 
Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, and perhaps the greatest 
environmentalist who ever served in the United States Senate. Just 
before he died, I had my last conversation with him about environmental 
issues, and he made quite clear that he thought the greatest 
environmental threat to mankind over the next 100 years was the issue 
of global warming. And it is time this Congress face up to that fact 
and does something about it.
  I don't know what it takes to have this government get off its you-
know-what and start dealing with the most critical environmental 
problem that confronts the entire planet. If we just take a look at a 
few of the pieces of evidence that are lying all around: core drillings 
in glaciers around the world enable us to study bubbles that go back as 
far as 300,000 years, and we see that we have a higher concentration of 
carbon dioxide than we have had in the known history of the planet.
  Since 1970, the duration and intensity of hurricanes has increased by 
50 percent, the number of tornados in this country has now reached the 
highest number in recorded history, some 1,700 in one year. Two hundred 
western cities have broken heat records in the past 2 years.
  Glaciers, which are serving really as the proverbial canaries in the 
mines, are trying to tell us something. Twenty-seven of the 38 glaciers 
in Glacier Park are gone, and the rest of them are likely to be gone 
before this century reaches its halfway point. The Larsen ice shelf, 
700 feet thick, was expected to last 100 years; it suddenly began to 
collapse in two weeks. The Arctic ice cap has lost half of its 
thickness in the last half century. The Greenland ice cap, as was 
referred to on that side of the aisle earlier, is melting at a highly 
accelerated rate. And, if it goes, one third of Florida goes with it. 
It will be underwater. If it goes, it could shut down the major 
Atlantic Ocean current. The current that drives the gulf stream has 
already decreased 30 percent in 50 years, and that is driven by 
differences in temperature and salinity of the water.
  So this to me is not just an environmental problem; it is a moral 
problem. It isn't going to affect my generation. All of you who are in 
my generation are going to be gone within 20 years. But it most 
certainly is going to affect our kids, it most certainly is going to 
affect our grandkids. And I would hope that we would demonstrate that 
we care more about the welfare of the planet than we care about 
committee jurisdictional dung hills.
  But what is apparent today is that this Congress is going to be 
prevented from making a simple statement of fact that humans and human 
activity are driving, at least significantly driving, the problem of 
global warming and that we have an obligation to do something on the 
national level and the international level to deal with it, and we have 
an obligation to do it now.
  John Sawhill, who served a variety of Republican administrations in a 
variety of capacities, said this just before he died: ``In the end, our 
society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we 
refuse to destroy.'' And I think we ought to remember that when we 
think of this issue.
  To me, I think we need to remember what those who were present saw in 
1933 at FDR's inaugural when he took the oath of office on the very 
steps of this Capitol. He is remembered mostly for saying that ``we 
have nothing to fear but fear itself.'' But the line that got the 
greatest reaction from the crowd at that time was when FDR said, ``We 
need action, and we need action now.'' We most certainly do. And I 
regret very much that the gentleman felt it necessary to knock out this 
language. If he is going to do that, then I would suggest that the 
authorizing committees have an obligation to sit down with the White 
House and begin immediately, not 6 months, not 6 years from now, the 
real process of producing actions that will indeed save this planet 
from what is most assuredly going to occur if we continue the drift 
that is implied by this action today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for 
the gentleman who just spoke. My interest is in fact legislation on 
appropriation bills. And I do believe we have the opportunity to in 
fact have good hearings on this issue, because there is a difference of 
opinion.
  Do me a favor, my friends, and go back and read 1972, 1973, 1974 and 
1975. You were here, Mr. Obey. I believe you were. I was. Maybe you 
weren't.
  Mr. OBEY. Yes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We call that the Ice Age. Every scientist of any 
renown said we were faced with an ice age. It was irreversible. We were 
going to be faced with famines. The world was coming to an end. And we 
had to do something about it immediately. We had to do something about 
it as the Congress.
  Check the records. That is the reality. What concerns me the most is 
the possibility of a fear tactic being implemented in the warming 
threat.
  Let's have a good study. Let's have a debate and division of what is 
occurring by scientists. Let's look at the model. Yes, the Earth is 
warming, in some areas. I just read a report, in fact, that Greenland 
is cooling. The thing I think strikes me the most is if you will take 
the time to study the globe, the world as we know it, and look at what 
has occurred in the past and possibly will occur in the future, we are 
now pumping 1 million barrels a day from Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay, the 
most northern part of this continent, we are pumping that oil.
  Now, I ask you, my friends, if you studied science, where does oil 
come from? What occurred on this globe at that time to allow mastodons, 
ferns, tree stumps, a tropical atmosphere to be there to create that 
oil? And that is the reality.
  I ask you, secondly, if you go back to the Ice Age, and we have had 
four ice ages, three majors and one minor, if you go to New Mexico 12 
million years ago, there was 287 feet of ice in New Mexico. I won't ask 
you what created that ice. But I will ask each and every one of you and 
everybody watching and everybody talking this fear tactic what melted 
that ice all the way to the North Pole before mankind set foot on this 
continent. It certainly wasn't hair spray or freon or automobile 
emissions. It melted, 287 foot of ice, before we set foot.
  I am a little bit concerned when everything that is wrong is our 
fault, that the human factor creates all the damages on this globe. 
That is pure nonsense. That is nonsense.
  And so I am asking you, let's have the hearings, let's have the 
scientists, let's have some debate about really what is occurring here 
instead of having hysteria and saying it is all our fault.
  And, by the way, it is always the fault of the Americans. It is never 
the fault of the bigger countries that burn as many barrels of oil as 
we are doing today, not per capita but as many barrels of oil, and burn 
the coal as we are trying to do. It is never their fault. It is our 
fault.
  So let's have a sound debate about this issue and not be caught in 
this attitude that we must do something right now because we are the 
Federal Government. Let's do it the right way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I knew we still had charter members of the Flat Earth 
Society walking around this country. I didn't realize there were quite 
so many in the United States Congress.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am just curious, were you referring to 
yourself?

[[Page 8717]]


  Mr. OBEY. The rules don't allow me to say who I was referring to.
  The gentleman says we should have studies, we should have hearings. 
Your party has controlled this Congress for 14 years. The time for 
studying is over. The time for studying is past. There is a huge 
scientific consensus that human beings are driving global warming. And 
James Hansen from NASA has told us that in his view we may have less 
than 10 years to deal with this problem before we hit a critical 
tipping point beyond which we will be facing catastrophe.
  He may be right, and you may be right. If you are right, then moving 
to deal with this problem costs us very little. If he is right, not 
moving costs us everything. The gentleman refers to an ice age.

                              {time}  1630

  If you shut down the ocean currents' conveyors, you are going to have 
an ice age in one heck of a hurry. So I would suggest the gentleman has 
committee responsibilities. If he does not want this committee to meet 
our responsibilities, as we have tried to do, then it is about time you 
meet yours and actually do something about it rather than denying that 
this is a real problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I thank the gentleman, again, for his presentation. I am glad he gave 
us an additional 2 years because the way I record it we have been in 
power for 12 years, not 14 years. I would gladly take two more. Maybe 
that is an omen of this next election, but I am just saying we have 
actually been going on 12 years.
  Lastly, let us say this is not about the action itself. It is about 
legislating on appropriation, but I do, and ask you sincerely, I do not 
have jurisdiction with that committee. Thank God, I do not really run 
the White House, but I think we have to legitimately and not respond to 
the fear tactic. Read the book, Controlled By Fear. It is very 
interesting you can frighten people into doing most anything, including 
taking away the economy and the opportunity for future generations, 
easily done.
  That is what I do not want us to fall into. If we are the driving 
factor, I am willing to accept that responsibility and do something of 
it, but again, go back to the history of this globe and what has 
occurred. It is ironic when I go into many of these States and I see 
seashells at 11,000 feet, seashells. This continent was covered with 
water at one time, retreated and allowed humanity to grow. Now, keep 
that in mind. Do not keep getting caught in the idea that everything 
that is here now is permanent. The Earth is a natural, evolving 
phenomenon.
  That is all I am asking people to do. It is not to be caught into the 
fear and driving and say it is all our fault what is occurring. If that 
is the case through such studies, then let us accept that, but right 
now it has not been proven. There is a large division that says this is 
not happening because of humanity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would simply say to my good friend that just about the only 
scientists left in the world who do not recognize that this is a 
serious and real problem are those who have an economic interest in not 
recognizing it, and that, in my view, is an absolute fact.
  The gentleman talks about not wanting to fall into a trap. What you 
are going to fall into if we listen to the gentleman is sea levels 20 
to 30 feet higher than they are now, and virtually every coastal city 
in the world is going to be under water, and New Orleans is going to be 
the norm rather than the unhappy exception. That is what the world is 
going to face if we do not deal with this problem and begin to deal 
with it while we still have time.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am sorry that the gentleman from Alaska has raised this point of 
order because planet Earth is warming. Climate scientists of all 
persuasions agree that the average surface temperature of the Earth has 
risen by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850, and all agree that the 
accurately measurable concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere 
has risen from about 280 parts per million in 1850 to over 380 parts 
per million today. Furthermore, 75 of that 100 parts per million rise 
has occurred in just the last 40 years.
  As a scientist, my attention became totally focused on global warming 
some 15 years ago by the elegant and powerful measurements of carbon 
dioxide trapped in ice cores taken as much as 2 miles deep from the 
great East Antarctica ice sheet.
  Those data give a continuous 400,000-year record of concentration of 
CO2 in the atmosphere at the time the snow that now makes up 
that great ice sheet fell. Through four successive cycles of deep cold 
followed by interglacial periods of warming, in the coldest part of 
each cycle the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere never 
fell below 190 parts per million, and in the warmest period of each 
cycle never rose above 280 parts per million.
  Suddenly, within the last 40 years, concentration of carbon dioxide 
in our atmosphere has smashed through the 400,000-year maximum of 280 
parts per million to a 380-part per million level and continues to 
rise.
  Since 1850, burning of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas has 
increased 100 times to produce energy as the world has industrialized 
to serve the world's more than 6 billion and growing population. The 
scientists who do climate research understand that much of the ever 
increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 
must be attributed to burning those fossil fuels to produce the energy 
that drives industrialization.
  With this chart, let me touch one facet of the climate crisis that we 
are dealing with. 6.3 billion people, on average, produce four tons of 
CO2 every year. That comes to a total of slightly more than 
25 billion tons of CO2 produced every year. Our 290 million 
people produce 20 tons per person, and China, with its almost 1.3 
billion people in 2003 produced 2.7 tons per person of CO2.
  We all know that China is industrializing at a growth rate of 8 to 10 
percent per year. China is on track to pass the U.S. as the largest 
economy in the world in 20 to 25 years, and China is determined to give 
its people a chance at this high standard of living that we enjoy.
  Consider a hypothetical case. If every country except China stayed 
exactly where they are on population and energy usage, and China alone 
industrialized to our level, using the same mix of energy sources that 
the U.S. uses in emitting the same 20 tons of CO2 per person 
that the U.S. emits, it is a simple calculation to reach a number by 
taking the 1.3 billion Chinese and multiplying it by the difference 
between 20 and 2.7, 17.3 additional tons per person, and that comes to 
22.5 billion tons of added CO2 over what is presently 
emitted by the whole world. That is 90 percent as much as is being 
produced by the whole world today.
  The industrialization of China alone would increase by 90 percent the 
concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and would at least 
increase the atmospheric CO2 by at least another 100 parts 
per million.
  That simple example tells why climate scientists are so concerned 
about the lack of effective measures to curb CO2 emissions, 
to develop new technology, to produce energy that does not produce 
CO2, to increase efficiency of present technology and, 
frankly, to conserve energy.
  The sense of the Congress resolution on which a point of order has 
been raised recognizes the looming crisis that human life faces if we 
continue to produce the energy needed by methods that disrupt the 
Earth's climate by adding humongous amounts of CO2 into

[[Page 8718]]

our atmosphere. It is a critical first step in any effort to address 
global warming.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gil-
chrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank and appreciate the gentleman 
from Alaska for the time.
  The issue that we are debating here, this sense of Congress, is to 
ask the Members of Congress to take a look at a potential problem of 
global warming that human activity is causing by burning fossil fuel 
and adding increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere that 
helps with the greenhouse effect.
  Carbon dioxide makes up less than 100th of 1 percent of the 
atmosphere, a very, very tiny amount. Yet that tiny amount has a large 
impact on the heat balance or the climate of the planet, and so if you 
can take an analysis, which we can, without dispute from the scientific 
community, over the past 10,000 years, you can actually go back 5 
million years, but if you look at the last 10,000 years, we have 
increased in CO2 by a natural amount from 180 parts per 
million of CO2 to 280 parts per million. It took 100 years 
to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 parts 
per million.
  But then if you look at the last 100 years, especially the last 50 
years, we have increased it by another 100 parts per million. Now, that 
is a tiny amount. It is another very small percentage. It took 10,000 
years to increase it by 100 parts per million. It took really less than 
100 years to increase it another 100 parts per million, which can be 
directly attributed to human activity burning fossil fuel.
  Now, it is still a very tiny amount. Even if the human input to the 
increasing CO2 is only 4 percent, when we are working at 
levels of hundredths of a percent, that 4 percent is significant.
  So we are seeing, as a result of the change in increase in 
CO2, warming temperatures of the atmosphere, warming 
temperatures of the oceans, receding glaciers, and that is not to scare 
people.
  We, as adults, always want better science for our students in our 
schools. We need better science here on the House floor. If you look at 
the Greenland ice sheet 25 years ago, 20 cubic miles of that ice sheet 
was flowing into the North Atlantic. Today, just a few decades later, 
53 cubic miles a year of the Greenland ice sheet is flowing into the 
North Atlantic, and like the gentleman from Wisconsin said earlier, if 
the Greenland ice sheet were to go, and it is growing, we should 
recognize a potential for a 23-feet increase in the sea level.
  So, all we are asking for on the House floor is let us look at the 
data. Let us acknowledge our future.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind people, this is an appropriations 
bill, and we can go through the process. I think the debate has been 
good. We have had some good presentations. It is just a matter of 
difference of opinion, and some day we will decide who is right, and 
when I become the correct one I hope you all recognize that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me yield the remaining 2 minutes of my 
time to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who 
was the originator of the language which was stricken.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief here.
  The reason I offered this global warming amendment is because I 
believe this is a serious problem. When you have six former 
administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency saying this is a 
reality, when you have just heard Congressman Gilchrest talk about the 
increases in parts per million of carbon dioxide, and when you have the 
visible evidence of our glaciers melting, the Greenland ice sheet is 
melting at a faster rate, the polar bears are dying because there is 
not enough ice. I mean at some point can the majority here not figure 
out we ought to have some study, we ought to look into this, that this 
is a real issue that affects everyone on the Earth?
  While Alaska melts away, their Congressmen will be down here in D.C. 
and everybody will be wondering whatever happened to Alaska.
  All I am saying is this is a serious problem, and it is time for 
serious people to get serious, including the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind him, if you 
look at any of the studies that are taking place now, the polar bear 
pack is very healthy and, in fact, increasing. Keep that in mind. Read 
something that really has some merit to it. Do not just read the fear 
tactic. This is science from the Fish and Wildlife people. Read that. 
They will tell you we are increasing the numbers, not decreasing. Where 
you got this idea, I have no idea. Because someone told you that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think you and I will be here to 
figure out who was right. I would rather do some serious research about 
it now than wake up 10 years from now and find out if we would have 
acted back in 2006 and done something about this, we might have been 
able to save all of humanity.
  I mean, this is real and it is an important issue, and I hate to see 
it be treated so frivolously by the gentleman from Alaska.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I support keeping the language 
in because, as the gentleman from Washington has said, it is very, very 
important to deal with this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I am extremely disappointed that the Rules Committee 
did not protect the global warming language in the Interior 
Appropriations Bill. Global warming is real and human activities are 
largely to blame. Many scientists believe the erratic and record-
breaking weather events we are seeing across the country, such as the 
prolonged droughts in my home state of New Mexico, are the direct 
result of global warming. The United States must act, and we must act 
soon.
  The language that was removed from the Interior Appropriations Bill 
today declared the need for a mandatory cap on greenhouse emissions. 
Stripping this language further shows the lack of political will of the 
House of Representatives on this issue. Mr. Chairman, global warming is 
perhaps the biggest problem that present and future generations of 
Americans will face. We cannot leave this to our children.
  Our colleagues in the Senate have already begun the much needed 
debate on this issue. In fact, they passed a sense of Congress exactly 
the same as the one that was stripped today. In addition, they held a 
day-long climate change forum that gathered stakeholders on this issue, 
including the leadership of numerous top American companies such as GE 
and Walmart. Many positions and recommendations for federal greenhouse 
gas control legislation were aired and debated. It is way past time for 
the House of Representatives to join the debate. At this point, Mr. 
Chairman, our neglect has become a dereliction of duty.
  Several pieces of legislation have already been introduced on the 
monumentally important and complex issue of global warming. Certainly, 
it will take considerable time, effort and investment to mitigate the 
negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions. And, this must be done 
equitably and without unnecessary harm to hard-working Americans.
  Fortunately, much is already known on what we can do. Research and 
development on creative solutions to global warming has been underway 
for some time. Indeed, there is a lot of optimism that we can control 
the worst effects if we make the commitment. Many companies, states and 
cities around the country have begun the process. The United States 
House of Representatives remains silent.
  We have not had a single hearing on global warming legislation. In 
the mean time, the United States continues to increase its greenhouse 
gas emission levels and China and India are developing fossil fuel 
dependent, carbon-intensive economies at astounding rates. Mr. 
Chairman, the process must begin. The United States must be a leader on 
this issue.
  Included in the list of legislation foundering in the House is a bill 
that the Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and I introduced. H.R.

[[Page 8719]]

5049, the Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy Act, is a 
bipartisan policy that will address greenhouse gas emissions but not 
put America's jobs at risk. This monumental step of putting a price on 
carbon will stabilize and eventually reduce emissions, finally putting 
the United States on the road toward curbing the effects of global 
warming.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House of Representatives to immediately 
begin the debate on solutions to global warming.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Alaska. He always does the best job possible in selling a very bad 
case.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
encourage the House to seriously look at the issue of climate change.
  I agree with many of my colleagues who have spoken today on the need 
to address global warming and that any national policy should not 
significantly harm the United States economy and encourage comparable 
actions by other nations.
  That is why I am the lead cosponsor of Congressman Tom Udall's Keep 
America Competitive Global Warming Policy Act. This legislation is a 
mandatory, economy wide, cap-and-trade all greenhouse gas reduction 
policy.
  It sets a reasonable standard for emissions and allows companies to 
buy the time they need to meet reduction requirements without incurring 
irreparable harm.
  The bill will maintain U.S. competitiveness by encouraging research 
and innovation as well as tie increases in the price of an emission 
allowance to the emissions-reducing actions of developing countries.
  So I hope at some point we can come together and begin the discussion 
in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner and work to address this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 TITLE V--SUSPENSION OF ROYALTY RELIEF

       Sec. 501. (a) Requirement To Suspend.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall suspend the application of any provision of 
     Federal law under which any person is given relief from any 
     requirement to pay royalty for production oil or natural gas 
     from Federal lands (including submerged lands), for leases 
     occurring in any period after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act with respect to which--
       (1) in the case of production of oil, the average price of 
     crude oil in the United States over the most recent 4 
     consecutive weeks is greater than $34.71 per barrel; and
       (2) in the case of production of natural gas, the average 
     wellhead price of natural gas in the United States over the 
     most recent 4 consecutive weeks is greater than $4.34 per 
     thousand cubic feet.
       (b) Determination of Market Price.--The Secretary shall 
     determine average prices for purposes of subsection (a) based 
     on the most recent data reported by the Energy Information 
     Administration of the Department of Energy.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the language 
contained in section 501 of the bill violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI 
and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair will rule. The Chair finds that this section 
contains language imparting direction to the Executive.
  The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the section is 
stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 502. Renegotiation of Existing Leases.--The Secretary 
     of the Interior shall seek to renegotiate each existing lease 
     authorizing production of oil or natural gas on Federal land 
     (including submerged land) that was issued by the Department 
     of the Interior before the date of the enactment of this Act 
     as necessary to modify the terms of such lease to ensure that 
     any suspension of a requirement to pay royalties under such 
     lease does not apply to production referred to in section 
     501(a).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the language 
contained in section 502 of the bill violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI 
and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule. The Chair finds that this section 
contains language imparting direction to the Executive.
  The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the section is stricken from the 
bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production of 
     oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et. seq.) to any lessee under an existing 
     lease issued by the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337 note), where such existing lease is not subject 
     to limitations on royalty relief based on market price.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk is a simple one. It 
says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to 
issue any new leases that authorize production of oil or natural gas 
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to any lessee under an 
existing lease where such lease is not providing the proper royalties 
based upon market price.
  We have a situation here where the American public is being gouged 
for the price of oil on two separate occasions, once at the gasoline 
pump and once when their oil and natural gas is being drilled and 
obtained by oil companies that are not paying the royalties on those 
leases. This is something that needs to stop.
  We have right now over 1,000 leases, roughly 1,032 leases, to major 
oil companies to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere, 
and there is no provision for those oil companies to pay royalties on 
the product owned by the American citizens that is being taken out of 
the ground, whether it is dry or under the Continental Shelf. That 
needs to change. We are losing roughly $1 billion a year, and unless 
this is changed over the course of the next 20 years, we will lose more 
than $20 billion.
  So we need a situation that is going to address this, and this 
amendment will do so. It simply says that anyone who is interested in 
having leases to extract oil or natural gas from the Outer Continental 
Shelf, and they have already leases upon which they are not paying the 
proper royalties, is not going to be permitted to take those new 
leases.
  Those new leases provide for royalties between 12 and 16 percent. The 
royalties are on a product that is owned by the citizens of this 
country, whether it is the oil or the natural gas; and any oil company 
that is taking those products out of the ground, out of public lands, 
taking this public property and not paying royalties on it should not 
be provided with additional leases unless they are willing to pay 
royalties both on the additional leases and the leases that they 
already have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 8720]]


  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I stand to oppose this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York. In committee, the gentleman from New 
York offered an amendment that conditioned eligibility for future 
leases on renegotiation of price thresholds in old leases. Today's 
amendment seeks to obtain the same coercive result by indirection.
  I share the gentleman's concern about the lack of price thresholds in 
leases negotiated by the Clinton/Gore administration in 1998 and 1999. 
The Department of the Interior's Inspector General has appropriately 
launched an investigation into this, as has the Resources Committee. 
However, these leases were valid legal contracts signed between the 
government and these companies in good faith. They paid hundreds of 
millions of dollars in bonus bids for these leases, bidding on the 
basis of the royalty relief that they were being offered.
  If the lessees seek to maintain their valid legal rights under these 
contracts, the amendment would penalize them for doing so, in violation 
of their due process rights under the Constitution. At best, the 
amendment is an invitation to litigation, which the government will 
likely lose at a high cost to the taxpayer. A more dire impact will be 
the lack of development of energy resources that America badly needs.
  The amendment would disqualify many companies from bidding on new 
leases. Remember, these leases were valid leases signed by the 
government, legally binding. They are contracts. So what we are going 
to do is penalize these companies because they are abiding by their 
legal contracts.
  Sure, we want them to negotiate. We want them to renegotiate. We 
would like them to pay the royalties. But the Clinton/Gore 
administration at that time put these contracts in place. They were 
signed by the companies. They were signed by the government. And now we 
are going to go in and say if you don't renegotiate, then you are not 
going to be eligible for any of these contracts. If you don't pay 
royalties on these contracts, wherein you are doing exactly what you 
are required to do by law, if you don't pay royalties voluntarily, then 
you are not going to be eligible for any of the new leases that are out 
there.
  To me, that is discrimination against those companies. Sure, we would 
like them to pay the royalties. We think they should. We think they 
should renegotiate, but I don't think you can go in and break the 
contract that the government signed with these companies by pressuring 
them with the threat of not being eligible for future leases.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment and we should reject it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my friend from 
Idaho that the Congressional Research Service has told us that the 
enactment of this amendment would not constitute a taking of existing 
leaseholders' rights, and goes on to say that this amendment is 
perfectly appropriate and should be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  What is it about the marketplace that the Republicans don't 
understand? You signed a valid lease, although there is some argument 
about it. But you have a valid lease and now you want to lease the 
space next door. You leased a couple hundred thousand square feet, and 
you leased a thousand square feet, and now you want to lease next door. 
The economy has changed and now the land is available and so the 
landlord says to you, I think we will do is, we will do a wraparound 
lease. You want this?
  This is done all the time. It is done all the time in the business 
world. Various assets at various prices are combined, and the landlord 
thinks about extracting what he can at that time when you come to 
renegotiate. This happens all the time in the real estate field, all 
the time in the minerals field.
  All we are saying to the government is, these people have such a huge 
advantage because of the failure of the cap, we don't think they ought 
to get any additional leases. They can keep those leases without the 
caps and not lease, or they can negotiate those caps with the 
government to be like the rest of the oil companies and they can lease. 
This is a business transaction. It just happens to be a business 
transaction on behalf of the people of the United States of America who 
own these lands.
  What is it about the marketplace that you think at $70 a barrel you 
need royalty relief? I think you are confusing this with the idea that 
the oil companies are somehow royalty and we must bow down to them. At 
$70 a barrel, the conservative chairman of my committee, the Resources 
Committee, said nobody deserves royalty relief. The President of the 
United States says at these prices nobody deserves royalty relief. And 
here you are on the floor of the House of Representatives arguing for 
people who get $70 a barrel.
  I talked to the CEOs of these companies when this royalty relief came 
up, and most of them thought it was balderdash. Most of them thought it 
was about trying to rescue a couple of companies that made some real 
bad decisions in the gulf shelf when oil was a bad price. Fine, we 
agreed that under $34 a barrel you can have some royalty relief. Oil 
today, my friends, maybe you haven't been out of the Chamber here, it 
is $70 a barrel; and that is why we are asking the marketplace to work 
on behalf of the taxpayers of the country who are paying $3.50 for 
gasoline.
  The gentleman's amendment should be unanimous in this House on behalf 
of people who are buying gas and commuting to work and are paying that 
price every day. Why do they now have to pay it through this tax break 
through this royalty relief?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what the gentleman 
from California was saying, but he was wrong. Just dead wrong.
  These leases were signed by the government. They were legal leases. 
They were valid leases. All we are saying is that the government ought 
to keep its word. When they sign a contract, they ought to honor the 
contract. The gentleman is absolutely wrong. Congress and the 
government should keep their word when they sign a contract. That is 
all we are saying.
  Do we want them to pay royalty on this? Certainly we should, and I do 
not know why in the world the Clinton/Gore administration, the Clinton/
Gore administration, let these leases go without any royalty. I do not 
know why they did that, but the reality is that they were signed 
contracts. And all we are suggesting is that you should not penalize 
those companies that actually signed these contracts in good faith. You 
should not penalize them for future leases. Why should we penalize 
them? There is absolutely no reason why we should penalize them. We 
should honor our word and our contracts, and then we should go forward.
  We hope, we hope that they will renegotiate for leases, but this is 
not giving a break to those companies. That is not what we are 
intending. We hope they renegotiate. That is the reality.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration has allowed these 
leases to continue for 5 years, and they haven't renegotiated them. I 
would just like to draw that to the attention of my friend from Idaho.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You have a loan on your home. You 
have a second mortgage on your home and you want a new line of credit. 
It is a valid line of credit and it is a 4 percent loan. What does the 
bank tell you? We want you to pay it off, and the new rate is 7 percent 
or 6 percent.
  People renegotiate these contracts all the time. You just refuse to 
negotiate them on behalf of the taxpayers.

[[Page 8721]]

You renegotiate them all of the time on behalf of the oil companies. We 
do it all of the time.
  This is what people do when they want to refinance their homes. The 
banker says, here are the new rules. You can stick with your loan and 
be happy as you are; but if you want another $50,000 out of your house, 
here are the points you have to pay. People understand this.
  Why don't you let the marketplace work for once and why don't we run 
the government like a business, like so many of our constituents stand 
up and tell us to do. We now have an opportunity. We now have an 
opportunity, and you are refusing to take the opportunity on behalf of 
the taxpayers.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I am sorry the gentleman from California left the floor. 
We do renegotiate all the time, but it is up to me to decide whether I 
want to renegotiate or not.
  What we are doing is imposing a penalty on these companies if they 
choose not to renegotiate. And I really don't care what CRS says. I 
don't think they are a bunch of attorneys down there. All I know is 
that in Idaho, we believe that when you write a contract you abide by 
the contract. We have written a contract. We ought to abide by it.
  We are the Government of the United States. If you can't trust us to 
abide by the contracts we sign, why should we trust anybody else to?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is legal, it is 
simple, and it is fair. All we are asking is to preserve existing 
contracts but that those firms that fail to renegotiate fairly would 
then not be granted new oil or gas leases.
  Not to accept this amendment is to take sides, is to choose to stand 
by an industry that has posted the highest profits of any industry in 
modern history by charging consumers about $50 every time they fill up 
their gas tank. Those profits are coming from our constituents. And not 
to support this amendment is to decide we are going to side against our 
constituents. We are going to give up as much as $80 billion, $80 
billion over the next 25 years. That is money that should be our 
constituents' because it is their Federally owned land that the oil 
companies are drilling on.
  We have a responsibility to represent the American people before we 
represent a very wealthy and profitable industry. And to decide that we 
are going to figure out a way to let them continue with these contracts 
that never should have been signed this way in the first place, that 
gives up $80 billion of American taxpayers money, is wrong. It is 
wrong.
  It is wrong that our consumers are paying so much when these oil 
companies are making tens of billions of dollars more than they have 
ever made. Here is an opportunity, legal, fair and simple, to represent 
the interests of our constituents, the American taxpayer.
  To turn down this amendment is to choose one of the major political 
contributors in this corrupt political system instead the interest of 
our constituents.
  Pass this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR or North Carolina. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why the Clinton/Gore 
administration negotiated these leases. They do some rather 
extraordinary things that there would be no built-in provision when the 
price of oil reached a certain amount that you wouldn't start to pay 
royalties.
  I have read that substantial amounts of money were raised by the 
Clinton administration and the Gore candidacy from the major oil 
companies. Maybe that had something to do with it. I don't know.
  All I know is it is wrong and to me it seems inherently unfair, and 
to violate due process and equal protection of the law, to take people 
who have current leases that are legal and say to them, we are not 
going to allow you to bid on some leases over here unless you change 
the leases you presently have. That is coercion. That is almost 
extortion. And it is not the right of the government to behave in such 
a fashion.
  And I have heard asserted here that private companies can do that, 
and I would question that. But the government is bound by the 
provisions of the United States Constitution not to impair contracts, 
not to deny equal process of the law, and to guarantee due process.
  Therefore, I would urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that we have an 
administration now in the White House that is replete with oil 
contacts; and the transition team that set up the energy policy of this 
administration was made up entirely, except for one person, of people 
from the oil companies. That is what needs to be dealt with.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Markey 
amendment. This amendment does absolutely nothing to any existing 
contract. The oil companies signed a deal at $25 a barrel, royalty 
relief complete. It goes to $50 a barrel, they still don't have to pay 
royalties; $75 a barrel, they still don't have to pay royalties; $100 a 
barrel, still no royalties. And we are not going to take that contract 
away.
  All we are saying is that if you are going to play Uncle Sam as Uncle 
Sucker, then we are not going to allow you to have any new contracts, 
because the American consumer is being shaken upside down and having 
money shaken out of their pockets. Subsidizing the oil industry at $70 
a barrel to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim. You don't 
have to do it.
  President Bush said on April 19, I will tell you with $55 a barrel 
oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore, Bush 
said in a speech to newspaper editors. There are plenty of incentives.
  But here is the GOP, not the Grand Old Party, but Gas and Oil Party. 
That is what they have turned into.
  And by the way, last night they cut public health programs by $16 
billion. They cut veterans programs by $8 billion. And where could the 
money have come from? Well, another $10 billion from royalties. If Kerr 
McGee wins their case, another $60 billion.
  If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break 
your toe. Keep the money, they say, in the hands of the oil companies. 
Let them rake off all this money from the taxpayer. Cut the programs in 
public health, in education, and for veterans, even as their own 
president is saying they don't need these royalties.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, we say keep those contracts, but you are 
not getting any new contracts with our government if you are going to 
keep these windfall profits. That is why you should vote for the 
Hinchey-Markey amendment to send a message to the oil companies in our 
country.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk here. I have 
heard about a corrupt political system.
  I would point out that I went to Russia, the Soviet Union, in about 
1991. They are awash in petroleum. They are awash in enough petroleum 
to change the price of the world price of petroleum significantly. But 
they have a corrupt political system, and they can't even produce.
  To claim that the American oil companies are somehow gaming the 
system simply just doesn't wash. Oil is traded as a commodity. No 
company is large enough to affect the price of oil. It is set 
worldwide. The price of oil is set.
  When I look at a demand curve from China, I see that the price of oil 
is exactly mirroring China's increased demand through the last few 
years. India is sitting out there requiring a lot of oil too.
  For us to begin to talk about punishing people who are bringing a 
product to the market when people desperately need it, and another 
system,

[[Page 8722]]

the Soviet system, cannot even get into the market at $70, in which 
anyone should be able to get oil to the market at that price, seems 
ludicrous; and it seems like we are not even talking in the United 
States of America.
  This is a free market economy. The price is set because of supply and 
demand. We have arbitrarily limited the supply through our failure to 
drill in ANWR. We are limiting the supply by not issuing BLM leases 
throughout the Nation. This BLM today is issuing one-third fewer leases 
than 5 to 10 years ago. Those are the reasons that we have a price that 
is going up rather than down. It is a matter of supply and demand.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, it is about families. It is about families 
across this country who are wrestling with record-high gas prices. This 
Congress not only has the obligation to do something; but with this 
amendment, we have an opportunity to do something.
  National average price of gasoline per gallon, double what it was 
when President Bush took office. Oil executives making off with half 
billion dollar retirement packages.
  We can all agree that we have better things to do with as much as $80 
billion of taxpayer money than giving it to the oil companies for 
nothing in return.
  $80 billion is how much the GAO says we could simply be giving away 
to the oil companies over the next 25 years if we do not change the 
royalty relief law.
  Royalty relief is not without its purpose. Prices are low; royalty 
relief can create a powerful incentive to remove more oil from the 
ground.
  Let's look at the prices. This is nothing more now with royalty 
relief than a giveaway to those who least need it. One Shell official, 
New York Times said the other day, under the current environment we 
don't need royalty relief. They sure don't. ExxonMobil, $36 billion 
last year. Record, historic. Shell, $22.9 billion.
  It is about the people in our communities, the people that we 
represent that are taking their savings and they are putting it in 
their fuel tanks.
  These folks are taking their money. They are dealing with their stock 
options. They are paying down their debt, and they are taking high 
salaries. It is time we took away this opportunity to do that.
  And I will tell you that my colleagues on the other side that want to 
talk about contracts, the Federal Government is given the right to 
terminate contracts without cause. It is in contract law; it is called 
the termination of convenience of the government. So we can do this. 
Let's do it with this bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of this amendment suggest that 
it will fix an error made by the Interior Department in failing to 
include price thresholds for royalty relief in leases issued in 1998 
and 1999.
  The fact is, most companies pay their royalty obligations as they are 
required. A very small number have disputed their obligations, and that 
matter is under litigation.
  Congress should let the legal system do its work and not meddle.
  The oil and gas industry spends billions of dollars in this country 
every year, providing good-paying jobs for Americans and providing 
energy to fuel this massive economy.
  The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most attractive investment 
opportunities in the world right now, and it is in our best interest to 
keep it that way.
  If we adopt this amendment, we will send a signal that the United 
States does not abide by its contracts and obligations.
  In this time of high prices and unrest in oil markets, the last thing 
we should do is limit our access to our domestic resources.
  If companies holding 1998 and 1999 leases are, in effect, precluded 
from participating in the 2007 sale, it will impair the domestic oil 
and gas supply chain. At a time of record-high energy costs and an 
uncertain global market, we need to encourage our domestic companies to 
invest here at home, not shut them out of the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment that is 
full of unintended consequences and is wrong for America.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey 
amendment. This amendment is a fair and fiscally responsible way to fix 
a huge problem in our country.
  Because of mistakes made in lease agreements in the 1990s and other 
subsidies contained in last year's Energy Policy Act, we currently are 
allowing energy companies, who already are reaping huge profits, to 
take oil and gas from our public lands and waters without paying any 
return to the taxpayer.
  The situation as it currently stands will result in the loss of many 
billions of dollars in revenue.
  So while our constituents suffer from skyrocketing gas and home 
heating prices, oil companies are able to take publicly owned resources 
for free.
  Both oil company executives and the President said that there is no 
need for incentives because oil prices are so high, to encourage 
companies to drill for new sources.
  Yet, this Republican leadership has thus far failed to take any 
action to address the situation.
  Energy companies should willingly come forward to renegotiate the 
leases in question. They should refuse more subsidies. To continue to 
benefit so much from mistakes made in the 1990s and to take subsidies 
when they are not needed is corporate irresponsibility at its worst.
  My constituents are angry about taxpayer handouts to an industry 
awash in cash. This amendment is a fair way to deal with an issue that 
is currently defying common sense and fiscal responsibility.
  Vote ``yes'' for the Hinchey amendment, and in that way, protect our 
consumers and in that way respect the hardworking American taxpayers.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.
  As I understand the situation, because of the price of crude oil, 
energy companies have made profits over the last three years totaling 
more than $125 billion. Exxon alone had profits in one quarter last 
year of $9.9 billion and are estimated to have had a profit of $36 
billion in a single year.
  A portion of those profits--about $7 billion according to the New 
York Times--came because of an administrative error made by the Mine 
and Minerals Service. At issue is a set of oil and gas leases entered 
into during the 1990's when oil was selling for $10 a barrel. As an 
incentive for oil companies to drill, the U.S. government said it would 
waive its right to royalty payments if oil prices remained low. These 
royalty forgiveness leases also, however, typically had a clause that 
said if oil exceeds $35 per barrel, the deal is off and you have to pay 
the royalty.
  The error occurred in about 1000 leases when, evidently by accident, 
the $35 cancellation clause was not included. This small clerical error 
has created an enormous windfall estimated at, as I said, $7 billion 
over the next five years. GAO estimates that this problem could result 
in the loss $60 billion over the next 25 years in lost royalties.
  This amendment merely calls on these companies to renegotiate in good 
faith to include the proviso included in all other leases. It does not 
actually void any lease. On the other hand it does say that if a 
company does not want to be a good citizen, the government may not want 
to do business with you in the future.
  I don't know all the legalities of contract law in this case or the 
issues of constitutionality. But I think the amendment does nothing 
more than try to recover $7 billion of excess profits which this 
country needs and--the oil companies don't. I urge adoption.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding.

[[Page 8723]]

  I rise in opposition to Mr. Hinchey's amendment because it does not 
follow sound logic or the rule of law. Basically what we are saying in 
this amendment is that if you are out there with a lease today that has 
a provision that was put in place by the Clinton administration in the 
Outer Continental deepwater area, then you cannot have any future 
leases. So if you have made a deal, you have signed a contract, and you 
are out there producing product that is helping us keep our gas prices 
from going completely through the roof instead of just high like they 
are now, then you cannot do that any more unless you break your 
existing contract.
  I think this is commonly referred to as blackmail. If you do not do 
this, then we are going to make you suffer. And under this amendment, 
an oil company who in good faith entered into a contract with the 
Clinton administration to produce a product when nobody else was 
willing to do it, and you entered into that contract in good faith, we 
are going to punish you for that unless you completely absolve yourself 
of that contract and start paying more money to the Federal Government.
  Personally, in the private sector nobody gets a free ride on 
royalties, and I do not think anybody should produce a product without 
paying royalties if it is natural gas or if it is crude oil. Any place 
in Kansas where we have been drilling for oil and gas for over 100 
years, we pay royalties. But that is really not the point here. The 
point is the Clinton administration made these agreements and are we 
going to allow, as the Federal Government, them to abide by that 
contract or are we just going to blackmail them into doing something 
totally different?
  I think we should vote down this amendment, that we should honor the 
contracts that we have made, whether it was with the Clinton 
administration or the Bush administration, and not blackmail people who 
are just trying to produce a product, something that we greatly need.
  So oppose the Hinchey amendment and let us move on.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey 
amendment. The Hinchey amendment is about fairness, common sense, and 
doing what is right.
  It merely states that the oil companies should renegotiate their 
leases to pay a fair price, a market price, on oil and gas that is 
owned by the American people or they do not get any other leases.
  Our constituents, Americans, are suffering under high gas prices. The 
oil companies have record profits. The only fair thing to do is to 
renegotiate these windfall leases that are sweetheart deals. The New 
York Times estimates that at a minimum, renegotiating these leases will 
bring $7 billion over the next 5 years.
  Last night many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted 
to cut student loans, seniors, veterans, many areas. Support this 
amendment so that money will be in the budget so that we can fund 
things instead of giving more profits to the oil companies. It is 
absolutely wrong. Support this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I like a good demagoging just like anybody else, but 
this is not terribly relevant to everything we have said here to this 
bill or what has actually happened.
  Mr. Miller a little while ago made an analogy to a loan that could be 
changed from time to time. The problem is if you have got a 4 percent 
rate for 10 years fixed and the bank comes along and says, it has been 
5 years and I want to take that up to 8 percent, you are going to say 
forget you, I have got a contract that keeps me at 4 percent for 10 
years, not 5. And then the courts are going to uphold what you are 
saying. Also if you say, well, I have got a way here where I can 
blackmail you and you will come across, the court is going to come down 
on you like a ton of bricks.
  Now, we could do that that the gentleman suggests, but the problem is 
we are going to spend lots of money, the courts are going to uphold the 
law because the Constitution and the law are still in place in this 
country.
  Now, a lot of people might not want it to be. I cannot remember and 
do not know why the Clinton-Gore administration overlooked this and did 
not put a rate after the rates rose a certain number and royalties were 
beginning to flow, but they did not. Now, that was caught and after 
that any drilling in that area is going to pay a royalty.
  We have got a small period of time. We cannot do anything about it. 
If I sell my car for $200 and then later find out it is worth $600 and 
I have signed a contract, we have a law that says I have got to sell 
that car for $200. And if I try to get around that, I will pay twice 
because I will pay all my legal fees, I will pay any sort of penalties, 
any blackmail money, and I will still lose my car for $200.
  So that is pretty much where we are now, and I would say we need to 
vote against this. We do not want to waste any more money from the 
mistake that was made in 1998 and 1999.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey 
royalty relief amendment and am proud to be included as a cosponsor.
  When the original deep water royalty relief legislation was on the 
House floor in 1995, I opposed it and said that it was ``an early 
Christmas'' for big oil.
  Eleven years later, the holiday has never ended and royalty relief 
keeps on giving ever-bigger gifts.
  We were assured by the champions of royalty relief that the 1995 act 
was a miraculous piece of legislation that would end up making money 
for the taxpayers by giving away publicly owned oil as an incentive for 
drilling.
  But the concept of paying big oil companies to do what they would do 
anyway did not make any sense then and it makes even less sense now. 
Simply put, the taxpayer should not continue to massively subsidize an 
industry reaping the benefits of record prices and swimming in profits.
  According to a recent estimate by the GAO, deep water royalty relief 
under the 1995 act will cost the taxpayers between $20 billion and $80 
billion over the next 25 years, depending upon the outcome of an 
industry lawsuit.
  Thankfully, today we have an opportunity to adopt the Hinchey 
amendment and put a halt to this fiscal rip-off.
  This carefully crafted amendment provides an incentive for the major 
oil and gas companies which were granted royalty-free leases under the 
Clinton administration--companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and 
others--to renegotiate those leases to include a price cap on royalty 
relief. The companies may choose not to do so, but would then not be 
eligible for new OCS leases.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of false bravado and empty rhetoric in 
this Chamber when it comes to reducing the budget deficit. But this 
amendment is the real deal. Let's stand up for the taxpayers and adopt 
it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rahall

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

[[Page 8724]]


  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been passed unanimously 
by this House in previous years, including last year.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the House voted 249 to 159 to adopt my 
amendment to end the sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. I 
ask the House today to reaffirm the stand it took to protect these 
icons of America's western heritage.
  Earlier this year the Nevada State Quarter was issued by the U.S. 
Mint. Now, Nevada is known as the ``Silver State.''
  However, if you look on the back of the quarter, you will not see a 
picture of a silver mine. No, what the good people of Nevada chose as 
the representation of their state was a wild horse.
  Nevadans are rightly proud of the heritage of their wild horses. It 
is unfortunately a heritage at risk because of a legislative rider 
inserted into an Appropriations bill in the dead of night in late 2004 
that puts thousands of wild horses and burros in danger of ending up on 
dining tables overseas.
  We need to stop the slaughter of wild horses and burros not only 
because it is morally wrong but also because the program itself is a 
failure.
  As a result of this failure, 41 wild horses have been slaughtered and 
thousands more face an uncertain fate.
  While the Bureau of Land Management may have good intentions to 
prevent sales for slaughter, the legislative rider that created this 
problem in the first place severely handicaps any such effort.
  Make no mistake about it, more wild horses and burros will end up 
slaughtered. After all, if the purpose of the legislative rider was to 
only sell off these animals to good homes, why was the long-standing 
prohibition on slaughter removed from the law.
  According to the BLM's own statistics, the agency has approximately 
the same number of wild horse and burros in the sale program today as 
when the program started. For each one the agency has sold, another one 
has been added to take its place.
  BLM has resorted to sending out letters to public land ranchers 
pleading with them to buy a horse. It has teamed up with a private 
entity to offer limited financial incentives to purchasers. These are 
not the actions of a sound program but the desperate attempts to 
implement and unwise and unsound policy.
  Mr. Chairman, the wild horse and burro program is a failure both 
morally and administratively. We can and must do a better job of 
protecting these magnificent creatures. It is time to sheath the sword 
that hangs over these animals.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this 
amendment to help save a national treasure--the wild horse.
  The wild horse is known throughout the world as a symbol of the 
American West and we should be doing everything we can to protect it.
  In the 1800s, more than 2 million wild horses roamed the American 
West. Today, that number is down to 35,000.
  Due to a provision slipped into the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, 
the sale of any wild horse that has been rounded up and is more than 10 
years old is now allowed. This language was placed into law without any 
hearings or public debate.
  This rider removed protections under the Wild Free Roaming Horse and 
Burro Act, which was passed in 1971 after the public demanded that 
something be done after the shooting of hundreds of thousands of horses 
and burros for pet food and meat in European restaurants.
  Already, at least 41 horses have lost their lives due to this 
irresponsible language, and the lives of 8,400 horses now being held by 
the Bureau of Land Management are in jeopardy.
  This is an inhumane slaughter against these majestic animals, and 
there is no need for it to continue.
  There are other options we can explore.
  The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over 100 herd management 
areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size of the herds 
manageable.
  There is simply no reason for these horses to be slaughtered for use 
as meat in other countries.
  The American public want the wild horses protected. In my district 
alone, countless constituents have asked me to stop this senseless 
slaughter.
  The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved 
literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of 
adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our 
history.
  Poet and author Pam Brown says, ``A horse is the projection of 
people's dreams about themselves--strong, powerful, and beautiful--and 
it has the capability of giving us an escape from our mundane 
existence.''
  I cannot say it any better, and encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment and help save the wild horse.

                     Protect America's Wild Horses

       After 34 years, protections for wild horses from sale to 
     slaughter were removed through an omnibus rider. No bill, no 
     hearings, no debate. Late in 2004 (and late into the night), 
     Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) attached this highly 
     controversial rider to the omnibus appropriations bill. The 
     amendment, passed with no hearings or public review, reversed 
     longstanding federal policy of protecting wild horses from 
     being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter 
     plants. Representatives Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Ed Whitfield 
     (R-KY), John Sweeney (R-NY), and John Spratt (D-SC) will 
     offer the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Wild Horse 
     Amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. Just 
     last year, the House overwhelmingly approved an identical 
     amendment, as well as another similar appropriations 
     amendment to prohibit horse slaughter, but the Department of 
     Agriculture has thwarted Congress's will and used private 
     funding to enable the grisly slaughter of horses to continue. 
     ``A public outcry has again begun across the United States 
     over the change in law that now allows the commercial sale 
     and slaughter of these animals,'' said Rahall. ``We need to 
     act before it is too late for thousands of these animals.''
       It is already too late for 41 mustangs. On April 15, 2005, 
     six horses were purchased by Oklahoman Dustin Herbert. Only 
     three days later, these horses were sent directly to a 
     foreign-owned slaughter plant in Illinois. Mr. Herbert told 
     the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that he intended to use 
     the horses for a church youth program. Another 35 were killed 
     at the same slaughter plant one week later after being traded 
     unwittingly by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe soon after they were 
     sold by BLM. By pure chance, another 52 were snatched from 
     the slaughterplant line in a last minute effort to preserve 
     their lives by fast-thinking officials. We have graphic 
     evidence in hand now that sale authority is not a workable 
     solution.
       Horse slaughter is fundamentally inhumane. The cruelty of 
     horse slaughter is not limited to the slaughter itself. 
     Economic rather than humane considerations dictate transport 
     conditions, as horses are shipped in crowded trucks, 
     frequently over long distances, and are typically given no 
     food, water or rest. The truck ceilings are so low that 
     horses are not able to hold their heads in a normal, balanced 
     position. Heavily pregnant horses, horses with broken limbs, 
     and horses missing one or both eyes may be legally shipped 
     for many days to slaughter. Inappropriate floor surfaces 
     cause slips and falls, and sometimes even trampling. Some 
     horses arrive at the slaughter house seriously injured or 
     dead. Horses are required to be rendered unconscious prior to 
     slaughter, usually with a captive bolt pistol, which shoots a 
     metal rod into the horse's brain. Some horses are improperly 
     stunned and still conscious when they are shackled and 
     hoisted by a rear leg to have their throats cut. In addition, 
     conditions in the slaughterhouse are stressful and 
     frightening for horses. Death at the slaughterhouse is not a 
     humane end for horses. All three of the remaining horse 
     slaughterhouses in the United States are foreign-owned. 
     Congress acknowledged this in the strong, bipartisan votes 
     cast on the FY2006 interior and agriculture appropriations 
     bills in both the House and Senate (House Interior 249-159; 
     House Agriculture 269-158; Senate Agriculture 69-28), yet the 
     United States Department of Agriculture undermined the will 
     of Congress by constructing a private payment system 
     specifically to enable the continuation of this brutal 
     practice.
       The number of horses in the US is dwindling. In the 1800s, 
     over two million wild horses roamed the American West. When 
     Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act 
     (WFRHBA), there were 60,000. Today, the combined number of 
     wild horses and burros is approximately 35,000. That 
     represents a nearly 50% reduction of wild horses out on the 
     range since Congress passed federal legislation to protect 
     them. The entire wild horse and burro populations of six 
     western states have been completely eradicated.
       Wild horses and burros have been federally protected for 
     decades. In 1971, Congress passed the WFRHBA in response to 
     enormous public outcry over the shootings of hundreds of 
     thousands of horses and burros and the slaughter of horses 
     for pet food and human consumption in European restaurants. 
     The Burns rider removed crucial protection under the WFRHBA 
     by requiring that the BLM sell wild horses over the age of 
     ten or those offered for adoption more than three times. The 
     lives of 8,400 horses now being held by BLM--and more in the 
     future--are in jeopardy due to this controversial rider and 
     the law must be changed.

[[Page 8725]]

       BLM's current removal policy is costing taxpayers over $39 
     million a year. According to the U.S. Geological Service, 
     $7.7 million could be saved annually through the use of 
     contraceptive measures alone. Since 1988, seveeral wild horse 
     populations have been controlled under pilot programs using a 
     contraceptive vaccine (PZP) developed with the help of The 
     Humane Society of the United States. Additionally, there are 
     other, less expensive alternatives available. A 1990 GAO 
     Report states that, ``[r]educing authorized grazing levels 
     would likely be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve 
     the same reduction in forage consumption.''
       Cattle outnumber wild horses and burros at least 100 to 1 
     on public lands. BLM's private livestock grazing program 
     encompasses 214 million acres of public lands and costs over 
     $130 million to manage annually. Over 4 million head of 
     private cattle enjoy subsidized grazing on public lands. A 
     congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of 
     Sciences found that, in one year, livestock consumed 70% of 
     grazing resources on public lands, while wild horses and 
     burros consumed less than 5%. The WFRHBA mandates that wild 
     horses and burros be provided 47 million acres of public 
     lands on 303 herd areas. Since 1971, the BLM has reduced the 
     number of herd areas to 201, taking approximately 13 million 
     acres of land from these federally protected animals.
       Horses are not crusing rangeland degradation. The 1990 GA0 
     study detemined that (1) the primary cause of rangeland 
     degradation is poorly managed domestic livestock grazing, (2) 
     wild horse removals have not demonstrably improved range 
     conditions, (3) wild horse behavior patterns make them less 
     damaging than cattle to vulnerable range areas, and (4) wild 
     horse removals are occurring in some locations not being 
     damaged by widespread overgrazing (GAO/RCED-90-110, Rangeland 
     Management--Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse 
     Program).
       Americans want wild horse protection. Support for the 
     Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment to protect our 
     cherished wild horses crosses all social, cultural, and 
     political boundaries. When it was revealed that wild horses 
     had been sent to slaughter since the enactment of the Burns' 
     rider (with widespread media coverage in Peole Magazine, CNN, 
     MSNBC, and dozens of papers across the country), Americans 
     made sure their voices were heard, resulting in BLM 
     temporarily suspending their sales program. Without the 
     passage of protective legislation, sales will resume.
       The answer is simple. There is no need to sell off and 
     slaughter America's Western heritage. With the millions of 
     acres of public land in the US, we can surely make room for 
     35,000 horses. Americans do not wish to have their tax 
     dollars spent on the sale and slaughter of this last living 
     icon of our American heritage.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Rahall-
Whltfleld-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment, which bans the sale and slaughter 
of wild free-roaming horses. I am pleased to state this exact same 
amendment passed the House last year with overwhelming support with a 
vote of 249-159.
  As my colleagues have stated, a measure was snuck into the FY05 
Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow wild horses to be slaughtered for 
human consumption overseas. The provision to allow the sale and 
slaughter of wild horses was underhanded and wrong.
  When Congress unanimously passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and 
Burro Act of 1971, it established a policy to protect wild horses from 
capture, harassment, and death. BLM responsibly carried out this 
mission for 33 years, before the statute was secretly changed 2 years 
ago. Americans have clearly made their voices heard that these wild 
horses must be protected.
  This amendment is a responsible solution to this problem. The passage 
of this amendment would prevent BLM from selling horses--and close the 
loophole on slaughter.
  Since BLM began the sale of wild horses, a number of horses have been 
purchased and slaughtered. This has generated a massive public outcry. 
In response to this, BLM temporarily suspended its sale program, with 
the intent to resume the sale shortly. Mr. Speaker, this is not 
enough--it is urgent we pass this amendment and end this practice now.
  The slaughter of wild horses is indicative of the larger overall 
problem of horse slaughter. Last year, 90,000 American horses were 
slaughtered in this country and served as meals in restaurants in 
Europe and Asia. That is why I'm fighting for the passage of my 
legislation, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 503, 
which bans the slaughter of ANY horse for human consumption.
  In addition to this same amendment last year, I also offered an 
amendment to the FY06 Agriculture Appropriation's Bill to temporarily 
suspend this horrific act. Although our amendment had enormous public 
support and overwhelmingly passed both chambers, the USDA defied the 
will of Congress by granting a petition allowing a fee-for-service 
option submitted by three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants to 
circumvent the ban.
  I am pleased to hear that I may finally get my stand-alone 
legislation, H.R. 503, addressed in committee so we aren't forced to do 
these stop-gap measures each year. I appreciate our Leadership and 
Chairman Barton reviewing the need for this legislation. I look forward 
to working with you as we address this cruel topic.
  Horse Slaughter is not humane euthanasia--it is a malicious, painful 
end for these animals. Americans don't eat horses, nor do we raise them 
for human consumption. This amendment will right a wrong and is a 
positive step forward in our ultimate goal of ending the slaughter of 
horses in the United States for human consumption overseas.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record in support of the amendment 
offered by Representative Rahall to protect wild, free-roaming horses 
and burros from commercial slaughter.
  Since 1971 when Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and 
Burros Act, the federal government has ensured the protection of wild 
mustangs and burros roaming on public lands. Unfortunately, in 2004, a 
controversial rider rolling back these protections was slipped into the 
massive omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. Congress must 
act to right this wrong. We owe it to the next generation to preserve a 
piece of American heritage--to protect our wild and free horses. As 
cosponsor of H.R. 297--the bill upon which this amendment is based, I 
urge my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment and reinstate the 
humane and appropriate protection of wild, free-roaming horses and 
burros.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gordon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gordon:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings 
     performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order 
     13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments 
     made thereby).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant of the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government wastes $250 million a year by 
not enforcing its conservation statutory requirements in its Federal 
buildings. I do not think we can ask the American public to do adequate 
conservation if we are not going to do it ourselves.
  My amendment simply requires the Interior Department to follow the 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires 
Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of an Executive Order 
that deals with instituting energy efficiency improvements in Federal 
buildings and reporting on progress in that regard.
  We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

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


[[Page 8726]]

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to plan, design, study, or construct, for the purpose 
     of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals, a 
     forest development road in the Tongass National Forest.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Taylor) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1982 the Forest Service has lost $850 million 
subsidizing private timber in the Tongass National Forest. That is a 
$40 million annual loss. If anyone wonders why our national debt is as 
large as it is, and it is currently $8.3 trillion, by the way, one 
needs to look no farther than taxpayer boondoggles like this one. They 
really add up.
  The Tongass National Forest was established in 1907 by President 
Theodore Roosevelt. It is America's largest forest, about the size of 
West Virginia. Located along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often 
referred to as ``America's Rainforest'' and is home to abundant 
wildlife: bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, and salmon; as well as 
old growth trees such as the giant Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and 
yellow cedar.
  There are thousands of miles of roads in the Tongass right now. The 
Forest Service acknowledges that existing roads are ``sufficient to 
satisfy local demand for roaded recreation, subsistence, community 
connectivity needs and demands in most districts.'' Yet year after year 
the Forest Service spends millions of tax dollars building roads for 
private timber companies that by the agency's own admission are not 
really necessary. To make matters worse, the Forest Service has a 
nationwide road maintenance backlog of about $10 billion, tens of 
millions of which are in the Tongass. Incredibly, the Forest Service is 
not maintaining existing roads; yet they want to build more, even 
though they admit there are enough already.
  The timber program is not a profitable business in the Tongass the 
way the Forest Service is currently running it. Nobody argues this. The 
Forest Service concedes that 90 to 95 percent of all existing timber 
sale contracts in the Tongass are unprofitable. Nearly half of Tongass 
timber contracts go unsold. Of those that are sold, the majority have 
only a single bidder, resulting in a bargain basement, discounted sale.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would 
simply prohibit the Forest Service from building logging roads for 
timber companies subsidized by the American taxpayer in the Tongass. It 
does not prevent the Forest Service from building roads to connect 
communities, to provide recreation, or to otherwise manage the forest. 
It does not stop timber companies from building their own roads. I know 
that there are some who want you to believe differently, but this 
amendment has nothing to do with the roadless rule. It has everything 
to do with good government.
  Opponents of this amendment will argue that the massive losses in the 
Tongass are due to litigation, that taxpayer dollars are ending up in 
the pockets of trial lawyers. Mr. Chairman, I am not often accused of 
being a darling of the trial lawyers.
  As some may know, the Freedom of Information Act request was filed 
with the Forest Service in 2002. Although the request was to be for the 
years ranging from 1991 to 2001, the Forest Service could only provide 
numbers from 1998 to 2001. During that time the Forest Service spent 
$121 million on its timber program. Litigation costs amounted to $1.6 
million. That means only 2 percent of the total cost were spent on 
appeals and litigation. Just 2 percent.
  Opponents of this amendment will say that the National Environmental 
Policy Act requirements also increase costs, and they are right. The 
NEPA process needs reform, and I supported legislation to do this, as 
many of us have. But whether we like it or not, NEPA is on the books. 
To gouge taxpayers year after year and justify it by pointing to 
burdensome environmental requirements is just wrong.
  Some say this amendment is an attempt to take away jobs in Alaska. It 
is not. In fact, as timber subsidies have increased, timber-related 
jobs have decreased. Taxpayer subsidies per Tongass timber job have 
risen from $12,000 in 1996 to over $150,000 per job now. Think of that. 
Every job, $150,000 in taxpayer subsidy for that one job.
  Finally, according to a 2003 National Forest Service publication, 
there is enough timber available off the current road system of the 
Tongass to meet demand for several years.
  Mr. Chairman, let us restore some fiscal sanity to the Tongass timber 
program. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayers 
and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  The Chabot amendment is not about fiscal responsibility. The costs 
within this program, the cost of appeals and litigation, attempts by 
the agency to bulletproof all of its documents from those lawsuits 
amounts to 75 percent of the cost of running the program within the 
agency. In fact, if you took out those costs that are incurred because 
of lawsuits, the litigation, the appeals, and attempts by the agency to 
bulletproof their environmental documents, the Tongass forest sales 
would actually produce a 13 percent profit margin.
  In an effort to gain support from fiscal conservatives, some group 
called the Taxpayers for Common Sense has tried to couch this as a 
fiscal argument, and again 75 percent of the costs are brought in by 
many of the same groups that are supporting this amendment. These 
outside groups, because they have not been able to achieve their goals 
legislatively of completely devastating the forest program and 
eliminating any kind of timber sales, have now tried to do it in this 
manner, in bringing it before the appropriations bill and trying to 
limit the ability.

                              {time}  1730

  Again, if you look at the actual cost in this entire program, 75 
percent of the costs associated with these timber sales are because of 
the NEPA reviews, the appeals and the litigation. Only 25 percent is 
the actual cost of preparing the sale.
  Yes, I guess if you run up enough lawsuits, if you appeal all of 
those lawsuits, if you continue to badger the Forest Service, you can 
run up the cost to make this program unprofitable. But this is a long 
debate we have had in this House; and trying to couch this as a fiscal 
debate, I believe, is just a smokescreen over what the true intention 
of most of these outside groups is, and that is just to try to 
eliminate the timber program completely.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the Chabot-Andrews amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. It is my 
pleasure and honor to offer this amendment with him, and urge our 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chairman, the question in this amendment is whether or not the 
public should pay to build more roads in the Tongass National Forest. I 
think the answer is no. I think the answer is no for three reasons:
  First, building more roads would further put at risk what is truly a 
treasure, a jewel in the National Forest system. Environmentally, I 
think it simply makes no sense to build more of these roads.
  Second, it is a terrible investment for the taxpayers. Since 1982, 
the taxpayers have expended $850 million more than we have taken in in 
revenues from this investment. In fiscal year 2005 alone, the taxpayer 
cost was nearly $49 million, and the taxpayer revenue was about 
$500,000. I don't know any of my

[[Page 8727]]

constituents who would make an investment of $49 million in a business 
that is only going to return $500,000 on the investment.
  Finally, building more roads in the Tongass National Forest is an 
unnecessary idea when it comes to the jobs that are involved. I think 
that we always should be involved and concerned about the jobs of any 
of our fellow citizens, no matter where they are, in what region. But 
the fact of the matter is, the roads that already exist in the Tongass 
National Forest open up an area of that forest that would permit the 
harvesting of those trees for years and years and years to come. A 
substantial amount of the trees that could be harvested in that section 
of the forest already open to roads have not yet been harvested.
  So I would urge our colleagues in both political parties to vote 
``yes'' in order to preserve an important national environmental 
treasure, in order to continue with the jobs that are presently going 
on there, and, most importantly, to protect the wallets of our 
taxpayers. For every $100 that we spend to run the Federal Government, 
we only bring in $75 worth of revenue. We need to start to reduce what 
we spend. This is a great place to do that. I would urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is no surprise, of course, that 
I am adamantly opposed to this sneaky amendment offered by two people 
that don't know what they are talking about, have never known what they 
are talking about, deal not with what they are talking about, and will 
never know what they are talking about.
  The Alaskan rainforest, as you gentlemen recognize, is as big as 
Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, 
including New Jersey.
  I am sure you will be happy to know that we have 19 designated sites 
of wilderness in that area, a national monument that takes up 35 
percent of the forest. Seventy-eight percent of the Tongass is slated 
for roadless areas already. All I am saying is what this is attempting 
to do is put the last remaining small group of Alaskans out of work.
  Ironically, the two gentlemen that are offering this amendment are 
crying about outsourcing: My God, we are losing jobs. They are going 
overseas. But here we are in Congress taking away the jobs of my 
Alaskan constituents. That is the thing that probably disturbs me the 
most about this, is we had a forest of 21 million acres, 21 million 
acres. And we were told in this body in 1980 that we will only lock up 
all of it but 2 million acres and you will have those acres to actually 
retain a timber industry and have your people work. And now we are down 
to 1,000 acres, and you want to take that away.
  And you say we don't need the roads. That is not what the Forest 
Service says. They say we need these roads if we are going to harvest 
the timber. They will put up the sales. Who is going to bid it, if they 
can't get the timber?
  That is true. Anybody that debates that, you better understand it, 
because what is happening here is you are trying to put the last 
remaining, the last remaining few Alaskans that are trying to make a 
very meager living, 300 people, 300 jobs, take it away from them for 
the environmentalists. It has nothing to do with taxes.
  By the way, I hope you understand, my good friends that are offering 
this amendment, I was precluded from offering an amendment to the 
amendment today because of the unanimous consent; but if this amendment 
is adopted, I will offer the same amendment to the forests in Ohio, 
which loses money every year, a large sum; to New Jersey, if you have 
national forests; and to the areas in New Hampshire. Every area, every 
person that votes for this amendment, there will be an amendment next 
year on this bill to do the exact same thing. Because if we are going 
to be true to ourselves, if you are talking about fiscal 
responsibility, then you will step up to the plate and take your 
forests and make sure they are under the same category.
  Unless you are saying, All right, it is just Alaska. He is way away. 
It is just his district. On a personal note, none of you in this body 
has ever seen me address anybody's one district, because I believe in 
the representative form of government. Representative form of 
government. If it is your district and it is what you want and in your 
district. I will support that. If you don't want it, I will support 
that.
  But to have two Members of this House, and, yes, it is bipartisan, 
and I shall not forget that, to come and attack a single Member and his 
total district, to take away the jobs of his people, I say is wrong. 
And each one of you think about this in this room: this should be 
representative form of government, and what you are doing is dead 
wrong, and I shall not forget it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points I would make. First of all, it 
certainly is not an attack on any Member of this body nor an attack on 
any State. I would just note that those jobs that are being paid for 
and the $48 million paid out last year alone, those tax dollars come 
from New Jersey and they come from Ohio and they come from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That $48 million went to the Forest Service. It 
didn't go to my 300 civilians. It went to the Forest Service. That is 
what people must understand. You are creating jobs for the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since 1982, there has 
been almost $1 billion, $850 million in all, spent for this. And 
relative to jobs, back in 1996 there were 1,500 jobs. It is down to 
below 300 right now. So every one of those jobs is basically being 
subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of $150,000 per job. So 
what we are trying to do here is be responsible to the taxpayers of my 
State, Ohio, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Texas and New York and 
Vermont and all the other States who right now are donor States who are 
sending these dollars up to Alaska to sustain those few jobs.
  Now, I am all for timbering, I am all for allowing roads to be built; 
just not at taxpayer expense, not when the taxpayer is getting ripped 
off.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, once again we are confronted with the 
question of how to manage one of our great national treasures, the 
Tongass National Forest in Alaska. It is my hope that we will choose 
more wisely this time.
  The choice here is really quite simple. We can choose to follow the 
law and respect the results of the forest planning process, or we can 
trump the law and substitute our own political needs for those of an 
economically depressed region of the country.
  The gentleman's amendment is the final piece of a long-standing 
strategy to do one thing and one thing only, to kill what remains of 
the forest products industry in Alaska. This is not a decision about 
protecting pristine forests. My friends, we have already done that. 
More than 96 percent of the Tongass National Forest has not and will 
not be managed for timber under the existing forest plan. This 
amendment simply says ``get lost'' to the last few sawmills in the 
region and the hundreds of jobs they provide.
  The Tongass National Forest has a newly revised forest management 
plan, a carefully considered plan that took more than 13 years to 
complete. The plan provided for careful roadless area management 
following established planning processes, including extensive public 
participation. The gentleman's amendment ignores all of this for no 
other reason than to shut down the Alaska timber industry.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my coauthor, and salute him for

[[Page 8728]]

his integrity for bringing this amendment under difficult 
circumstances.
  President Kennedy said 40 years ago or so, governing is choosing, and 
every time we make a choice, somebody doesn't like it. But when you 
avoid choices, that is how you wind up with an $8 trillion debt. That 
is how you wind up borrowing 25 percent of the money that you spend to 
run the government.
  It is always easier to say yes when people want to spend the public's 
money, but it is not always right; and here it isn't right. Since 1982, 
the taxpayers have put about $1 billion into building roads into this 
forest. We have gotten back $150 million. We should stop building these 
roads. That is what this amendment does. It does it artfully and 
correctly. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I find the arguments amazing. The Lincoln 
National Forest is in the Second District of New Mexico. One of the 
retired foresters grabbed me one day and said, You know, I used to run 
this 1 million acres by myself and one part-timer. Then he said, Myself 
and the part-timer did all the timber sales, all of the conservation 
projects, all of the business opportunity projects by ourselves. Now 
the Lincoln National Forest has 142 people.
  If the gentlemen were really interested in the operation, in the use 
of the operation of the Forest Service and the use of Federal funds, 
they would go in and de-fund every timber sales department that has not 
sold a tree in decades, because we are still funding timber sales 
departments that don't fund it.
  I find your arrogance tremendously offensive, that you come into 
another man's district and begin to take away his jobs. In the Second 
District of New Mexico, there used to be 22 mills that processed these 
forest products, and we are down to two. The Lincoln National Forest is 
in a position to offer them the product that would keep them in 
business. They grow 50 million board feet a year of new timber in 
Lincoln. They will not even commit 12 million.
  There is a policy and culture in our Forest Service that says we will 
not cut trees, we will not keep our forests healthy. We will watch them 
burn down before we cut a tree. That is what I find offensive about the 
debate from our friends on the other side of the issue.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just note there are very diverse groups on all 
sides of the political spectrum that strongly support this amendment, 
group likes Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers 
Union, Taxpayers For Common Sense, on the one hand; the National 
Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and many others; and I would 
strongly urge my colleagues to take a vote here which is in the best 
interests of the taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about roads. The roads are used for many 
things, recreation, all those sorts of things. Over 90 percent of the 
Tongass is unroaded, won't be roaded and so forth.
  It ought to be that forests in America, managed the best in the 
world, should be providing the resources for all over the world. For 
instance, if we don't have wood, we will have to rely on steel or 
plastic. Steel takes lots more energy, about eight times as much to 
make a steel 2 by 4 versus a wooden 2 by 4, and plastic, we know what 
that comes from.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Chabot-Andrews 
amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill to block taxpayer 
spending on new commercial logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. 
Facing massive Federal deficits, every dollar counts, and we must take 
a stand against the Forest Service's fiscal mismanagement of the 
Tongass.
  In addition, I would like to state my disappointment with the deep 
cut proposed in this bill for the State Wildlife Grants Program. This 
bill includes only $50 million for this program, a cut of $17.5 million 
below FY 2006 and nearly $25 million below the President's request.
  The State Wildlife Grants program is not just a ``Grants Program'' it 
is the Interior Department's core program for preventing wildlife from 
becoming endangered by working in partnership with State Wildlife 
Agencies. The deep cut included in this bill will have a dramatic 
impact on Wildlife conservation efforts in Wisconsin and across the 
country.
  State Wildlife grants program has strong bipartisan support from 
every corner of the country. Earlier this year 170 representatives 
joined together on a letter of support for $85 million in funding for 
this program. This program has also been championed by the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest caucus in the House. 
Across the Capitol, 56 Senators joined together on a similar letter.
  Further, this program is championed by the teaming with Wildlife 
Coalition, which includes hunters and anglers, environmentalists, 
wildlife agencies and others. In Wisconsin, this coalition includes 
almost 200 organizations, including the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, 
Audubon Chapters, and local businesses. and there are similar 
coalitions in every state.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot-Andrews amendment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record in support of the amendment 
offered by Representative Chabot to protect the Tongass National 
Forest.
  The Tongass National Forest spanning 17 million acres in southeastern 
Alaska is the United States' largest national forest and home to the 
world's largest temperate rain forest. Over the past 24 years, the 
American taxpayers have provided $850 million in subsidies to the 
timber industry to harvest areas within the Tongass. The American 
taxpayers deserve better. The bipartisan amendment offered by 
Representative Chabot and Representative Andrews would simply prohibit 
the Forest Service from using any more tax dollars to build more roads 
for private timber in the Tongass. I urge my colleagues to support this 
environmentally smart and fiscally responsible amendment. Additionally, 
I am submitting for the Record an editorial in the Hartford Courant 
that also expresses support for the amendment.

               [From the Hartford Courant, May 16, 2006]

                    Protect Tongass National Forest

       Later this week, Congress will have a chance to right a 
     wrongheaded public boondoggle that last year gave the timber 
     industry $48.5 million in Federal funds to defile the Tongass 
     National Forest in Alaska.
       Tongass was established as a national forest by Teddy 
     Roosevelt in 1907 and occupies the extreme southeast corner 
     of the Alaskan coast. The world's largest intact temperate 
     rainforest, it's a place of unimaginable lushness and beauty 
     strewn along the Inside Passage like a jade necklace. It is 
     home to ancient Sitka spruce, bald eagles, bears and wolves. 
     It's also a renowned destination for tourists who fish, hunt, 
     hike or simply want to witness the rugged grandeur of one of 
     the world's last wild places.
       During the past two decades, the Federal Government has 
     spent as much as $1 billion to prop up the timber industry in 
     the Tongass. Putting aside the environmental consequences of 
     clearcutting and road-building in this natural treasure 
     (consequences including the destruction of rare, old-growth 
     trees and woodland habitat, erosion, streams choked with silt 
     and the loss of fish habitat), this practice is also a 
     singularly bad investment.
       Last year for example, the forest service spent $48.5 
     million to help timber interests build roads in the Tongass. 
     In return, the government--or, rather, taxpayers--received 
     $500,000 in logging revenues. It's a situation reminiscent of 
     the oil-industry giveaway uncovered early this year by The 
     New York Times. The investigation found that, while prices 
     for natural gas nearly doubled between 2001 and 2005, the 
     royalties paid by companies to the Federal Government for 
     right to drill on public lands and coastal waters actually 
     declined.
       Thursday, the House is scheduled to consider an amendment 
     to the House Appropriations bill that would put an end to the 
     Tongass boondoggle. The amendment is being offered by 
     Representatives Steve Chabot, a Republican from Ohio, and 
     Democrat Rob Andrews of New Jersey.
       Congress should support this amendment. Wasting taxpayer 
     money is bad. Wasteful corporate welfare with little or no 
     public benefit is worse. Publicly subsidizing the destruction 
     of the largest intact temperate rainforest is beyond the 
     pale.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.

[[Page 8729]]

  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Weiner of New York.
  Amendments by Mr. Poe of Texas.
  Amendment by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment by Mr. Beauprez of Colorado.
  Amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
  Amendment by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266, 
noes 152, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 163]

                               AYES--266

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     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
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Hinojosa
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1809

  Mr. GILLMOR and Mr. CAMP of Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. MEEK of Florida, JONES of North Carolina, CULBERSON, ISSA, 
HENSARLING, ROHRABACHER, FOLEY, GINGREY, and LATHAM changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 163, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''


                     Amendments Offered by Mr. Poe

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 279, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               AYES--141

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson

[[Page 8730]]


     Everett
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wicker

                               NOES--279

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1817

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EVERETT and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pallone

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 187, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Gallegly

[[Page 8731]]


     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Evans
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1825

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


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Beauprez

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 306, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--112

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--306

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1833

  Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 165, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               AYES--252

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)

[[Page 8732]]


     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--165

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blunt
     Cannon
     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan and Mr. WELLER changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 167 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 168]

                               AYES--237

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar

[[Page 8733]]


     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Blunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Evans
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hayworth
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Shadegg
     Stupak

                              {time}  1848

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to promulgate regulations without consideration of the 
     effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of American 
     businesses.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for the future of 
American jobs and for our future economy. Tonight we have decided to 
keep energy prices higher by blocking exploration offshore on the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  We have also blocked the EPA from reducing the paperwork burden on 
small businesses and on pop and mom shops, because we have blocked them 
from reducing the toxic relief information paperwork.
  We have even tried to blackmail oil companies tonight that entered 
into contracts in good faith to produce oil and gas. Now, we have 
adopted an amendment to force them to breach those contracts or else 
they are unable to drill offshore in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It says that none of the 
funds made available in this act may be used to promulgate regulations 
without consideration of the effect of such regulations on the 
competitiveness of American businesses. It is very simple: it is about 
American jobs.
  ``Without consideration'' is a very simple term. It is like being 
polite to people in the future. Being polite often says that we are 
just going to be considerate of others. In terms of our future economy 
and in terms of our children's opportunities, we should be considerate. 
We should be considerate of the barriers that have been created by this 
Congress and by Congresses before us over the past generation that are 
keeping us from creating and keeping American jobs.
  We have excessive health care costs, much of which is driven by an 
archaic system called Medicare which was created in the 1960s and today 
is heavily laden with paperwork, and it drives up our health care cost.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a tax policy that is punitive to success. We 
have regulation burdens, as I spoke about tonight, in relationship to 
the toxic release inventory deduction. We also have a trade policy that 
goes largely unenforced in some areas, allowing other countries to 
target businesses and run them out so that they can import their 
products.
  We also have excessive litigation costs. The one thing that we do 
have in excess in this country is lawsuits. We should be exporting our 
lawsuits through our trade policies, holding other countries 
accountable when they violate our trade agreements. But litigation 
costs have driven up the expenses for small businesses and large 
businesses alike. When expenses go up, we are less competitive and we 
lose jobs.
  Our energy policy has failed to meet the demands of our economy. That 
is why we have $3 gas. That is why our natural gas costs are the 
highest in the world because of policies created by this Congress.
  And our education policy has failed to meet the needs of our high-
tech society these days. Our math scores, our science scores, those 
students pursuing engineering degrees and science degrees are 
diminishing, and so are their test scores. And our unfocused research 
and development programs have also created barriers to keeping and 
creating jobs here in America.
  So, Mr. Chairman, that is why I created this very simple amendment 
that just says that we won't put a barrier in place when it comes to 
writing regulations because it costs us American jobs.
  Now, I realize that my amendment is subject to a point of order 
because our rules say that a Member cannot add authorization language 
to an appropriations bill. And I assume that there is wisdom in the 
process, and we will abide by that.
  So with reservations, I will withdraw this amendment. But I will not 
withdraw from the fight to remove the barriers that Congress has 
created that prevent us from keeping and creating jobs here in America.
  Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a 
colloquy with the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee, 
the ranking member, and the chairman of the National Park Service 
Subcommittee regarding the National Park Service's extension of the 
current contract to provide ferry service to the Statue of Liberty/
Ellis Island National Monument, in spite of Congress's explicit 
instruction that concessions contracts be put out to bid upon their 
expiration.
  Mr. Chairman, the current concessionaire, Circle Line, has held the 
contract to provide ferry service from Manhattan to the Statue of 
Liberty for decades. They provide what is less than enjoyable service 
for park visitors. The old clunky boats and temporary screening 
facilities they use when docking at the edge of a city park hardly do 
Lady Liberty justice.
  In 1998, Congress passed, thanks to the leadership of the House 
Resources Committee, a bill that overhauled the National Park Service 
Concession Program and instilled for the first time competition into 
the contract process. Specifically, the preferential right of renewal 
for an incumbent that grossed more than a half a million dollars 
annually was eliminated. In section 403, subsection 2, the National 
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 says: ``Prior to awarding a new 
concession contract, including renewals or extension of existing 
contracts for concessions, the Secretary shall publicly solicit 
proposals for a concessions contract.''

[[Page 8734]]

  It was clearly the intent of Congress to put an end to the Park 
Service's age-old practice of indefinitely renewing existing contracts 
to the detriment of each park's service, was it not, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. PEARCE. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will.
  Mr. PEARCE. The gentleman from New York is right. It was and 
continues to be the intent of Congress that the National Park Service 
open contracts to competition upon their termination.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time. However, when Circle Line's contract 
expired in 2004, the Park Service utilized language in the 1998 act 
providing the Secretary with extension authority and awarded Circle 
Line a 3-year extension, did it not, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. PEARCE. If the gentleman from New York will yield?
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will.
  Mr. PEARCE. The Service did indeed extend the Circle Line contract 
from March 31, 2004, to March 2007 due to a number of factors stemming 
from the events of September 11, including the fact, as my colleague 
knows, that the statue was closed to the public from 9/11 through 
August 2004. During this time, Liberty Island underwent an extensive 
security and safety assessment that focused on a number of 
vulnerabilities such as the statue's 3/32 of an inch thick skin, and 
local park officials spent much more time focusing on those issues than 
preparing for a new contract prospectus. Obviously, they dropped the 
ball.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, now as we approach the 
expiration of the extended 2004 contract, I have been informed, as have 
my colleagues on the authorizing and appropriations committees, that 
the National Park Service will not have a prospectus on the street to 
solicit bids and award a new contract by the expiration of the current 
Circle Line contract in March 2007 when the 3-year renewal is scheduled 
to expire, meaning that the Circle Line contract will have been 
extended again.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. WEINER. I am happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman from New York is right, 
the National Park Service has notified the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee that due to its inability to complete an open bid before 
the expiration of the current extension in April 2007, the Park Service 
will have to temporarily extend Circle Line's contract once again to 
prevent the disruption of service to Liberty Island.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
would Chairman Taylor, Ranking Member Dicks and Chairman Pearce agree 
with me that the National Park Service has failed to heed Congress's 
direction that expiring contracts are to be put to bid on schedule, and 
that extending the Circle Line contract beyond March of 2007 should be 
called into question?
  Would they further agree to work with me to ensure that those who are 
responsible for ignoring Congress's intent are held accountable?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. WEINER. I certainly will.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I agree with the gentleman from New 
York that the Circle Line contract set to expire March 2007 should not 
be extended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New 
York, the chairman of the authorizing committee and the ranking member 
of this subcommittee to ensure that the new contract is in place as 
soon as possible and those responsible for the current delay are held 
accountable.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. PEARCE. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will yield.
  Mr. PEARCE. I agree also with the gentleman from New York that the 
Circle Line contract set to expire on March 2007 should not be 
extended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York 
and the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee 
to ensure that a new contract is in place as soon as possible and those 
responsible for the current delay are held to account for their 
actions.

                              {time}  1900

  I also thank the gentleman for bringing this problem to my attention. 
With over 600 concession-related contracts in the National Park system, 
it is difficult for me and the subcommittee staff to always stay on top 
of these ongoing deadlines.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him, 
with the chairman, and with the authorizing committee to ensure that a 
new contract is in place as soon as possible and those responsible for 
the current delay are held to account.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Dicks, and I also want 
to extend my gratitude to Mike Stephens of your staff, Deb Weatherly of 
Mr. Taylor's staff, and Rob Howarth of Mr. Pearce's staff for their 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following articles for the Record.

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 4, 2004]

 Liberty Is Open Again to the Masses, But Just to the Hem of Her Robes

                          (By Carolyn Curiel)

       For anyone who has ever trekked up the spiral staircase of 
     the Statue of Liberty and peered through the crown's narrow 
     windows, the statue's reopening this week, for the first time 
     since the 9/11 attacks, is bittersweet. Its surrounding 
     grounds and facilities have been spruced up, and members of 
     the National Park Service gamely claim that the statue, an 
     international icon, is better than ever. But there's no way 
     to ignore the loss of what was the main attraction: tourists 
     can no longer knock themselves out by climbing those storied 
     354 steps.
       It's perhaps an unavoidable result of the vigilance against 
     terrorism, but a sad one nonetheless. The new tour stops 
     short of the hem of Liberty's robes, at the top of her thick 
     concrete pedestal, in a room that holds only 30 people at a 
     time, or about 3,000 people a day who are quickly shuffled in 
     and out. While a guide gives a short talk and shows a video, 
     tourists are invited to look up at the ceiling, where a few 
     glass panels give a glimpse of a few feet of the interior. 
     Tourists can also step into the open air on a deck that lines 
     the pedestal. That's as good as it gets. And that's only 
     after each visitor is screened twice, by X-ray and metal 
     detectors before boarding a ferry to the monument, and then 
     on the premises by new scanners looking for explosives and 
     narcotics.
       Throughout the statue's base are monitors showing the 
     routes to the nearest exits in case of an emergency, while 
     across the bottom scrolls a constant message: ``If you see 
     something, say something.'' Oddly enough, this antiterrorism 
     mantra, which appears in bilingual postings in city subways 
     and buses, is only in English at this symbol of America's 
     polyglot immigration.
       Larry Parkinson, a deputy assistant secretary for law 
     enforcement and security at the Interior Department, says 
     greater access to the statue itself has not been ruled out. 
     But it isn't in the works right now, and the motives for 
     caution seem to stretch beyond security. There is concern 
     about wear and tear on the statue. The people who used to 
     climb the stairs were apparently not unlike those 
     unconscionable climbers of Everest who left behind proof of 
     their presence in the form of garbage--in this case, mostly 
     chewing gum and food refuse.
       But it's hard to avoid the impression that the officials 
     who spent millions in private and public funds to restore and 
     fortify the statue don't want anyone to mess it up. With the 
     nonprofit charity that has been in charge of soliciting 
     donations under fire for paying its executives too much 
     money, this seems like a time when everyone should be trying 
     to make things as accessible as possible.
       Obviously, security will have to come first, but visitors 
     to the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of American freedom, 
     shouldn't be constrained forever.
                                  ____


                   [From the Daily News, May 7, 2006]

                            Carrying a Torch

       Sen. Bob Menendez did his best at Interior Secretary 
     nominee Dirk Kempthorne's confirmation hearing last week. The 
     New Jersey Democrat eloquently explained why the Statue of 
     Liberty must be reopened to the public, and he pressed 
     Kempthorne to explain when that might happen. But the Idaho 
     governor has his bureauspeak down pat. He can answer a 
     question while saying nothing at all.

[[Page 8735]]

       Menendez is to be thanked for raising the issue of how Lady 
     Liberty is being held hostage by the National Park Service 
     (under Interior Department auspices) and the Statue of 
     Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation. Since Liberty Island was 
     closed 9/11, only the pedestal has reopened, despite much-
     improved security measures for the island and the statue. The 
     public is denied access to the crown and the spiral staircase 
     leading there--a staircase trod by multitudes before the feds 
     began cowering.
       Citing those new security measures, Menendez told 
     Kempthorne: ``I hope that you will help us liberate Lady 
     Liberty. We should not buckle in to the fear of terrorism. We 
     should let Americans travel to the top of Lady Liberty.'' 
     Exactly.
       Then Menendez expressed hope that Secretary Kempthorne 
     ``would make a commitment'' to do what is necessary to reopen 
     the statue in its entirety. Responded Kempthorne: ``I will 
     take your counsel'' and ``look into'' how access can be 
     expanded ``while understanding that we want to make sure that 
     it is done safely.'' And yada yada yada.
       Americans are sick of double-talk. Open the statue. All of 
     it.
                                  ____


                   [From the Daily News, May 4, 2006]

                         Liberate Lady Liberty

       The Statue of Liberty, held hostage by the Interior 
     Department and the National Park Service, has a new champion 
     in Senator Robert Menendez who, it is hoped, will be able to 
     free her from the bureaucratic shackles that have imprisoned 
     her since 9/11. Today, Menendez and the rest of the Energy 
     and Natural Resources Committee will hold a confirmation 
     hearing for Interior Secretary-nominee Idaho Gov. Dirk 
     Kempthorne, at which time the New Jersey Democrat will demand 
     answers and action to ensure Lady Liberty is open to the 
     public, which she is not, despite lies by the feds and their 
     nonprofit fund-raising partner, the Statue of Liberty-Ellis 
     Island Foundation.
       All that is open is the pedestal. Visitors can look up her 
     skirts. They cannot, as had been the case before 9/11, climb 
     the spiral stairway to her crown. She has become the Statue 
     of Cowardice, thanks to the people who run Liberty Island and 
     are terrified of terrorism.
       Aren't we all? No. We are aware of it and wary of it, but 
     we are not terrified. If we were, this whole city--full as it 
     is of ripe, potential targets--would have shut down. If we 
     were, the terrorists would have won. Thus far, they can claim 
     victory over only the statue.
       Though strict security measures have been implemented--
     reserved admission, repeat metal detection--the frightened 
     feds are loath to let visitors climb the statue. The entire 
     situation is shameful. May Menendez bring that to the 
     attention of Kempthorne, and the entire nation, and may there 
     be such an outcry as to break the chains that bind Miss 
     Liberty and make her a laughingstock for Al Qaeda.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we will accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that, and I will be very 
brief, just to say that Members on both sides of the aisle may disagree 
on exactly how we got to this point, but I think most people will agree 
that our deficit in this country is too high.
  If people watched TV last night and watched the debates on the floor 
with regard to our budget, there was much disagreement on our spending 
levels and the like. But one thing we all came to agreement on at the 
end of the evening is that we are spending too much and that when we 
spend too much it creates a deficit. So when we can at an appropriate 
time try to limit and rein in those spendings, I think that is an 
appropriate and common sense approach to do that. To do that we have 
this amendment.
  This amendment is basically to say that when Federal agencies travel 
overseas on international conferences there should be some limit as to 
how many members and their staff goes. The amendment picks out a 
reasonable number and that is 50.
  No one would disagree with the fact that we should attend 
international conferences and no one would disagree with the fact that 
we should allow staff to go to them. Our amendment simply says that 
only essential staff should attend those conferences, and we therefore 
set a limited number.
  I appreciate the fact that the chairman has agreed to this amendment 
in past legislation, and I certainly appreciate the fact that the 
amendment once again is agreed to by the chairman at this point in time 
as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No funds made available by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to conduct the San Gabriel Watershed 
     and Mountains Special Resource Study (authorized by the San 
     Gabriel River Watershed Study Act (Public Law 108-42)) in the 
     cities of Diamond Bar, La Habra, Industry, Chino Hills, and 
     the community of Rowland Heights in Los Angeles County, 
     California (as defined by the following boundaries: the City 
     of Industry on the north, Orange County on the south, the 
     City of Diamond Bar and California State Route 57 on the 
     east, and the City of La Habra Heights and Schabarum Regional 
     Park on the west.).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  In 2003, I was approached by the chairman of the Resources Committee, 
Richard Pombo, and he was asked to put language in a bill that would 
authorize the National Park Service, San Gabriel Valley Watershed and 
Mountain Special Resource Study to survey the San Gabriel River and its 
tributaries and the San Gabriel Mountains north of, and including, the 
City of Santa Fe Springs to determine if any resources are available 
for National Park Service designation. And when he approached me, it 
was because I am from the region, and we looked at the maps. His staff 
determined that this had no impact on my district. I agreed, when I 
reviewed the language, that it had no impact on my district.
  However, since then the National Park Service has been conducting 
public hearings in my district. The cities that they have been 
conducted in have stated very clearly, the cities I mentioned in my 
amendment to be removed, that they do not want to be part of the study.
  My city is clearly not in San Gabriel Mountains nor is it north of 
Santa Fe Springs. It is clearly far to the east of Santa Fe Springs. My 
cities have no affiliation with the National Park Service nor do they 
believe they should be part of the National Park Service.
  My reason for not objecting to this when the language was presented 
to me was I was assured by Chairman Pombo that this would not impact my 
district. In fact, the chairman wholeheartedly supports my language in 
this amendment that is asking that no funds made available by this act 
may be obligated

[[Page 8736]]

or expended to conduct the survey in the cities listed within my 
amendment.
  We worked with the National Park Service. We have tried to get them 
to eliminate our cities. In fact, Chairman Lewis today even called them 
and asked them once again to delete these cities from that study. They 
said they believed they had congressional authorization, although the 
committee chairman believes that is not the case. And what we are 
saying is I have no problem with what any other Member of Congress 
wants to do within their district. In fact, when this was proposed to 
me I supported what they wanted to do because it is their district.


                              Introduction

  This amendment is simple. It only affects the communities within my 
district who do not want to be the subject of a Federal National Park 
Service study.
  My amendment would exclude cities within my congressional district 
(and one neighboring city) from a study being conducted by the National 
Park Service (NPS): ``the San Gabriel River Watershed and Mountains 
Special Resource Study.''


    National Park Service Study Has Gone Beyond Congressional Intent

  In 2003, Congress authorized the National Park Service San Gabriel 
Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study to survey the ``San 
Gabriel River and its tributaries and the San Gabriel Mountains, north 
of, and including the city of Santa Fe Springs'' to determine if any 
resources are available for National Park Service designation.
  Let me be clear--My district is not in the San Gabriel Mountains, nor 
does it contain a tributary, and it is not north of Santa Fe Springs.
  It is east of the area that was authorized to be studied.
  I did not oppose the original authorization of this study because, 
according to my interpretation of the language, my district would not 
be affected.
  I strongly believe that the inclusion of cities in my district in the 
NPS study went beyond the scope of the congressional authorization.


   My cities do not want their land to be added to the National Park 
                                 System

  We have reached out to the NPS on numerous occasions asking them to 
remove these cities from the study--they have refused.
  I rise today to ask that you support my efforts to ensure these 
cities are not forced to be included in a study they did not seek.
  This amendment does not affect any other cities in the study than 
those in my district (plus the City of Industry) that have asked to be 
excluded.
  If other members want their cities to continue to be included in the 
study, then this amendment will not affect them.
  The bottom line is that I represent these cities and they have told 
me they do not want to be included in this study.


                               Conclusion

  The cities in the 42nd Congressional District, which I represent, 
have worked hard to address the challenges associated with the rapid 
pace of growth in our region, including finding innovative solutions to 
manage future development, alleviate traffic congestion, and preserve 
open space.
  These cities are in the best position to make decisions regarding 
land use within their boundaries and I am opposed to any federal action 
that falsely conveys the perception that this authority might be 
curtailed in the future.
  The results of this study could ultimately be used to compromise the 
ability of local governments to decide what is best for their 
communities.
  Land management responsibility and decision-making should be made at 
the local level where officials have a clear understanding of community 
needs.
  Existing land use management by local municipalities is preferable to 
Federal involvement in this rapidly growing region.
  I urge my colleagues to support my efforts to protect the communities 
that I represent.
  A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote against spending Federal 
dollars where they are not welcomed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is 
opposition being included in the Special Resource Study currently being 
conducted by the National Park Service.
  Would the gentleman agree to work with the ranking member and myself 
to see if we can resolve that?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Yes. I would ask that my amendment 
be adopted, but I would be happy to work with you.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to 
the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I agree that there is still some confusion 
over this, but for the sake of moving the process forward, we will 
cooperate with the gentleman. But we need to be able to work this out.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Absolutely. Reclaiming my time, Mr. 
Chairman, I would do nothing to impact anybody else's district. The 
cities delineated within the amendment are clearly under my purview, 
and they all have issued letters requesting to be removed; so I would 
be happy to work with the gentleman.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
sponsored by Congressman Miller. This amendment is based on a 
fundamentally flawed understanding of the study process incorporated in 
the legislation which I authored and which was signed into law on July 
1, 2003 and would result in a change in the study design.
  The San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act was signed into law on July 
1, 2003 after a lengthy effort to build consensus, an effort which 
included outreach to and coordination with all the members of the San 
Gabriel Valley delegation, including the Representatives of Diamond 
Bar, La Habra Industry, Chino Hills, and the unincorporated area of Los 
Angeles County in the community of Rowland Heights. As a result of this 
effort, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives with 
broad support.
  Congressman Radanovich noted in a letter to the editor on August 4, 
2002, that ``the legislative process works best when those with 
differing views get together to resolve those differences and arrive at 
solutions that are responsible, workable and widely acceptable. That is 
what happened in this instance.'' I am proud of the iterative and 
compromising process by which this legislation was drafted and enacted. 
In fact, upon passage, Representative Pombo noted that this bill 
``enjoys the broad support of both the majority and the minority, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.''
  During this process, the boundaries of the study were clearly 
defined. According to the legislative text, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall conduct a special resource study of the following areas: 
(1) the San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and including 
the city of Sante Fe Springs, and (2) the San Gabriel Mountains within 
the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and 
Mountains Conservancy--as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the 
State California Public Resource Code. This study was directed to be 
done in consultation with Federal, State and local governments, 
including the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains 
Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State and local governmental 
entities. These areas were chosen for their importance in the regional 
watershed.
  During consideration of this legislation, the Department of the 
Interior recognized the need for this study. It noted that:

       The watershed of the San Gabriel River contains important 
     natural resources which are disappearing throughout Los 
     Angeles County. Continuous greenbelt corridors provided by 
     the river serve as habitat for breeding, feeding, resting or 
     migration birds and mammals, which allows migration to take 
     place through developed areas. The rugged terrain of the 
     higher reaches of the watershed contains different 
     vegetations including rock outcroppings and vegetation native 
     to the Pacific Coast foothills. This area also has a rich 
     cultural heritage which is evident by the large number of 
     historically significant properties within the proposed study 
     area. Among them is the Mission San Gabriel Archangel, 
     founded in 1771 by the Spanish missionaries who were moving 
     up the coast of California.

  The Department of Interior also noted that this study would have to 
examine a number of alternatives for protecting resources in the area. 
Specifically the Department of the Interior stated:

       Alternatives to federal management of resources are often 
     considered in a special resource study for this type of area 
     including national trail designations, national heritage area 
     designations, and the provision of technical assistance to 
     state and local governments for conservation of rivers, 
     trails, natural areas, and cultural resources. A

[[Page 8737]]

     study of an area where land ownership and jurisdictional 
     boundaries are as complex as they are in the San Gabriel 
     River Watershed would likely emphasize public-private 
     partnerships.

  This study provides a multitude of opportunities for public comment. 
The National Park Service has made accommodations to boundaries where 
these changes do not alter the intent of the study. In its final report 
to Congress, the National Park Service will make recommendations and 
include with those recommendations the comments provided by the local 
stakeholders. Additional legislative acts of Congress would be required 
before any recommendation could be implemented. This action would 
require local and Federal support. By design, no action could be 
implemented as a result of this study without consent.
  This study provides our communities with a very rare opportunity to 
develop a plan to bring and protect natural resources in our area for 
future generations. Many of the possible recommendations could result 
in additional monies being brought to the community, improved health 
for our children, and high property values at no loss of local control.
  I am proud that this process is a transparent one which provides all 
stakeholders an equal opportunity to participate in the process of 
developing recommendations for future consideration and commenting on 
particular land use needs. The National Park Service is committed to 
finding creative ways to help improve the community and I encourage 
everyone to think outside of what is perceived as the traditional 
Federal land management process.
  I believe the concerns represented by those in support of this 
amendment are unfounded based on the legislative record and encourage 
all stakeholders to work together to come to an agreement which 
preserves the intent of the authorizing legislation. I oppose this 
amendment because I believe the legislative record provides ample 
support for the inclusion of these areas and provides ample protections 
for local landowners, stakeholders, and other interested parties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds in this Act may be used by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     implement or enforce the Joint Memorandum published in the 
     Federal Register on January 15, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 1995).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order has been reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and I and others offer today will 
define where we stand on protecting water quality in America. Will we 
allow the Federal Water Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, to be a 
national program, as it was intended by Congress when written and 
enacted in 1972, to protect the Nation's waters; or will we allow it 
simply to become a limited program that abandons the national priority 
for clean water by leaving a rather substantial number of lakes, 
streams, and wetlands unprotected?
  This bipartisan amendment we offer would prevent the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing or enforcing the 
wetlands policy guidance issued in a joint memorandum of EPA and the 
Corps of Engineers in 2003. That memorandum was drafted in response to 
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Solid Waste Agency of North Cook 
County against Army Corps of Engineers, commonly known as the SWANCC 
case. The EPA's guidance in pursuance of the court's decision goes well 
beyond what the court directed. The court held that the Clean Water Act 
jurisdiction did not extend to isolated intrastate waters where 
jurisdiction is asserted solely on the presence of migratory birds. But 
the joint memorandum, EPA expanded upon the case and made it more 
difficult to protect all intrastate waters regardless of impact on 
water quality or on commerce. Our amendment would prevent EPA from 
implementing that unsound policy.
  With our amendment EPA and the Corps of Engineers will once again be 
able to follow their own regulations and procedures in determining what 
waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act. If the 
amendment is defeated, streams, ponds, wetlands will continue to endure 
unregulated wastewater and other damaged water discharges. The result 
will be loss of habitat for waterfowl, loss of habitat for wildlife, 
endangered wildlife, increased frequency and increased severity of 
flooding and increased risk of drinking water and polluted groundwater 
supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of point of order and claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from North 
Carolina will control 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the 
leaders of this amendment, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Leach, Mr. Dingell, to 
protect water quality.
  This amendment reverses the harmful policy of EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers that empowers regulators to allow the pollution of waters and 
destruction of wetlands but eliminates the authority of local 
regulators to protect waters from such pollution and destruction.
  Since January, 2003, EPA and the Corps have restricted the ability of 
their own personnel to implement regulations that have been in use 
since 1986. These regulations are valid, understood in the regulated 
community, and are the method we use to protect some 20 percent of the 
Nation's waters. The Nation's ponds, streams, rivers, lakes, and 
wetlands can be no healthier than the headwaters and runoff that feed 
them.
  Since EPA guidance was put in place in 2003, regulators have allowed 
the pollution and destruction of these critical waters, imperiling the 
health of the entire aquatic system.
  This amendment is not about stopping the direct pollution of our 
great rivers such as the Mississippi or the Trinity River, which flows 
through my home city of Dallas. It is about protecting the waters that 
feed into these systems and that serve as the origins of these great 
rivers. When we fail to protect smaller bodies of water, we lose the 
flood control, water supply, water filtering, and habitat benefits that 
these waters provide.
  Waters that may appear isolated on the surface tend to be 
interconnected with the ground and surface waters elsewhere. We cannot 
simply ignore the connections among and the values of all of the 
Nation's waters.
  I support this bipartisan amendment and urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in voting ``yes.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would like to oppose this amendment strongly. On January 9, 2001, 
the Supreme Court ruled that there must be a significant and important 
connection between traditional navigable waterways and the wetlands or 
waters to be regulated by Federal agencies.
  The EPA and the Corps of Engineers issued guidance to their field 
staff in

[[Page 8738]]

2003 clarifying that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction did not extend to 
isolated waters that are both intrastate and non-navigable. This 
guidance also clarifies that field staff should continue to assert 
jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands 
and their tributaries systems and adjacent wetlands. Field staff was 
directed to make jurisdictional and permitting decisions on a case-by-
case basis.
  The plain text of the Clean Water Act emphasizes that Congress 
constructed the statute in a manner that intended, as the Supreme Court 
has articulated, to ``recognize, preserve, and protect the States' 
primary authority and responsibility over local land and water 
resources.'' Misguided efforts to expand the geographical scope of the 
Clean Water Act will create and exacerbate local land and water 
resource decisions with burdensome and costly Federal controls.
  I will give you an example. Right now the Clean Water Act is being 
used in farms, with livestock, cattle primarily, to try to clean the 
streams where cattle are grazing.

                              {time}  1915

  If we allow the situation we have here for navigable waters to be 
translated to ditches, small tributaries with an ounce of water, the 
soil conservation today, and we are providing grants for soil 
conservation to take those streams, provide drinking water for cattle, 
and then enable them to go back into a stream which is fenced off, if 
we rule according to what has been asked here, we will find that the 
soil conservation will be barred from doing any sort of work in 
cleaning water. We will actually get dirtier water. We could have up to 
six agencies get involved in trying to clean up water on a farm. Not 
only will the cost be prohibitive, but the bureaucracy, because many of 
those agencies do not agree in this thing.
  Eliminating this guidance will create confusion and could lead to the 
classification of ditches, drains, curbs, roads, gutters and erosion 
features as ``navigable water of the United States.'' Clearly, this 
goes beyond common sense, but it won't be the first time that the 
Federal Government has tried to force something like this.
  Such an expansive regulatory reach would have the Federal Government 
interfering and frustrating local decisions regarding construction, 
operation, maintenance, management, transportation, flood control, and 
agricultural production.
  For instance, soil water conservation, which would be working with 
the farmer, has an elected delegation inside the county, as well as the 
State delegations elected, and they are trying to do the right thing, 
and we are spending Federal money to help it. This could be stopped by 
the Corps of Engineers simply for bureaucratic action.
  Eliminating this guidance would require Federal oversight of ditches, 
storm drains and sewers. These are local structures that are 
constructed and managed and maintained at the local level. We don't 
want the Corps of Engineers and all the bureaucracy that would be 
entailed to get down to a small storm drain or a small ounce of water 
on a farm. The cost would be prohibitive, and it would go against what 
the Clean Water Act is trying to do, and that is clean water for a 
special agriculture problem.
  One critical consideration is the Supreme Court is expected to rule 
in two new Clean Water Act cases prior to the expiration of the current 
term in June. The decisions in these cases will provide important 
clarification of the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act 
jurisdiction. We should not act at this time on issues that are being 
actively deliberated by the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who, along with my predecessor, John 
Blotnick, was the original inventor of the clean water program.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Minnesota, who 
has done so much for the natural resources of this country and for the 
protection of its waters. I salute you, Jim.
  When the original Clean Water Act and its amendments were passed, the 
waters of this country were so filthy that they were unsafe for 
recreational purposes, for swimming, for drinking and even for 
industry. Imagine that. And we were ditching, draining, drilling and 
drying our wetlands at a pace which was unbelievably bad for the 
country. We also were destroying in that process not only wildlife 
habitat, but one of the finest natural flood control systems that has 
ever been devised by the mind and hand of the almighty God.
  Now, in the debates on the Clean Water Act, if you read the history, 
you will find that there the managers of the bill in a colloquy with me 
said that this law was to cover all navigable waters of the United 
States and all waters that affected the navigable waters of the United 
States, and that has been the settled interpretation of the law ever 
since. It has stopped the drainage and the drying up of our wetlands. 
It has done an enormous amount of good to clean up the waters, so that 
now they can be used for swimming and boating and recreation and 
industry and irrigation and other things which were not available 
before.
  If you will but take a look, you will find the consequences of this 
understanding which this amendment would deny funding for. The guidance 
that we are talking about has wiped out the protections for bodies of 
water like the Sacramento River in New Mexico, a water supply for a 
number of communities. Despite being a drinking water source, the 
Folsom South Canal in California has been determined not to be water 
under the Clean Water Act. Imagine that, if you please. Forested 
wetlands in Delaware that connect to the Little River, feeding directly 
into Delaware Bay were declared isolated and not covered. An 86-acre 
lake in Wisconsin, popular with fishermen, is no longer covered by the 
Clean Water Act.
  Now, I want to remind my colleagues that not long back, 218 Members 
of this body joined in sending a letter to the President of the United 
States asking him not to implement the plans that were in the offing in 
the administration. That letter was honored by the President 
withdrawing the regulatory change, but he left in place the guidance. 
The guidance is every bit as bad.
  This corrects that situation. It makes it possible for matters to be 
corrected so that we can continue the protection of wetlands in the 
United States, we can continue to protect our drinking water, our 
recreational waters and the waters which are so important and precious 
to fish, wildlife, and conservationists.
  This is an amendment which will stop wrongdoing. This is an amendment 
which will protect the water resources of this country at a time when 
the need is clear. This is a proposal which sees to it that the wishes 
of 218 Members of this Congress, communicated to the President from 
Members from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, are 
carried forward and that we do serve as wise conservators and 
protectors of the natural resources and, above all else, the precious 
water of the United States.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment offered by my good friend Mr. 
Oberstar and by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce you to Gene, 
who is a third-generation sugar beet farmer. That is a root crop that 
can't grow in wetlands. Nonetheless, his sugar beet farm was ruled by 
the Federal Government as a wetland. The reason it was a wetland was 
because the creek was connected to his farm by way of an irrigation 
ditch with a pipe in it. The water to his wetland went through an 
irrigation pipe which he allowed to pool so the higher end of his farm 
could actually be irrigated the same way. In our district, 8 days of 
irrigation is one of the criteria for a wetland.

[[Page 8739]]

  I don't believe that those who actually wrote the Clean Water Act 
intended an irrigation pipe to be considered one of the navigable 
waterways of the United States, but the act is written so loosely and 
the interpretation by bureaucrats on the administrative side has been 
so perverse that indeed those kinds of decisions have been made in 
reality.
  The SWANCC decision by the courts simply said enough is enough. We 
need to bring some element of logic, write some rules that actually are 
the intention of this particular act. So Gene, when he took the 
irrigation pipe away and the water dried up, was still threatened with 
fines because he had interrupted the navigable waterways of the United 
States. And when he and his wife for medical needs tried to use the 
only asset that they had, which was their farm, and they tried to sell 
it for their needs and their family needs, the value of their farm was 
shot, because this is now farmlands. They were forced to sell their 
property for one-quarter of the value of the exact neighboring farm 
with the same kind of crops on the same road.
  What we are doing with the Clean Water Act, as it is being 
interpreted, is hurting people. We are taking their property rights 
away without any kind of compensation from the Federal Government and 
forcing them to suffer. We are forcing them to try and prove to the 
person who made the original accusation that his accusation was 
inaccurate.
  For example, when the water actually dried up on his property, the 
person who made this request, who made this declaration it was water 
land, simply said we are in a drought cycle; we have to wait until we 
have a wet cycle in Utah to see if the water will return automatically 
by itself.
  This is unfair to people. And this amendment, well-intentioned as it 
is, just like the law, well-intentioned as it is, in its practice hurts 
people. It hurts real people in the United States, and that is not why 
we are here.
  I urge you to reject this amendment. Let the SWANCC decision go 
forward, so logical rules on how we deal with real people can be put 
into place.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. This amendment has a very clear purpose, to ensure that the 
Clean Water Act, one of the most vital and effective laws, to ensure 
that the Clean Water Act protects as many waters as possible.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has issued guidance that, sadly, 
has the effect of limiting the application of the Clean Water Act. 
There is no good reason to do that. The guidance goes beyond any 
limitation that was necessary because of the Supreme Court ruling in 
what is known as the SWANCC case, and the guidance is not even helpful. 
The Government Accountability Office has documented that the guidance 
is actually causing confusion and inconsistent interpretation of the 
law. Some guidance.
  The guidance is so misguided, that 2 years ago, 218 Members of this 
House, a bipartisan group, wrote to the EPA asking that the guidance 
not be implemented. Our call went unheeded, so we need to send a 
stronger message here and now.
  We need to block the implementation of this guidance to protect our 
Nation's waters. This amendment will not prevent EPA from issuing new, 
more thoughtful guidance; but this amendment will prevent a rollback of 
the Clean Water Act.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
chairman in opposition to this amendment. I have 8 years of local 
government experience, 30 years of small-town business experience, and 
19 years of State government experience before I came here; and I can't 
tell you the time I have spent bringing reason to wetland designation 
in my district.
  The problem we have had, and what I believe the creep here is, we are 
going to bring EPA and put them in charge of wetlands in small-town USA 
neighborhoods that are not real wetlands; they are wet spots. They are 
spots where someone has put dirt in an appropriate place and water no 
longer drains, and we now have a few cattails and certain grass is 
growing, and it is determined a wetland.
  I can't tell you the cases where companies who build a new building, 
when they did their soil movement afterwards, didn't get good drainage, 
had a wet spot, and when they went to expand their building, they 
couldn't because it was declared a wetland. It took a year or two for 
them to litigate it.
  I have farmers who have had to stop farming fields because they were 
cleaning out the ditches and the corps came by and said you can't clean 
that ditch, a ditch your father put in with Federal support to drain so 
you could farm those fields.

                              {time}  1930

  I have one near Titusville, Pennsylvania where they stopped the 
construction of a new building. Do you know what the site was? It was 
wet. There was grasses and cattails growing there. There were three 
railroad tracks there where there used to be a factory. It was on top 
of a landfill. It was the old city dump.
  Folks, it was not a wetland, but it was declared a wetland because it 
was wet on top. Drainage was no longer available. Water was standing 
there. Folks, our local soil conservation people are diligent in our 
rural areas in dealing with these issues. We do not need EPA officials 
and Corps officials boring down the backs and stopping what little 
growth and prosperity we have in rural America by regulating every wet 
spot and drainage ditch that has a cattail or certain grasses growing.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to not expand their ability.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the chairman of the 
subcommittee how many speakers he has remaining?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have one more.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do for my colleagues is to 
demonstrate the 1987 manual of the Army Corps of Engineers to determine 
what is a jurisdictional wetland that is associated with navigable 
waters, which gives the Army Corps of Engineers, through the Clean 
Water Act, as passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by 
the President. The Clean Water Act is to make sure that waters of the 
United States are clean, and the Corps of Engineers determines what are 
waters of the United States. So the experiment is as follows.
  Gravity pulls water downhill. So the 1987 manual of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, to determine what are waters of the United States so that 
the Federal Government can protect those waters from pollution, 
determines that in three ways.
  What is the soil type? What is the vegetation in that area? And what 
is the hydrology of that area? If it meets that criteria and it comes 
under their jurisdiction, it means that no matter where that water is, 
if it runs downhill and eventually gets miles away to a stream or a 
tributary that runs into navigable waters or the seas, that what you do 
in that isolated wetland, if the hydrology is such that it moves with 
gravity, will eventually pollute the navigable waters or seas of the 
United States.
  And so the Federal Government has decided to use its resources in a 
reasonable, practicable way, based on the 1987 manual, to ensure that 
waters of the United States, of which we all depend, are not polluted. 
And in most instances, I represent an agricultural district with a lot 
of wetlands, on the Delmarva Peninsula. Those areas in my

[[Page 8740]]

district, an agricultural community that depends on agriculture, that 
depends on silviculture, that depends on the fishing community to 
harvest their striped bass or eels or catfish or whatever, we have 
understood the compatibility of human activity with nature's design. 
And we want to ensure that that is still in law and that our waters of 
the United States can continue to be protected.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman ought to go talk to his farmers more, 
because if this passes the farmer will soon find out, Mr. Chairman, 
that he no longer can drain even a few drops of water out of his ditch 
and try to collect it or put it in a way that he can responsibly manage 
his farm, even if that has been done for years and years.
  The Soil and Water Conservation has tried working with the EPA in 
this Clean Water Act to put common sense into these measures, to try to 
see that reality happens, that you can farm in a responsible way. In 
fact, they are doing more to clean up the water, especially in farms, 
by putting in systems that are drained into a central watering spot 
that is covered by fabric and stone, and then the cow will not 
contaminate the water that goes in it, rather than going into the 
streams themselves.
  Now, there is much government money going into this. But the Corps 
right now will stop that any time, any time that they get a chance. And 
I know that in my home. And that is why the Farm Bureau is against this 
group, the Home Builders, the American Forest and Paper, the National 
Association of Realtors, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives, and 
the Edison Electric Institute, the National Grange, the National 
Association of Counties, the National Cattlemen, and the National Corn 
Growers, because it goes beyond common sense.
  We have been successful. I worked with the EPA, and we have tried to 
fund the EPA for clean water. But what we find often is if we have a 
rule, some people think that if we double or triple that rule it will 
be better. Actually, after you start and get a certain distance with 
that rule, it becomes corrupting in the sense that it disrupts the 
whole purpose of the original rule.
  And that is what we are about to have here. The individuals 
landowners and the taxpayers certainly know what they can do inside 
small watershed areas. And the Soil and Water Conservation would be 
directly against this type of program, because they cannot have six 
agencies trying to manage the farms of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman has either himself or 
perhaps one other speaker remaining, I yield myself the balance of our 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speakers have missread the issue. The 
holding by the Supreme Court very clearly stated, this is the exact 
language, says that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction cannot be asserted 
based solely on the presence of migratory birds.
  Previous speakers have alluded to other issues that have nothing to 
do with the question at hand. So the Corps of Engineers no longer can 
make decisions based on presence of migratory birds. Now, if we take 
the interpretation of what the Corps of Engineers and the EPA have done 
in previous cases and applied it to the district of the gentleman in 
the chair, presiding at this moment, we would not have been able to put 
in place very likely, the Rochester Flood Control Project and the Soil 
and Water Conservation projects investing over $100 million dollars to 
protect the City of Rochester from flooding.
  Mr. Chairman, that just does not make sense. Now, all of those who 
have said the Clean Water Act meant this and meant that, I was on the 
staff at the time of the Clean Water Act passage in the House. In fact, 
I was involved in drafting the language that is at stake here.
  The issues that the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee 
raised, have to do with nonpoint-source discharges. We have many farms 
across this country, including some in my district, where cattle, dairy 
cows go right up to the water's edge and do what cows do in the water, 
and that pollutes the water for the guy downstream. You do not want 
that to happen. Well, habitat, increased severity of flooding are 
issues related to this matter that we are discussing here.
  What we want to do is to restore to the Corps of Engineers its 
ability to protect these endangered waters, not to deal with some 
little puddle that was there once in 50 years and not to have the Corps 
declare that this is wetlands simply because a migratory bird came over 
it at one time or another.
  The Supreme Court said, no, you cannot do that to the Corps of 
Engineers. We are trying to restore responsibility and authority to the 
Clean Water Act so it can be implemented to protect the quality of our 
waters, the fishability of our waters, the swimability of our waters 
and to protect Americans' clean water future.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would only point out 
that the gentleman's recommendation is entirely contrary to what is 
happening in a sense. The Soil and Water Conservation is trying to put 
small tributaries underground, put into a pond, a clean water pond, 
with fabric around it, and so forth, to cow's activities getting 
involved in the water.
  Now that is what they are trying to do. The Corps is trying to oppose 
them in my own State, time after time. And we may have to get back and 
take money away that the Federal Government put forth for the Soil and 
Water Conservation, because the Corps bureaucratically says that one 
drop of water is in their control and the Corps has no authority.
  Now, if you want to pollute streams, enact this bill and you will see 
on farms more and more activities that will be ignored. No farmer would 
get involved in this, and we will have to have a police state to go by 
every cow and every animal to see that there is any compliance.
  Right now the farmer knows best and is the best steward of his lands. 
He is working with the Soil and Water Conservation, with elected 
members from that community, and they are doing a good job. Put more 
bureaucracy in it, we will bring it to a halt and create more 
pollution.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I rise 
today in support of the clean water amendment offered by my colleagues 
Mr. Leach, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. Dingell.
  This is an important amendment for public health and safe drinking 
water, for hunting, boating, and swimming, for protecting homes and 
businesses from floods, and for our economy, much of which depends on a 
clean environment, especially clean water.
  That is why the 1972 Clean Water Act is one of the nation's most 
fundamental and popular environmental protection laws. Clean water is 
vital to almost every aspect of quality of life in our nation.
  The policy adopted by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 
undermines the Clean Water Act's promise of clean water for all 
Americans and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. It 
threatens to reverse decades of progress in cleaning up the nation's 
waters.
  This policy is leaving many wetlands as well as headwater and 
seasonal streams without federal limits on water pollution. The policy 
tells the agencies' field staff they must get permission before 
applying Clean Water Act protections to certain so-called isolated 
waters, although that term is not used in the Clean Water Act to 
exclude waters from the law, nor is the term even defined in the 
policy, leaving it unclear at best what is and is not protected. No 
permission is needed before the EPA or Corps staff can deny protections 
for waters, and leave them open to pollution from sewage and industrial 
wastes, or even destruction.
  The total number of streams at risk across the country--and 
consequences for drinking water health and safety--are significant and 
potentially severe.
  Maintaining safe drinking water requires protecting the sources of 
drinking water--both surface water and groundwater supplies--from 
pollution. The EPA recently concluded that the majority of public 
drinking water systems that rely on surface waters get their water from 
``source water protection'' areas that contain headwater streams or 
seasonal and intermittent streams.
  Again, these are the very types of streams both I and my colleagues 
offering this amendment believe are most at risk of losing federal

[[Page 8741]]

Clean Water Act protections under the agencies' policy.
  According to the EPA's letter:

       In total, over 90 percent of surface water protection areas 
     contain start reaches or intermittent/ephemeral streams. 
     Public drinking water systems which use these intakes (as 
     well as other sources) are estimated to provide drinking 
     water to over 110 million people.

  If this policy continues, some or all of these source waters could 
lose federal Clean Water Act restrictions against water pollution, and 
the people who rely on these waters will either pay the price: either 
with dirtier water or higher costs for safe drinking water.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join me today in voting to reaffirm 
protections from all of the nation's waters, including streams and 
wetlands, as the Clean Water At has always done. Vote for the Oberstar-
Leach-Dingell clean water amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment to H.R. 5386, the Interior-Environment 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. As co-chair of the 
Congressional Great Lakes Task Force, I believe it is imperative that 
we take immediate steps to prevent polluted discharges into streams, 
ponds, and wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes have 
already lost more than half of their original wetlands, and invasive 
species, non-point source runoff and food web disruptions continue to 
threaten the health and sustainability of this delicate ecosystem.
  The Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment would prohibit the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) from moving forward with a plan that will make 
it overly difficult to protect intrastate waters. Should EPA's policy 
remain intact, our Great Lakes basin will face greater threats of 
pollution to our drinking water, increased frequency and severity of 
flooding, and the loss of habitat for waterfowl and endangered 
wildlife.
  Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment has broad support 
among Great Lakes interests, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
for it. I am pleased to submit for the Record a letter from the Heal 
Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition in support of this important 
amendment.

                                                     May 17, 2006.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-
     Great Lakes Coalition, we ask you to vote for the Oberstar-
     Leach-Dingell `Clean Water Amendment' to the House's Fiscal 
     Year 2007 Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill 
     when it is considered on the floor this week. This amendment 
     will help protect the remaining wetlands, streams, rivers, 
     and lakes in the Great Lakes Basin.
       The Healing Our Waters Coalition is a group of 85 national, 
     regional and local organizations working to restore and 
     protect the Great Lakes. The Coalition represents millions of 
     Americans that live, work, and love this national treasure.
       As you know, the Great Lakes basin is defined by its rich 
     water resources, its vast sand dunes, biologically rich 
     coastal marshes, lake plain prairies, blue-ribbon trout 
     streams, rocky shorelines, sparkling inland lakes, and 
     diverse wetlands. Yet the wetlands, marshes, and shorelines 
     people in the region remember are being lost. The Great Lakes 
     have lost more than half of their original wetlands, 
     including 90 percent in Ohio and 50 percent in Michigan. 
     Invasive species, non-point source runoff and food web 
     disruptions threaten the health and sustainability of this 
     delicate ecosystem.
       In response to these threats, the Great Lakes Regional 
     Collaboration, which was commissioned by President Bush, 
     recommended in its December 2005 strategy to restore and 
     protect the Great Lakes that Congress ensure that all 
     wetlands are protected, including so-called ``isolated'' 
     wetlands. Yet federal policy not only fails to implement this 
     simple recommendation, it also puts many of the remaining 
     Great Lakes wetlands at risk of degradation or destruction.
       The Oberstar-Leach-Dingell ``Clean Water Amendment'' ends 
     the implementation of an out-dated policy put in place by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2003. EPA's policy 
     was intended to interpret a narrow U.S. Supreme Court 
     decision that limited protection for certain socalled 
     ``isolated'' waters. Instead, it threatens--by EPA's own 
     estimation--the 20 percent of wetlands left in the contiguous 
     United States and withholds Clean Water Act safeguards from 
     countless numbers of streams and large lakes. The Oberstar-
     Leach-Dingell amendment prohibits funds from being used to 
     implement a misguided policy that is resulting in the loss of 
     even more of the Great Lakes precious few wetlands.
       Support for ending this policy is not new. 218 members of 
     the u.S. House of Representatives wrote to the Administration 
     calling for this policy to be rescinded. It is, 
     unfortunately, still in effect.
       It is time for the federal government to end its out-dated 
     policy. Great Lakes waters depend upon it. Please vote yes on 
     the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell Clean Water Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Kiernan,
       Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters Coalition.
     Andy Buchsbaum
       Co-Chair Healing Our Waters Coalition.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
protect clean water. For more than three decades, the Clean Water Act 
has been protecting all of our Nation's waters from unregulated 
pollution, filling and destruction.
  However, in May 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
finalized a rule that changed the definition of ``fill material'' for 
both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The new 
definition allows waste to be used to fill streams, wetlands and other 
waters.
  Allowing coal mining spoil and other types of waste material to be 
dumped into our waters and wetlands is contrary to the central goal of 
the Clean Water Act: preserving physical, chemical and biological 
integrity of the Nation's waters.
  While there may be a need for some regulatory changes so that the 
Corps and EPA use consistent definitions of ``fill'' material, this can 
and should be accomplished by ensuring that both agencies' definitions 
explicitly exclude the use of wastes to fill our Nation's waters--not, 
as proposed, to weaken the Corps' regulations to sanction this long-
prohibited practice.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce the National Primary Drinking Water 
     Regulations for arsenic and radionuclides promulgated under 
     section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300g-1(b)(4)(E)) in the case of any public water system 
     serving 10,000 people or less.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you agree that sound 
science, not unproven theories be at the root of our Federal drinking 
water rules.
  Families in rural communities should not be required to pay thousands 
of additional dollars each year to comply with regulations that are 
founded in theory rather than in fact.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with 
the gentleman that the Federal regulations should be based on sound 
science, that rural communities should not be unfairly asked to pay 
additional, unnecessary costs for their drinking water.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, currently rural 
communities across America are being forced to comply with extremely 
costly regulations regarding arsenic and radionuclide standards that 
have been established by the EPA.
  There is no data available to support the assertions made by the EPA 
that these regulations materially protect public health and safety. I 
am concerned that the current EPA rules are

[[Page 8742]]

not supported by public health information, that the results from 
unvalidated mathematical models are used to support these rules, and 
that the rules are unnecessarily creating a category of radioactive 
waste for which there is currently no approved method of disposal.
  Mr. Chairman, my comments are supported by the EPA's own statement 
and the notice of data availability document from April of 2000. ``EPA 
recognizes the inherent uncertainties that exist in estimating health 
impacts at the low levels of exposure, and the exposure rates expected 
to be present in the environment.
  EPA also recognizes that at these levels, the actual health impact 
from ingested radionuclides will be difficult if not impossible to 
distinguish from natural disease incidences, even using very large 
epidemiological studies employing sophisticated statistical analysis.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the rural communities are not protected, but 
rather are harmed by water standards that allegedly promote health at 
the expense of economic well being. I have rural constituents who are 
currently paying 770 percent more for water service than that of urban 
populations due to the regulatory burdens placed on them by EPA.
  Small water suppliers cannot comply with these standards. Current 
consumer rates will inevitably result in the loss of customers, and 
poor families will be forced to go back to using unregulated shallow 
ground water and dirt tanks for human and livestock consumption.

                              {time}  1945

  As more people exit these systems, the costs for the remaining 
customers will continue to rise.
  Currently, the EPA exempts water systems with fewer than 25 users. I 
believe we should extend that exemption to water systems that service 
fewer than 10,000 users. This would provide hope for the viability of 
small rural systems and the areas and communities they serve. The 
current requirements reach far beyond what is reasonable and are 
bankrupting local governments.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I commend the gentleman for his efforts 
on the part of his constituents and for all the rural water users who 
are facing similar problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see 
what can be done to fix this problem. The committee will be glad to 
facilitate a meeting with the EPA to address this important issue and 
see what can be done as we move this bill through conference with the 
Senate.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent now to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Putnam:
  TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
       Sec. __. No funds provided in title I may be expended by 
     the Department of the Interior--
       (1) for the conduct of offshore natural gas preleasing, 
     leasing, and related activities placed under restriction in 
     the President's moratorium statement of June 12, 1998, in the 
     areas of northern, central, and southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the eastern Gulf 
     of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude;
       (2) to conduct offshore natural gas preleasing, leasing, 
     and related activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning 
     area for any lands located outside Sale 181, as identified in 
     the final Outer Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Program, 1997-2002; or
       (3) to conduct natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning 
     areas.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her to 
control and yield.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer language to strip from this bill 
a grievous assault on Florida and on other States that are dramatically 
impacted by what will be a 3-mile drilling limit. It does not recognize 
the needs of our military; it jeopardizes world-class one-of-a-kind 
ecosystems and industries. It doesn't respect the rights of our States 
to manage our own resources. It is an ill-conceived plan tied to the 
back of the wrong legislative vehicle.
  We come here this evening to debate a very important component of our 
national energy policy. This particular piece of our national energy 
policy needs to be comprehensive in nature; it needs to be dealt with 
in a forum other than the annual spending bill which controls 
everything from the National Park Service to wetlands mitigation and 
the national endowment for the arts and the humanities. It should be a 
stand-alone bill for this House to consider the merits and challenges 
of opening up the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration to assuage our 
national energy needs.
  We are in the process of negotiating a comprehensive solution to this 
problem. The sponsor of the legislation that found its way into this 
spending bill has his own comprehensive solution at 20 miles, and yet 
this jeopardizes our coasts at 3 miles. It does not leave any room for 
error, it did not have any input from the affected States, and it is 
opposed almost across the board by the Governors of those States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I will take 2 minutes to respond to the 
opening comments, and then I will share time.
  Why are we here tonight on an appropriations bill? Because for 25 
years we have had authorizing language placed in the initial draft of 
an appropriations bill that has nothing to do with appropriating, but 
has a lot to do with the energy policy of this country.
  This country is in an energy crisis, and the crisis in this country 
is natural gas. But natural gas is readily available in this country 
onshore and offshore. We are the only country in the world that has 
locked up its Outer Continental Shelf. That is from 3 miles to 200 
miles. We are the only country in the world.
  Now, my language that I placed in this bill, because it is all I 
could do in an appropriating bill; I can move authorizing language. I 
chose not to remove gas and oil because I think gas is the crisis that 
we can deal with. I removed the prohibition of natural gas only. I 
couldn't put my language in there from the bill I have that protects 
the shorelines for 20 miles. I couldn't do that. But we removed it for 
natural gas only. Still, we have a Presidential moratorium. Nothing can 
happen. We have a 5-year plan that anything that is leased, nothing can 
happen. We have to have authorizing language to allow gas leases only. 
Nothing can happen.
  This is the beginning of a debate, folks, that you have all been 
avoiding. This debate has been avoided year after year as the gas 
crisis in this country has continued to skyrocket. We used to have gas 
for less than $2 about 6 years ago. Last year, the average price was 
$9.50 a thousand and peaked at 14 and 15 for 4 months. We have the 
petrochemical business moving away. We have lost half of the fertilizer 
business in the last 2 years. Polymers and plastics are moving away. 
Steel, aluminum, bricks, and glass cannot do business in this country 
with these gas prices.
  It is important that we deal with this issue, and we start that 
debate tonight.

[[Page 8743]]


  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Our amendment restores the longstanding bipartisan ban that currently 
protects sensitive coastal and marine areas from new drilling. We 
support the current ban not just because the coastlines are beautiful; 
they are. And not just because we believe our coastlines provide 
valuable environmental habitat, and they do. We support the ban because 
we know our coasts are the economic engines of our communities, and 
that is threatened by new drilling. The people in these communities 
whom we represent know the value of their coastline, and that is why 
they are so against new drilling.
  Under this bill, we could literally see the push for new drilling as 
close as 3 miles to our coasts begin almost immediately. The oil and 
gas companies, awash in profits from our constituents' pockets, would 
have you believe that all offshore resources are off limits today; that 
we are only talking about drilling for natural gas and not oil; and 
that today's high gas prices demand this new drilling. These arguments 
simply don't hold up to scrutiny.
  First, the industry already has access to the vast majority of 
natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. Indeed, according to the 
Bush administration, about 80 percent of the known reserves are located 
in areas where drilling is already allowed.
  Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns drilling rights to 
more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone.
  Second, there really is no such thing as gas-only drilling. Drilling 
for natural gas means drilling for oil. Even the Bush administration 
and energy industry honchos have dismissed the so-called gas-only 
drilling as unworkable. This is the president of the American Petroleum 
Institute on gas-only drilling:
  ``We are somewhat concerned about some gas-only leasing proposals 
that have been embraced by people who don't know how the industry 
works.''
  And this is the head of MMS:
  ``Natural gas seldom comes totally by itself. Do you want to drill a 
well offshore that will cost anywhere between $20 million and $80 
million? And then, if you find oil with it, what will you do? I do not 
know how successful it will be.''
  Finally, new drilling 3 miles off our coasts will not lower gas 
prices today or anytime in the near future. It would take an estimated 
7 years for natural gas for new leases to come online. Serious energy 
efficiency measures and more use of renewables would reduce demand and 
bring down prices much faster.
  Mr. Chairman, the grand energy plan President Bush unveiled 5 years 
ago is over 95 percent implemented according to his own energy 
department; yet, with this plan in place, energy prices and industry 
profits are at record highs, the predictable result of a strategy of 
increasing supplies and ignoring demand.
  The Peterson amendment to drill within 3 miles off Florida, 
California, and other coastal States is just more of the same. With 3 
percent of the world's resources, 25 percent of the world's demands, 
shouldn't it be obvious that we can't drill our way out of this 
problem? We need to be using energy smarter, develop renewable and 
alternative energy, and use the one resource which we do have in 
abundance, our creativity. I urge my colleagues to vote to protect our 
coasts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Osborne) for 4 minutes.
  Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to oppose anything with my friend Adam 
Putnam's name on it, but in this case I feel that I am required to do 
so because of my constituency.
  As everyone knows, we are currently in very short supply of natural 
gas, and this of course has led to tremendously increased prices. In 
Nebraska, which is mostly rural, mostly agricultural, this has 
increased the cost of center pivot irrigation exponentially. We have 
even seen at one time 60, 70 percent of the irrigation wells were 
powered by natural gas. We have had to shift to diesel which is very 
expensive and electricity which is very expensive, and as a result 
farmers who at one time were making reasonable profits are now 
struggling just to have a profit line at all.
  This has increased the cost of fertilizer, anhydrous ammonia, that is 
made from natural gas, and of course anhydrous ammonia is a principle 
ingredient in fertilizer. So we have seen as much as 400 and 500 
percent in the last 5 years, again eating into the bottom line for most 
people in agriculture. Of course, everyone knows what this has done to 
home heating and cooling, 400, 500 percent increases, which has hit 
every American in every corner of the Nation. And so we have a crisis 
in this area that we need to address.
  The United States has large reserves of natural gas. It has been 
pointed out that we have maybe 3 percent of the world's petroleum 
reserves, but we have huge amounts of natural gas reserves, and we are 
handicapping ourselves in a way that is pretty much unprecedented in 
this area.
  At the present time, only 15 percent of available Outer Continental 
Shelf acres are not under a moratorium. Another way to put this is that 
roughly 85 percent of Outer Continental Shelf acres are off limits to 
exploration. And, of course, this is again handicapping what we are 
trying to accomplish here in reducing this shortage.
  I am sure that these moratoria are due to fear of spills and 
pollution, and yet we have had numerous hurricanes in the last few 
years that haven't caused oil rigs to malfunction or lines to rupture. 
We have not seen any massive pollution even though we have had huge 
damage from these hurricanes.
  Canada has natural gas wells in the Great Lakes with no pollution. In 
Lake Erie, they have 2,200 wells on the Canadian side alone. Now, if 
you have ever been on the Great Lakes, you realize that this is very 
much like the ocean; they can get as rough as the ocean. I have been up 
there fishing many times. And so if Canada has been able to do this 
with no great environmental threat, why can't we do this anywhere from 
3 miles to 200 miles offshore in the ocean? I would think we can do 
this very efficiently. China will be drilling for gas off the coast of 
Cuba within a short period of time. Now, this is very close to Florida.
  So we think these are things that we need to consider. And so at the 
present time we are handicapping ourselves because of this not-in-my-
backyard mentality. We all want to have something happen somewhere 
else, but not anywhere close to ourselves. Natural gas is clean 
burning; it is environmentally friendly. We need to open these supplies 
both offshore in the U.S. and in Alaska.
  It was mentioned earlier that it would take about 7 years for natural 
gas to come online. But if you don't start at some point, it will be 7 
years from next year, and then it will be 7 years from 2 years from 
now, and at some point we have to begin to address this problem.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman who represents the pristine Florida Keys, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank our leader, Mr. Putnam, for 
the time. And along with my colleagues from the Florida delegation, I 
rise in strong support of the Putnam amendment and in passionate 
opposition to any amendment, any language which would allow offshore 
drilling a mere 3 miles from our Nation's coast.

                              {time}  2000

  The Peterson language would overturn the current moratorium on 
drilling, a moratorium which has been in place for over 25 years.
  The bipartisan Florida delegation position remains firm, remains 
strong: oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf is 
dangerous for the economy, is dangerous for the environment, runs 
contrary to national security interests, and is not an immediate nor a 
long-term answer to the Nation's growing energy needs.
  Drilling 3 miles off a Florida coast, as Mr. Putnam pointed out.

[[Page 8744]]

  I am so proud to represent the ecological treasures of the Florida 
Keys. It is a premier destination for eco-
tourism. Any offshore drilling near this area would place thousands of 
rare and vulnerable marine plant species in harm's way and could 
cripple the Keys' tourism economy.
  Drilling structures along the gulf coast would be located in the 
middle of a hurricane zone. So I hope that we strongly oppose the 
Peterson language by adopting the Putnam language tonight, and I thank 
the chairman.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I am here to speak on an issue of 
paramount importance to my constituents in south Louisiana and I think 
the entire Nation. Outer Continental Shelf production and coastal 
impact assistance are very important.
  Louisiana is uniquely positioned in the OCS debate. Our State is one 
of the few that allows production off its coast. We are also major 
consumers of this production, through chemicals, fertilizers and 
various other gas-intensive manufacturing.
  Some quick facts for you. Among the 50 States, Louisiana ranks first 
in crude oil production; second in natural gas production; second in 
total energy production from all sources; second in petroleum refining 
capacity; second in primary petrochemical production; third in 
industrial energy consumption; third in natural gas consumption; fifth 
in petroleum consumption; eighth in total energy consumption. We are a 
State that is a working State with a working coast.
  Our State is a vital part of the domestic energy production and 
consumption, which keeps our entire economy humming. As others refrain 
from similar production, natural gas supplies tighten and the prices 
rise, jeopardizing tens of thousands of well-paying jobs that are being 
shipped overseas, many of these from my own State and district.
  The energy support Louisiana and other coastal States provide for our 
Nation is not without cost. We are happy to provide what others would 
rather not. However, this supply also impacts our coastal communities 
and wetlands conservation, and we bear the costs of onshore 
infrastructure required to support this production activity.
  Every debate on OCS production should also include an equity 
discussion. Coastal producing States should receive a fair share of 
revenues off their coasts, just as inland States receive from onshore 
production.
  I appreciate the leadership Mr. Peterson has taken on this issue, and 
I respectfully oppose Mr. Putnam's intent to strike this language from 
the bill.
  If you look off the coast in the next several years, if not sooner, 
between Cuba and Key West, you will see the Chinese and the Cubans 
starting their venture to drill right off the coast of Florida. They 
may not be visible but they will be there.
  Gas and oil production offshore, the technology that is there today, 
is astounding. I would invite every one of you that have never been on 
an offshore rig or seen the technology for drilling, I invite you to 
come to Louisiana to take the trip offshore, to understand what energy 
production is all about. It is not what it is perceived to be, as it 
was some 50 years ago.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to a 
previous speaker.
  According to an Army Corps of Engineers report on the drilling in the 
Great Lakes, ``Routine drilling is known to be hazardous to human 
health. Discharges and accidental spills of toxic chemicals from 
drilling can also contaminate the water of Lake Erie contaminating a 
primary drinking water source for millions of people.''
  Drilling, either in the Great Lakes or offshore, is a dirty process.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis), my colleague.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Capps for 
yielding.
  One of the things that everyone agrees on tonight with respect to 
this amendment is that we need to have an adequate supply of energy to 
meet the needs of this country. Eighty percent of the known oil and gas 
reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf are already available to the 
energy companies that need them. There are more than 4,000 leases held 
by these energy companies that are currently not used at all.
  It is important to point out what this amendment does. The amendment 
says it allows drilling for gas up to 3 miles off the east coast of 
Florida, 9 miles off the coast of Florida, my home the West Coast, as 
well as the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. It has been 
pointed out, and it has not been objected to, this is not just about 
gas, it is also about oil because if a company makes an investment to 
earn a profit for gas and they get oil, they are going to go for oil.
  The bitter irony here is off the coast of Florida there is very 
little oil. It is really a drop in the bucket. That is why the 
amendment does not talk about oil, but it is enough to make a 
difference to the State of Florida.
  There has been a lot of conversation here tonight about other States, 
about this being about jobs. Let me tell you about my home State 
Florida. This is about jobs. Last year, we had 88 million tourists 
visit our State. Those of you who are here tonight represent families 
who are saving their money to enjoy their family vacation, what State 
will be the number one destination for beaches? Florida. This is not 
just a State treasure; it is a national treasure. Yes, this is about 
jobs and Florida's beaches are a critical part of our economy.
  There has been some discussion tonight that there is no risk as far 
as spills. The truth of the matter is none of us really know exactly 
what the risk is. One of the few things we do know is last year when 
Tropical Storm Arlene hit off the coast of Louisiana, there was an oil 
spill. There was a rig that resulted in a spill that soiled the coast 
of Louisiana. We cannot have this happen in Florida. It is too 
devastating. It is too important to our economy.
  This is about balance. It is about protecting jobs. It is about 
respecting the rights of States. Nobody has a monopoly on what the 
truth is as to where the line is drawn. There is plenty of drilling off 
the coast of Florida right now in the central and western gulf, but 
this is the wrong time and the wrong place to have this debate.
  The folks we represent in Florida deserve an open and honest 
discussion in our State, on our beaches, with small business owners 
whose livelihood depends upon the risk of a spill to our coast, and 
there we will discuss the balance, the tradeoff in meeting the 
country's energy needs, but not tonight in a one-hour debate in the 
evening on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Floridians deserve better. Americans deserve better. I urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This is the beginning of the debate. This is not the end. The 
gentleman from Florida knows, no drilling can happen. There is still a 
presidential moratorium. There is still a 5-year plan. We have to have 
legislation to allow gas only. Florida is rich in gas. They are not 
rich in oil. I am not about oil. We need gas in this country. We cannot 
drill our way out of oil.
  We can help ourselves in other places, but natural gas is a richness 
this country has. It is the clean fuel. It has the least pollutants 
when you use it. It is the mother's milk of everything we make in this 
country. From women's face creams to every chemical we buy at the 
hardware store, the grocery store, polymers, plastic, carpet, drapes, 
it all is full of natural gas.
  There is about 3 million jobs in those industries I have just 
mentioned, and every one of them are already moving offshore. They do 
not want to. They have to. We cannot put the disadvantage of $9.50 gas 
last year, $14 and $15, when South America is $1.80, Russia is about a 
buck, China and Taiwan 3-something.

[[Page 8745]]

  This is about the economy of America. Drill only gas? Canadians have 
drilled 2,200 wells successfully, gas only. I grew up around the oil 
patch. I have never been in the oil business. I have never made a 
dollar off the oil business. They drill down through and they choose 
what they are going to produce. They mark it as they drill through it, 
and they produce what is there.
  Florida is rich in gas. Florida uses 235 times more natural gas than 
they produce. They could be self-sufficient. They could have huge 
royalties, and there has never been a gas well that has polluted a 
beach. I have asked for examples. I was told the Santa Barbara spill. 
That was an oil well.
  A gas well is a steel pipe in the ground. It is cemented at the 
bottom, and it is cemented at the top. It is open where the gas vein 
is, and you let gas out. In Lake Erie it runs underground onto shore. 
Citizens do not even know it is there.
  Natural gas is not something to be afraid of. It is something this 
country needs. I am not for 3 miles offshore. I have legislation that 
protects us, but I cannot put that on this bill or I would. I can only 
start this debate tonight.
  This debate has been put off. For 3 years I have been talking about 
this issue. From this day forward, we are going to debate this issue 
until we do what is right for the future of America.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), who represents the cradle of naval 
aviation.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  You have heard a lot tonight about the potential environmental 
impacts, but let me just draw to your attention the issue as it affects 
our national defense.
  Looks pretty cluttered, but this is a test range for Eglin Air Force 
Base where they do weapons testing from the panhandle of Florida all 
the way to the Florida Keys. This red line right in here is a military 
mission line. Basically, the Air Force says, the Secretary of Defense 
has said, the Navy has said that anything that is east, anything that 
is east of that military mission line is incompatible with the mission 
at Eglin Air Force Base. There is live fire testing. We are not just 
practicing out there. This is not Top Gun flying airplanes around. 
These are new weapons systems, classified new weapons systems that are 
being tested over the Gulf of Mexico.
  Yes, the beaches of Florida are a national treasure, but I can tell 
you from a national defense standpoint, this entire area of the extreme 
eastern Gulf of Mexico is a national treasure because there is no other 
weapons testing area like it in the country or in the world.
  Opponents of the Putnam amendment say that the underlying language 
does nothing to hurt the readiness of our military. Well that is 100 
percent wrong!
  As you can see from this map, the Joint Gulf Test Range extends from 
the Panhandle of Florida to Key West.
  The Air Force uses this area for Live Fire testing and evaluation of 
weapons systems. The Navy uses the Gulf Ranges to do predeployment 
certifications and to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles from submarines.
  Let me read you a list of just a sampling of current and future 
missions that are conducted in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training and live fire F/A-22 pilot 
upgrade training including AMRAAM live fire Tomahawk Cruise Missile 
launch from submerged vessels Testing of Small Diameter Bomb program 
against man-made targets in the Gulf F-16 weapons systems testing and 
evaluation, U.S. Navy predeployment certification, testing and 
development of hypersonic munitions, low-cost miniature cruise 
missiles, Air-Dominance munitions, unmanned combat air vehicles, 
Directed Energy weapons, and classified programs.
  The Commander of the Air Armament Center, Major General Robert W. 
Chedister, said last August ``Clearly, structures associated with oil/
gas production are totally incompatible with, and would have a 
significant impact on, the mission activity in the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico. Accordingly, it is absolutely `visceral' that the vast water 
area encompassed by the Gulf be preserved in order for us to continue 
to serve the needs of national defense.''
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote ``areas east of 
the 86 deg.41' line in the Gulf of Mexico commonly known as the 
`military mission line' are specially critical to DoD.'' He went on to 
say ``In those areas east of the military mission line drilling 
structures and associated development would be incompatible with 
military activities, such as missile flights, low-flying drone 
aircraft, weapons testing, and training.''
  Now let me show you where this mission line is.
  The underlying language in this bill would open the door to drilling 
in the entire Joint Gulf Range and is completely incompatible with the 
military mission of our Air Force and Navy.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, this is about American jobs, the American 
family and the American economy. Here are the plain facts.
  Natural gas costs less than a $1.50 per Btu in Russia, Iran, Saudi 
Arabia, but here in the United States this one report had it at $8.85, 
and it has been as high as $13. This means homeowners pay about $200 
more to heat their homes. This means the United States steel, for every 
dollar the price of natural gas goes up, costs them $80 million.
  If you are a company and you ask yourself where are you going to 
build or where are you going to move to, we have already lost 90,000 
jobs in the chemical industry. We have lost 3 million jobs in the 
manufacturing industry due to energy prices.
  We talk about the law of supply and demand of the 1990s. Ninety 
percent of new electric energy plants use natural gas. World demands 
have gone up. It is expected about a 90 percent increase in natural gas 
demands in the next 10 years, but since 1982 this Nation had a self-
imposed moratorium on offshore natural gas and oil drilling.
  Here is the real law of supply and demand we need to look at now. 
Americans are demanding that lawmakers increase the supply. We cannot 
afford to continue to have these high gas prices and send jobs to Saudi 
Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Iran and Russia or let other countries do with 
natural gas prices like they did with Ukraine and double the prices on 
them. We cannot compete as a nation for jobs with this.
  It is no wonder the building trades have come out with a very 
strongly worded letter and said, please, let us start lowering the 
prices for goods and services in America. People get up here time and 
time again and say China is eating us for lunch. What are we doing 
here? We are cutting our own legs off and destroying jobs in America.
  We have abundant supplies of natural gas. We can protect the 
coastline. This will not be within 3 miles. It takes entirely different 
legislation to do that, but please, please, let us save jobs in America 
for a change and stop talking about it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I respond to my colleague, Mr. Peterson. I lived in Santa Barbara in 
1969. I saw that devastation with my own eyes, beach closures, fish 
kills, air pollution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me follow up on what the gentlewoman 
said. I was in New Jersey in the late 1980s where I live, and we saw 
the beaches closed. We saw the entire tourism industry destroyed for 
not only that one summer in 1988 but two or three summers afterwards.
  I listened to what the previous speaker here on the Republican side 
said, and he talked about jobs. He talked about the economy. He talked 
about housing. That is what is at stake here. In my home State of New 
Jersey, people think of New Jersey as an industrial State, tourism is 
as big an industry in New Jersey as the petrochemical industry. We 
depend on that tourism economy, and we cannot have our beaches dirtied 
by an oil spill that would result from natural gas drilling. And don't 
tell me that you are going to drill for natural gas and you are not 
going to affect oil. There is no question that you can.
  The problem I see here is that the gentleman from Pennsylvania said,

[[Page 8746]]

well, this is not a real debate because if this happens it won't matter 
because the President has an executive order. Well, I can't depend on 
the President. The President is an oil man. For all I know he could 
lift the executive order if this legislation goes through and you can 
drill for natural gas and we don't have the moratorium in effect any 
more.
  I want you all to understand that we are not just talking here pie in 
the sky. We have seen our beaches closed. We have seen the impact. In 
New Jersey, tourism is 500,000 jobs, $16.6 billion in wages, and $5.5 
billion in State tax revenue. You shut that down, the way it was closed 
in the late 1980s in New Jersey because of a different type of 
pollution, and you basically shut down a significant portion of our 
State. We are talking about real things here.
  When you talk about the fact that you can drill for natural gas and 
you are not going to hit oil, every indication is the opposite. The 
American Petroleum Institute has said the opposite and the Minerals 
Management Service has said the opposite. And we are talking 3 miles 
from shore. You could actually see these rigs. We could actually have 
oil rigs right up to 3 miles from the shore if this legislation passes 
and we don't have this amendment.
  Pass this amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us not confuse 
medical waste off New Jersey. That was medical waste dumped in the 
ocean.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it will 
continue the status quo of high natural gas prices that are harming 
every day hardworking American families.
  The choice is clear: we can either increase the supply of natural gas 
in this country, or we can continue to pay some of the highest prices 
in the world for natural gas.
  So what is wrong with the status quo? What is wrong with high natural 
gas prices? First, millions of middle-and low-income working families 
are suffering from costly increases in their home heating and cooling 
bills. Those high monthly bills are straining and even breaking family 
budgets all across America.
  Second, family farmers and ranchers are already struggling with 
natural disasters, high diesel costs, and foreign government-subsidized 
competition. Now, high natural gas costs have driven nitrogen 
fertilizer costs from $100 a ton to more than $350 a ton. For many ag 
producers, higher fertilizer costs will be the straw that breaks the 
camel's back.
  And by the way, if you like what OPEC has done for high oil prices, 
you will love what dependence on foreign food will do to the price of 
food products in American grocery stores.
  The third reason I oppose this amendment is that I am sick and tired 
of seeing good-paying American jobs being shipped overseas. American 
factories run by high-priced natural gas here at home are being put at 
a huge disadvantage against foreign factories using lower-cost natural 
gas. For American factories and businesses to compete with foreign 
factories and businesses, it is kind of like trying to run a race with 
a 20-pound weight tied around your ankle. It just won't work. And the 
price for that is we are losing the race for international competition 
for good-paying jobs.
  The final reason I oppose this amendment is that in my district the 
utility companies in Texas want to build five new coal-fired plants for 
electric power. Tell me how replacing natural gas-fired plants with 
coal-fired plans, increasing mercury, CO2, and other 
pollutants in the air, in our streams, and in our lakes is good for 
America.
  Stand up for our farmers, our factories, and for hardworking American 
families. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman who 
represents Florida's gulf coast (Ms. Harris).
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
amendment by Mr. Putnam and Mrs. Capps. This is not just a Florida 
issue; it is a national issue. If the Putnam amendment is not adopted, 
the 25-year bipartisan Outer Continental Shelf moratorium will come to 
an abrupt end, thus allowing natural gas wells as close as 3 miles from 
every coastal State.
  If the Putnam amendment is not adopted, coastal State economies that 
rely on a healthy tourism for their continued prosperity will be 
severely jeopardized, and coastal waters, fisheries, and marine 
ecosystems will be greatly jeopardized as well.
  And, finally, there would be severe national security consequences 
when the military could no longer conduct military operations and 
training.
  In closing, there is no doubt that high energy prices pose a serious 
challenge to our Nation's manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. 
However, the gas exploration provision in this bill will not provide 
Americans with short-term relief, nor will it lead toward an energy 
independent future.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Putnam-Capps 
amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
just want to point out that the natural gas beyond the 3 miles belongs 
to all the people of America; 280 million of us own that, and we are 
entitled to use it. We are entitled to use it for jobs, and we are 
entitled to use it for fueling our industry. Many of you have seen the 
buses on the highways in our cities that are fueled by clean-burning 
natural gas.
  I want to point out something else, and that is that in the Labor-HHS 
bill we put in a lot of money for LIHEAP. Why? Because the price of 
natural gas keeps going up and we, therefore, have to subsidize this 
with tax dollars, tax dollars that could be used for medical research, 
tax dollars that could be used for education and things that build the 
quality of life for Americans.
  I do not think it is fair to 280 million Americans to deny them 
access to an asset that belongs to all of them, the resources that lie 
beyond the 3-mile limit. That limit is there for a reason.
  I also want to point out one other thing. For those that have not 
seen it, the technology today is vastly improved. The drilling rigs are 
safe. The production platforms are usually under the water and you 
don't even know they are there. And they are not going to be an 
impediment to military operations, and they are not going to be an 
impediment to the viewscape of the tourists who go to Florida, 
California, or wherever the case might be.
  I think for jobs for America, for health research, for education we 
need to use this natural resource that belongs to all of us.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to a 
couple of statements that have been made.
  First, LIHEAP has been underfunded for years, high natural gas prices 
or not. Yesterday's price of natural gas was $5.91 per million Btus. 
That was about 8 percent less than it was 1 year ago. There is a better 
way to respond to today's high prices than by drilling. We can start by 
making our homes, our buildings, and our cars more energy efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise in support 
of the Putnam-Capps bipartisan amendment which strikes the Peterson 
language that would allow for drilling just 3 miles off our shoreline.
  Members, let us put this in perspective. Imagine yourself on the west 
steps of the United States Capitol admiring the view of our Nation's 
Capitol, taking in the scenery and enjoying the environment. Now 
imagine yourself gazing towards the Kennedy Center, and just beyond the 
Kennedy Center, right there in the middle of the Potomac River, you see 
a big old oil rig. It is not quite as appealing any more, is it?
  Now, I know that we are not going to be drilling for gas or oil in 
the Potomac River, but I paint this scenario for a reason. That 
distance from the Capitol to just beyond the Kennedy Center is the same 
distance that Mr. Peterson is proposing we place natural gas rigs off 
our Nation's beaches.

[[Page 8747]]

  There are drastic and devastating environmental and economic 
repercussions that come with drilling into the ocean floor so close to 
our beaches, for my own State of Florida and for the rest of the 
Nation. For example, the uncontrollable discharges of mud, rock, and 
minerals that come with piercing a hole into our Earth would be 
devastating for our near-shore activities.
  Now, for our colleagues that feel they need to vote for something, 
anything, to be able to say they are trying to address gas prices, I 
have a reminder: cars don't run on natural gas. People who are now 
paying upwards of $50 to fill their gas tanks, this amendment, if we 
leave it in place, will do nothing to change that. Gas prices will 
still be astronomically high.
  And to address the issue of oil rigs off our shoreline put there by 
Cuba and China, do we want to emulate the actions of nations like Cuba 
and China? Do we want the Florida straits dotted with oil rigs? I think 
not, and I think most Americans would also agree.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the coast of the United States and 
vote ``yes'' for the bipartisan Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have been having this 
debate with the Florida delegation and other delegations for some time, 
and I really appreciate and like all and respect them very much, but I 
find recently that poll data show me that Floridians are ahead. Over 60 
percent of Floridians in all the recent polls I have seen support 
production of energy off their shores.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my 
good friend and colleague from Florida here, and I am dismayed that, 
unfortunately, politics has not kept up with technology or good energy 
policy in this country.
  Florida has faced an energy crisis before. Back in the 1970s, I was 
in the Florida legislature and I voted during that crisis to drill in 
the Florida Everglades for oil. You won't believe this, but today we 
are producing oil safely and in an environmentally sound fashion from 
the Everglades.
  This is a myth here about this 3 miles, and we should not drill as 
close as 3 miles. We should look at the conditions. But today we have 
the technology to drill safely and in an environmentally sound manner.
  Florida's population is expected to grow 29 percent by 2020. The 
consumption of natural gas is expected to grow by 140 percent. Why? You 
all were here, many of you here, during the 1990s. The Clinton 
administration proposed that we convert our coal and oil plants in 
Florida to natural gas. Well, 28 of the 34 electrical generating plants 
designed in Florida are going to need natural gas. We built a billion 
dollar pipeline across the gulf, and we need to hook up to that.
  Cuba and China are going to be drilling very close to our shores, and 
they will be getting oil and gas. The American people and Floridians 
will be getting the shaft. We can do this in an environmentally sound 
fashion. We don't have to play politics.
  What is our alternative for stable sources? Nigeria? The Mideast? I 
say no.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this, and now one of his supporters, 
have both said 3 miles is not their ultimate goal. That is what is in 
the language. If that is not your ultimate goal, let's withdraw this 
amendment and have a real debate on a separate basis about a 
comprehensive solution to this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Jacksonville, Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is really just a question of whether 
you solve a problem the right way or you solve it the wrong way.
  Now, we ought to adopt this amendment, we ought to leave the 
moratorium in place while the Resources Committee, which has been 
working on this, having hearings, having testimony, comes up with a 
comprehensive program to solve this problem and to deal with this 
issue.
  This is not the only time or the only place. In fact, it is not the 
right time, on this appropriation bill, or the right place. It is a 
complicated issue. You heard that it deals with environmental issues, 
economic issues, and military issues. It doesn't lend itself to a quick 
fix.
  If we don't adopt this amendment, we will end up with a knee-jerk 
reaction that will allow offshore drilling anytime, anywhere, off any 
coastline within 3 miles. And that is just terrible public policy. 
Terrible public policy.
  So let us be reasonable. Let us let the Resources Committee do their 
work, and then let's make a decision based on the facts.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania for his diligence in working on this issue.
  I understand tourism is Florida's biggest producer of revenue, and a 
lot of people go there. But if we don't pass an amendment that will 
help us get more natural gas, people at Disney World are going to have 
to be drinking their Cokes, or whatever they drink, out of something 
other than a plastic cup.

                              {time}  2030

  Our plastics industry in our country is made from natural gas, not 
only the feed stock, but the actual plastic. And so I don't know what 
we are going to do in our country if we continue to see high natural 
gas prices. We are already paying huge amounts to cool our homes in our 
part of the country, or heat our homes in the north. But we have a 
chemical industry that may not be popular if it is down the street, 
although it is in my neighborhood. But it produces jobs, high-paying 
jobs; and it produces this plastic that we drink from every day. And if 
we don't come up with some other way to lower the price of natural gas, 
we can just kiss this plastic goodbye.
  Eighty percent of our U.S. offshore waters are currently excluded 
from production: the eastern gulf, the Pacific, the Atlantic coast and 
some coasts of Alaska. Only Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 
have coastal production.
  100,000 jobs have been lost because of the high prices of natural 
gas. And these are high-paying manufacturing jobs that we desperately 
need to keep in our country.
  We have the highest natural gas prices in the industrialized world 
primarily because of our offshore moratorium. Even Northern Europe has 
cheaper gas, and I know we have had jobs move from my district to 
Northern Europe because the price of natural gas there is so much 
cheaper. And their environmental laws are so much stronger.
  Norway, Great Britain produce off their coast. Are we saying that 
they are not concerned about their beaches? It is ludicrous.
  We only have two options to prevent the loss of jobs, either import 
more LNG, liquefied natural gas, which we will bring in, or produce 
offshore. There is no alternatives. We have got to have it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against the Putnam-Capps 
amendment.
  Eighty percent of our U.S. offshore waters are currently excluded 
from production--the eastern gulf, the Pacific, and the Atlantic coast, 
and some coastal areas off Alaska. Only the Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama coasts have production.
  This contributes to high natural gas prices that have cost the U.S. 
nearly 100,000 jobs, primarily high paid manufacturing jobs.
  We have the highest natural gas prices in the industrialized world, 
primarily because of our offshore moratoria. Even Northern Europe has 
cheap, because they produce in the North Sea. Norway, Great Britain, 
who have drilled off their coasts with strong environmental laws.
  We only have two options to prevent the loss of further jobs--we can 
build more LNG import plants and we can produce more gas offshore. 
There is no alternative to natural gas in many cases.

[[Page 8748]]

  Unfortunately, the opponents of both options are often the same 
pepple--they oppose LNG and they oppose drilling for gas. Maybe they 
think energy and plastics are made from thin air.
  Natural gas is the cleanest energy source we have besides solar or 
wind, and it is a critical fuel for industrial facilities and is a 
feedstock for the petrochemical industry that makes plastic.
  If we cannot produce natural gas here, we are going to have to import 
gas to heat our homes and import more plastic in bulk or in consumer 
products. That hurts our balance of trade.
  Canada has been producing gas-only wells in Lake Erie for decades. 
Any producer would rather have oil too at these prices, but if Congress 
says ``gas-only'' then it will be gas-only, and there will be no chance 
of oil spills.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support U.S. jobs, U.S. energy, and 
reducing the trade deficit by supporting U.S. natural gas. And oppose 
the Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I remind the gentleman that there is production off my district as 
well. Several coastal State Governors are voicing concerns about the 
proposal to allow drilling as close as 3 miles off our coast, including 
California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger; New Jersey Governor, Jon 
Corzine; North Carolina Governor, Mike Easley; South Carolina Governor, 
Mark Sanford. And this is what our former colleague, Mark Sanford, had 
to say: ``Energy independence is something we are all after, but we 
think it makes more sense in the long run to pursue that goal through 
focusing on alternative forms of energy rather than fossil fuels. 
Tourism is our State's number one industry, and we don't think it makes 
sense to undertake something that could potentially damage our coast.''
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Ms. 
Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support 
of the amendment. You know, I have been an elected official for 25 
years, 14 years in the Congress. And I want to be clear that the people 
of Florida are united against any drilling in Florida. Now, when I 
listen to the people from Texas and other places, you know, I 
understand that Florida is the number one tourist destination in the 
world. The number one. And we shouldn't do anything that would be 
against the people of Florida and the people of the United States. 
People save their money to come to Florida.
  And certainly we need a comprehensive energy policy. But someone said 
that the people in Florida in some surveys support drilling in Florida. 
That is definitely untrue. The people of Florida do not support 
drilling in Florida. And the people in Florida are united against any 
drilling in Florida.
  Florida's coastline is a treasure not just for Floridians, but all 
Americans and the rest of the world. For years Florida's delegation has 
worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources. Even 
conducting an inventory of resources in the Gulf of Mexico will begin 
to destroy the efforts we have made as a state to preserve our 
sensitive lands. As long as there are rigs In the area, the potential 
for devastation to Florida's beaches persists. Florida's beaches are 
not something we can afford to compromise. This decision goes against 
everything that Floridians have worked for over so many years. 
Certainly, the people of Florida do not support off of our shores.
  In fact, the impact of offshore drilling threatens irreversible 
scarring to the landscape, affecting thousands of species, each 
critical to the ecosystem. The great weather, pristine beaches, and I 
marine wildlife are the number one draws to our fine state. By moving 
forward with even a resources inventory, you risk a multi-billion 
dollar industry for only a few extra barrels of petroleum.
  There are environmental risks associated with near-shore natural gas 
drilling despite claims to the contrary. Liquid hydrocarbon found with 
natural gas could float on top of the water and was up on Florida's 
beaches. Moreover, one huge problem with the plan is that the areas 
that are off limits to drilling now are not where the resources are. In 
fact, 80 percent of the Nation's undiscovered technically recoverable 
natural gas on the OCS is located in the Central and Western Gulf of 
Mexico and offshore Alaska--where drilling is currently allowed and 
already underway.
  Indisputably, allowing drilling would be harmful to tourism and risk 
Florida's $57 billion tourist economy. In fact, this policy would 
affect all U.S. coastlines from Alaska to Maine. Any drilling would 
also be visible from the beach and have no effect on oil prices, 
especially when natural gas prices are falling.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, fear can be overcome with 
facts. And hopefully down the road here we will get the facts.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise strongly against this amendment. 
It was said earlier that this is not the right time to make this 
decision. Well, it is always easy to say it is not the right time to 
make a tough decision. And the reason we are in this terrible situation 
is we have made bad decisions in the past.
  There is no reason at all that we should have a North America gas 
market that is four or five times the rest of the world. We should be 
paying a competitive price for gas, but we are paying this outrageous 
price because of the decisions that we have made in the past. And we 
have made them based on outdated facts.
  Let's look at the true facts. Let's look at the facts that technology 
has changed. We can do this safely; we are doing it safely in other 
places. We want to preserve Florida's coastline. Nobody wants to do 
anything that would have any harm. But we also need the natural gas.
  We are losing jobs every day because of the price of natural gas in 
North America. Now, when we lose jobs to China because people over 
there are willing to work real cheap, we are real upset about that, as 
we should be.
  But we are losing jobs because of the price of natural gas that would 
pay top American wages, jobs we can't afford to lose. We cannot afford 
to be uncompetitive in the world. This ban must be lifted. We must 
figure out how to do it properly so that we are not locking up the 
resources that we need to be competitive in the world.
  This is a very simple subject that just needs a little cold logic put 
on it, and we can't be worrying about the fears of the past. We have to 
be taking care of the future. We need to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends again, we agree on the 
technology having been improved. We agree on the need for a 
comprehensive solution. But you all agree with us that 3 miles is too 
close. If that is the case, let's adopt this amendment and do this the 
right way.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am an ardent supporter of safe deep sea 
drilling for natural gas. However, the current language does not 
contain necessary safeguards to protect our Nation and our coastal 
States. Revenue sharing must be included. And we must address the needs 
of our military.
  The coast of Virginia is a valuable training area. We must not impact 
that training capability. We currently are in discussions with the Navy 
as to whether we can develop a way to coexist with industry and create 
a win/win situation, realizing that the needs of the Navy are the top 
priority.
  We must also address the issue of the boundaries drawn by Minerals 
Management Service and correct the existing map.
  It is for these reasons that I support the Putnam amendment and look 
forward to a complete and detailed discussion of this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my concerns regarding the 
Peterson language included in H.R. 5386 which would lift the 
Congressional moratorium on natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS). While I am an ardent supporter of safe, deep-sea drilling for 
natural gas, I do not support the Peterson language. I do support the 
Putnam amendment, which strikes the Peterson language.
  Our Nation is in an energy crisis. Consumers are paying more to heat 
their homes and to buy American-made products and crops. Because 
natural gas is a domestic product, its price is determined by domestic 
supply and demand. Companies and jobs are moving to other countries 
where the price of doing business is cheaper because of lower costs in 
natural gas. The moratorium on offshore drilling places our nation at 
an extreme disadvantage.

[[Page 8749]]

  However, I can only support a plan for deep sea drilling that 
contains the safeguards that I feel will best suit the needs of our 
nation and the citizens of coastal states. First, the plan must allow 
the states the option to opt-out of the moratorium on offshore 
drilling. Coastal states know what is in their best interest. As such, 
they should be able to determine what terms should be allowed for 
drilling off of their shore.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia and the Hampton Roads area in particular 
are very proud of the military presence in our region. Norfolk, 
Virginia is home to the largest Navy base in the world and much of 
their training occurs off the coast of Virginia. I am committed to 
ensuring that the Navy will continue to use these areas offshore for 
training and recognize that offshore drilling can only occur off the 
coast of Virginia if the military training areas are preserved. I have 
shared with the Navy that it is my desire to work with the military to 
come up with the best plan for the coexistence of energy production and 
military presence. I look forward to continuing our conversations so 
that offshore drilling is compatible with our military's mission.
  In addition, a suitable plan must include a revenue-sharing component 
with the states. This money can be used for important projects such as 
transportation, education, sand replenishment, and Chesapeake Bay 
restoration.
  I also believe that the plan that will come out of Congress must fix 
the Minerals Management Services' (MMS) federal OCS offshore 
administrative boundaries which determine OCS state adjacent 
administrative zones. These boundaries, as they are currently drawn, do 
not accurately reflect the relative boundaries of States and 
furthermore penalize States, such as Virginia, with concave coastlines 
and result in grossly unfair zoning. This inequity affects all of the 
Commonwealth's activities in the ocean including sand and gravel 
dredging, mariculture, and offshore renewable energy projects involving 
wind, waves and currents. I have expressed my concerns regarding these 
administrative boundaries to the Department of the Interior and it is 
my desire that these boundaries be revised as part of Congressional 
legislation.
  The House Committee on Resources, of which I am a member, is the 
authorizing committee with jurisdiction over OCS. While I applaud 
Representative Peterson for bringing this critical issue to the 
forefront, I believe it is the responsibility of the Resources 
Committee to approve legislation that contains the principles I have 
outlined. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues towards 
passage of a bill that encompasses all of these principles. At this 
time, I do not believe including the Peterson language in the Interior 
Appropriations bill allows for the debate that is necessary for such an 
important issue. For these reasons, I support the Putnam amendment and 
will continue to discuss this important national security issue with my 
colleagues in Congress and the important stakeholders on the coast of 
Virginia.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
do so always reluctantly when it involves my good friend from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam), with whom I have the greatest respect.
  But in 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering 
more than 85 percent of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. 
natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world. Today, 
U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world.
  Prices for natural gas continue to increase while the government 
continues to promote new natural gas consumption. To balance the 
market, we need to invest in efficient and alternative energy. But we 
also need to increase access to new sources of supply to keep pace with 
new sources of demand.
  The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and 
forest sector. Paper mills, a major employer in my district, are very 
energy intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of 
operating a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The 
impacts have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills across the country 
have closed, and 182,000 jobs lost since 2000, when energy prices 
started a steep rise.
  For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for 
fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 
2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-1992 level, very near all 
time high records. The Interior appropriations bill begins to address 
the supply piece of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down.
  We can no longer continue to ban access to large sources of supply, 
even as we continue to encourage new demand. The bill exempts natural 
gas from the congressional ban on energy development in the OCS. The 
ban on oil development remains in place. It allows the Federal 
Government to begin the process of developing these important 
resources.
  The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a 
quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer 
continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, 
prohibit more production.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  My friends, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  In 1981, Congress enacted a ban on energy exploration covering more 
than 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. At the time, U.S. 
natural gas prices were the lowest in the industrialized world.
  Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized 
world. Prices for natural gas continue to increase, while the 
government continues to promote new natural gas consumption.
  To balance the market, we need to invest in efficiency and 
alternative energy, but we also need to increase access to new sources 
of supply to keep pace with new sources of demand, like ethanol and 
hydrogen.
  The high cost of natural gas has a major impact on both the farm and 
forest sector.
  Paper mills, a major employer in my District, are very energy 
intensive. Energy costs account for 18 percent of the cost of operating 
a mill, almost eclipsing costs for employee compensation. The impacts 
have been dramatic. Over 232 paper mills have closed and 182,000 jobs 
lost since 2000 when energy prices started a steep rise.
  For farmers, higher natural gas prices mean higher costs for 
fertilizers. According to the USDA, average fertilizer prices in March 
2006 stood 74 percent higher than their 1990-92 level, very near all-
time records.
  The Interior Appropriations bill begins to address the supply piece 
of the puzzle to help bring natural gas prices down. We can no longer 
continue to ban access to large sources of supply, even as we continue 
to encourage new demand.
  The bill exempts natural gas from the Congressional ban on energy 
development in the OCS. The ban on oil development remains in place. It 
allows the Federal government to begin the process of developing these 
important resources.
  The bill's provisions are a starting point. It is the first time in a 
quarter century that Congress is acknowledging that it can no longer 
continue to promote natural gas consumption and, at the same time, 
prohibit more production. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Peterson wants to discuss the facts, so here are the facts:
  Most of the natural gas off our shores is already available. In 
February MMS released its inventory. This is the copy right here that 
was required by our energy bill. It says that 80 percent of the 
Nation's undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas on the Outer 
Continental Shelf is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico 
and offshore Alaska where drilling is currently allowed and well under 
way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
support of the amendment that we have before us that was crafted by 
many of my colleagues from Florida, as well as friends on the other 
side of the aisle from California.
  Obviously, because of the bipartisan stance that we have taken in 
Florida, it is very, very important to the State of Florida.
  The Peterson language which is included in the Interior 
appropriations bill basically will have drilling within 3 miles of our 
shores. I can tell you that back in Florida, when we even talked about 
having drilling 25 miles from the shore, it was not at all popular.
  I would be doing a disservice to my constituents if I didn't fight to 
keep

[[Page 8750]]

the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf in place.
  Many of you on both sides of the aisle have come up to me and said, 
you know, my mother or my grandmother or my dad lives in Florida. Many 
of them live in my district. I would ask you, pick up that phone, call 
your mom and dad and listen to what they have to say about how much 
they love Florida, and how much they love the beaches, and how much 
they want to make sure that we have a State that will continue to be 
number one in tourism.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this provision in this 
bill, if it goes into law, will have the effect obviously of lifting 
the prohibition on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is of interest 
to many of those of us from Florida. And if that provision were to be 
lifted, I think there is a very significant impact on the military 
training mission that exists along the gulf coast.
  As many of you may know, Tyndall Air Force Base is the home of the 
training for the F-22 and the F-15. The Joint Strike Fighter is going 
to be based up in that area, and if that prohibition were to be lifted, 
obviously, that would seriously impact, according to the military, the 
officials in the Pentagon, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the 
Secretary of Defense, all have said that the critical nature of that 
Gulf of Mexico training range will be seriously impacted and our 
military as a result will be impacted.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Putnam, and all the Members who 
have spoken on this critical issue tonight. I thank you.
  Most of those supporting the drilling do not live in Florida. It is 
interesting, we haven't had many speakers from the Sunshine State who 
have said, let's go ahead and drill. And I think there is a reason for 
it.

                              {time}  2045

  Let me give you the statistics. NOAA, a very trusted agency, has said 
we are entering a 20-year cycle of heavy hurricane activity. Since 2004 
there have been nine hurricanes that have hit the Gulf of Mexico. One 
of the reasons there has been a spike in energy prices is because most 
of it is located in the gulf, exactly where some proponents of drilling 
would have us build more drills. We simply do not need it. We do have 
to be more conservative in our approach to fuels and use alternative 
energy. Sticking pipes in the ground in Hurricane Alley is not a 
solution.
  So I would urge my colleagues to heed the warnings and advice of 
those who live in Florida and ask you to reject the notion that we 
should drill there. Support our amendment, support the amendment to 
strip this provision from the bill, and allow us to continue to talk 
and negotiate with those parties who are involved.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We have begun an important debate here that even the author of the 
language that we are seeking to strip admits is Draconian, and allowing 
drilling 3 miles offshore, even the sponsor admits that is not his 
goal. If that is not his goal, adopt the Putnam-Capps amendment and let 
us move on to the appropriate way to discuss comprehensive energy 
policy in this Nation and how it impacts the Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will make three points. First, the Poe amendment and the Peterson 
amendment are the same thing. Two hundred and seventy-four Members just 
voted ``no'' on the Poe amendment. If you voted ``no'' on the Poe 
amendment, you should vote ``yes'' on our amendment.
  Drilling for gas is drilling for oil. The American Petroleum 
Institute says as much, as does MMS. Second, it is simply untrue to say 
that we do not have access to the vast majority of resources on the 
Outer Continental Shelf. The Bush administration itself says that we 
currently can drill in areas where 80 percent of the natural gas is 
located.
  Finally, this is more of the same failed energy strategy that has 
gotten us record high energy prices and record high profits for the oil 
companies. We need a new direction on energy.
  Vote for the Putnam-Capps amendment, protect our coasts, and take a 
step into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am standing here on what is normally 
the Republican side to emphasize, and I have said this right from the 
very beginning when Mr. Peterson and I have tried to deal with this 
issue in the Resources Committee, that is not a Republican and 
Democratic issue. And I think you can see from the fact that people 
have come to both sides here tonight to speak about it that it is not a 
Democrat and Republican issue. This is an issue of trying to come to a 
sensible conclusion on what American policy should be.
  And believe me, I think I am in a good position to say to folks that 
I can appreciate the fact that tourism is on the minds of our good 
friends from Florida and from California and elsewhere in the country, 
particularly around the coasts. I do not think that anybody is as close 
to tourism or is closer, I should say, to tourism in terms of their 
representation than myself.
  So the issue is what should we do and what can be done to advance 
America's independence with regard to energy and what at the same time 
can protect our constituents in a way that we can all be compatible 
with?
  I think what needs to be said and has not been said tonight are what 
some of the origins of our difficulties are. Right now the Republicans 
have their particular difficulties with certain segments, factions, as 
our Founding Fathers and mothers said, factions that come in. You have 
got your problems. Certain people have religious views.
  What we have on the Democratic side are other people with religious 
views. We have environmental Talibans out there now who have revealed 
wisdom with regard to drilling, in this instance, for natural gas, and 
you cannot thwart them. You cannot stand up and say let us have a 
discussion to see whether that really represents today's reality. That 
is all this is about.
  Believe me, no one, Mr. Peterson, myself, nor any other advocate, 
wants to drill 3 miles off of anybody's coastline. What this gives us 
the opportunity to do is to have a responsible conversation in the 
Resources Committee about whether or not we should move forward with 
natural gas extraction and exploration and, if so, how should we do it 
in a way that is responsible to everyone?
  So what I ask is please allow us to begin that conversation by not 
supporting the amendment and allowing us to move to the Resources 
Committee to have the discussion Mr. Putnam has requested.
  We are with you and we would like to be able to do it.


                              Environment

  Lifting the moratoria will not allow production 3 miles off of the 
coast. This is only the first step and will provide for discussion and 
consideration of the kinds of restrictions that are needed for 
responsible production. Mr. Peterson and I have introduced legislation 
to give States a 20-mile buffer zone and 40 percent revenue sharing for 
producing States.
  Natural gas-only drilling is possible and takes place in Canada on 
the Great Lakes and will begin next year in the Barents Sea by Norway.
  Drill cuttings are contained and shipped to shore for proper 
disposal, not left to pollute the ocean and hurt marine life. This 
disposal technology is used throughout the world and was recognized by 
a blue ribbon panel of judges from the U.S. Coast Guard, the Minerals 
Management Service and the National

[[Page 8751]]

Academy of Sciences' Marine Board as an outstanding contribution to 
safety and protection of the environment.
  Eighty percent of known resources are already open to development. 
This is based on 40-year-old estimates that are hopelessly out of date. 
New technology, 3-D seismic and the like, could give better estimates, 
but MMS is prohibited by the appropriations moratorium from conducting 
physical assessments in those areas.


                          Jobs and the Economy

  The Putnam amendment is opposed by the International Brotherhood of 
Boilermakers; Sheet Metal Workers International Association; Building 
and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; and the Forest Products 
Industry National Labor Management Committee.
  Since 2000, U.S. natural gas prices have been the highest in the 
world. U.S. companies--and U.S. workers--are at an unfair competitive 
disadvantage in the global market.
  The Department of Commerce estimates that during 2000-04, natural gas 
price increases reduced civilian employment by an average of 489,000 
jobs/year. Losses in the manufacturing sector accounted for 16 percent 
of that loss, 79,000 jobs per year.

         Building and Construction Trades Department, American 
           Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2006.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the affiliated unions of 
     the Building and Construction Trades Department and the 
     millions of union members and their families whose 
     livelihoods depend on affordable natural gas, I am writing to 
     ask you to stand up for the American worker and vote against 
     the Putnam-Capps Amendment to the Interior Appropriations 
     bill.
       Putnam-Capps is a slap in the face of every union member 
     who works in an industry that is losing business due to the 
     high price of natural gas.
       Manufacturing industries consume large amounts of natural 
     gas to power their equipment, and as a raw ingredient that 
     goes into thousands of manufactured goods. Union workers make 
     the production, distribution and consumption of those goods 
     possible. Since 2000, U.S. natural gas prices have been the 
     highest in the world. U.S. companies--and U.S. workers--are 
     at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the global market. 
     Industrial production is shutting down or moving overseas and 
     more than three million manufacturing jobs have disappeared 
     in that time.
       The cause for high U.S. natural gas prices is a severe 
     imbalance between supply and demand. U.S. government policy 
     pushes up demand by encouraging new uses for natural gas, 
     including electricity generation, ethanol and hydrogen. At 
     the same time, Congress severely restricts access to new 
     supplies. In the absence of new supply, new sources of demand 
     are driving traditional industrial demand out of the market, 
     wiping out union jobs in the process.
       Supporters of the Putnam-Capps Amendment are turning a 
     blind eye to the problem and they are jeopardizing millions 
     of good paying union jobs by prohibiting access to new 
     sources of natural gas supply.
       For the Building Trades, offshore natural gas production is 
     first and foremost a jobs issue. If you support keeping good-
     paying union jobs in the USA, you will vote against the 
     Putnam-Capps, Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               Edward C. Sullivan,
                                                        President.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend from Hawaii. That conversation is well underway. I 
appreciate the leadership of our friend from California, the chairman 
of the Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo, who has led that discussion and 
has led to a very bipartisan, thoughtful, and candid approach to the 
proper way to deal with this Nation's energy crisis, the proper way to 
deal with exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the proper way to make 
sure that we are not impeding the military mission that would affect 
our Nation's defense.
  This language that the amendment I have sponsored with Mrs. Capps and 
a number of others is an overreach. The amendment fixes what even the 
authors of that language admit is an overreach. Three miles is not 
supported by even the person who wrote the language. So if that is the 
case, let us pass the Putnam-Capps amendment and begin to move further 
down that road of the exploration question to solve our Nation's energy 
problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield the balance of my time to a 
champion for Florida, a stalwart in this debate, the chairman of the 
Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend, 
Mr. Young.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my friends who are opposing the 
Putnam-Capps amendment would like us to believe that in the Gulf of 
Mexico there is an unlimited supply of nice, clean, cheap natural gas 
just waiting for someone to punch a hole and it will come flowing out. 
That is really interesting because Mr. Peterson's effort last year was 
to create an inventory to see if there was any natural gas in the Gulf 
of Mexico. There is something wrong here. That is not really 
consistent. Last year we did not know if there was or not. This year we 
are prepared to violate environmental concerns. Is there gas there or 
is there not gas there?
  And what about the high cost? I learned something interesting at the 
Appropriations Committee the other day, that no matter what it costs to 
produce a barrel of oil domestically in the United States we still pay 
the same price that OPEC charges. Why? I do not know. One Member told 
me that his State produces oil for $30 a barrel that has to go through 
Canada, and they sell it back to us at 70 some dollars a barrel. There 
is something wrong with that. And then this afternoon I learned that 
natural gas is priced the same way. So is it going to be less expensive 
to produce in the Gulf of Mexico, where the environmental issues are 
real and the national defense issues are real, or should we allow, as 
Mr. Putnam has suggested and I suggested earlier on the Poe amendment, 
and that was a good vote on the Poe amendment, to let the authorizing 
committee that holds hearings, and there were no hearings on this, on 
the appropriations part of it, let the authorizing committee do their 
work and let us make a decision based on what is the truth versus 
fiction versus opinion, what is real, what is safe for the environment, 
and let us pass the Putnam amendment here this evening.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate an important fact 
that was made in the full committee. Federal offshore lands already 
open to exploration is 80 percent of potential gas reserves offshore. 
Of the most current mean estimate of undiscovered, technically 
recoverable gas: offshore non-moratoria reserves, 328 trillion cubic 
feet; offshore moratoria reserves, 77 trillion cubic feet.
  There is a lot of offshore drilling that can be done that is legal, 
as the gentlewoman said, from the Minerals Management Service's most 
recent report. So let us go drill there and protect our beaches. That 
is the best way to move forward and let the authorizers go forward and 
try to come up with a responsible end to this. But to precipitously 
move out tonight on this Peterson amendment would be a mistake, and I 
support strongly the Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
the gentleman's comments and I appreciate his support, and it is more 
than just beaches. It is fisheries, ecosystems that are critical to the 
food chain in the Gulf of Mexico. This is more than just beaches, and 
beaches are important. And I represent a lot of beaches and they are 
beautiful, and we welcome all of you to come.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, we do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Actually, yes, and we appreciate that very 
much.
  But, anyway, let us pass the Putnam amendment. This is the right 
thing to do, and let us let the House work its will through the 
established process, through the committee process, a committee that 
has appropriate jurisdiction.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I want to thank everybody tonight. There has been a good tone of this 
debate. There has been no personalities. It has been friendly, but I 
think it has been very informational.
  I want to share this letter with you. Mr. Abercrombie was supposed 
to.

[[Page 8752]]

``Supporters of the Putnam-Capps amendment are turning a blind eye to 
the problem, and they are jeopardizing millions of good-paying union 
jobs by prohibiting access to new sources of natural gas supply,'' says 
the Building and Construction Trades and Contractors. In fact, eight 
unions in the last few days have signed up in support of this 
legislation.
  Folks, this is not about 3 miles offshore. This is not about 
hearings. Did we have hearings before this authorizing language was 
placed in this bill 25 times? I was here 5 years before I knew I was 
voting to prohibit offshore production of natural gas. I would have 
been protesting a long time ago.
  Folks, this is about our future. America's richest energy source is 
natural gas. It is the cleanest, it is the mother's milk of all of our 
industries. American women in the North should not have to keep their 
thermostats at 55 degrees, and they have in my district. Churches in 
rural areas should not have to meet in the basement in January and 
February because they cannot a afford the gas bill, and they have in my 
district.
  Folks, natural gas prices are changing how people live in this 
country, and they are changing to where companies decide on whether 
they want to live here. When we lose the industries we have talked 
about, folks, it is happening. We cannot delay.
  They talk about the years it is going to take to get the supply. That 
is why we need to do it tomorrow. We need to do authorizing language. 
We need to have the President look at this issue with a bright eye. We 
have a lot of work to do, folks. But energy is the mother's milk of our 
country. We will never balance the budget without a growing economy, 
and our economy will stop growing if we do not have affordable, clean 
natural gas to fuel it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
amendment to retain the moratoria on drilling in protected offshore 
areas of the United States.
  If we don't approve this amendment, we will undo a 25-year legacy of 
protecting the coast of my State of California and other States from 
the damage that can be done by drilling.
  Three Presidents . . . George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, 
have supported the drilling moratoria in sensitive coastal areas of the 
United States.
  The Governor of the State of California has written to Members of the 
California delegation to express his support of the moratorium and he 
opposes the language in this bill. He wrote:

       ``[T]he bill's provisions would allow drilling to begin 
     just three miles from our coast. Rather than watching the sun 
     set on the western horizon each day, millions of Californians 
     and visitors will now see grotesque oil platforms in plain 
     sight. I urge the Delegation to oppose these provisions and 
     work to defeat them during the House debate. California's 
     beautiful coastline is an integral part of our culture, our 
     heritage, and our economy. Putting it at risk would be an 
     absolute travesty.''

  The argument we're hearing is that we need to develop domestic 
natural gas supplies to bring down prices and avoid dependence on 
foreign sources of energy.
  This argument is a masquerade.
  It's well known that there cannot be selective drilling for natural 
gas. Drilling is drilling, and where gas is found, oil is also found. 
Last fall, the Director of the Mineral Management Service, Johnnie 
Burton, said so. He said:

       Natural gas seldom comes totally by itself. It has some 
     liquids with it. Sometimes it is oil, sometimes it is very 
     refined oil . . .

  So lifting the moratorium on gas drilling will also effectively lift 
the ban on oil drilling.
   Mr. Chairman, if we're concerned about prices and security, we need 
to begin requiring the use of renewable fuels and improving the fuel 
economy of our automobiles. We shouldn't tear our oceans apart and ruin 
our coastlines.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record in support of the Capps amendment 
to H.R. 5386, the FY2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill.
  The bill before the House today includes a provision lifting a long-
standing Congressional ban on natural gas drilling and production in 
most of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). More import than what it 
does, however, is what it fails to do. For instance, rather than giving 
States a ``buffer zone'' which allows them to block the construction of 
natural gas platforms within 20 miles of their shores, the provision in 
this bill opens the OCS to drilling as close as three miles. Since this 
provision is being tacked onto an appropriations bill, it does not 
include the critic authorizing language that will provide the 
Department of the Interior with guidance on how and where to provide 
for drilling and production, or even grant them the authority to issue 
leases. In addition, it lifts only the Congressional prohibition on OCS 
natural gas drilling and leaves intact the Executive ban in effect 
until 2012, making this provision meaningless without more extensive 
authorizing legislation.
  Many of our colleagues have deep concerns about the impact that 
opening our OCS to natural gas drilling and production will have on 
their States. This is therefore not an issue we should rush into with 
only cursory debate in an appropriations bill. Rather, it is one that 
should be carefully considered, with input reflecting all sides of this 
issue, through hearings held by the House Resources Committee. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Putnam-Capps 
amendment to restore the congressional spending moratorium against 
natural gas leases off the coastline of the national Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS).
  The repeal of the congressional spending moratorium that was adopted 
by the Appropriations Committee limits States' ability to safeguard 
their natural resources and would set current OCS policy badly adrift. 
The prohibition of OCS drilling has been a national priority for over 
20 years. Congress led the way by passing the first moratorium on OCS 
leasing in 1982, which was soon extended to waters throughout much of 
our nation's coastal areas.
  Opposition to OCS drilling is particularly strong in Florida due to 
the potentially devastating consequences it could have for our economy, 
natural resources, and quality of life. Our pristine beaches and 
waterways represent our best and most distinctive qualities and attract 
millions of visitors from across the country and world every year. 
Repealing the moratorium severely jeopardizes Florida's $57 billion 
tourist economy.
  Our natural habitats, particularly our marine life, represent some of 
the richest and most diverse ecosystems in the world. The quality of 
life enjoyed by Floridians is due in large part to these natural 
endowments, which has made my state one of the most desirable places in 
the country to work and live.
  I am also concerned about the impact the repeal of the moratorium 
could have on our military readiness. The language incorporated into 
H.R. 5386 poses a serious threat to the critical missions of our Air 
Force and Navy which are conducted in the Gulf of Mexico. Since the 
closing of the ranges in Vieques, Puerto Rico, the Gulf of Mexico is 
home to a number of training missions for our military, specifically 
those conducted by the U.S. Navy. The Navy uses the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico to conduct pre-deployment certifications. Additionally, 
submerged U.S. Navy submarines launch Tomahawk cruise missiles from the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico. If natural gas companies were allowed to begin 
to explore the area, serious encroachments on these pre-deployment 
training exercises would be created.
  The Air Force also uses the Gulf of Mexico water ranges to do live 
fire tests and evaluations of many of its new weapons systems. For 
example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training is being 
located at Eglin Air Force Base. The projected Air-to-Surface live fire 
weapons training requirements of the F-35 will, according to the Air 
Armament Center, ``significantly increase the amount or airspace needed 
over the Eastern Gulf.''
  In a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wrote that ``Prior analysis and existing 
agreements recognize that areas east of the 86 deg. 41' line in the 
Gulf of Mexico commonly known as the `military mission line' are 
especially critical to DoD due to the number and diversity of military 
testing and training activities conducted there now, and those planned 
for the future. In those areas east of the military mission line 
drilling structures and associated development would be incompatible 
with military activities, such as missile flights, low-flying drone 
aircraft, weapons testing, and training.''
  The current language in H.R. 5386 could open the entire eastern Gulf 
of Mexico, including areas east of the military mission line, to 
natural gas exploration and activities. This is in direct conflict with 
the statement from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and a direct threat to 
the readiness of the United States military.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Putnam-Capps amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Putnam-Capps amendment to H.R. 5386. This amendment, which has broad 
bi-partisan support, would remove the provisions in the underlying bill 
that lifts three long-standing moratoriums on offshore natural gas 
leasing.

[[Page 8753]]

  This provision will not provide the relief its supports claim it 
will. It will merely hinder our efforts to get a real and permanent 
solution to this problem.
  The repeal of the congressional moratorium will limit States' ability 
to safeguard their natural resources and would set current OCS policy 
badly adrift. The prohibition of OCS drilling has been a national 
priority for over 20 years. Congress led the way by passing the first 
moratorium on OCS leasing in 1982, which was soon extended to waters 
throughout much of our nation's coastal areas. Dismantling this 25-year 
congressional moratorium in an appropriations bill is an unwise 
approach to our nation's energy needs.
  Comprehensive legislative is needed to deal with the many complex oil 
and gas issues on the OCS. For the past few months, I have been working 
with some of my Florida colleagues on a comprehensive solution to this 
issue, not a patchwork of legislative initiatives. We have worked with 
Chairman Pombo on legislation that would give the states the final 
authority to decide whether or not to allow drilling or leasing off its 
shores.
  It is imperative to empower all coastal states to determine their own 
future, putting decisions regarding offshore development in the hands 
of our state elected officials instead of the federal government. The 
bill would have put a 125-mile buffer permanently under state control 
for purposes of oil and gas leasing.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the interior 
appropriations bill and in support of the Putnam/Capps amendment.
  For 25 years we have maintained a bipartisan agreement to ban any new 
drilling off our shores because we believed it was more important to 
safeguard the health and beauty of our coastal environment for future 
generations to enjoy.
  But now the interior appropriations bill threatens to upset this 
agreement and open our coastal areas to drilling despite overwhelming 
opposition from the American people.
  We should not be trading away our pristine coastal habitats to fatten 
the coffers of the administration's cronies in the oil and gas 
industry.
  The fact of the matter is that new offshore drilling will do nothing 
in the short term to reduce the high gas prices that consumers are 
facing at the pump, and will do nothing in the long term to wean us 
away from our addiction to oil.
  The best way to fight high gas prices now is to hold oil companies 
accountable for gouging consumers by instituting a windfall profits 
tax.
  At the same time, we need to make immediate investments to expand 
energy efficiency by raising vehicle fuel economy standards, increasing 
the use of renewable fuels, and by adopting a foreign policy that does 
not hold our constituents hostage to the latest political crisis in the 
Middle East.
  Today our constituents are paying the price for this administration's 
deliberate decision to prioritize the profit margins of the oil and gas 
industry over a comprehensive and sustainable long term energy policy.
  Vote against another giveaway to the energy industry. Support the 
Putnam/Capps amendment and save our coastal environments.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of jobs and 
lower energy costs for the American people. The House Appropriations 
Committee correctly voted to take a first step toward opening more 
access to natural gas in the outer continental shelf. Natural gas is an 
affordable, clean-burning fuel that can be safely extracted without 
causing harm to the environment. But there are opponents of expanded 
access to this domestic energy source who are trying to strip language 
that lifts the annual congressional moratoria on natural gas leasing 
and production in the OCS.
  I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Peterson and Mr. Abercrombie in 
defeating all attempts to prohibit America from taking this small, but 
important, step toward energy independence. I commend Mr. Peterson for 
his work on this important issue and for his persistence in bringing 
this issue before the American people.
  America is the only country in the world that has a moratorium on 
off-shore drilling for natural gas. While there are vast amounts of 
this environmentally clean energy source available in areas far off our 
shorelines, opponents of lifting the moratorium are standing in the way 
of lowering energy costs for our farmers, chemical workers, small 
businesses and manufacturers.
  Because Americans pay as much as 600 percent more for natural gas 
than other countries, American businesses are often at a competitive 
disadvantage when trying to compete with foreign businesses.
  Our farmers depend upon natural gas for everything from irrigation to 
food processing to nitrogen fertilizer production. When the price of 
natural gas is high, that translates to more economic hardship for 
rural America. Unlike most other businesses, farmers are not able to 
pass along their increased input costs to consumers. It simply means 
less income for them and the rural communities that depend on an 
agriculture economy.
  Natural gas prices account for most of the cost of fertilizers, which 
means that as long as we refuse to open up more of our natural gas 
reserves and lower the costs, farmers and rural farming communities 
will continue to suffer. Additionally, 21 fertilizer plants in this 
country have closed in the past 6 years because they were no longer 
able to compete. High natural gas prices are closing businesses and 
killing jobs.
  Small businesses suffer when natural gas prices are high because they 
have to spend more money for heating and cooling bills rather than 
investments in new technologies or better wages for workers. Instead of 
being able to sell their products and services for less, many 
businesses are forced to raise their prices. And in today's economy, 
many small businesses are often competing with foreign competitors.
  Manufacturing jobs are even more at risk for leaving if we do not 
address the high cost of natural gas in this country. Over 100,000 
chemical jobs have been lost over the past 5 years because of high 
natural gas costs. These are jobs that we should not be forced to lose. 
Americans deserve better than a continuation of an out-dated moratorium 
on offshore drilling for natural gas.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the amendment to strip 
language that would help make America more energy self-sufficient.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Interior 
appropriations bill and in support of the Putnam/Capps amendment that 
will be considered on the floor today.
  For 25 years we have maintained a bipartisan agreement to ban any new 
drilling off our shores because we believed it was more important to 
safeguard the heath and beauty of our coastal environment for future 
generations to enjoy.
  But now the Interior appropriations bill threatens to upset this 
agreement and open our coastal areas to drilling despite overwhelming 
opposition from the American people.
  We should not be trading away our pristine coastal habitats to fatten 
the coffers of the administration's cronies in the oil and gas 
industry.
  The fact of the matter is that new offshore drilling will do nothing 
in the short term to reduce the high gas prices that consumers are 
facing at pump, and will do nothing in the long term to wean us away 
from our addiction to oil.
  The best way to fight high gas prices now is to hold oil companies 
accountable for gouging consumers by instituting a windfall profits 
tax.
  At the same time, we need to make immediate investments to expand 
energy efficiency by raising vehicle fuel economy standards, increasing 
the use of renewable fuels, and by adopting a foreign policy that does 
not hold our constituents hostage to the latest political crisis in the 
Middle East.
  Today our constituents are paying the price for this administration's 
deliberate decision to prioritize the profit margins of the oil and gas 
industry over a comprehensive and sustainable long term energy policy.
  Vote against another giveaway to the energy industry. Support the 
Putnam/Capps amendment and save our coastal environments.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I submitted the attached statement, in 
support of the Putnam-Capps Amendment to ban drilling for natural gas 
on the Outer Continental Shelf on May 18, 2006.

  Floor Statement in Support of the OCS Drilling Ban Amendment to the 
             FY2007 Interior Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5386

       I rise in strong support of this amendment to preserve the 
     popular and longstanding ban on drilling off our coasts. 
     First, let's be clear that there is no such thing as drilling 
     for gas only. Even the Administration and the energy industry 
     have dismissed the idea as unworkable. So this is nothing 
     more than a fig leaf.
       But it's a fig leaf that will bring toxic contamination to 
     our marine environment merely three miles off our coasts. And 
     it could open the door to drilling in the Great Lakes, which 
     is also opposed by Great Lakes residents.
       We cannot forget that new drilling will have no effect on 
     energy prices for years. In contrast, we have technologies to 
     reduce our addiction to oil and natural gas that are

[[Page 8754]]

     ready to go today. The problem is that we're subsidizing 
     unsustainable energy production like drilling for natural gas 
     and oil while failing to fund real renewable solutions. I 
     urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be 
postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to eliminate or restrict programs that are for the 
     reforestation of urban areas.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

                              {time}  2100

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their kindness and understanding of the importance of 
this amendment and allowing me to present this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be delighted to yield to the 
gentleman from North Carolina. I would like to be able to explain the 
amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to 
accept it, if the gentlewoman would explain it briefly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the chairman. You are very kind.
  Mr. Chairman, I live in an area that is urban, but yet rural, and I 
ask in this amendment that no funds be used to eliminate or restrict 
programs that are for reforestation of urban areas.
  If I might, Mr. Chairman, just indicate to you, the surveys indicate 
that some urban forests are in serious danger. In the past 30 years 
alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our urban trees, a loss of 
over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the American population live 
in dense quarters of a city.
  This amendment simply emphasizes the importance of urban 
reforestation, and allows me to salute the City of Houston Parks 
Department, the Pleasantville community that invested in the 
reforestation of their neighborhood, and it also provides the umbrella 
of trees that cleans the air, clears the air of toxic entities, and 
provides the quality of life that all of us would like.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment to 
reemphasize the importance in the Interior Department to as well affirm 
the value of reforestation.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that emphasizes the 
importance of urban forests, and preserves our ability to return urban 
areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children.
  Surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious danger. In 
the past 3 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban 
trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.
  Eight percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters 
of a city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete 
area that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and 
agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars 
in storm water management costs. I have certainly seen neighborhoods in 
Houston benefit from urban reforestation.
  In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have 
beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and 
psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real 
estate.
  Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban 
sprawl and/or deterioration. Commitment to enhancing our environment 
involves both the protection of existing natural resources and active 
support for restoration and improvement projects.
  In 1999, American Forests, a conservation group, estimated that the 
tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973 
to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water 
runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm 
water control facilities to manage.
  Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen. People breathe 
in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. A typical person consumes about 38 
lbs of oxygen per year. A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can 
produce about 260 lb of oxygen annually. Two trees supply the oxygen 
needs of a person for a year!
  Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and 
pollen with their leaves. A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 lbs of 
the small particles and gases of air pollution. They help combat the 
effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased carbon dioxide produced 
from burning fossil fuels that is causing our atmosphere to ``heat 
up''.
  Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, 
concrete and metal surfaces. Buildings and paving in city centers 
create a heat-island effect. A mature tree canopy reduces air 
temperatures by about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit. A 25-foot tree reduces 
annual heating and cooling cost of a typical residence by 8 to 12 
percent, producing an average $10 savings per American household. 
Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds and reduce 
annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.
  Trees play a vital role in making our cities more sustainable and 
liveable, and this amendment simply provides for continued support to 
programs that reforest our urban areas. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting these efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone claim the time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 501: None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
     Smithsonian Institution.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we will be happy to 
accept this amendment also.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
the ranking member of the full committee, and the chairman of the full 
committee.
  Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this reemphasizes the importance of the 
Smithsonian, but what it says is that no funds shall be used to 
eliminate the outreach programs of the Smithsonian.
  The reason why I offer this is simply a quote from James Baldwin that 
says ``the great force of history comes from

[[Page 8755]]

the fact that we carry it within us, and that history is literally 
present in all that we do.''
  The outreach programs for the Smithsonian will help cities beyond the 
Beltway to establish culturally grounded museums that present the 
history of America. The City of Houston is attempting to do an African 
American History Museum, and it will be the importance of the 
Smithsonian outreach program that provides the thousands of communities 
that serve millions of Americans and hundreds of institutions in all 50 
States through loan objects, traveling exhibitions and sharing of 
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, 
training programs and Web sites.
  I know that we are going to be able to establish that museum in the 
City of Houston. It will be through reaffirming the value of the 
outreach programs of the Smithsonian, and we ask that no funds be 
utilized to stop that outreach program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment that encourages 
support of the Smithsonian Institution's outreach programs.
  It is of the utmost importance that none of the funds made available 
in this Act be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
Smithsonian Institution.
  The Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian scholars in 
art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and into their 
own backyard. Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in 
Washington, D.C. But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, 
``the increase and diffusion of knowledge'', the Smithsonian seeks to 
serve an even greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves 
of communities who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of 
cultural history offered by the Smithsonian.
  The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans, 
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 
states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of 
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, 
training programs, and websites. Smithsonian outreach programs work in 
close cooperation with Smithsonian museums and research centers, as 
well as with 144 affiliate institutions and others across the nation.
  The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based 
cultural and educational organizations around the country; ensure a 
vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence in all 50 states 
through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a network of 
affiliations; increase connections between the Institution and targeted 
audiences (African American, Asian American, Latino, Native American, 
and new American); provide kindergarten through college-age museum 
education and outreach opportunities; enhance K-12 science education 
programs; facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with 
students and scholars at universities, museums, and other research 
institutions; and publish and disseminate results related to the 
research and collections strengths of the Institution.
  One example of a large and successful outreach program is the 
Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES).
  SITES will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's 
National Museum of African American History and Culture, as the 
planning for that new Museum gets under way. Providing national access 
to projects that will introduce the American public to the Museum's 
mission, SITES in FY 2007 will tour such stirring exhibitions as ``381 
Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story''.
  The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national 
network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish 
active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the 
country. There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United 
States, Puerto Rico, and Panama. By working with museums of diverse 
subject areas and scholarly disciplines, both emerging and well-
established, Smithsonian Affiliations is building partnerships through 
which audiences and visitors everywhere will be able to share in the 
great wealth of the Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise 
in local communities.
  The Smithsonian also offers access to its resources to underserved 
audiences in urban locales and to individuals with disabilities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and support the 
Smithsonian's high quality education and its ability to share our 
wealth of knowledge to every American.

               [From Museum News, November/December 2005]

            The Fire This Time: Race, Memory, and the Museum

                          (By Lonnie G. Bunch)

       Recently I was asked if museums that explore the African 
     American experience are still valuable as they once were in 
     this diverse and more integrated America. While I responded 
     quickly, I realized later that the question deserved more 
     thought.
       The notion that African American history has limited 
     meaning should be a concern for all Americans. We would be 
     better served if we remember the words that James Baldwin 
     wrote in his powerful novel, The Fire Next Time: ``. . . 
     history does not refer merely or even principally to the 
     past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from 
     the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously 
     controlled by it in many ways, and that history is literally 
     present in all that we do.''
       Let me cite four reasons why the interpretation and 
     preservation of African American history and culture are so 
     important and relevant for an America still struggling with 
     the legacy and impact of race.
       (1) The Danger of Forgetting: You can tell a great deal 
     about a country or a people by what they deem important 
     enough to remember, what they build monuments to celebrate; 
     and what graces the walls of their museums. Throughout 
     Scandinavia there are monuments and museums that cherish the 
     Vikings as a proud symbol of Nordic curiosity, exploration, 
     and freedom. In Scotland, much is made of the heroic 
     struggles of William Wallace (whom we know as Mel Gibson) to 
     throw off the yoke of British domination. Until recently, 
     South Africa was dominated by monuments and memories of the 
     Vortrekker, while the United States traditionally revels in 
     Civil War battles or founding fathers, with an occasional 
     president thrown into the mix.
       Yet I would argue that we learn even more about a country 
     by what it chooses to forget. This desire to omit--to forget 
     disappointments, moments of evil, and great missteps--is both 
     natural and instructive. It is often the essence of African 
     American culture that is forgotten or downplayed. And yet, it 
     is also the African American experience that is a clarion 
     call to remember.
       A good example of this nexus of race and memory is one of 
     the last great unmentionables of public discourse about 
     American history--the story of slavery. For nearly 250 years, 
     slavery not only existed but it was one of the most dominate 
     forces in American life. Political clout and economic fortune 
     depended upon the labor of slaves. Almost every aspect of 
     American life--from business to religion, from culture to 
     commerce, from foreign policy to western expansion was 
     informed and shaped by the experience of slavery. American 
     slavery was so dominant globally that 90 percent of the 
     world's cotton was produced in the American South. By 1860 
     the monetary value of slaves outweighed all the money 
     invested in this country's railroads, banking, and industry 
     combined. And the most devastating war in American history 
     was fought over the issue of slavery.
       And yet few institutions address this history for a non-
     scholarly audience. And there are even fewer opportunities to 
     discuss--candidly and openly--the impact, legacy, and 
     contemporary meaning of slavery.
       I remember a small survey from the early 1990s that 
     assessed the public's knowledge about slavery. The results 
     were fascinating: 81 percent of white respondents felt that 
     slavery was a history that had little to do with them; 73 
     percent felt that slavery was an important story but that its 
     real relevance was only to African Americans. Even more 
     troubling was the fact that the majority of African Americans 
     surveyed expressed either little interest or some level of 
     embarrassment about slavery.
       There is a great need to help Americans understand that the 
     history of slavery matters because so much of our complex and 
     troubling struggle to find racial equality has been shaped by 
     slavery. And until we use the past to better understand the 
     contemporary resonance of slavery, we will never get to the 
     heart of one of the central dilemmas in American life--race 
     relations. But it is also important for those who preserve 
     and interpret African American life to help combat the notion 
     of embarrassment. I am not ashamed of my slave ancestors, I 
     am in awe of their ability--in spite of the cruelties of 
     slavery--to maintain their culture, their sense of family, 
     their humor and their humanity. I wish more people knew the 
     words of William Prescott, a former slave who when asked 
     about slavery by a WPA interviewer in the 1930s said, ``They 
     will remember that we were sold but not that we were strong; 
     they will remember that we were bought but not that we were 
     brave.''
       (2) The power of inspiration: There is a great need and 
     opportunity to draw inspiration, sustenance, and guidance for 
     African American culture. And from this inspiration, people 
     can find tools and paths to help them live their lives. The 
     importance of inspiration was brought home to me on a trip a 
     few years ago.
       In 1997, I was lecturing in South Africa. One day I found 
     myself in the small city of

[[Page 8756]]

     Pietermaritaburgr, which is located in Durban in Kwa Zulu 
     Natal. This city has a significant Indian population and it 
     was the site of Mahatma Gandhi's first brush with the racism 
     of South Africa in 1903. While I was there, Nelson Mandela 
     came to this city that was the ancestral homeland of his 
     political and tribal rivals, the Zulus. He was to receive 
     ``the freedom of the city.'' I was privileged to sit on the 
     podium as Mandela gave his speech. As is his custom, he spoke 
     in several languages--from Xhosa to Zulu to N'debele--about 
     his struggles against apartheid. And then in English he spoke 
     about his 27 years in the prison on Robben Island. He said 
     one of the things that gave him strength and substance was 
     the history of the struggle for racial equality in America. 
     He spoke passionately and eloquently of how American 
     abolitionists such as Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, 
     William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass inspired him 
     and helped him to believe that freedom and racial 
     transformation were possible in South Africa.
       Mandel's words helped me to remember the power of African 
     American culture. We hold such important moments within our 
     collective institutions. Who could not be inspired by the 
     oratory, the commitment to racial justice, or the ultimate 
     sacrifice of Dr. King? Who is not moved by the beauty of the 
     work of Betty Saar, the richness of the words of Langston 
     Hughes or the quiet bravery of Rosa Parks and John Lewis? Or 
     who is not moved by the family who came north during the 
     Great Migration or the person who struggled and risked death 
     to keep his name on the voter registration list during the 
     1960s? It is crucial to remember that we are all made better 
     by embracing the inspirational stories and lessons of African 
     American culture.
       (3) The power of illumination: Far too often, many view the 
     experiences of the African American community as an 
     interesting and occasionally exotic ancillary story that has 
     limited impact on most Americans. Yet the story of how race, 
     how African American culture has shaped and continues to re-
     shape American life, is less understood than it should be. It 
     is important that we help all to grapple with the centrality 
     of race in the construction of American identity.
       As American continues its internal debates about who we are 
     as a nation and what our core values are, where better to 
     look than through the lens of African American history and 
     culture. If one wants to understand the notion of American 
     resilience, optimism, or spirituality, where better than the 
     black experience. If one wants to explore the limits of the 
     American dream, where better than by examining the Gordian 
     knot of race relations. If one want to understand the impact 
     and tensions that accompany the changing demographics of our 
     cities, where better than the literature and music of the 
     African American community. African American culture has the 
     power and the complexity needed to illuminate all the dark 
     corners of American life, and the power to illuminate all the 
     possibility and ambiguities of American life. One of the 
     challenges before us, whether we write, preserve, exhibit 
     history or consume culture, is to do a better job of 
     centralizing race.
       (4) The Mirror: A final reason why African American history 
     and culture are still so vital, so relevant, and so important 
     is because the black past is a wonderful but unforgiving 
     mirror that reminds us of America's ideals and promises. It 
     is a mirror that makes those who are often invisible, more 
     visible, and it gives voice to many who are often overlooked. 
     It is a mirror that challenges us to be better and to work to 
     make our community and country better. But it is also a 
     mirror that allows us to see our commonalities. It is a 
     mirror that allows us to celebrate and to revel but also 
     demands that we all struggle, that we all continue to ``fight 
     the good fight.''
       The struggle to create a national monument to black life 
     goes back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This 
     desire for recognition, acceptance, and cultural 
     acknowledgement was thwarted until the recent legislative 
     success engineered by Congressman John Lewis and Senator Sam 
     Brownback. Legislation was passed by Congress in 2003 and 
     signed by the President. Now at last the National Museum of 
     African American History and Culture exists. It is not yet 
     what it will be one day--a site has yet to be chosen from the 
     four now under consideration--but that begs the question, 
     What is NMAAHC?
       It is a museum that will celebrate and honor African 
     American history and culture by reveling in and revealing the 
     richness, the lessons, the ambiguities, the challenges and 
     the beauty of African American culture. And through that 
     exploration, the many publics will find meaning, relevance, 
     and understanding.
       When I imagine the museum I see interactive exhibitions on 
     the history and legacy of slavery, on the Cultural 
     Renaissance of the 1920s, on the Civil Rights movement. But I 
     also see the opportunity to explore cultural expressions like 
     dance, performance, and of course, art. But while the museum 
     must explore the large stories, it must also provide glimpses 
     into more intimate moments of the African American story.
       The museum must also use this culture as a lens for all to 
     better understand what it means to be an American, so that 
     all who visit, interact with its online activities, and 
     experience its national programming will see how America was 
     and will always be shaped by this culture.
       The museum must be a place of collaboration and education--
     especially with the African American museum field. I see this 
     museum as a collaborator, not a competitor. And I see that 
     collaboration beginning immediately. I believe that this 
     museum must begin strategic program and collaborations right 
     away. I want to work with many of our African American 
     museums to develop lectures and performances that we can co-
     sponsor in their communities. I would also like to work 
     together to craft a national campaign to ``save our 
     treasures'' so that sister institutions can continue to 
     collect the patrimony that is quickly vanishing. And I would 
     like to find ways that this national museum in Washington can 
     also highlight the work and increase the visibility of 
     museums in communities across the country. It may be as 
     simple as suggesting that as visitors explore an exhibition 
     on migration here at the Smithsonian, they are encouraged to 
     visit the DuSable museum in Chicago, or the African American 
     museum in Los Angeles to get a deeper look at this history, 
     or letting visitors know about related exhibits at museums of 
     every kind--art, history, science, living collections, 
     children's museums--in communities everywhere.
       There are many possibilities to explore from collaborating 
     to help train future generations of African American museum 
     professionals to working through and with the Institute of 
     Museum and Library Services to help ensure the sustainability 
     of the African American institutions.
       If we do the job right, the National Museum of African 
     American History and Culture will be a place of meaning, of 
     reflection, of laughter, of learning, and of hope. A beacon 
     that reminds us of what we were, what challenges still 
     remain, and points us toward what we can become.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone claim opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:
                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 601. Each amount appropriated or otherwise 3 made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced 
     by 1 percent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to be very brief because, first of all, it 
is wonderful to be here with my amendment at a time when the chairman 
is in the mood to accept amendments. I am sure he will probably accept 
this one as well.
  This is one that I have offered for the last 3 years, and it is 
identical to them. It is an amendment which trims outlays for H.R. 5386 
by 1 percent under the Holman rule, which means that if the amendment 
passes, it will be up to the administration to determine where the cuts 
will fall.
  I think Mr. Taylor, as always, has done a solid and conscientious job 
on this bill. That said, I don't think that the funding levels in this 
bill are reflective of a country with a deficit in excess of $350 
billion. This amendment would trim a penny on a dollar across the 
agencies funded by this bill.
  Last night there was a lot of pontificating about how we need to 
balance the budget and we need to get our spending under control. Well, 
this is a way to prove that you are really serious about that, not that 
this is going to balance the budget, of course. It is not. But it would 
at least symbolically say we care about this issue.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment, and ask for support of 
the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 8757]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I love the gentleman from Colorado like a brother, but 
I am going to have to oppose his amendment. First of all, the bill has 
already been reduced $145 million below the $206 million level. The 
nine largest agencies in this bill have absorbed more than $2 billion 
in pay and other fixed costs over the past few years, and this bill 
assumes that several hundred millions of dollars more in costs will 
have to be absorbed.
  The committee has done a responsible job, and one might say we gave 
at the office. We have already cut this bill about as much as we can. I 
have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I would encourage its passage, and yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       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.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the previous order of the House today, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't take much time. The Republican bill 
before us is based on the assumption that the Senate has passed the 
House Republican budget resolution. It hasn't. This amendment is based 
on a more responsible assumption.
  It is in conformance with the Spratt budget amendment. It adds 
roughly $800 million for restoring the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund. We add $50 million to the EPA budget to protect local water 
supplies from terrorist attacks. We add $300 million for our national 
parks, refuges, and forests. We provide $150 million to provide some 
key land acquisitions at Valley Forge, Acadia, Grand Teton, Mount 
Rainier and a number of other purposes.
  We pay for it with a modest 2 percent reduction in the tax cuts 
expected for millionaires. It would reduce the size of their tax cuts 
by about $2,200.
  I would hope that no one lodges a point of order on this amendment so 
we could have a more constructive approach to these programs.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly must concede the point of 
order. I would have preferred that the gentleman had not made the point 
of order, but given the fact he has done it, the rule under which this 
bill is being debated precludes the inclusion of this amendment. I very 
much regret that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
amendment is not in order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dent:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce section 20(b)(1) 
     of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I do intend to withdraw, would 
prevent the Department of the Interior from using any appropriated 
funds to further the expansion of off-reservation gambling under the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  Casino gambling sponsored by Indian tribes is a multi-billion dollar 
business that today comprises some 23 percent of gambling revenue 
nationwide. Unfortunately, as these casino profits increase, so does 
the motive to use the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as a vehicle not for 
promoting Indian culture, but only as a tool to spread casino gambling 
into places where tribes have no federally recognized historical 
presence.
  Because profits in this industry are so high, many of these casinos 
are being established long distances, in some cases hundreds of miles, 
from existing reservations.
  The residents of my district in Pennsylvania, where there are no 
federally recognized tribes, have felt the sting

[[Page 8758]]

caused by the unbridled expansion of tribal gambling. Recently, the 
Delaware Nation, which is headquartered in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 
filed suit in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania seeking title to land 
in my district based on a conveyance that allegedly occurred in 1737.
  This land is currently occupied by approximately 25 homeowners as 
well as commercial entities such as the Binney and Smith Corporation, 
makers of the world-famous Crayola crayons. These innocent homeowners 
and businesses have had to go to court to defend their title against 
this encroachment, and only after a couple years of litigation and 
attorneys' fees has the third circuit found in their favor.
  This suit, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the preservation 
of Indian culture and everything to do with establishing a casino, 
represents just how out of control the pursuit of off-reservation 
gambling rights has become.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. Pombo, my specific question to you, I know you plan to advance 
legislation out of your committee that will deal with the issue of 
reservation shopping.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I appreciate 
your agreeing to offer this amendment and withdraw it. This is a major 
issue and you have talked to me several times in the past about this 
issue and the impact that it has on your district.
  I fully understand that. It is something that we in the committee 
have taken very seriously. As we move forward with this issue in the 
committee, it is something that is extremely important to us and to a 
number of other Members of Congress; and I can guarantee you that as we 
move forward that the issues that you raise will be taken under 
consideration.
  In terms of crossing State lines and having the ability to locate off 
current reservation land, we will deal with that.
  Also we have the issue dealing with tribes who do not currently have 
land in trust. That is a major issue. It is an issue in California, and 
something we are dealing with in the underlying legislation. As the 
authorizing committee moves forward, this is something that we are 
going to address.
  I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of Congress. I do 
know that it is a major issue in your district, and we will deal with 
it.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield 1 minute to my 
friend from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Dent, and I rise in support of his 
amendment because of a proposed Indian gambling casino for the Columbia 
River Gorge National Scenic Area. The Columbia River Gorge National 
Scenic Area is the crown jewel of Oregon's natural heritage. The 
Columbia River cuts the only sea level passage through the Cascade 
Mountains. It is, to many, another Yosemite, with many waterfalls and 
the second tallest waterfall in North America.
  There is a proposed 700,000 square foot casino for this national 
scenic area. It would draw 3 million people per year and 1 million 
extra cars with the attendant pollution and urbanization.
  I support Mr. Dent's amendment and would ask the committee chairman 
to address the issues, because the amendment as originally structured 
would put a pause and encourage the Department to consider on 
reservation sites this for the tribe with the largest reservation in 
the State of Oregon.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota.
  Amendment by Mr. Putnam of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 198, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling

[[Page 8759]]


     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Cannon
     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2142

  Messrs. TIBERI, BARRETT of South Carolina, SMITH of Texas, TERRY, 
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LaTOURETTE and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 203, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--217

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--203

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (GA)
     Cannon
     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (NY)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Pombo
     Reynolds
     Strickland
     Stupak

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 312, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 171]

                               AYES--109

     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez

[[Page 8760]]


     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell (CA)
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--312

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bishop (GA)
     Cannon
     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (NY)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Musgrave
     Reynolds
     Strickland
     Stupak

                              {time}  2157

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

                          ____________________