[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17477-17495]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 514 and rule

[[Page 17478]]

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. 2643.

                              {time}  1706


                     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. 2643) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Davis of Alabama 
(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 Utah (Mr. Bishop) had been postponed.
  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:

                       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, $280,602,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by law; of 
     which $8,000,000 is for the International Program; and of 
     which $56,336,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund.

                         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, $1,506,502,000, 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 2008 
     shall be displayed by budget line item in the fiscal year 
     2009 budget justification.

                  capital improvement and maintenance


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $480,197,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for construction, capital improvement, maintenance 
     and acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and 
     infrastructure; and for construction, capital improvement, 
     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; and in addition $40,000,000 to be 
     transferred from the timber roads purchaser election fund and 
     merged with this account, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That $65,000,000 shall be designated for urgently 
     needed road decommissioning, road and trail repair and 
     maintenance and associated activities, and removal of fish 
     passage barriers, especially in areas where Forest Service 
     roads may be contributing to water quality problems in 
     streams and water bodies which support threatened, endangered 
     or sensitive species or community water sources and for 
     urgently needed road repairs required due to recent storm 
     events: Provided further, That up to $65,000,000 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 the decommissioning of 
     unauthorized roads not part of the official transportation 
     system shall be expedited in response to threats to public 
     safety, water quality, or natural resources: Provided 
     further, That funds becoming available in fiscal year 2008 
     under the Act of March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. 501) shall be 
     transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury and shall not 
     be available for transfer or obligation for any other purpose 
     unless the funds are appropriated.

                            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, $44,485,000, to be derived from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until 
     expended.

         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $1,053,000, 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 districts, or other public school authorities, 
     and for authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-
     Federal parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts, 
     pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended. (16 U.S.C. 
     4601-516-617a, 555a; Public Law 96-586; Public Law 76-589, 
     76-591; and 78-310.)

                         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), $56,000, 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), $5,053,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        wildland fire management

                     (including transfers 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, 
     $1,974,648,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds including unobligated balances under this 
     heading, are available for repayment of advances from other 
     appropriations accounts previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That such funds shall be 
     available to reimburse State and other cooperating entities 
     for services provided in response to wildfire and other 
     emergencies or disasters to the extent such reimbursements by 
     the Forest Service for non-fire emergencies are fully repaid 
     by the responsible emergency management agency: Provided 
     further, That not less than 50 percent of any unobligated 
     balances remaining (exclusive of amounts for hazardous fuels 
     reduction) at the end of fiscal year 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 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, $310,258,000 is 
     for hazardous fuels reduction activities, $18,000,000 is for 
     rehabilitation and restoration, $23,500,000 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.), $46,221,000 is for State 
     fire assistance, $10,000,000 is for volunteer fire 
     assistance, $14,252,000 is for forest health activities on 
     Federal lands and $10,014,000 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, joint fire sciences, 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

[[Page 17479]]

     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 $10,000,000 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 $7,000,000, 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 cost pools on the same basis as such 
     assessments are calculated against other agency programs.

               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.
       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 in 
     this Act or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year 
     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), section 442 of Public Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C. 
     7772), or section 10417(b) of Public Law 107-107 (7 U.S.C. 
     8316(b)).
       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 $73,285,000 of funds available to the Forest 
     Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund of 
     the Department of Agriculture and not more than $24,021,000 
     of funds available to the Forest Service shall be transferred 
     to the Department of Agriculture for Department Reimbursable 
     Programs, commonly referred to as Greenbook charges. 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 $5,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps or 
     the Public Lands Corps (Public Law 109-154).
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, $3,000,000 
     may be advanced in a lump sum to the National Forest 
     Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in 
     support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when 
     the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative expenses 
     or projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That of the 
     Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no more than 
     $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, 
     $2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a 
     lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without 
     regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting 
     National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service 
     programs: Provided, That such funds shall be matched on at 
     least a one-for-one basis by the Foundation or its sub-
     recipients: Provided further, That the Foundation may 
     transfer Federal funds to a Federal or non-Federal recipient 
     for a project at the same rate that the recipient has 
     obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
       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.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas 
(Mrs. Boyda).
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a 
colloquy with my colleague from Kansas, Ranking Member Tiahrt, and 
Chairman Dicks.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to light an issue of great 
importance to southeast Kansas, and I think we have a visual down here 
that we can point to in a minute.
  Treece, Kansas, is a small town of about 150 people. It is part of 
the Tri-State mining district of southwest Missouri, southeast Kansas 
and northwest Oklahoma, producing lead, zinc and coal. Much of the lead 
and zinc that was used in ammunition and equipment to win World War II 
came from this area. However, this mining has led to incredible 
environmental problems, to include significant subsidence and health 
problems from chat piles, otherwise known as mining waste. The 
photograph that we have here on the easel, those are the chat piles we 
are talking about.
  This problem has been under study for years. In 2004, Senator Inhofe 
from Oklahoma arranged for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a 
subsidence risk study for northern Oklahoma towns similar to Treece. 
The results of this study lead to a voluntary buyout program allowing 
Picher, Oklahoma, residents to move.
  The Kansas Geological Survey did a stability study and hazard 
evaluation of southeast Kansas mining areas in 1983. The report 
indicated that Treece is ``located within the Picher field and is 
surrounded on all sides by abandoned mine workings and is extensively 
undermined.''

[[Page 17480]]

  In a letter to me dated March 30 of this year from the EPA in D.C., 
they note that, ``The Treece sub-site is part of the former Picher 
mining field centered near the town of Picher, Oklahoma.'' In fact, 
Treece was originally platted as part of Picher, Oklahoma. It sits 
right on the Kansas-Oklahoma border and is separated from the town of 
Picher only by a political boundary. Treece receives its electricity 
and emergency services from Picher, Oklahoma.
  The geology of Treece and mining techniques that were used are the 
same as in Picher. In fact, and this is the point I would like to make, 
Treece, Kansas, and Picher, Oklahoma, are in fact the same minefield.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points: First, if we must, we 
will ask the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a study similar to the 
one done in Picher. But we should not have to. The Treece community 
should be treated the same as Picher.
  Second, while Treece is designated as part of the EPA Superfund site, 
EPA has yet to approve a request for funding that would remove the chat 
from Treece and other sites along the Kansas-Oklahoma border. This 
requested funding would allow removal of this dangerous material over a 
10-year period.
  Addressing both of these issues for the good people of Treece, 
Kansas, is long overdue, and we certainly appreciate this committee's 
attention.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Washington will 
yield, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for bringing this to the 
attention of the House. This is a very important issue.
  The community of Treece has been trying to bring this issue to 
resolution for years. In fact, it was over a decade ago when it first 
came to my attention, and I had a staff member working on it for some 
time. I am pleased that the gentlewoman is carrying on the work of her 
predecessor, Congressman Jim Ryun, and other Kansas officials. Earlier 
this year, State Representative Gatewood came to my office and asked 
for some help with the Office of Surface Mining, and we still have the 
request pending from them as well.
  According to the estimates for the State of Kansas, it will cost 
approximately $8 million to conduct a buyout program, which is not a 
lot of money in the scheme of things. While we understand that the bill 
which we are debating today cannot address the buyout program, we both 
hope that the EPA will speed its approval of the funding to remove the 
chat and hope that other Federal resources will come to bear to help 
the people of Treece find relief through a similar buyout program.
  I am also hopeful that the OSM and the Army Corps of Engineers will 
also help the residents in their struggle to improve their communities.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank my 
colleague from Kansas for working on this issue. I understand Treece's 
frustration and look forward to working with you to see what the 
agencies within our subcommittee's jurisdiction can do to help. We 
appreciate your bringing this to our attention.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would say thank you to both of 
the gentlemen. The good people of Treece are very deeply appreciative.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       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, $3,023,532,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, except as otherwise provided herein, 
     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 not less than $561,515,000 shall be for contract medical 
     care: Provided further, That of the funds provided, up to 
     $32,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
     used to carry out the loan repayment program under section 
     108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided 
     further, That funds provided in this Act may be used for one-
     year contracts and grants which are to be performed in two 
     fiscal years, so long as the total obligation is recorded in 
     the year for which the funds are appropriated: Provided 
     further, That the amounts collected by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services under the authority of title IV of 
     the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall remain available 
     until expended for the purpose of achieving compliance with 
     the applicable conditions and requirements of titles XVIII 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act (exclusive of planning, 
     design, or construction of new facilities): Provided further, 
     That funding contained herein, and in any earlier 
     appropriations Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613), shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That amounts 
     received by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of 
     the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be reported and 
     accounted for and available to the receiving tribes and 
     tribal organizations until expended: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts 
     provided herein, not to exceed $274,638,000 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 2008, 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, $360,895,000, 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 a 
     federally-recognized 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

[[Page 17481]]

     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.
       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, $79,117,000.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

            toxic substances and environmental public health

       For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances 
     and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set 
     forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 
     (SARA), as amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act, as amended, $75,212,000, of which up to 
     $1,500,000, to remain available until expended, is for 
     Individual Learning Accounts for full-time equivalent 
     employees of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, in lieu of performing a health assessment under 
     section 104(i)(6) of CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may 
     conduct other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or 
     activities, including, without limitation, biomedical 
     testing, clinical evaluations, medical monitoring, and 
     referral to accredited health care providers: Provided 
     further, That in performing any such health assessment or 
     health study, evaluation, or activity, the Administrator of 
     ATSDR shall not be bound by the deadlines in section 
     104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. 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. 24 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       Page 89, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point 
of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support this 
amendment. This amendment would simply put in $1 million and then take 
back out $1 million for the purpose of directing the administrator of 
the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Research to use these funds 
to conduct initial long-term testing of children exposed to mercury 
from mercury-contaminated industrial sites.
  Last July, I learned that a daycare center in my district had been 
opened mistakenly on a site that was previously used by a thermometer 
manufacturer. The manufacturer had a history of mercury contamination 
and had not properly cleaned up the site.
  The mercury contamination of this site was so egregious that parents 
spoke of their children coming home from the daycare center with 
bubbles of mercury clinging to their backpacks. As a result of this, 
the children who innocently played on the grounds of the daycare center 
were diagnosed with mercury levels much higher than normal and suffered 
symptoms of mercury poisoning, such as headaches, sleeping problems and 
rashes.
  As you may know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can affect the 
nervous system.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am prepared 
to accept the amendment. We want to work with the gentleman on this a 
little bit to improve it as we get to conference. But we are prepared 
to accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to 
thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking an issue that is so 
important to his district and really important to the kids in that area 
that have been exposed to mercury and would join with the chairman in 
supporting your amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
and Mr. Tiahrt.
  I would just like to point out that this incident demonstrated that 
children can, unfortunately, be exposed to mercury from contaminated 
industrial sites. The amendment will help ensure that funding will be 
available for any Member in any district that this may take place.

[[Page 17482]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         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, $2,703,000: 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, $9,549,000: Provided, That the Chemical Safety 
     and Hazard Investigation Board shall have not more than three 
     career Senior Executive Service positions: Provided further, 
     that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     individual appointed to the position of Inspector General of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall, by virtue of 
     such appointment, also hold the position of Inspector General 
     of the Board: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Inspector General of the Board 
     shall utilize personnel of the Office of Inspector General of 
     EPA in performing the duties of the Inspector General of the 
     Board, and shall not appoint any individuals to positions 
     within the Board.

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $9,000,000, 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), 
     $7,297,000.

                        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, $536,295,000, of which 
     $1,578,000 for fellowships and scholarly awards shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2009, including such funds as 
     may be necessary to support 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, 
     $116,100,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $10,000 is for services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.

                        National Gallery of Art

                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $101,850,000, 
     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, $18,017,000, 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.

             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, $20,200,000.

                     capital repair and restoration

       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, $23,150,000, 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, $10,000,000.

           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, 
     $160,000,000 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, for program 
     support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated herein shall be expended in accordance with 
     sections 309 and 311 of Public Law 108-447.

                 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, 
     $145,500,000, 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, $14,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $9,500,000 shall be available to the 
     National Endowment for the

[[Page 17483]]

     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 
     section 309(1) of division E, Public Law 108-447, is amended 
     by inserting ``National Opera Fellowship,'' after ``National 
     Heritage Fellowship''.

                        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), $2,092,000: 
     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, $10,000,000: Provided, That no 
     organization shall receive a grant in excess of $650,000 in a 
     single year.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $5,348,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $8,265,000: 
     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), 
     $44,996,000, 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, $22,400,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended.

      White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the White House Commission on the 
     National Moment of Remembrance, $200,000, which shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     ``Departmental Administration, General Operating Expenses'' 
     account and be administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 402. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which Congressional action is not complete 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 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 in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 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, 2008, 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 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, 109-54, 109-289, 
     division B and Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 
     (division B of Public Law 109-289, as amended by Public Law 
     110-5) for payments 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 2007 for such purposes, except that the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs and federally-recognized tribes may use their 
     tribal priority allocations for unmet contract support costs 
     of ongoing contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or 
     annual funding agreements.
       Sec. 410. 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

[[Page 17484]]

     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. 411. 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. 412. In entering into agreements with foreign 
     countries pursuant to the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1856m) the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior are authorized to enter into 
     reciprocal agreements in which the individuals furnished 
     under said agreements to provide wildfire services are 
     considered, for purposes of tort liability, employees of the 
     country receiving said services when the individuals are 
     engaged in fire suppression: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior shall not enter 
     into any agreement under this provision unless the foreign 
     country (either directly or through its fire organization) 
     agrees to assume any and all liability for the acts or 
     omissions of American firefighters engaged in firefighting in 
     a foreign country: Provided further, That when an agreement 
     is reached for furnishing fire fighting services, the only 
     remedies for acts or omissions committed while fighting fires 
     shall be those provided under the laws of the host country, 
     and those remedies shall be the exclusive remedies for any 
     claim arising out of fighting fires in a foreign country: 
     Provided further, That neither the sending country nor any 
     legal organization associated with the firefighter shall be 
     subject to any legal action whatsoever pertaining to or 
     arising out of the firefighter's role in fire suppression.
       Sec. 413. In awarding a Federal contract with funds made 
     available by this Act, notwithstanding Federal Government 
     procurement and contracting laws, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (the 
     ``Secretaries'') may, in evaluating bids and proposals, give 
     consideration to local contractors who are from, and who 
     provide employment and training for, dislocated and displaced 
     workers in an economically disadvantaged rural community, 
     including those historically timber-dependent areas that have 
     been affected by reduced timber harvesting on Federal lands 
     and other forest-dependent rural communities isolated from 
     significant alternative employment opportunities: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding Federal Government procurement and 
     contracting laws the Secretaries may award contracts, grants 
     or cooperative agreements to local non-profit entities, Youth 
     Conservation Corps or related partnerships with State, local 
     or non-profit youth groups, or small or micro-business or 
     disadvantaged business: Provided further, That the contract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement is for forest hazardous fuels 
     reduction, watershed or water quality monitoring or 
     restoration, wildlife or fish population monitoring, or 
     habitat restoration or management: Provided further, That the 
     terms ``rural community'' and ``economically disadvantaged'' 
     shall have the same meanings as in section 2374 of Public Law 
     101-624: Provided further, That the Secretaries shall develop 
     guidance to implement this section: Provided further, That 
     nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the 
     Secretaries of any duty under applicable procurement laws, 
     except as provided in this section.
       Sec. 414. (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 2008, not more 
     than $3,450,000 may be used by the Secretary of the Interior 
     to initiate or continue competitive sourcing studies in 
     fiscal year 2008 for programs, projects, and activities for 
     which funds are appropriated by this Act.
       (2) None of the funds available to the Forest Service may 
     be used in fiscal year 2008 for competitive sourcing studies 
     and related activities.
       (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) In preparing any reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations on competitive sourcing activities, agencies 
     funded in this Act shall include the incremental cost 
     directly attributable to conducting the competitive sourcing 
     competitions, including costs attributable to paying outside 
     consultants and contractors and, in accordance with full cost 
     accounting principles, all costs attributable to developing, 
     implementing, supporting, managing, monitoring, and reporting 
     on competitive sourcing, including personnel, consultant, 
     travel, and training costs associated with program 
     management.
       (d) In carrying out any competitive sourcing study 
     involving Department of the Interior employees, the Secretary 
     of the Interior 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 
     Department of the Interior to effectively and efficiently 
     fight and manage wildfires.
       Sec. 415. Section 331 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, regarding the 
     pilot program to enhance Forest Service administration of 
     rights-of-way (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 
     ``2012''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2012''.
       Sec. 416. Section 321 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, regarding Forest 
     Service cooperative agreements with third parties that are of 
     mutually significant benefit (division F of Public Law 108-7; 
     117 Stat. 274; 16 U.S.C. 565a-1 note) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 2010''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. 
Shea-Porter) for a colloquy.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your 
leadership on this bill, in particular for your strong support of 
increased funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System which 
protects our valuable natural resources and wildlife and maintains more 
than 96 million acres of land across the country.
  I also want to thank ranking member Tiahrt and the entire Interior 
and Environment Subcommittee for their tireless work on this bill and, 
importantly, for including language and funding to help address some of 
the most pressing problems facing our National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Mr. Chairman, the staffing shortages plaguing our wildlife refuges 
have been brought on by years of underfunding and a lack of commitment 
to ensuring that these pristine lands are kept safe, secure and 
properly maintained. The language included in the bill before us is a 
big step in the right direction, but I think you would agree it is only 
a first step.
  We will need to do more if we want to alleviate the strain put on our 
refuges, like the Great Bay Wildlife Refuge along the eastern shore of 
New Hampshire. Great Bay protects a number of both Federal- and State-
protected species, including the symbol of our American freedom, the 
Bald Eagle. However, funding shortages have caused the refuge system to 
severely cut back on staff at Great Bay over the past few years.

                              {time}  1730

  What once was a staff of four has been reduced to one, and now the 
refuge system has announced that they will be eliminating that position 
as early as next month. This will leave a major wildlife refuge with no 
full-time staff and totally unprotected for the large majority of the 
time. With over 60,000 visitors a year, this lack of staffing could 
pose a serious threat to the wildlife and ecosystem protected in Great 
Bay.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is strong language in your bill 
regarding the staffing shortages at refuges across the country. May I 
clarify that the increased funding provided to the wildlife refuge 
system through the operations and management accounts is meant to help 
the system address these shortfalls and ensure that staff is placed 
where needed to protect these environments?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, that is correct. As written in the committee record, 
the committee believes it is important to address the shortfalls in 
staffing around the Nation, and we have provided the largest 
operational increase in the history of the refuge system to do so.

[[Page 17485]]

  We have also included language directing consideration to those 
areas, like Great Bay, that have pressing shortfalls and needs.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee has also 
included language addressing the problem of complexes. Would the 
chairman clarify the committee intent to reduce the number of complexes 
where refuges are consolidated into groups with staff overseeing 
multiple sites, sometimes with great distances between them?
  Mr. DICKS. That is also correct. The committee includes language in 
our report directing the system to reduce the number of complexes. The 
increased funding is to be used to address staffing shortfalls, and the 
committee does not view the use of complexes as a sufficient means for 
managing refuges.
  These complexes move the staff too far from the communities and 
resources that they serve, and we have asked that the number of 
complexes be reduced to the maximum extent possible.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his strong 
position on protecting these national treasures.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you for your good work on this. Protecting our 
national wildlife refuges was one of our major priorities in the 
subcommittee. We are pleased to have your support for the bill and this 
effort.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE V--GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

       Sec. 501. (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, droughts, and wildfires;
       (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.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sullivan

  Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. Sullivan:
       Page 110, begining on line 20, strike section 501 and 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 501. It is the sense of the Congress that no 
     Federally-mandated steps should be taken to mitigate global 
     climate change if those steps would harm American consumers, 
     workers, or businesses in any way.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point 
of order against the amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. Any 
thoughtful legislation must ensure four things: That the lights stay 
on, that driving a car stays affordable, energy prices stay 
competitive, and that we protect people's jobs. If we think that we can 
achieve these goals without a continuing role for domestic fossil 
fuels, we're kidding ourselves.
  We are addressing global warming, but we are not doing it in a 
vacuum. We are also charged with making sure that people in America 
have energy that power our jobs, and through them, our people's 
opportunity to succeed. If we do our jobs, people will keep their jobs.
  I accept that the science on this matter is uneven, uncertain and 
evolving. That certainty hasn't changed, but now we seem to be 
pressuring ourselves, or someone is pressuring us, to legislate first 
and get the facts later. I hope we don't do that. I want to make sure 
that we get the best information available so we have a full and 
accurate definition of the problem before we start making decisions.
  We have to be clear about the issues before us. Discussion of 
mandatory steps to cap CO2 often misses the essential fact. 
Carbon dioxide, unlike carbon monoxide, and other compounds ending in 
``oxide'' is not toxic. It is not a pollutant. Not only is it natural, 
it is indispensable for life on this planet.
  What we need to understand is how does CO2 fit into the 
atmospheric mix? I am told all CO2 is only 0.038 percent of 
the atmospheric gases.
  How does the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion fit into the 
total annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere? I am told it is 
only 0.4 percent of this amount.
  How does U.S. fossil fuel consumption fit into mankind's overall 
share of fossil fuel energy use? I am told it is 22 percent and 
shrinking. That means if we shut down 100 percent of all fossil fuels 
in the United States, we would only reduce CO2 growth in the 
atmosphere by 0.088 percent. That is 0.0003 percent of atmospheric 
gases, and China will be filling in the gap and then some.
  How much will any legislation we consider actually change the total 
U.S. emissions and, in turn, change total human emissions and, in turn, 
affect global greenhouse gas concentrations?
  What will it cost? The people who will pay for our policy decisions 
are taxpayers and consumers and workers. What amount is the right 
amount to take from them and their families for our policies?
  And we need to understand whether well-meaning steps to cap 
CO2 here and now will simply drive industry offshore where 
control of actual pollution such SOX, NOX, 
mercury and particulate is far more lax.
  Whether we like it or not, CO2 correlates to national 
economic activity. That means jobs and the ability of working families 
to thrive is defined by jobs. Despite impressive gains in energy 
intensity over the past few years, a basic reality is that with the 
technology mix deployed today, to cap CO2 emissions 
constraints economic output, jeopardizes economic growth, and 
eliminates people's jobs.
  It is imperative that we reach rational conclusions, based on real 
evidence, about the reliability of our knowledge that CO2 
has the sort of impact on planetary temperature as people say.
  At an Energy and Commerce hearing earlier this year, we learned that 
a cap-and-trade program added 40 percent to the wholesale cost of 
electricity in Germany. A cap-and-trade program could lead to real rate 
shock for electric consumers. High electricity costs will only drive 
manufacturers overseas, and American jobs will go along with them.
  This cap-and-trade approach has been proven unworkable in countries 
that signed the Kyoto Protocol, and it would be unworkable in the 
United States. Few participants in the protocol are on track to achieve 
the international targets for carbon emissions reduction. An increasing 
number of the countries are unwilling to strangle economic growth 
through stricter carbon caps in the future.
  Another fundamental flaw with the Kyoto agreement is the exclusion of 
India and China from its reach, particularly when China is soon to 
claim the distinction of being the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 
the world.
  The United States cap-and-trade program would fall the same failed 
trajectory as Kyoto. Its artificially high energy costs would cripple 
the United States manufacturing base and suppress job creation for 
working American families. And that's not all. Two of our greatest 
economic competitors in the world market, India and China, won't have 
to cap emissions and pay a premium for energy. Those two countries will 
laugh all of the way to the bank, and the joke will be on us. They will 
use it as an economic weapon.
  What is very important when we look at this very important matter, we 
need to take our time, we need to gather the

[[Page 17486]]

facts, and we need to educate other Members. The decisions we make will 
impact Americans for a long time in the future.


                             Point of Order

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington wish to be 
heard on his point of order?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized on 
his point of order.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill; and, therefore, violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think to strike this because it 
authorizes on an appropriations bill would be duplicative of what the 
current language does. It also authorizes on an appropriations bill, so 
I think the amendment should be made in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The amendment proposes additional legislation to that permitted to 
remain in section 501 by addressing efforts to mitigate climate change 
beyond those contained in that section. Such additional legislation 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barton of Texas:
       Strike section 501 (relating to global climate change).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that we just had that 
point of order offered by my good friend, Mr. Dicks. Under the Armey 
rule, the former majority leader, the chairmen of the authorizing 
committees could send letters to the Rules Committee on appropriation 
bills and any part of the appropriation bill that was actually 
legislating on an appropriation bill, there was a standing point of 
order made in order that you could strike it.
  So we wouldn't have had the Sullivan amendment and we would not have 
the amendment that I am about to offer if the current chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, had sent such a letter to 
the Rules Committee asking to reserve the point of order on this 
section 501. But Chairman Dingell didn't do that, and so it is in the 
bill and Mr. Dicks can make a point of order that an amendment to it 
should be struck because it is legislating on an appropriation bill. 
What a great place this body is that we work in.
  So what my amendment does is pretty straightforward. It strikes 
section 501. That cannot be ruled out of order. It can be voted down, 
and we will have a vote on this. But the Davis amendment that I am 
offering on his behalf can't be struck on a point of order.
  What is it about this section 501 that is so onerous? Let me briefly 
synthesize what it says. I think it says some things that are factually 
incorrect.
  It says that the Congress finds that greenhouse gases accumulating in 
the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate 
outside the range of natural variability. I think that a factually 
incorrect statement. It is a true statement that the temperature 
apparently is rising compared to what it was 150 years ago. In the late 
1840s and early 1850s, temperature averages at most places that kept 
temperature records at that time were 1 to 2 degrees cooler than they 
are now. And the temperature appears to be going up. That is a true 
statement.
  But I don't think that it is true that the temperature rate increase 
is outside the range of natural variability. The one thing about 
climate that is constant is that it is constantly changing.
  The second incorrect statement is subparagraph 2 where it says there 
is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial 
cause of greenhouse gas accumulation.
  Now I think it is indisputable that as we burn many of the 
hydrocarbons, obviously they are releasing CO2 which is a 
greenhouse gas and that is accumulating in the atmosphere. That is a 
true statement. But whether that is a substantial cause is yet to be 
determined.
  I would point out that the largest greenhouse gas by far is 
H2O, water vapor. When you see a cloud in the sky, you are 
seeing a greenhouse gas accumulation in the sky. And water vapor is 
over 90 percent of all greenhouse gases. CO2, carbon 
dioxide, is less than \3/10\ of 1 percent. So how could something that 
is such a small percentage be the cause of this temperature increase? 
It is an interesting theory, but it is yet to be proven.
  In any event, because of these first two paragraphs, we get to the 
meat of the issue in section 501, and that is mandatory steps are 
required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. 
Mandatory. Coercive. You have to do it whether you want to or not. You 
have to do it whether it makes sense or not.
  We are far from a place, in my opinion, where we need to begin to 
legislate mandatory approaches, and that's what is so bad about this 
section 501. Now you may argue it is a sense of the Congress what is it 
going to do. It is just to show where we are. Well, I would point out 
that in the late 1970s, early 1980s, you begin to have these temporary 
1-year moratoriums on drilling off the coast of various parts of our 
country. They seemed relatively harmless at the time. What could be 
wrong with that?

                              {time}  1745

  That has grown into such a significant part that it's almost 
impossible right now to drill anywhere in the United States that we 
haven't already been drilling for the last hundred years. There's a 
limit to how many holes we can drill in Texas. We've drilled over 2 
million since 1901. We've found a lot of oil and gas, but at some point 
in time, we've got to drill where we haven't drilled before. In any 
event, section 501 is bad public policy and this amendment would strike 
it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Becerra). The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I appreciate that.
  The language in title V of this bill is identical to language added 
by the Appropriations Committee last year to the FY 2007 Interior bill 
when the Appropriations Committee was being run by the minority party 
of today. Since that time, this sense of the Congress has been 
supported by both an international scientific body and the United 
States Supreme Court.
  First, the sense of Congress states that ``there is a growing 
scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of 
greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.'' So far this year, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group consisting of 
hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, has issued two reports on 
the science of climate change, with a third report to be issued later 
this year. The panel's first report, issued in February, concluded that 
there is an overwhelming probability, at least 90 percent certainty, 
that human activities are warming the planet at a dangerous rate, with 
consequences that could take decades or centuries to reverse. The 
panel's second report on the consequences of global warming concluded 
``with high confidence'' that greenhouse gases produced by human 
activity has already triggered changes in ecosystems on both land and 
sea. As

[[Page 17487]]

evidence, the report cited longer growing seasons, earlier leaf-
unfolding and earlier egg-laying by birds, traceable to human activity. 
The report estimates that 20 to 30 percent of the world's species could 
be in danger of extinction.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, who I think did a 
good job as chairman of the Commerce Committee, but this is a sense of 
Congress. It's the authorizing committees that will enact the 
legislation. What this does is express concern that this problem must 
be addressed.
  Clearly, the sense of Congress correctly captures the state of global 
change science.
  Second, the sense of Congress states that mandatory steps will be 
required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into 
the atmosphere. In April of this year, the United States Supreme Court 
ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases from 
automobiles. The court also held that EPA has the discretion not to 
regulate only under very limited scenarios. This decision has been 
widely interpreted to force the administration to propose regulations 
to control greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the Supreme Court agrees 
with what I would consider our sense of Congress resolution.
  Again, I state my opposition to the gentleman's amendment and urge a 
``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I just wanted to mention to the chairman and to the House 
that even though this is a sense of Congress, I think that it is 
opposed enough in the way it is worded that the amendment should be 
agreed to and the language should be stricken. For example, in the very 
beginning, where, number one, it says, ``greenhouse gases accumulating 
in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate 
outside the range of natural variability,'' we had a lot of testimony 
in this Subcommittee of Interior about this very issue. It was very 
clear that the scientists that study this say that we have large gaps 
in the scientific data, and it is still inconclusive.
  One of the great examples of this is the ocean itself. The ocean 
itself is a carbon bank. It retains carbon sometimes. When it gets 
warmer, it actually allows carbon to go up into the atmosphere in the 
form of CO2. That in itself brings the question whether 
carbon in our atmosphere is a cause of heat or whether heat is a cause 
of carbon in the air. If you look at the core samples that are found in 
the Antarctic which have been drilled down to go back and date what our 
environment was like hundreds of thousands of years ago, we find that 
there is a high carbon content in our atmosphere when our earth was 
warmer. And we do know that our earth is getting warmer. In fact, 
10,000 years ago, Kansas was covered by a sheet of ice.
  Just a weekend ago or so, I was back there playing golf, and I can 
tell you for sure, there is no ice covering the State of Kansas today. 
Why? Because the earth is getting warmer. But for us to say that the 
cause is human-induced raises the question. Even the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change when they looked at it this year, revised their 
estimate of the ocean going up because of climate change, from going up 
to 36 inches. They revised it downward to only going up 17 inches. So 
that means that they were half off.
  They said that, as far as climate change, it's human-induced, and 
they have a 90 percent confidence level. Well, if that's based on their 
estimate of what the water level is going to be 10 years or 50 years 
from now, then they are admittedly 50 percent off, so that means 
they've only got a 45 percent confidence level. That means less than 
half.
  My point is that there is no growing scientific consensus on the 
cause of climate change. In fact, it may be a normal cycle that we're 
going through. And, in fact, it may be a cycle that is moving us into a 
cooler climate rather than a warmer climate. So this language, I think, 
makes assumptions that are based on data that is inconclusive. The 
scientists tell us there are gaps in the data. It certainly isn't a 
consensus of Congress from my view. So I would think that we should 
adopt the gentleman's amendment.
  I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to comment briefly on what Chairman Dicks said about this 
being in the bill last year. He is factually correct. We reserved a 
point of order on it last year. And the member of the committee that I 
chaired at the time who was supposed to make the point of order was 
caught in the cloakroom eating a candy bar, and the crafty 
appropriators closed the title before we could make the point of order. 
So it was in the bill last year only because we were asleep at the 
switch when it was our turn to raise the point of order. At least I'm 
not asleep at the switch this year.
  Mr. DICKS. I would hope we're not asleep at the switch again, as the 
planet is heating up, and climate change is occurring.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I agree that the temperature is going up. It's the cause 
that is a concern for me. The wording here says that we already know 
what the cause is and we should move forward and try to do something to 
stop it, and that includes some very drastic types of actions, 
including caps and market-based limits on incentives, mandatory market-
based limits, I might say. It's my view that those things have not been 
successful in the past. In fact, when we did mandatory limits, I 
thought we ended up with gas lines and higher gas prices. That's my 
view.
  I would ask that my colleagues here in the House accept this 
amendment and vote for it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. Bishop of Utah:
       At the end of the bill, before the long title, add the 
     following new section:
       ``Sec. __. No funds made available by this Act shall be 
     used to condemn land.''

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in my short time as the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, 
I have already heard a number of stories from property owners who have 
been threatened or bullied with the hammer of eminent domain. Thousands 
of acres each year are taken from private citizens and against their 
will in order to expand our national parks and our national forests. 
This is done in spite of the fact that the Federal Government has so 
much land it cannot possibly manage what it already has.
  Landowners, when faced with the possibility of a long, protracted war 
against bureaucrats, land managers and legions of Federal lawyers, 
often choose simply to walk away. What is most outrageous then is the 
fact that these people are then labeled by us as willing sellers.

[[Page 17488]]

  This has happened to landowners across our Nation. We've had examples 
from people living near the Everglades in Florida, to the Cape Cod 
National Seashore in Massachusetts, to Voyageurs National Park in 
Minnesota, just a few places where there has been, in my estimation, 
egregious abuse by the Federal Government.
  I have letters from a family in Maine who endured 20 years in a 
battle with the Federal Government. They wrote that the negotiations 
between my family and the Park Service over what could have been a 
simple land donation exceeded 20 years and had a serious, long-term 
detrimental effect on my family, the ski area they owned, the 
surrounding community. Eventually, after millions of dollars were lost 
and countless hours of time from high-ranking State and Federal 
officials were consumed, strained professional careers of an entire at-
risk community and the negative health and financial repercussions of 
my family members, this issue was finally resolved. For now.
  Here is another example of a Franciscan friar who talked about the 
threats of eminent domain that hanged over his ministry for years and 
years and years. In his words, again, simply over 118 acres of the 
friar's property: We offered the National Park Service the opportunity 
to switch back the trail to the original setting, so that not only the 
trail could be maintained, but there would be a natural environment for 
it. But the National Park Service refused this option and threatened to 
proceed with eminent domain. There is no reason that that friar and his 
ministry should have had that hanging over his head for years and years 
and years.
  Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Interior has the power in statute for 
using this hammer of eminent domain. Even today, when we do 
authorization bills, we don't even have the sense to try and limit that 
kind of authority or power. Even in those situations where it is 
clearly said in the testimony and in the hearings that they do not want 
to use eminent domain, we do nothing to try and stop that potential 
authority. If we really say that we don't want to use eminent domain to 
acquire these lands, we ought as well use the logical step of saying 
so.
  In light of the Kelo decision, so many people are now aware of the 
potential abuse by government entities on private property through the 
use of eminent domain, now is the time for us clearly to say that 
private property is important, and it should be respected by the 
Federal Government. That's exactly what this amendment tries to do, is 
to clarify that we do respect private property; we respect it, and we 
will not use eminent domain to take land away from private citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  We will accept the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on that 
last motion.
  Mr. DICKS. I think the time has expired, Mr. Chairman. This was not 
done in a timely way.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is correct. The 
gentleman from Utah's request was not timely.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try one thing here. I will ask under 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. DICKS. I object.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


     Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas:
       Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to promulgate or implement the Environmental 
     Protection Agency proposed regulations published in the 
     Federal Register on January 3, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 69).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I 
would like to commend the gentleman from Washington and Chairman Dicks 
and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for their good work on this 
underlying bill.
  The amendment I offered today stems directly from concerns I have 
over a recently proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency 
that could radically alter the current interpretation of the Clean Air 
Act and adversely impact public health.
  On December 21 last year, 4 days before Christmas, EPA introduced a 
cleverly timed proposal that would essentially weaken hazardous air 
pollutant emission standards for major sources of pollution as defined 
by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. My amendment would prohibit the 
use of fiscal year 2008 funds by EPA to promulgate this ill-advised and 
environmentally dangerous proposal.
  Currently, major sources, major source polluters, facilities that 
emit 10 tons per year of a single air toxin or 25 tons per year of any 
combination of toxic pollutants are required to comply with the Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology standards, called MACT, permanently, a 
policy adopted in 1995 known as Once In, Always In.''
  MACT standards are technology-based area emission standards 
established under title 3 of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment. 
Compliance with MACT standards can require facility owners and 
operators to meet emission limits, install emission control 
technologies, monitor emissions and/or operating parameters and use 
specified work practices.
  These public safeguard standards have proven most effective in 
reducing toxic, harmful, cancer-causing eye pollutants such as mercury, 
chlorine, benzene, methanol and asbestos. If EPA's proposed rule were 
to take effect, industrial facilities could emit hazardous air 
pollutants at levels just below 10/25 major source thresholds and not 
be subject to the MACT standards.
  This move has been criticized by the State clean air agencies, our 
regional officers, our major metropolitan leaders, as well as the 
county leaders and environmental groups. A majority of EPA's own 
regional offices initially excluded from viewing and providing input on 
the proposed policy have been highly critical of the proposed rule 
citing health and emission concerns.
  EPA has done very little to justify such a dramatic shift in 
congressional intent or the agency's own long-standing interpretation. 
Moreover, the Agency has performed very little, if any, substantive 
emissions analysis, and they have performed no public health analysis 
for any industrial sector. In my view the Agency's proposed rule 
represents another installment of regulatory attacks designed to gut 
the Clean Air Act.
  The public health of this Nation should not be forced to take the 
back seat to the interest of big polluters. The congressional 
authorities captured in section 112 of Clean Air Act are intended to 
ensure that major source emitters of hazardous air pollutants are 
required to comply with MACT standards permanently to ensure that the 
elimination of air toxics are achieved and maintained in the interest 
of public health.
  In 1995, upon adoption of the ``once in, always in'' policy, EPA 
stated the following:
  ``EPA believes that this once in, always in policy follows most 
naturally from the language and structure of the [Clean Air Act] 
statute. In many cases, application of MACT will reduce a major 
emitter's emissions to levels

[[Page 17489]]

substantially below the major thresholds.
  ``Without a once in, always in policy, these facilities could 
`backslide' from MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit 
limits, escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing 
emissions to the major source threshold.
  ``Thus, the maximum achievable emission reductions that Congress 
mandated from major sources would not be achieved.
  ``A once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emission reductions 
are permanent, and that the health and environment protection provided 
by MACT standards is not undermined.''
  In the Federal Register, the Agency raged on and on about how great 
the proposed rule is for major source polluters, because it will create 
incentives for industry to reduce emissions.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. When it comes to quantifying the 
implications of this proposal on the environment and public health of 
this Nation, the Agency is silent.
  The burden of proof regarding soundness of this proposed rule rests 
squarely on the shoulders of EPA. Thus far, the Agency has failed, at 
best, to make even a lackluster case.
  My constituents in Dallas and the surrounding area are already 
burdened by the scarlet letter of nonattainment. I refuse to let their 
public health be subject to another further deterioration from a 
proposal laced with tortured assumptions. This is an unsound policy 
that should be stopped.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting clean air, a healthy 
environment, and a strong Clean Air Act. Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson 
amendment and the Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill.
  While I appreciate the vigor of the opposing side's view on this 
matter, it is my respectful view that they are simply wrong on this 
matter.
  I would like to amplify an area of concern raised by EPA's own 
regional offices regarding enforcement should the once in, always in 
policy be negated.
  In a 2005 Regional Memorandum to EPA Headquarters, the regions assert 
the following:

       A related concern with regard to the draft changes as 
     written is that a facility, by changing from a major source 
     to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid 
     regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against 
     them.
       Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT 
     standard, and has 3 years from the date the rule is 
     promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and 
     just before the end of that time period, the facility 
     announces its area source status.
       If an area source regulation exists, there may also be some 
     equivalent waiting period before the facility is required to 
     comply with the area source requirements.
       If the facility later announces that it is after all, a 
     major source, then it may again enter a grace period, 
     possibly up to another 3 years, before it is subject to the 
     MACT standard requirements.
       Thus, by continually going back and forth between major and 
     area source status, a facility could be a major source 
     [polluter] for most of its operating life and never have to 
     comply with the MACT standard requirements.

  Again Mr. Chairman, these are not my words but those of EPA's own 
regional offices.
  Mr. Chairman, my congressional district lies within the heart of EPA 
Region 6. Throughout Region 6 there are approximately 3,000 major 
source polluters according to EPA data.
  If EPA's rule were to take effect, based on the guidance of EPA's own 
regional offices I just referenced, 3,000 major source polluters could 
continually backslide on a public health safeguard meant to minimize my 
constituent's exposure to toxic, cancer causing air pollutants.
  Clearly, this was not the intent of Congress as reflected in Section 
112 of the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a memorandum dated December 
13, 2005, from Michael S. Bandrowski, Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and 
Indoor Air Office, Region IX, of the Environmental Protection Agency.
                                       United States Environmental


                                 Protection Agency, Region IX.

                             San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2005.


            Regional Comments on Draft OIAI Policy Revisions

     David Cozzie,
     Group Leader, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Office 
         of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
       Thank you for allowing the Regional Offices the opportunity 
     to comment on the draft proposed changes to the General 
     Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, intended to replace EPA's Once-
     in-Always-In (OIAI) policy established in a May 16, 1995, 
     memorandum entitled, ``Potential to Emit for MACT standards--
     Guidance on Timing Issues,'' from John S. Seitz to the 
     Regional Air Directors. A draft copy of the proposed changes, 
     dated November 16, 2005, was received by Region IX on 
     November 30, 2005, and we shared this copy with the Regional 
     Offices. As sub-lead Region for air toxics, we have 
     summarized and consolidated the feedback received from the 
     Regional Offices, and are forwarding these Regional comments 
     and concerns through this memo. Eight Regions provided 
     comments. For your convenience, the original comments from 
     each Regional Office are included as attachments to this 
     memo.
       Over the years, many questions and implementation issues 
     have arisen that have initiated the reconsideration of the 
     OIAI policy. The new revisions being planned by OAQPS would 
     essentially negate the original policy, and this change would 
     be codified in the 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions. This 
     change in policy would have major implications for 
     implementation and enforcement of the maximum achievable 
     control technology (MACT) standards. The Regional Offices, 
     therefore, appreciate the opportunity to review and comment 
     on HQ drafts before the revisions are proposed in the Federal 
     Register for public comment. However, we are disappointed 
     that OAQPS formulated revisions to the OIAI policy without 
     seeking Regional input and was reluctant to share the draft 
     policy with the Regional Offices. This trend of excluding the 
     Regional Offices from involvement in rule and policy 
     development efforts is disturbing. We are requesting that 
     OAQPS establish a means for Regional input during the 
     development of future policies and rules.
       With regard to the OIAI policy, all the Regional Offices 
     that submitted comments acknowledged the need for a change 
     from the 1995 guidance in limited circumstances. For example, 
     if EPA finalizes the delisting of methyl ethyl ketone as a 
     hazardous air pollutant (HAP), it would be logical for EPA to 
     allow existing major sources of HAPs to reevaluate their PTE, 
     excluding emissions of methyl ethyl ketone. Likewise, if a 
     source eliminates, or significantly reduces their use of 
     HAPs, then it would be reasonable for EPA to allow such a 
     source to reevaluate MACT standard applicability. In 
     addition, certain pollution prevention benefits may follow in 
     circumstances where a source has an incentive to obtain 
     actual reductions in emissions of HAPs equivalent to or 
     greater than the level required by the MACT standard with 
     less burden and cost. Overall, the Regions support the intent 
     behind the draft proposed amendments to provide incentive to 
     companies for engaging in emission-reducing activities. 
     Several Regions also explicitly stated their support of 
     revising the policy through a public rulemaking process and 
     encouraging sources to explore different control technologies 
     and pollution prevention options to reduce emissions and 
     potential to emit (PTE). One Region was supportive of the 
     change in policy as drafted. However, all other Regional 
     Offices expressed varying degrees of concern about allowing 
     any source to take synthetic minor limits at any time, for 
     any reason. The concerns are described below, followed by 
     suggestions for addressing these concerns while still 
     encouraging existing MACT sources to take actions towards 
     pollution prevention. Our comments are organized as follows:
       1. Reversal of Position with Inadequate Justification
       The May 16, 1995, Seitz memo regarding potential to emit 
     for MACT standards states: EPA believes that this once in, 
     always in policy follows most naturally from the language and 
     structure of the statute. In many cases, application of MACT 
     will reduce a major emitter's emissions to levels 
     substantially below the major thresholds. Without a once in, 
     always in policy, these facilities could ``backslide'' from 
     MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit limits, 
     escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing 
     emissions to the major-source threshold (10/25 tons per 
     year).
       Thus, the maximum achievable emissions reductions that 
     Congress mandated for major sources would not be achieved. A 
     once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emissions 
     reductions are permanent, and that the health and 
     environmental protection provided by MACT standards is not 
     undermined. (See page 9)
       Elsewhere, the Seitz memo states: In the absence of a 
     rulemaking record supporting a different result, EPA believes 
     that once a source is required to install controls or take 
     other measures to comply with a MACT standard, it should not 
     be able to substitute different controls of measures that 
     happen to bring the source below major source levels. (See 
     page 5)

[[Page 17490]]

       While it is true that policy is not set in stone, and that 
     policy decisions may be reversed, the preamble, as currently 
     drafted, does not set forth an adequate rulemaking record to 
     justify this drastic change in interpretation. In 1995, EPA 
     believed that the OIAI policy follows ``most naturally'' from 
     the language and structure of the statute, and that allowing 
     facilities to backslide would undermine the maximum 
     achievable emissions reductions mandated by Congress. Now, in 
     2005, EPA is claiming that ``there is nothing in the statute 
     which compels the conclusion that a source cannot attain area 
     source status after the first compliance date of a MACT 
     standard'' (see page 15 of the draft proposed changes). In 
     order to provide an adequate rulemaking record, the preamble 
     should more clearly articulate why EPA no longer believes 
     that the OIAI policy flows naturally from the statute.
       2. Increased HAP Emissions Resulting from Abandoning MACT 
     Control Levels
       The Clean Air Act requires the maximum degree of reduction 
     in emissions of HAPs from sources subject to the MACT 
     standards. The reductions anticipated through the MACT 
     program will not be achieved through the strategy described 
     in the draft rule proposal. A key concern is that the draft 
     proposal allows facilities to obtain synthetic minor permits 
     after the MACT standard compliance date by taking potentially 
     less protective requirements than the MACT standard would 
     otherwise require them to install. The proposal, as written, 
     would be detrimental to the environment and undermine the 
     intent of the MACT program.
       Many MACT standards require affected facilities to reduce 
     their HAP levels at a control efficiency of 95% and higher. 
     In many instances, the MACT requirements could lead to 
     greater reductions when compared to sources accepting 
     synthetic minor limits of 24 tons per year (tpy) for a 
     combination of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. Clearly, the 
     intent in promulgating MACT standards was to reduce emissions 
     to the extent feasible, not just to the minor source level. 
     However, under the current draft proposal, the reductions 
     that were intended to be achieved through the MACT standards 
     would be offset by synthetic minor limits that allow sources 
     to emit HAPs at levels higher than those allowed by the MACT 
     standard. The cost of the increased HAP emissions would be 
     borne by the communities surrounding the sources. On pages 15 
     and 16 of the draft preamble, EPA states:
       ``A concern has been raised that sources that are currently 
     well below the major source threshold will increase emissions 
     to a point just below the threshold. We believe these 
     concerns are unfounded. While this may occur in some 
     instances, it is more likely that sources will adopt PTE 
     limitations at or near their current levels to avoid negative 
     publicity and to maintain their appearance as responsible 
     businesses.''
       This statement is unfounded and overly optimistic. Regional 
     experience indicates that sources requesting synthetic minor 
     limits to avoid a MACT standard typicaI1y request, and are 
     frequently given, limits of at least 24 tpy for a combination 
     of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. The Regional Offices 
     anticipate that many sources would take limits less stringent 
     than MACT requirements, if allowed. Thus, the cumulative 
     impact of many ``area'' sources whose status is derived after 
     the MACT compliance date could be significant. This change in 
     policy would offset the intended environmental benefits of 
     the MACT standards. Although the draft changes could serve to 
     alleviate some possible inequity under the current OIAI 
     policy, or encourage some sources to further reduce emissions 
     to achieve area source status, EPA should look closely at 
     this issue to determine whether the likely benefits would be 
     greater than the potential environmental costs. This analysis 
     should occur before the proposal is put forth for public 
     comment. One Region suggested that EPA should not enact a 
     policy allowing facilities to qualify out of the MACT 
     standards until a strong area source toxics program is in 
     place, or until state, local and tribal air quality agencies 
     have programs that can provide an equivalent level of 
     protection.
       A related concern with regard to the draft changes as 
     written is that a facility, by changing from a major source 
     to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid 
     regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against 
     them. Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT 
     standard, and has three years from the date that the rule is 
     promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and 
     just before the end of that time period, the facility 
     announces its area source status. If an area source 
     regulation exists, there may also be some equivalent waiting 
     period before the facility is required to comply with the 
     area source requirements. If the facility later announces 
     that it is, after all, a major source, then it may again 
     enter a grace period, possibly up to another 3 years, before 
     it is subject to the MACT standard requirements. Thus, by 
     continually going back and forth between major and area 
     source status, a facility could be a major source for most of 
     its operating life and never have to comply with the MACT 
     standard requirements. The 1995 OIAI policy recognizes this 
     and states, ``The EPA believes the structure of section 112 
     strongly suggests certain outer limits for when a source may 
     avoid a standard through a limit on its potential to emit.'' 
     This type of problem must be addressed if the OIAI policy is 
     changed.
                                            Michael S. Bandrowski,
       Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and Indoor Air Office, Region 
                                                               IX.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlelady's 
amendment. EPA's proposed rule would weaken almost every air toxic rule 
issued since 1990 by allowing some air pollution sources to increase 
their emissions. EPA purports that the proposed changes would encourage 
more sources to strive for additional reductions of toxic air 
pollution. Yet the EPA cannot provide concrete data to support this 
assumption and has avoided quantifying the environmental impacts of 
this proposal.
  In fact, when given the opportunity to comment on the proposal, EPA's 
own regional office expressed significant concerns about the increase 
in emissions that will likely occur from the revisions to the existing 
policy.
  I congratulate the gentlelady on her amendment and urge that the 
committee accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The 
administration proposed the rule, and the reason for it is simple, and 
it is to provide incentives and to encourage industry to lower 
emissions. It reminds me of the story when the Kansan went over across 
the river to visit Missouri.
  The story goes that he took the ferry across, and he was picked up by 
a gentleman who had a cart with a mule in front of it. The gentleman 
was dangling a carrot in front of the mule. The mule would move 
forward, and that incentive got the mule to move.
  So he went down to the courthouse in Saint Joseph, and he conducted 
his business. Then he went back out to get a ride back to the ferry, 
and there was another gentleman with a cart and a mule. So he hopped in 
the back of the cart and he said, I would like to go back to the ferry.
  And the mule skinner said, ``Giddyap,'' and the mule did not move. So 
he got out of the car and he pulled out a 2 by 4, and he whacked the 
mule in the head. The guy from Kansas said, ``well, why'd you do 
that.'' He said, ``well, I had to get the mule's attention.'' He got 
back in the cart, and he said, ``Giddyap.''
  The man from Kansas said, ``Wouldn't it have been better if you gave 
the mule an incentive, like a carrot,'' and he explained the whole 
story.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, the companies have no incentives under the old 
Clinton policy to reduce pollution, because once designated as a major 
source, they are always designated as a major source. As a result, 
companies are stuck at certain levels of pollution and not provided 
with any incentive, no carrot whatsoever to lower their emissions below 
that level.
  Over the last decade, pollution prevention methods have changed, and 
many companies are now embracing the economics of environmental 
protection. EPA is currently reviewing the public comments on this 
proposed rule, and we should allow that process to move forward.
  The bottom line is, if there is even a chance that this proposed rule 
would encourage more sources to strive for additional reductions of 
toxic air pollution with these new incentives, then we should encourage 
that action.
  I therefore urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page 17491]]

the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. Bishop of Utah:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       ``Sec.__. No funds made available by this Act may be made 
     available through a grant to any Internal Revenue Code 
     501(c)(3) organization who is a party to a lawsuit against 
     the dispensing agency.''

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP. Thank you.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington's reservation is 
not timely.
  The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, there is something that is 
happening in the Department of Interior that is disturbing. So-called 
nonprofits, many of them financed by wealthy individuals, are lining up 
with their hands extended, requesting and accepting government handouts 
in the form of grants.
  Then what do these nonprofits do with the taxpayers' money? They come 
back and they sue the same agents that wrote them a check.
  At the same time, these 501(c)(3)s complain that the agencies are 
then underfunded. Now it's difficult to see how land management 
agencies are ever going to have enough money to take care of their 
responsibilities and appease the nonprofits when a good chunk of their 
budget is siphoned off yearly by defending themselves against endless 
lawsuits.
  501(c)(3)s have a great system. It's a very efficient business model 
for them. It does defy logic except in what we call the bureaucracy of 
the Federal Government. These nonprofits bite the hand that feeds them, 
and the hand simply can't stop itself from feeding them even more. 
After biting the hand, they then go out and find more money to continue 
the assault, line their pockets, all along touting their advocacies on 
behalf of the hand they had just bitten.
  My amendment provides a potential remedy to this disturbing and 
increasing trend. It would prohibit funds in this bill from being 
dispersed to 501(c)(3)s that are party to litigation against the 
dispensing agency. In other words, if you are suing the Department of 
the Interior, you are not eligible to receive money from the Department 
of the Interior.
  I believe, as everyone does, in the right to sue, but it defies logic 
that we would ask taxpayers to finance litigation against themselves. 
The taxpayer ends up paying twice, first in the form of the handouts to 
the nonprofit, and then when the government's attorney needs to be paid 
for defending it.
  Keep in mind, this also diverts money from critical needs on our 
public land. The maintenance backlog on our lands is well documented, 
reaches into billions of dollars, and we can't even say the taxpayers 
are even hit a third time when they try to access these multiple-use 
public lands only to find out that the particular activity is currently 
off limits due to ongoing litigation brought on by so-called nonprofit 
advocacy groups generously financed by the taxpayers.
  Now some may say that there are legitimate reasons to take the 
government to court. I would agree with that statement. But I would not 
agree that it's the government's responsibility to fund that complaint, 
especially the same government entity you are at the same time suing.
  This amendment is very simple. If a nonprofit organization can afford 
to finance elaborate fundraising campaigns to enrich themselves, 
certainly they can afford to sue the government on their own dime. 
Don't let these organizations sell you underchronic underfunding of 
agency X, Y and Z when they, themselves, are draining that agency from 
resources by the millions. This two-faced scheme must be stopped. It's 
time for us to show the taxpayers some respect and stop playing this 
type of a game with their money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while straightforward is not 
what it seems. While it seems logical that we should not issue grants 
to any group that is in litigation with the agency issuing the grant, 
that could result in far-reaching consequences. Even the gentleman, I 
don't think, could predict accurately all of the implications of this.
  For instance, this amendment could very well impact programs in 
Indian country. Many tribes choose to create, through separate 
organizing documents, an entity separate from the tribe that does not 
have sovereign powers and is organized exclusively for purposes 
described under IRC section 501(c)(3).

                              {time}  1815

  Here are some examples of non-profit groups within Indian Country:
  United Tribes Technical College, the Inter-tribal Bison Council, the 
Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest, the Native American Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Congress of American Indians.
  If organizations such as these were involved in any litigation 
against the Department of the Interior, they would be ineligible to 
receive grants. Now, I remind the Chair that many tribal organizations 
across the Nation are in litigation with the Department of the 
Interior. Are we to deny the services these groups provide to Indian 
Country because they have longstanding legal disputes with the U.S. 
Government?
  In addition to Indian Country, there are many wildlife conservation 
groups whose grassroots members provide thousands of hours of services 
to agencies in this bill. Groups that help the agencies with natural 
resource education, wildlife and habitat management, maintenance and 
upkeep of our national wildlife refuges and parks, and many other 
important efforts. These groups would be denied grants to provide those 
services because their parent organizations are involved in litigation 
regarding a legitimate difference in policy with the United States.
  I think this is an ill-advised amendment, and I strongly urge a 
``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. 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.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  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, my amendment is simple, and 
it sends a very important message

[[Page 17492]]

to the United States Congress. As I do that, let me thank the chairman 
of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and all of 
those who are prepared to work in a bipartisan manner. I can see that 
the tone has changed on this particular bill because this is an 
amendment that was accepted last year.
  My amendment is simple, as I said. It emphasizes the importance of 
urban forests and preserves our ability to return urban areas to 
healthy and safe living environments for our children. An identical 
amendment was offered to last year's appropriations bill, H.R. 5386, 
and was adopted by voice vote.
  This amendment emphasizes surveys that indicate that some urban 
forests are in serious danger. In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 
30 percent of all our urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees. 
Some of it has been lost to devastating natural disasters. For example, 
in my travels to New Orleans, as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 
huge numbers of trees, maybe thousands, were seen either strewn around 
or laying upon piles of debris.
  Eighty percent of the American population lives in dense quarters of 
a city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete 
area that can help 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, as it would across the 
Nation.
  In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have a 
beneficial effect on a community's health, both physical and 
psychological, as well as increase property values of the surrounding 
real estate.
  Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban 
sprawl and/or deterioration. In this age of climate change and global 
warming, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves both 
the protection of existing natural resources and active support for 
restoration 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 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.
  For those of us who live in areas 50 feet below sea level, as I do, 
in the gulf region, we know how important it is for trees to be amongst 
us.
  This amendment is very simple. It is an encouragement based upon 
existing legislation that indicates that trees are important to clean 
air, it is important to prevent extreme flooding, storm water runoff, 
and certainly, it is a cooling factor in these days when temperatures 
are rising enormously high.
  I would hope my colleagues would be sensitive to the bipartisan 
commitment to reforestation and move this amendment forward so that we 
as a Nation can stand on the record for the greening of America, 
treeing of America, all over, no matter what region you're in.
  Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 2643, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act of 2008, and 
to commend Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for their 
leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. 
Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service, 
the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which 
operates our national museums including the National Zoo.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important 
message from the Congress of the United States. My amendment emphasizes 
the importance of urban forests, and preserves our ability to return 
urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. 
An identical amendment was offered to last year's appropriations bill, 
H.R. 5386, and was adopted by voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious 
danger. In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our 
urban trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.
  Eighty 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. In this age of climate change and global 
warming, a real 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 lbs 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 costs 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.
  Mr. Chairman, trees play a vital role in making our cities more 
sustainable and more liveable. My amendment simply provides for 
continued support to programs that reforest our urban areas.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment 
and thank Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for their 
courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together this 
excellent legislation.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Texas if this is 
the same language that she offered last year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. To the ranking member, yes. The amendment 
is the same language. It is a limitation, the same language that was 
offered last year.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Dent

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


[[Page 17493]]

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Dent:


                               H.R. 2643

       Page 111, after line 17, 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 Acting 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.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to make four points about this 
amendment that I'm offering here today. First, the expansion of Indian 
or tribal gambling, particularly off-reservation casino gambling, has 
gone far beyond what was intended by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
of 1988.
  Twenty years ago, there were no tribal casinos. Today, there are 
approximately 406 Indian casinos in 29 States.
  Revenue from Indian gambling has gone from $0 to $19 billion in 20 
years. These extraordinary profits have caused casino interests to form 
alliances with tribes in order to establish more profitable casinos in 
locations far removed from existing reservations.
  The second point I want to make, and there are very specific examples 
of ``reservation shopping,'' as we like to refer to this. One, the St. 
Regis Bank of Mohawk Indians is trying to build a casino 350 miles from 
its reservation.
  The Bad River Band of Lake Superior and St. Croix Chippewa Indians of 
Wisconsin are trying to build a casino in Michigan, over 300 miles from 
its existing reservation.
  The Pueblo of Jemez of New Mexico are trying to build a casino in 
Anthony, New Mexico, over 290 miles from its reservation.
  The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, along with the Menominee Tribe of 
Wisconsin, is trying to build the largest casino between New Jersey and 
Las Vegas in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over 1,000 miles from the Mohegan 
lands in Connecticut.
  As of May 2006, there were some 40 applications to approve new casino 
operations pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, casinos that are, 
for the most part, destined for off-reservation sites.
  The third point I want to make is that the expansion of tribal 
gambling has had a corrupting influence on the political system and has 
forced local municipalities and homeowners to go to court to 
essentially protect their properties from casino interests anxious to 
seize their lands.
  Tribal casino profits are high, and regulation of tribal gaming 
profits is minimal. As a result, Jack Abramoff was able to take an 
estimated $85 million from the Mississippi Choctaw and other tribes. He 
was able to use some of this money to bribe entities within the 
political system, sometimes to further the interest of one client as 
against those of another.
  Casino interests have also allied with local Indian tribes to sue 
municipalities and landowners. In the 15th District of Pennsylvania, 
which I represent, the Delaware Nation, which is actually based in 
Oklahoma, filed in Federal court to establish title to a 315-acre tract 
of land in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, near Easton, so that it 
could build a gambling facility. Its claim was based in part on a 
conveyance that ostensibly occurred in 1737, well before the 
establishment of our country.
  More than 25 families live on this property, and it is also home of 
the Crayola Company, which makes the much beloved Crayola crayons that 
our children all enjoy.
  Although the suit was ultimately resolved in favor of the homeowners 
and the plaintiffs lost in every courtroom, the deep-pocketed interests 
behind this lawsuit were able to fund this litigation all the way to 
the United States Supreme Court, causing no small amount of 
apprehension among the innocent home owners and business owners here.
  Tribal organizations do recognize that there are problems with this 
expansion. Several support meaningful limitations on off-reservation 
tribal gambling.
  And the fourth and final point that I would like to make about this 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that the time has come for Congress to step 
in. This amendment is the first step towards reforming a system that 
has simply spun out of control.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs published proposed regulations on 
October 5, 2006, but these regulations are weak and do not adopt 
meaningful criteria or standards.
  The Congress must step in and reassert its regulatory authority over 
off-reservation gambling by enacting comprehensive reform of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Until that's done, we need to have a 
moratorium on off-reservation gambling, which this amendment will, in 
effect, accomplish.
  The amendment directs specifically that no funds shall be expended to 
process any applications for off-reservation casinos under section 
20(b)(1) of IGRA of fiscal year 2008.
  The amendment will have no impact, and let me repeat this: The 
amendment will have no impact on existing on-or off-reservation casino 
operations, as they have already gone through the BIA approval process. 
This will not impact any tribal casino that is currently operating on- 
or off-reservation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I understand the gentleman's concern on this complex 
issue. And I also withdraw my point of order.
  I understand the gentleman's concern on this complex issue, but the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs has a process for putting land into trust. We 
should not interfere with that process.
  When an American tribe decides it wants to engage in gaming 
activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on a parcel of land 
that is not already into trust, it must go through an exhaustive 
application process that determines if a gaming establishment on newly 
acquired land will be in the best interest of the tribe and its 
members, and not detrimental to the surrounding community.
  Additionally, the Department is currently drafting regulations that 
will implement section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by 
articulating standards that the Department will follow in interpreting 
the various exceptions to the gaming prohibition on after-acquired 
trust lands. We need to let that process go forward.
  Even if the Department approves a tribe's request, the Governor of 
the State must also agree. To interfere with this process circumvents 
the Gaming Regulatory Act, interferes with an established process in 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and should not be included in an 
appropriations bill.
  And I want to say that again. This should be in an authorization 
bill. And if the gentleman is concerned, take it to the Natural 
Resources Committee or the committee of jurisdiction. That's where this 
should be worked out, not here on this appropriations bill.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out the fact that this 
problem has simply spun out of control in this country. Last session, 
we attempted to deal with this in a bill that would restrict off-site. 
Off-reservation tribal gambling was defeated. I think we need to try 
this again.
  The regulations that were mentioned are simply weak and not 
meaningful enough, in my view, and I think we need the proposed 
regulations.

                              {time}  1830

  I would strongly urge that Congress reassert itself and take control 
over this issue. I don't believe that the authors of the Indian Gaming 
Act of 1988

[[Page 17494]]

intended that we would have a situation in this country today where 29 
States would now have casinos, 406 tribal casinos in 29 States. I don't 
think that was the intent. I haven't met anybody who voted for that law 
who thought that was what they were voting for at the time, but that is 
what we have now.
  In my district, there has been great hardship. I mean, a 1737 land 
conveyance, a 1737 land conveyance, going back to William Penn and the 
Walking Purchase. That is what we are talking about here, taking land 
of homeowners, a crayon factory, a much beloved crayon factory, and I 
think it is time for us to act. It is time for this Congress to act. We 
have had a lot of time to deal with this issue. We have not done so.
  And with that, again, I respectfully ask all my colleagues, and I 
understand the process that we are engaged in here, but we need this 
type of a moratorium. It is absolutely essential. I think it will send 
a message to the authorizing committees, to the Department of Interior 
that we are serious about this issue, that we have had enough. Enough 
is enough. Too many people are being displaced or potentially 
displaced, clouds over the properties to their titles, again, in my 
case, over a 1737 land conveyance. Again, these were big developers 
working in concert with the tribes and spending enormous amounts of 
money and people having to defend themselves. And it really has gotten 
to the point of being outrageous, and I think we need to act once 
again. And I respectfully ask for the support of everyone here.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the Dent 
amendment concerning off-reservation casino applications.
  Two proposals are currently under consideration in southern Wisconsin 
on which I have taken a neutral position.
  Voting in affirmative on this amendment would violate my position of 
neutrality. Therefore, I will vote no and remain neutral on these 
pending applications.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DENT. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Kingston

  Mr. KINGSTON. 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. 23 offered by Mr. Kingston:


                               H.R. 2643

       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 enter into a contract with an entity that does not 
     participate in the basic pilot program described in section 
     403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee and 
the ranking member for the opportunity to offer this for consideration. 
And I do realized that the chairman has reserved a point of order. I 
hope he doesn't insist upon it, but if he does, I certainly understand, 
as we share, I think, the same goal of cracking down on illegal aliens.
  What this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is say that if you sell or 
contract or do business with the Federal Government, then you need to 
be part of the Social Security verification project known as the Basic 
Pilot. And the Basic Pilot program is a tool for employers to verify 
the Social Security numbers of employees.
  We all know that the Federal Government is one of the worst offenders 
of hiring contractors and subcontractors who in turn hire illegal 
aliens and do a lot of government work. We also know that since the 
inception of ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Julie 
Myers, the head of it, has stated that there have been hundreds and 
hundreds of arrests at military installations, power plants, chemical 
plants, sensitive facilities, and truly this would include a lot of the 
agencies and a lot of the contractors in work that is done in the 
Department of Interior for work on our national parks and other land 
areas.
  There was one very high-profile case where a defense contractor had 
hired illegal aliens to work in a shipyard in Mississippi, another one 
at an Air Force base in North Carolina, and another one at a Marine 
base in Virginia. Those are more defense oriented, but this would 
certainly apply to all Federal agencies.
  The success of this program, though, is that 92 percent of the 
prospective employees have their Social Security number verified within 
seconds of the work authorization. So this isn't requiring that 
employers have some cumbersome, unworkable paperwork requirement. In 
fact, 50 percent of the employers who use this program surveyed have 
said that it is an excellent, good, to very good program. And 98 
percent say that they are likely to continue to use this program. It is 
a very good tool, I think to crack down on Social Security 
verification. And as we know, right now the U.S. Senate is debating an 
enormously unpopular bill which seeks comprehensive immigration reform.
  This is a step. The American people have sent a clear signal that 
they want immigration reform but they would like it in the form of 
steps rather than comprehensive.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is with a very heavy heart, but I must 
insist on my point of order.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 
bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee now going on 14 years, I remember several 
years ago when Congressman David Skaggs of Boulder, Colorado, offered 
an amendment in the committee which reinstituted the War Powers Act, 
because at that time we were concerned that President Clinton was 
getting us involved in a war in Bosnia; so we put it on that bill. And 
I believe last session we put on the continuation of government on an 
appropriation bill, and I am a firm believer that we do routinely 
authorize on appropriation bills. We just need to agree with the 
authorization.
  So I want to say to my friend I have seen things accepted and things 
rejected.
  Mr. DICKS. Is this a discussion on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, 
or are we wandering around?
  Mr. KINGSTON. This is a speech and it is a very good speech.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members will refrain from arguing beyond the 
point of order.
  Mr. KINGSTON. In any case, Mr. Chairman, I understand where the 
distinguished chairman of this committee is coming from and we will 
continue to work with him, the Appropriations Committee, and all 
Members of Congress to try to get Social Security verification done by 
businesses that contract with the Federal Government.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member seek recognition on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment would require a determination of whether an entity does 
or does not participate in a given pilot program under immigration law. 
This

[[Page 17495]]

determination is not currently required of the relevant Federal 
contracting officials. As such, the amendment constitutes legislation 
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Becerra, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2643) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, 
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________