[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17692-17752]
[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 
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}  1044


                     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, with Mr. Watt (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 
111, line 17.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry, Greene County 
     Pennsylvania.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair for recognition.
  This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act 
may be used for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry, Greene County, 
Pennsylvania.''
  The three-sentence certification letter for this project states that 
the purpose for this funding is to restore the machine shop at the 
foundry to its original likeness.
  Once again, it's important to note that the certification letters 
that we get from the Appropriations Committee are not the request 
letters that Members give to the Appropriations Committee to request 
their earmark. So we really don't know all that much about what the 
earmarks are for, other than a three-sentence or a four-sentence 
certification letter. So I would have hoped to have had more 
information, but we were unable to get from the Appropriations 
Committee the actual request letters. So we are at a bit of a loss to 
find out what the earmark is really for, but we did our best to do a 
little research.
  The W.A. Foundry is a factory that opened in 1900 and closed in 1965. 
The Web site that we found claimed that the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry 
is a prime example of America's industrial heritage. My question for 
the sponsor of the earmark would be: What factory in the United States 
would not be a prime example of America's industrial heritage? That's 
the problem that I think we have with a lot of these earmarks, 
particularly those that are to promote tourism or industry. How do you 
choose winners and losers in this game? How do we say, well, hey, this 
old factory is deserving of renovation, is deserving to draw tourists 
and is deserving of taxpayer dollars, while that one down the road is 
not? It seems to me a rather arbitrary decision based on one, perhaps, 
powerful Member of Congress who is able to slip in a provision to get 
an earmark. It doesn't seem to be very fair to other Members or to the 
taxpayers as a whole.
  Furthermore, if any of our constituents who may want to take their 
families on a tour of America's industrial heritage, for any of them, 
for wanting to, they may have a hard time getting to see the W.A. Young 
& Sons Foundry. It's only open for the public 2 days a year, just 2 
days a year. $150,000 to the taxpayer for 2 days a year open to the 
public. Other than that, you will have to get a private tour.
  I simply don't understand why we are spending taxpayer money to 
promote tourism, why we choose one group over another, why we are 
picking winners and losers here. That's what I would ask the sponsor of 
the earmark if the sponsor of the earmark is here. I don't believe that 
he is, but I would be glad to hear some answers to these questions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is truly an 
American treasure. This remarkably well-preserved shop is an example of 
the once-common, shaft-driven job shop which played an important role 
in maintaining and repairing the machines that built early industrial 
America.
  This rare industrial facility contains machining and foundry 
equipment dating back to the mid-to-late 1800s. When the shop doors 
were shuttered more than four decades ago, everything, the tools, 
drills, nails, presses, lathes, wooden molds and patterns were left 
behind, creating a priceless time capsule from the turn of the century.
  The machine shop and foundry are still able to operate, but the 
structure of the facility has severely deteriorated and is in desperate 
need of repair and restoration in order to preserve the facility and 
the historic equipment within. And I would assume that's why

[[Page 17693]]

it hasn't been open; they're waiting to do the repairs.
  The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is documented by the 
National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record and listed 
on the National Register of Historic Places.
  I would also point out to my colleagues that in approaching this 
task, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I, and our staffs 
collectively, reviewed all of these projects. There were 10 requests 
for every project that was put in the bill. And when we added it up, at 
the end of the day, it is four-tenths of 1 percent. Now, that is still 
significant, but I think it's important for us to realize that we are 
dramatically reducing the number of overall earmarks in this bill, a 
much greater reduction than when the other party was in charge. From 
1994 to 2006, it went from approximately 1,000 earmarks up to 13,000 
earmarks; 13,000 earmarks. We have cut this back dramatically. I think 
we've done a good job.
  I was hoping that the gentleman would be here today to praise us, 
saying you have met the standard that the administration said. You cut 
the 50 percent that Pelosi said you were going to cut. I was hoping the 
gentleman would be here saying, ``Well done,'' and yet we have another 
amendment.
  So, I'm in opposition to this. I think we should keep moving. We have 
other legislation to do. I know a lot of people in this body want to 
get home on Friday, so I hope we can move expeditiously.
  I appreciate the gentleman's even-handedness in making selections, 
though I didn't notice that he had a reduction of the President's 
request.
  And again, I want to point out to the gentleman, you know, remember, 
the power of the purse is one of Congress' most important powers. And I 
think we should be very careful when we start undermining that 
important legislative tool that separates us from the executive branch.
  So, this is Mr. Murtha's project from Pennsylvania, a very senior 
member of the Appropriations Committee. I urge all of my Members to 
support Mr. Murtha's project and to oppose the Flake amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TIAHRT. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, is it possible for a gentleman who has an 
amendment before the Committee of the Whole under the current unanimous 
consent to reserve part of their time?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is. Under the order of the House, time 
for debate is controlled.
  Mr. TIAHRT. The gentleman from Arizona wasn't aware of that. So for 
the purposes of debate, I will move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House a manager may do 
that.
  The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad to learn 
that. That will make it much better. It's much better to have more of a 
colloquy.
  I would have liked to have had a colloquy with the sponsor of the 
earmark, but the sponsor of the earmark is not here. It makes it 
difficult to know exactly what this is for.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would.
  Mr. DICKS. I can get you his phone number.
  Mr. FLAKE. Maybe that's safer.
  What I would like to ask, for example, I mention that this foundry is 
only open 2 days a year. It has been open for private tours for quite a 
while for a number of years. There is no indication with this earmark, 
certainly because we don't get the request letter, we only get the 
certification letter, that it will be open for any more than that.
  And I don't know about you, but it's a tough sell. I can tell you, I 
have five kids. It would be tough to say, Do you want to go to 
Disneyland or W.A. Young & Sons Foundry?
  I can see why anybody would want an earmark to renovate something or 
to promote tourism in a particular area, but virtually every district 
in the country would like that as well. How do we decide this one is 
worthy and this one is not? Just because we have a Member who is a 
powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or not. We shouldn't be 
doing it this way.
  The gentleman made a good point, that the President has his own 
earmarks. The administration does earmark funds, but it's typically 
with accounts that we've given them. We say, here's an amount of money 
and for this program. For example, there is the Save America's 
Treasures account that the President, or the administration through a 
competitive grant process, decides this site is worthy of historic 
preservation or worthy of receiving funds. What we're doing with 
earmarking frequently is circumventing that process and saying, I don't 
think they're going to do it right, so I'm just going to earmark my own 
project and get that funding for my own project. That's no way to do 
business. If we don't like the way the administration is doing 
something, that's what the oversight process is about, and we should go 
back in and stipulate and mandate.
  I have mentioned many times, particularly with Homeland Security 
grants, there are projects in my own district that I think are a waste 
of Federal taxpayer dollars or not an appropriate use of Federal 
taxpayer dollars, and I would like to go in. And I will, through this 
process, if I can, seek to strike some of the President's own requests. 
We should be doing that. But we shouldn't say because they do it and 
because they misuse Federal taxpayer dollars that we should as well. 
That's not what our power of the purse should be about.
  So that's why we're here today, to say what is an appropriate use of 
Federal taxpayer dollars. Is it appropriate, in this case, and we can 
talk about what the Republicans did versus what the Democrats did. You 
won't find me defending what Republicans did in terms of ramping up 
earmarks. We went from some 1,400 to 14,000 over a decade, and it's a 
pox on our House. It's part of the reason I think we lost in November. 
I hope the minority, now majority learn a lesson from us.
  I am glad to see the number of earmarks and the whole dollar value 
come down, but it should come down much lower. We not only need to 
change the level of spending, but the type of spending as well. And 
with earmarking, it was way out of control. It's still out of control 
with this legislation, in my view.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken, and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available for this Act may 
     be used for the Columbus Fire Fighters Union in Columbus, 
     Ohio.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

[[Page 17694]]


  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman.
  This amendment would prohibit funding from going to the Columbus 
Firefighters Union, which is an AFL-CIO-affiliated union.
  The certification letter for this project is quite vague. Remember 
that these are not request letters, so we don't know a lot about these 
earmarks. These are only certifications that are made, usually three or 
four sentences long. The certification letter says that the earmark 
money is for the Columbus Firefighters Hall. The letter also states 
that the entity to receive this funding is the Columbus Firefighters 
Union. The earmark list accompanying the bill calls the project 
``Firefighters Hall.''
  According to the certification, the funding would be used to renovate 
and expand the Toledo & Ohio Railway Depot. Suffice to say, this 
information wasn't much to go on to learn about the earmark, so I had 
my staff e-mail the Appropriations Committee for further details, which 
they did provide.
  The committee informed us that the Toledo and Ohio Central Railway 
station at 379 West Broad Street in Columbus, Ohio is the largest 
remaining 19th century railroad palace in central Ohio. Today it serves 
as local headquarters for the Volunteers of America, a national 
organization with a variety of charitable and service programs.
  The committee also stated that the depot has been adapted to serve 
the modern needs of the Volunteers of America, while also preserving 
much of the 100-year-old architecture. The decorative ``grand lobby'' 
may be rented for parties, receptions and meetings.
  It's a little unclear whether this is to renovate an old building. It 
seems to me there are already tenants in the building. And one of the 
tenants in the building I believe will be, or the entity that is 
receiving the earmark to renovate is the AFL-CIO-affiliated 
Firefighters Union Local 67.
  Again, this is a question of there are a lot of firefighters halls 
around the country, there are a lot of buildings that need to be 
renovated. We give the administration money under programs to allocate 
on a competitive basis to do historic preservation. This, seems to me, 
is circumventing that process again. And again, why is it proper to say 
that this one is worthy of funding and this one isn't?
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and in support of the provision in question.
  Let me first say that I admire the gentleman from Arizona's 
dedication to ensure that waste, fraud and abuse is rooted out of the 
Federal Government.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that all earmarks in 
appropriations bills should be able to be publicly defended. That is 
why I welcome this opportunity to explain this project and assure this 
body that it is absolutely appropriate.
  To begin with, let me talk about the Save America's Treasures account 
in which this earmark has been designated for funding. Save America's 
Treasures is a public-private partnership between the National Park 
Service and the National Trust For Historic Preservation. The program 
has preserved for future generations such important historical 
treasures as Montpelier, the home of President James Madison; Fort 
Ticonderoga; and the USS Constitution Museum.
  So for anyone who has been to Independence Hall in Philadelphia, or 
the Old North Church in Boston, or Monticello, or anywhere of 
historical significance to this country, we should be able to 
understand the importance of experiencing history firsthand at the 
sites that history was indeed made. We can also imagine the tragic loss 
we would feel if these sites were not preserved.
  Therefore, I can say that it is, without a doubt, that the Federal 
Government should take an interest in preserving sites, artifacts and 
monuments that carry special historic significance in American history. 
In order to be considered for funding under this account, Mr. Chairman, 
a building must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 
This is not a simple designation to acquire. It is very difficult. 
After extensive State scrutiny and nomination, there also is a 
stringent criteria applied by the National Parks Service.
  Specifically, this project will preserve the Toledo and Ohio Central 
Railway Depot in my hometown of Columbus and specifically in the 
community of Franklinton. Constructed in 1896, the T&OC depot was 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. It is a 
very unique, pagoda-style building, designed by noted architect Frank 
Packard. Its location is in the very historic Franklinton neighborhood 
of Columbus. That is also significant, as this was the site of the 
first settlement of all in Central Ohio. In recent years, this building 
became abandoned and risked being demolished. To protect this important 
structure, the City sought proposals to renovate and preserve it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Columbus Firefighters came to the rescue. They 
proposed renovation of the historic structure in order to preserve it 
and to include a public exhibit honoring the history and contribution 
of firefighting in our country.
  While the total cost of this entire project is $2.7 million, the 
small $100,000 Federal investment through this earmark will only be 
used to renovate the historic sections of this building to its original 
glory and preserve for future generations. I can think of no better use 
of such a significant historic building than by those who maintain the 
time-honored American tradition of service and sacrifice to one's 
neighbors and one's community.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this amendment deserves to be opposed by 
all Members of the House who value the history of our country, the 
preservation of historic sites and the contribution of firefighters to 
our communities.
  Save America's Treasures is a valuable program and it is a worthwhile 
project that should be preserved. The combination of preserving the 
tradition of our Nation's rail history and honoring our Nation's brave 
firefighters is worthy of this body's support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. If the gentlewoman will respond, I have a question. The 
earmark states that it is for Firefighter's Hall in Columbus, but the 
certification letter says the money is to go to the firefighters' 
union. Why does the union get the money?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. The union provided the contract to do the 
renovation. The money proposed in this earmark is only for the 
historical renovation. The firefighters are the ones who took on the 
task of coming to the rescue of this very historic site and had the 
best bid.
  Mr. FLAKE. Is there another firefighters' museum in Columbus?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Not that I know of.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say, again, the gentlewoman mentioned that we 
have this program for historic preservation, the Saving America's 
Treasures, and that it is tough to get on the list for that. As I 
understand it, grants are given out and those grants are announced in 
late summer. If you receive one of those grants, then you are named an 
historic site or an official recipient. You can also make a 
contribution. If you are a local entity looking to have your own 
facility designated, you can make a contribution to Save America's 
Treasures and earmark that for the project that you want it to go to. 
There are other ways to receive recognition.
  It just seems to me that it would be more appropriate for the local 
entities to bear responsibility for this and not the Federal 
Government.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, this is a $2.7 
million project.

[[Page 17695]]

The Federal Government's contribution is $100,000. It is truly a 
public-private partnership in which the firefighters and the local 
government and the State government are participating fully.
  Mr. FLAKE. That is understood. There are a lot of State and local 
governments everywhere, I would submit, that would like to have this 
kind of participation. But we simply can't do it. We simply cannot fund 
every project out there. So it seems to me that if we are going to have 
a project, or we are going to have an account that we set up with the 
Federal agency, we allow that to take its course.
  If we don't like the way it is run, it is our obligation as Members 
of Congress to stipulate that it should be done differently. But we 
shouldn't go in and circumvent that process and say, all right, I am 
going to earmark these projects because I fear that they might not 
receive designation or they might not be chosen by this Federal agency. 
If we don't like how that is set up, let's change that process. But 
let's not move in, as Members of Congress, and designate specific 
funds.
  I have a lot of respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio and count her 
as a friend. I am not questioning anything here but the wisdom of using 
Federal taxpayer money to do this type of thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I would be glad to yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for this. I 
want to point out that we did a joint review process of each of these 
earmarks to make sure that they were within the guidelines of what we 
have done in past precedence in the House. This particular earmark, 
like the other earmarks, passed this process. This is part of the Save 
America's Treasures program, authorized by the Save America's Treasures 
Act. It is a 50/50 match on a small portion of a larger project. It is 
also on the National Registry of Historic Places.
  I think the fundamental question that we have is, do we think it is 
proper for Federal dollars to be part of this effort? I think that is 
what Members should base their vote on, whether we think that this 
should be a part of the Federal effort to save a historic place like 
this.
  The gentleman from Arizona brought up a very good point. He said that 
we can't fund every request. That is true. I think that some requests 
we have had were culled from this because they didn't meet the past 
precedent or the standards that we had left in place before. Just by 
sheer limits on the number of amendments and the dollar amounts 
available, we have also created limits for this process of selecting 
these treasures that are part of our history and to save them.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding 
time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the gentleman that the 
precedent on this Save America's Treasures has been to split the money 
50/50; 50 percent would go to the administration and they would then 
make decisions on a competitive basis. The other 50 percent would be 
earmarked by the Members of Congress.
  I think that process works well. Congress has the right to do this 
under the power of the purse. This is one of our most important 
constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with it. The Supreme 
Court has never questioned it. It is part of our constitutional 
history.
  I just want to also join my friend from Kansas and say that I support 
this project. I urge that the Flake amendment be rejected and that we 
support this project. It has been carefully vetted. I think we could 
have straightened out the name of the title here and helped ourselves, 
but that is a lesson learned for next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
would like to thank the subcommittee, the chairman, and the ranking 
member for their support of the existing program to eradicate nutria. 
It is Public Law 108-16. It is called the Nutria Eradication and 
Control Act. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for 
the amount of money that they have put into the National Wildlife 
Refuge System.
  This particular program, the Nutria Eradication and Control Act, has 
spent over the last 10 years over $1 million to eradicate this invasive 
species on a National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Maryland which 
involves 27,000 acres. It also has been helped by the USDA APHIS 
program.
  This program to eradicate nutria on 27,000 acres in the State of 
Maryland and surrounding private lands has been one of the best 
invasive species eradication programs in the United States. There are 
16 other States where nutria pose a problem. So the precedent where we 
have eradicated this nutria on 27,000 acres at the Blackwater National 
Wildlife Refuge and surrounding areas shows that the project is a 
success.
  The Interior appropriation bills we are considering today includes 
generous increases in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and I 
support all of this money. But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some 
type of dialogue and colloquy now that, as we move this process through 
the House and through the Senate, there is a recognition that this 
program has been successful, that it needs to continue in other areas 
around the Blackwater Refuge so that other States, 16 more, understand 
how this program, how it works in difficult terrain, in marshland, in 
swampland, can be successful in their areas.
  So I would ask that the chairman, I know there are difficult choices, 
there are budget problems, but as we move this process through, that 
the nominal funding, this small amount of funding that we will need to 
continue this program in the State of Maryland, be considered.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments and his interest in addressing the threat posed by 
invasive species to our natural resources. I will certainly work with 
the gentleman to help address this pressing need as we go through this 
process.
  I know how important this invasive species issue is. Out in my area 
we have a major problem with Spartina, and we have had to fight it in 
the Willapa Bay area and Grays Harbor area. So I am very sympathetic to 
this. Also with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I guess there is an 
interagency group that is working on invasive species. So let's look at 
existing programs, and we will try our best to find a way to help the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and look forward 
to working with him.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be for the Philadelphia Art

[[Page 17696]]

     Museum Exterior Facade in Philadelphia, PA.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding in 
the bill from going to the Philadelphia Art Museum for their exterior 
facade work. The Philadelphia Art Museum is receiving $100,000 in 
taxpayer funds in this bill.
  The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee in 
this project is a little vague again. It simply states that the money 
is to be used for a comprehensive exterior renovation and preservation 
project of the main building historic facade. I should note again the 
certification letters that we get as Members tell us a lot less than 
the actual request letters do. That certainly is the case here.
  When my staff looked at the museum Web site, it is clear that the 
museum has plans for expansion by creating a ``skylit galleria, a 
spacious gallery extending along Pennsylvania Avenue in Philadelphia.''
  The skylit galleria would be some 35 feet high, 200 feet long, and 
join the lobby and new cafe. The Web site says that with its terrazzo 
floor and tilted corbelled wall, this new space connects the old 
building to the new extension along the length of the preexisting north 
exterior facade.
  I understand the main building is historic. But the question is, if 
the certification letter says it is for the historic facade and you are 
talking about flooring and other things, it seems to me that the money 
is going to the new extension.
  Again, I would simply make the same point here that I have made 
before. There are a lot of worthy projects. Certainly renovation and 
historic preservation is a good thing and a lot of good people 
contribute their own money to it, as they should. But the question is, 
should Federal taxpayer dollars be used in this way, particularly given 
the financial situation we are in as a Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Philadelphia Art Museum is an historic location, 
well-known throughout the world, with over 1 million visitors a year, 
78 years in existence.
  The project for the modernization and renovation of the museum is one 
of note. It is important this year over $130 million will be spent. 
This $100,000 will be less than 1 percent of that. But it is an 
important effort for the Federal Government to participate and support 
the renovation of the exterior.
  This multiyear program of over half a billion dollars to renovate and 
modernize the Philadelphia Art Museum is an important linchpin to an 
expansion along the parkway in Philadelphia's role in the world in 
terms of a world-class art collection. The Barnes Museum will be built 
and the Rodin Museum.
  The collection will bring more visitors, twice as many visitors, to 
Philadelphia, as if we would have the Super Bowl in Philadelphia, and 
these visitors will spend three times as much money. Many of them are 
international travelers and art collectors and people who appreciate 
art.
  I know that the House, notwithstanding the views of one Member who 
has offered this amendment, I am certain that a majority of the Members 
of this House will speak clearly that when we are talking about 
America's treasures, that the very well known but very old and in need 
of repair Philadelphia Art Museum deserves support under the program, 
the Saving America's Treasures program, which was designed exactly for 
this purpose and in which it has been the practice that the Congress 
would select about half of the projects.
  So I ask that we oppose this amendment, and I ask that we support the 
Philadelphia Art Museum in this effort in this city and Philadelphia 
region. Many of our Members and families have visited, and we encourage 
all to visit, including the gentleman who is the sponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's 
project. We have looked at this carefully. As we understand it, it 
deals with the historic facade, and this is an important project. I 
think it is a very modest amount of money, which has to be matched by 
the locals. They are putting up a huge amount of additional money so 
there won't be any problem with that.
  I congratulate the gentleman on his project and urge a ``no'' vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman would explain, I am still a little 
confused. The earmark states it is for Philadelphia Art Museum exterior 
facade, but then we are talking about an extension or expansion as 
well. Is this for the historic facade or for an expansion?
  Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield, this grant would be to 
assist in the project related to repair of the historic facade of the 
existing museum.
  Mr. FLAKE. So not to the new expansion.
  Mr. FATTAH. I think you would say ``asked and answered'' at this 
moment, right?
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for Payne Gallery, Moravian College in Pennsylvania.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any of the 
funds in the bill from going to the Payne Art Gallery at Moravian 
College at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The certification letter submitted 
by the Member sponsoring the project stated the money would go to the 
restoration and preservation of the Payne Art Gallery at the college. 
The funding would be used for exterior restoration, rehabilitation, and 
conservation of Payne Gallery.
  Payne Art Gallery is a small art gallery at a college. The college 
underwent a renovation in 2001 to achieve Smithsonian exhibit 
standards. It currently hosts about five to six exhibits a year. This 
small art gallery is to receive $150,000 in Federal funding from the 
U.S. taxpayer.
  Again, I would simply ask, there are a lot of small colleges around 
the country, hundreds of them, thousands of them. Many have art 
galleries. Where do we say this is worthy and this is not? Why are we 
using U.S. Federal taxpayer dollars for this purpose when we are in the 
fix that we are in financially?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 17697]]

  I also do want to thank my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and he is 
indeed a friend, but I also want to thank him for giving me this 
opportunity to fully vet and disclose this particular project on the 
campus of Moravian College in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, specifically on 
the Priscilla Payne Hurd campus, and we are speaking today about the 
Payne Gallery. I think it is very important that we have this kind of 
discourse in a very open and transparent manner.
  But let's first understand and explain the purpose of the Saving 
America's Treasures program. The purpose is to preserve nationally 
significant, historic properties that are threatened or endangered. The 
projects must mitigate the threat, have a clear public benefit, and 
there has to be a non-Federal match. That is certainly the case here.
  I should let everybody know too the historic significance of Moravian 
College. It is America's sixth oldest college, sixth oldest. It is 
located within the City of Bethlehem, which is really the site, and it 
is perhaps arguable, but we claim where I live in the Lehigh Valley of 
Pennsylvania, it is really the birthplace of the America Industrial 
Revolution, and the Moravians were a key driver in that 
industrialization process in the 18th century.
  There is a very strong industrial and cultural heritage. The 
Moravians were not only industrialists; they were people of faith. They 
came from Germany and other parts of Central Europe.
  The Priscilla Payne Hurd campus is significant to the story of the 
City of Bethlehem and to the college. The Payne Gallery is nationally 
significant. It exhibits collections from the Smithsonian National 
Museum of American History and the Smithsonian Institute of Libraries.
  This historic property is certainly threatened. This funding will 
mitigate the threat. There is a clear public benefit. This gallery will 
be used and enjoyed by countless visitors to Bethlehem, the Christmas 
City. We enjoy numerous visitors from around the world every year to be 
in Bethlehem during Christmas to participate in the Moravian tradition, 
culture and heritage of the community.
  There is certainly a non-Federal match. It will be $205,000. The 
total project cost is $350,000. The amount of funding in the bill is 
$150,000 of Federal money.
  Just coincidentally, there was an article today in one of the local 
newspapers back home: ``Moravian College gets $130,000 historic grant. 
The Getty Foundation cash focuses on preserving classic architecture.''
  I am just going to restate and read briefly a few things said in the 
local paper today about this campus about which I am speaking. Moravian 
College again is the sixth oldest college in the country. It has 11 
buildings in the National Register of Historic Places, all of the them 
in the Priscilla Payne Hurd campus downtown. They include the Brethren 
House, built in 1748, which the Getty Foundation called ``one of the 
best examples of colonial German architecture in the country.''
  That is what a group of philanthropists in California said about this 
particular campus in the City of Bethlehem. This is historically 
significant, and this grant will support a comprehensive evaluation of 
the college's buildings and form the basis of an historic preservation 
plan.
  One of the stated goals of the project is to ``develop strategies for 
using, preserving, and enhancing historic structures.''
  The president of the college just said today that he is proud of the 
continuous use of its oldest structures: ``Our students study music and 
practice Bach in the very rooms in which so many remarkable young 
students did nearly two centuries ago. Moravian's historic structures 
are alive and vital, the past in the continuous present.''
  That is what the president of the college said.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's projects and congratulate him on the hard work that he has 
demonstrated and his very comprehensive knowledge of this project. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Flake amendment.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  I did want to say that, again, this campus, this gallery, and by the 
way, Priscilla Payne Hurd is alive and well, she is in her eighties, a 
wonderful matriarch of the community, philanthropist, has contributed 
so much to this community in preserving the culture and the heritage of 
America. This is not simply about my hometown. This is about American 
history and culture and, frankly, faith. Faith. The Moravians were 
people of great faith.
  Again, every year people come to Bethlehem in great numbers to hear 
Bach. They come here to hear Bach. Moravian is such a integral part of 
that. You really can't separate the Moravians from the City of 
Bethlehem, again, the Christmas City. We are very proud of what they do 
there.
  I believe this project fits precisely into the definition of the 
Saving America's Treasures program. You couldn't find a better fit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I will simply make the point, this sounds 
like a great gallery, a lot of history, certainly something that 
tourism and other things can pay for, that can carry its own load 
locally. Why do we need the Federal Government to be involved, that is 
my question.
  Given the priorities and the situation we are in with the Federal 
Government, the last time I checked we were some $8 trillion in debt, 
why are we doing this? Where does it end? When do we say enough is 
enough?
  We can't afford to fund projects like this around the country that 
have a local program that can support it. We simply can't go on doing 
this. That is the point that I would like to make.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
mention an amendment I was going to offer but did not for fear it would 
not garner the appropriate number of votes, and that was to dam up 
Yosemite Valley. It is about time that we dam up that valley, let it 
flood now because Los Angeles and southern California is in dire need 
of water. We are talking about global warming and we are talking about 
the need for water for our people.
  Now that would be a ridiculous amendment; but yet we didn't even get 
a chance to have $7 million as requested by the administration to look 
at the possibility of restoring Yosemite Valley's twin, the Hetch 
Hetchy.
  Eighty-four years ago the Hetch Hetchy Valley, the smaller twin to 
Yosemite Valley that is completely contained within the boundaries of 
Yosemite National Park, the only instance in which we dammed up a river 
to cover up a valley inside a national park took place.
  What did John Muir say about it? He said: ``Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well 
dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier 
temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.''
  This is one of the beautiful natural resources in this country, and 
the administration said give us $7 million to study whether we could 
get rid of O'Shaughnessy Dam that has been there for 84 years, restore 
this valley and show that we can provide that water supply to the city 
of San Francisco so we can give our children and grandchildren this 
great natural resource.
  Now I will admit I am biased. I met my wife in Yosemite on the banks 
of the Merced River in the beautiful Yosemite Valley. But let me just 
ask you,

[[Page 17698]]

we talk about all these things, preserve this museum and preserve this 
art gallery and so forth. Can you imagine if we can give back to the 
American people another Yosemite Valley? And yet we cannot even get the 
committee $7 million to study the possibilities. Why are people afraid 
of this?
  We talk about preserving nature and concern for our national parks. 
This is a desecration of one of the most beautiful natural parks in the 
history of this Nation, Yosemite Valley. Most people don't know that 
there is a twin valley just north of it called the Hetch Hetchy because 
it is underwater. The city of San Francisco pays $50,000 a year to 
cover up one of the great, beautiful natural wonders of this Nation. 
And yet we couldn't even get $7 million to study, not to do it, to 
study if it is feasible.
  The governor has just completed a study in which he said it was 
feasible, and said we need the Federal Government, since it is Federal 
land, to look at it and it will cost about $7 million. And this 
committee said no, we can't. The Speaker doesn't want it. Senators who 
happen to be in and around San Francisco don't want it.
  I don't know what is more environmentally important than saving one 
of the great wonders of the world that is underwater.
  John Muir said this is the greatest desecration, the greatest 
desecration of natural resources in this Nation. John Muir, not usually 
noted as a Republican, but one of the great conservationists in the 
history of the United States. And we couldn't even get $7 million. I am 
very disappointed. I am extremely disappointed.
  If anybody wants to look at this, go to Yosemite Valley, go to that 
national park and say you want to look at the Hetch Hetchy which John 
Muir said is one of the great cathedrals of nature in this country. It 
is kind of tough to see it because it is underwater.
  Now I'm not saying stop the water from going to San Francisco, I am 
saying there are alternatives that would restore this beautiful, 
fantastic, feature of nature; and yet in this bill, we can't even allow 
$7 million.
  Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I just would 
like to ask the gentleman from California, does he have an estimate of 
what the cost of doing this would be?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. That is the whole purpose of 
having a study for $7 million to estimate the cost and to make sure 
that the city of San Francisco and the other water districts receive 
that money.
  Mr. DICKS. It may have been in the governor's study or one of the 
other studies that have been done.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas' time has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  As I understand it, some of the cost estimates that have come in, 
this would be up to $10 billion. I think one of the reasons why the 
committee took the action it did take was because of this great big $10 
billion bill and not having any kind of a plan for how that would be 
financed.
  But I am sensitive to what the gentleman has said in terms of the 
importance of this. We will take this very seriously, and we will look 
and see what the Senate does and we will continue to work with our 
friend from California who is a valued Member of the House.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. As you may recall, this first 
came up during the Reagan administration when then-Secretary Don Hodel 
was surprised when a staff member came into his office and said, Mr. 
Secretary, how would you like to give us another Yosemite Valley?
  He said, What are you talking about?
  The staff member said there is a twin to Yosemite Valley sitting 
under, I forget how many feet of water. He said, Well, that water goes 
to San Francisco, doesn't it?
  And he said, Yes, but we think there are alternatives that would 
allow San Francisco to still get that water, that pristine water, as it 
has for 80-some years, and yet restore the Hetch Hetchy. The estimates 
I have seen, it may cost upwards of $2 billion. Now that is a lot of 
money, but I would ask you: How much would it cost us to build a 
Yosemite Valley if we could possibly build it? It is priceless, as they 
say in the commercial.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's obvious 
sincerity and passion, and we will continue to look at this.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana for a statement.
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to introduce an amendment 
and I chose not to do that, and I will explain why.
  But my amendment would have sought to reduce by $2.6 million the 
salaries and expense account of the Smithsonian Institute, an account 
in which there is a history of well-documented, wasteful spending of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Though I called for a freeze in the funding for the Smithsonian's 
administrative account, this amendment should not be mistaken for 
opposition to this important institution. For more than 150 years, the 
Smithsonian has made significant contributions to the cultural 
enrichment of the United States. Through its 18 museums, 144 affiliate 
museums, the National Zoo, and nine research centers around the world, 
the Smithsonian has contributed to the education of millions of people.
  In fact, officials estimate that 24 million people visited the 
Smithsonian in 2006 and almost 21 million visited affiliate museums 
across the world. There is no doubt that the Smithsonian reaches across 
America and the world to offer a rich experience for both children and 
adults alike.
  I think I speak for most of my colleagues in expressing a deep 
appreciation for the excellent work the Smithsonian does, but I also 
agree with the Appropriations Committee that the institution has 
recently exhibited a ``crisis of leadership, governance and 
principle.''
  As was well-documented in the press and here in Congress, some of the 
Smithsonian's top officials received exorbitant salaries and housing 
allowances, traveled lavishly, and made otherwise egregious 
expenditures on the taxpayers' dime.
  My constituents, like many of yours, sent me to Washington to ensure 
that their tax dollars were spent wisely. They believe, as I do, that 
Congress should not reward waste, fraud or abuse with more taxpayer 
dollars. This amendment would have called for the Smithsonian to enact 
steps to get its spending practices under control. It was meant to send 
the message that until the Smithsonian can demonstrate it can 
responsibly spend taxpayer dollars, it should not receive increased 
funding.
  I would like to thank Chairman Dicks for allowing me to talk about 
this amendment that I believe would have taken a real step in 
addressing waste, fraud and abuse in the Smithsonian. However, after 
discussion with several of my colleagues who serve on the Smithsonian 
Board of Regents, I have been assured that this institute has begun to 
enact measures that will lead to real reform in the institute. We 
should all continue to observe this, as well as all institutions under 
our control.
  Mr. DICKS. I would like to say to the gentleman that I believe the 
committee has, in essence, enacted the spirit of your amendment. We 
have reduced the Smithsonian's budget by $35 million. The salaries and 
expenses level has come down to where it was in 2007. And we didn't do 
this as a punitive measure, we did this to send a very strong message, 
as the gentleman has in his very eloquent floor statement, and that 
message is we want the Smithsonian Board of Regents to reform the 
Smithsonian.

[[Page 17699]]

  We all respect and admire and love the institution ourselves. We want 
to, and I personally hope we can in conference restore funding after 
they have made the appropriate changes that the committee has talked to 
them about. I think that is happening as we speak.
  I have had a chance to talk to a number of the regents and Members of 
the House who serve as regents, and I am confident that they are on the 
right track. We hope by the time we get to conference, we will all be 
satisfied that they have reached the goal of reforming and changing so 
that the House and the other body can feel confident in funding them at 
the appropriate level.
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is why I did not offer 
the amendment because I am confident that we will watch this.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
for bringing up this important issue. There were problems that were 
occurring at the Smithsonian, and it was evident in the press and it 
was evident in the dialogue we had here on the Hill and in committee. I 
want to commend the chairman for his leadership in trying to focus our 
resources on the problem.
  When the studies are complete, I think we will all be satisfied that 
we can move forward. The Smithsonian is a great institution and it 
needs powerful leadership, and we need to have strong checks and 
balances in place. I believe those are being put in place.
  So thank you for bringing the issue to the floor of the House. And I 
thank the chairman for helping us get a strong institution in the 
Smithsonian that will last for years.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage 
     Preservation Commission in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania; the 
     Westsylvania Heritage Corporation in Hollidaysburg, 
     Pennsylvania; and the Progress Fund in Greensburg, 
     Pennsylvania.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from 
going to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission 
in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. This is one of the most expensive 
earmarks in the bill. The commission is to receive an earmark of $1.2 
million. The Web site for this commission states that the southwestern 
region of Pennsylvania was hard hit when a lot of manufacturing jobs 
left the region. The Web site also states that it was a ``tough 
transition for hundreds of steelworkers, coal miners, railroaders and 
other workers who now find themselves without a job.'' I certainly, and 
any Member in this body, can sympathize with in their own district.
  But the Web site goes on to say that ``An idea emerged that the very 
industries that were struggling in the 1980's had transformed America 
once before. Could the proud history of southwestern Pennsylvania once 
again lead America through the next economic transition? With that, the 
Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission was born.''
  A bill creating the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage 
Route, or Path to Progress National Heritage Area, was approved in 
Congress in 1988. The heritage area is managed by the Southwestern 
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. If this is confusing to 
listeners, it is to all of us.
  The Commission's Web site states that the law created the new 
heritage area to ``make it possible for millions of Federal dollars to 
flow into southwestern Pennsylvania.'' No doubt.
  All of these funds are to be managed by the Commission.
  The Commission's Web site states the Commission has ``created 
organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, 
commissions, councils, and new businesses.'' No doubt.
  The site goes on to explain that the committee ``spent money, 
borrowed money, loaned money, earned money, granted money, and accepted 
money.'' Nobody doubts that either.
  The Web site explains that the Commission legislative mandate was 
renewed by Congress and it was to begin transferring its 
responsibilities to a public foundation.
  I quote, ``several entities were created by the commission to achieve 
this--the Allegheny Heritage Development Corporation which then evolved 
in the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation and the Progress Fund, which 
would serve as a Community Development Financial Institution, providing 
gap and equity financing to an increasing number of tourism-oriented 
businesses.''
  I should note that I have added language in this amendment to prevent 
Federal funding from going to the other two nonprofit entities that 
were created by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Commission.
  My point in offering this amendment is to highlight the concept of 
earmark incubators, or entities created by Members of Congress through 
the legislative process that exist for the sole purpose of receiving 
more earmarks.
  In this case, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation 
Commission seems to be just that, an earmark incubator. It has spawned 
at least two other nonprofit entities, each with the sole purpose of 
fostering economic growth and tourism development in southwestern 
Pennsylvania with Federal taxpayer dollars.

                              {time}  1145

  It is no surprise that the CEO of the Westsylvania Heritage 
Corporation is also the executive director of the Southwestern 
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. He is also a former 
Interior Department employee of 32 years.
  Keeping track of all these entities that have been created based on 
this one national heritage area almost boggles the mind. The point of 
this amendment is to prevent funding from going to one entity, you have 
to go after all three.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
  One of the benefits of reviewing these publicly is to help get some 
facts on the table with regard to what these projects are. This project 
of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation program is one 
of 37 heritage sites around the Nation. It includes such other projects 
as the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Shenandoah Valley 
Battlefields Area, Mississippi Gulf Coast Area, the National Aviation 
Area and, of course, the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area in 
Arizona.
  This one in Pennsylvania involves nine counties in four congressional 
districts. It was something that started in 1988 at that time, signed 
into law by President Reagan. The purpose of this was to help promote 
some of the heritage of the industries of iron, steel, coal and 
transportation that were an important part of Pennsylvania's history 
and our Nation's history. Thus, designation as one of these national 
historic areas.
  It has had an impact that goes far beyond the money that has been 
invested in it, and, that is, a construction boom has come out of this. 
Also, it has spawned other projects such as dealing with acid mine 
drainage remediation projects, river conservation projects, county 
heritage plans, the creation of growth of trail development groups.

[[Page 17700]]

More than 65 local preservation, conservation, and community 
organizations have significantly expanded their missions in recognition 
of their role in developing a heritage resource for the region. All in 
all it has helped leverage some $90 million of grants from other 
sources to help promote these programs with this.
  We recognize that as we look at these projects around the Nation, 
those of us who are in Pennsylvania may understand best those projects 
in Pennsylvania as those in some of these other areas. Mississippi, I 
may not know as much about those or the ones in Virginia or Arizona or 
Georgia, wherever these other projects are. But this is important to 
Pennsylvanians and it's important to our Nation, to a large extent 
because Pennsylvania and the region was the area that built the world 
literally with steel, with our coal. We are a State that has lost 
manufacturing jobs. In fact, tourism and agriculture are our two 
highest sources of income in Pennsylvania, and it is important that we 
understand that tourism is a source of jobs in Pennsylvania like many 
other States. It draws visitors in not only from our Nation but from 
around the world and it is worthy of working on ways to continue these 
jobs with some growth.
  The vast majority of funding for these programs has come from other 
sources. But what it has done, also, is help preserve some of that 
heritage. Understanding the history of our Nation is important to 
understanding the future of our Nation. Thus, we need to learn the 
lessons from history to fund these things to understand how it is 
important and how to promote this.
  This is not just something for my district, but it is important to 
several districts; and it is important to our Nation and the start-up 
tourism-related businesses that are otherwise unable to secure loans 
from other programs.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his very thorough and 
comprehensive statement, and I want to join him in support of this 
project.
  As the gentleman said, this project was authorized, signed by 
President Reagan, a very conservative President. This is historic 
activity that has been very productive. And so I urge that the project 
be supported and that the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona be 
defeated.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I would like to 
add a couple of other things that relate to some Federal overlap with 
this particular project. This whole area of the heritage preservation 
group for southwestern Pennsylvania also overlaps with 218 nationally 
registered properties, 16 national historic landmarks, two national 
park units and one other national landmark all recognized by the 
Federal Government as a way of linking these things together. It is a 
way of helping to promote these things for jobs and for understanding 
the heritage of our Nation.
  Someone once said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history 
are doomed to repeat them. Indeed, where we stand now with an 
importance of understanding what our economic heritage was, our 
industrial and manufacturing heritage, are important to the people of 
southwestern Pennsylvania and are important to the people of the 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this so that we 
can preserve that heritage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. How much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman.
  If the gentleman will indulge me, I am still confused, maybe even 
further now. Looking at the list, it says here, Southwestern 
Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, $1.2 million, and the 
sponsor is Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. Who is the sponsor?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. But as was mentioned by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, there are four congressional districts 
involved in this. I don't know if people from the other districts, I 
guess they didn't request it or else it would be listed because we've 
tried to list it where there were multiple names involved.
  Mr. Murtha is a former member of this subcommittee and this project 
has been funded for many years. When your party was in the majority, 
there were a number of years in which this project was funded. The 
previous chairman, Mr. Taylor, and others have been supportive of this 
project.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.
  Reclaiming my time, I don't doubt that it was funded in the previous 
Congress. The question is with economic development. It is said that 
this helps promote tourism. It helps development. No doubt. You cannot 
spend money without creating economic activity by its very nature. But 
if we take economic development as the criteria, what project anywhere 
in the country is not worthy of that? And why is this project and all 
of these entities created, and I quote again from their own Web site. 
The commission Web site says: ``This organization created 
organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, 
commissions, councils, new businesses,'' many of which are also 
eligible for earmark funding.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I'll be very brief.
  The point I would make is that we only funded one out of 10 requests. 
So there was a lot of judgment made by both sides of the aisle working 
together to pick those projects that had a history, that were 
authorized in many cases. So I think there was a very careful vetting 
of this process. There are a lot of Members who are mad at me because 
they didn't get their project. This one met the test and was funded.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

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

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Division of Criminal Investigation of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may be used in contravention of the 
     criminal investigator requirements of the Pollution 
     Prevention Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-593).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require the Environmental Protection 
Agency to hire the appropriate number and amount of criminal 
investigators as required by law. EPA's criminal investigators play a 
critical role in protecting public health and the environment from the 
most serious offenders. That is why the Pollution Prosecution Act of 
1990 (P.L. 101-593) specifically requires that not less than 200 
special agents be assigned to environmental criminal enforcement. This 
requirement helps ensure that EPA has the

[[Page 17701]]

number of investigators and adequate resources necessary to enforce the 
criminal provisions of our environmental law.
  EPA's criminal investigation division, CID, is currently at less than 
200 special agents. Already understaffed, seven agents from CID are 
permanently assigned to the EPA's administrator's personal security and 
do not conduct any investigation work. Additional agents are assigned 
to provide security when the administrator travels outside Washington, 
DC, requiring them to abandon any investigation work during that 
period.
  The assignment of the EPA's criminal investigators to provide 
personal security to the EPA administrator diverts resources from the 
investigation of environmental crimes. While I understand the desire to 
protect a member of the President's Cabinet, criminal investigators at 
EPA are doing so at the cost of protecting public health. Because of 
the additional strain that using CID criminal investigator agents for 
security has on EPA's ability to investigate criminal violations, it is 
extremely important that CID be properly staffed.
  The underlying bill, the bill before us today, provides an increase 
of $11.8 million for enforcement compared to fiscal year '07. The EPA 
should have no difficulty in meeting the requirement of 200 criminal 
investigative agents, which is the standard that was set in 1990. My 
amendment would not reduce the security provided by the EPA 
administrator. It would only make certain that the EPA uses this 
funding provided in the bill to meet their requirements under the 
Pollution Prosecution Act and their responsibility to the American 
people.
  I want to thank Chairman Dicks for consideration of this amendment 
along with Ranking Member Tiahrt. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman has 
discussed this amendment with all of us. The bill includes an increase 
of $11.8 million, as you have mentioned, above the President's request 
for EPA enforcement. That is enough money to bring the EPA's 
enforcement level back to levels that we saw earlier in this decade. 
The majority has no objection and accepts the amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I think the gentleman from Michigan has done his research 
and prepared this well. I think this is a part of the EPA that needs 
attention and needs a little reinforcement. I congratulate him on his 
amendment and I have no objection to it.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Dicks for their words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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. 22 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
       Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced 
     by 4.3 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the Chair and the Members who are present 
here.
  This is the fourth time I've offered this amendment to an 
appropriations bill. I don't do it to be a pain in the neck. In fact, I 
appreciate the work of the chairman, I appreciate the work of the 
ranking member, and I appreciate the work of the committee and staff. I 
know they look at these line items, look at these programs, go through 
and do the hard work that all committees do. I appreciate all that 
work. I simply bring the amendment forward because I believe government 
is too big and that government spends too much.
  This amendment doesn't cut spending. This amendment, like the 
previous ones I have offered, simply says we're going to hold the line. 
We're going to spend the same amount we spent in the last fiscal year. 
Nothing more than that. That's all the amendment does. It allows the 
committee who understands these programs, who does the work and puts 
this bill together, to go back and look and figure out where those cuts 
should happen using their expertise that they've developed in this 
committee to do that. It simply says, it's not too much to ask 
government to do what millions of families have to do across this 
country, live on last year's spending levels, live on last year's 
budget.
  It is important we do this, in my judgment, for two reasons. Again I 
have articulated these each time I've brought this amendment forward 
for the body to consider. The first is there are financial problems, 
financial concerns, some would even say crisis looming for America if 
we don't get a handle on the spending. $3 trillion budget. This bill 
increases spending by over a billion dollars in this one area. The more 
we run up deficits, the more that leads to debt, the more that leads to 
less saving, the more that leads to less economic growth, the tougher 
it makes it in the future to deal with the economic crisis that is in 
fact coming.
  Again, you don't have to take my word for it. All kinds of experts 
have talked about this, whether it's entitlement programs, 
discretionary spending, it's government spending and there are problems 
looming if we don't begin to get a handle on the spending levels that 
we appropriate. There is no better place to start than right now, 
saying, let's just do what we did last year. Let's just hold the line 
on spending.
  The second reason that this is so important: whenever you start to 
spend and spend and spend and have these kinds of things take place, it 
inevitably leads to greater taxes. I've often heard the phrase tax-and-
spend politicians. It's actually more appropriate to say spend and tax. 
Spending drives the equation. The more you spend, that leads to taxes 
in the future. If you went out and asked the American people, Mr. 
Chairman, is government too big or too small, my guess is the vast 
majority of Americans would say it's too big.
  Think about this: government spends on average $23,000 per household. 
We've got a $3 trillion annual budget that we spend on. Many of those 
things are appropriate, but overall if you ask the American people is 
government too big or too small, they would say it's too big. If you 
asked them the same question, are Americans overtaxed or undertaxed, my 
guess is the vast majority of Americans would say we're overtaxed. In 
fact, a typical family, 50 cents of every dollar they spend goes to 
some level of government in the form of taxes. It's not too much to ask 
government to hold the line on spending, to live on what we did last 
year, to live on the same amount.

                              {time}  1200

  That's what this amendment does. I bring it forward, not to be a pain 
to the committee, I appreciate their work, but simply to point out it's 
time we get a handle on spending if we are going to be able to let or 
help America have the economic growth that we need to see happen in 
this country in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington State is 
recognized for up to 20 minutes.

[[Page 17702]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Am going to be brief here. This would be a devastating cut on this 
bill. I want to say something to the gentleman. These bills do have 
consequences.
  Over the last 7 years, since this administration took power, the 
Interior Department's budget has been cut in real terms by 16 percent. 
The EPA's budget has been cut in real terms by 29 percent, and the 
Forest Service budget has been cut in real terms, taking fire out, by 
35 percent. This is one of the few bills that has been devastated by 
this administration, and it's a regrettable fact.
  All our bill does is stop this downward trend in our national parks, 
our downward trend in our national wildlife refuges, and our downward 
trend in enforcement and clean water and clean air in the environmental 
protection area, and the reduction in personnel, not covering fixed 
costs until Mr. Kempthorne came in, and he is only covering the fixed 
costs for the Interior Department. This is a devastating cut that would 
reverse all the good work in this bill.
  I just think it's totally irresponsible, and I urge a ``no'' vote on 
this. We need the money for the firefighters, there is a huge fire out 
there in Lake Tahoe right now. We need to get this bill passed.
  This kind of across-the-board meat-ax approach will not be 
successful, I predict. I just tell the gentleman that his amendment 
goes way too far and would have devastating consequences. It would 
undermine the President's Centennial Challenge that Mr. Kempthorne has 
worked so hard to create.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' 
vote on the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, before recognizing the gentlelady 
from Tennessee, I would just point out this, we always hear this, 
devastating cut. This not a cut. This is simply saying we are going to 
spend what we spent last year.
  In fact, last week we had this big debate on the legislative branch 
bill and on other appropriations bills, and the majority party was 
pointing to the President's request. What we spent last year is 
actually more than what the President requested in this budget.
  Devastating cut, I mean, we always hear, it's interesting, 
politicians who spend the tax dollars of families and individual 
taxpayers across this country, always say the sky is going to fall if 
we can't get more of your money and spend it on things we think are 
important.
  All we're saying is you know what, it's not too much to ask that 
government do what families do all the time, and that is spend on last 
year's level.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank Mr. Jordan for the good work that he is doing 
right here. He is exactly right in the amendment that he is bringing 
forward, hold constant, hold it level.
  Mr. Chairman, we hear this from our constituents every single day. We 
all know that the American people are certainly frustrated with the way 
they see Washington spend money, and the amount of money that they 
spend.
  What our amendments are doing is just to say, just pare it down a 
little bit. Let's require the bureaucracy to institute some 
efficiencies. Let's require them to get their House in order.
  Now, quite frankly, I don't think it's a bad thing. I think that it 
is a very positive step to look forward and say let's hold the 
bureaucracy accountable. Should they be able to move forward and not 
put best practices in place? Should they be able to just every year get 
an increase when we have men and women who go to work every single day? 
They may work for a period of 2 or 3 or 4 years and not see an increase 
in their salary.
  We may have families that look at their budget and say that they are 
not seeing an increase. To say, you know, to not increase spending puts 
us on a downward trend.
  I truly take exception with that. It is our constituents who are 
saying you need to start putting some accountability measures in place, 
you need to reduce what this Federal Government is going to spend 
because they tax too much and certainly, in order to pay for all of 
this increase in spending, and this is an increase, it exceeds the 
President's request by $1.9 billion, which is a 7.6 percent increase. 
In order to pay for this, they are willing to push forward the single 
largest tax increase in history because they spend too much money.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, the majority party 
has yielded all their time back?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes, the other side has yielded back.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  I haven't been on the floor to hear much of the debate on this bill, 
but a couple of things have caught my attention. One is that the 
chairman said we don't want across-the-board cuts.
  Well, as I understand, they don't want cuts to individual programs or 
specific programs either, so I guess that means we don't want cuts, 
period. I remember hearing the debate on this floor about raising the 
minimum wage, and that has resonated in my memory in relationship to 
the debate on not making any cuts for this bill also.
  There were raving comments made about how people who were living on 
the minimum wage hadn't received an increase for years and years and 
years, and yet Members of Congress had received pay raises.
  Well, it seems to me that if we're concerned about people who are 
getting minimum wage, we definitely should be concerned about 
increasing spending for this bill or any other government program, for 
that matter. We are raising spending by billions of dollars, and where 
is that money coming from? That money is coming from the very people 
that were supposed to be helping those people making the minimum wage.
  In just 6 months, the new Democrat majority has passed or paved the 
way for $103.4 billion in increased spending.
  Now, what that means is, again, that we are taking that money away 
from the American citizens. By doing that, they have raised the 
national debt limit by $850 billion, which they said they would never 
do, or $2,812 for every single man, woman and child alive in the United 
States today, the second largest increase in the national debt in 
American history, and the largest single tax increase in American 
history they have passed.
  So we don't need to be doing this. We need to be helping average 
working Americans, by letting them keep more of the money. The 
government doesn't know how to spend your money better than you know 
how to spend it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining 
on the Republican side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield as much time he may consume to the 
distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank 
him for his leadership. He is one of the outstanding freshmen Members 
that we have on this side of the aisle. His leadership in helping 
protect the family budget from the Federal budget is noted. It is noted 
in this body, and certainly noted in his district and increasingly 
being noted nationwide. So I thank him for his leadership in bringing 
this amendment to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very, very important amendment, and I 
listened carefully to chairman of the committee and his words. I think 
again, as I said yesterday on this House floor, that much good work has 
been done on this legislation.
  But I do take exception when he uses the term that this amendment 
amounts to a devastating cut. Again, people are entitled to their own 
opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. This amendment 
simply says this appropriations bill will be funded at last year's 
level.

[[Page 17703]]

  Now, last I looked at Webster's, and looked up the definition of cut, 
it means to reduce an amount. We are simply asking, in extraordinary 
times, that government somehow not increase its budget. We are not 
talking about a decrease here. We are simply saying try to live on the 
same budget that you lived on last year.
  Now, I do believe there is a place where the phrase ``devastating 
cut'' is applicable.
  As the gentleman from Ohio aptly pointed out, more spending fueled 
more taxes. Again, that is a very simple nexus, but more spending will 
fuel more taxes. It's one of the reasons that we have seen within the 
Democrat budget the single largest tax increase in American history.
  Now, that tax increase, when fully implemented over 5 years, is going 
to amount to roughly $3,000 for every American family. That is a 
devastating cut. That is a devastating cut to the family budget.
  I hear from these families. I hear from families in my district, the 
Fifth District of Texas, that I have the honor and pleasure of 
representing. I hear from people like Bruce in Garland who writes, 
``Congressman, in my particular case, additional taxes would cut into 
the finances I used to pay for my son's college education. I really 
believe that given more money, Congress will simply spend more money. 
That is not the answer.''
  I hear from Joy in Dallas, ``Congressman, I could not pay for a 
semester of college for my daughter if I had to send $2,200 more to the 
government.''
  I hear from Linda, also, in the City of Garland that I represent, 
``If we had to pay an additional $2,200 each year, it would make us 
have to decide between food or medicine.''
  The list goes on and on and on. That is a devastating cut, the 
largest tax increase in American history fueled by more spending, some 
of which is contained in this bill, those are devastating cuts. Those 
are devastating cuts to hard-working American families. It's cutting 
their education program, it's cutting their health care program, it's 
cutting their American dream.
  I certainly commend the chairman. Relative to some of these bills, 
this is a more reasonable approach.
  But when we look at the largest tax increase in history, when we look 
at the looming entitlement crisis, and I was very grateful to hear the 
chairman acknowledge its existence in debate yesterday, but given all 
of those facts, can't we somehow raise the bar on how much we are going 
to spend on this Federal legislation and protect the family budget from 
the onslaught of the Federal budget?
  There are two paths we can go down. One path leads us to an extra 
$3,000 of tax increases on the American family.
  The other path tells the Federal budget, live with as much as you 
have lived with last year, and we will protect the American family from 
devastating cuts in their budget.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Republican 
leader, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding, and 
let me thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  All this amendment says is that we are going to reduce the level of 
spending in this bill to last year's level. It's overdoing. We are not 
whacking away at everything, and I think that the gentleman has a very 
good point. I do that because excessive spending makes it more 
difficult for us to balance the Federal budget.

                              {time}  1215

  It takes money away from our children and our grandchildren. An 
across-the-board cut is another way of being fair and simple, but it 
gets us back to last year's level.
  Now, the spending in these appropriations bills is one issue. But 
let's make sure we review the bidding on what's happened here thus far 
this year. In February, when the supplemental spending bill came 
through, the CR to fund the government for this year came through here, 
it had $6 billion of spending over and above the President's level.
  And then we had the budget come through with an additional $20 
billion worth of domestic discretionary spending included in it.
  And then just last month we had the supplemental spending bill for 
Iraq and Katrina that had an additional $17 billion over and above what 
the President has asked for.
  If you look at all of that, $1.1 billion in the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Bill that's already passed, another $1.9 billion in this 
bill, you begin to add all this up, and it's real money. And at some 
point, somebody has to pay for it. And that's the real crux of the 
issue here.
  Most of us came here to make sure that we had a government that was 
affordable, so that we could keep the American Dream alive for our kids 
and theirs. And the more that we spend and the more that we mortgage 
their future, the harder it is for them to have the same chances in 
life that many of us have had.
  And if the spending that we've talked about isn't bad enough, if you 
look at the budget that my friends across the aisle passed last spring, 
there's no entitlement reform. My colleague, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, will soon rise and talk about the 
$4 billion or $4 trillion worth of debt that's accumulated over the 
last 6 years.
  We know that we have to deal with entitlements. I'm trying to help 
you give your speech, Mr. Obey. We have to deal with entitlements. Over 
the course of the 12 years that Republicans ran the House, we dealt 
with entitlements some three times, not as often as we should have, not 
as aggressively as we should have.
  But we have made promises to ourselves, those of us who are baby 
boomers, promises that our kids and our grandkids can't afford. And at 
some point we, as responsible stewards of our government, need to grab 
a hold of these entitlements and begin to change them.
  Several years ago we made a modest effort, some $40 billion in 
entitlement reductions over 5 years, a step in the right direction. But 
to bring a budget out here that says we're not going to deal with 
entitlements for the next 5 years, I think, is totally irresponsible. 
And so if we're serious about making sure that our kids and their kids 
have a real chance at the American Dream, we've got to say no.
  The American people sent us here to make decisions about how to best 
spend their money. And if we just keep adding more money, guess what? 
We never have to make a decision. That's not what the American people 
expect of us. They expect of us to have a government that's affordable, 
that's accountable, and something that they can afford in their family 
budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, Members of this House have often heard me 
refer to my old friend, Archie the Cockroach, who is the philosopher I 
rely upon. And one of the things Archie said once is that ``an old 
stomach reforms more whiskey drinkers than does a new resolve.'' And I 
think we have a perfect example of that in this case.
  We have seen the minority party, for the past 6 years, zealously and 
delightedly borrow over $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts on the cuff. 
We've seen them support this year providing $57 billion in tax cuts for 
people who make a million bucks or more a year. We've seen them blindly 
and blithely support a misguided war, 600 billion bucks, all borrowed. 
And now, coming in from a 3-day or 6-year jag, all of a sudden people 
are sobering up. So they're saying, ``Good gravy, look at the record 
we've built.''
  Mr. Chairman, they have destroyed their credibility with their own 
conservative base with their profligate borrowing to pay for their pet 
projects. And then they say, ``Well, how can we cover up that and cover 
our tracks and pretend that we are taking up the old time religion 
again of fiscal responsibility?

[[Page 17704]]

  And so what they do is they say, ``Well why don't we attack the 
appropriations bills and try to create the impression that they are 
runaway spending.''
  Well, let me give you some facts. By the time this House finishes 
passing each of the appropriation bills that we're bringing to the 
floor, this House will have cut over 250 programs, saving almost $6 
billion.
  I would also point out that if you take a look at the President's 
budget, if you take a look at the domestic appropriation bills which 
he's recommended under his budget, you would see these domestic 
appropriations shrink from 39 percent of the budget to 36 percent. 
Under the bills that we're bringing to the floor, they will still 
shrink from 39 percent to 38 percent.
  Bob Greenstein, who is probably the most objective budget analyst in 
this town, respected former OMB official, points out that these 
domestic appropriations bills, when adjusted for inflation, represent a 
1.4 percent increase. I invite you to compare that to the 8, 9, 10 
percent increases that we have in the war budgets which the President 
has asked us to pass.
  This bill commits the cardinal sin of trying to restore two-thirds of 
the cuts that have taken place since fiscal year 2001 in crucial 
programs that defend the cleanliness of our air, that defend the 
cleanliness of our water, that protect the public health and protect 
the publicly owned natural resources of this country.
  And they try to divert attention from their miserable record of 
fiscal irresponsibility the last 6 years by suggesting that somehow 
these actions have anything to do with the deficits that they've 
presented the country, turning a surplus when Bill Clinton left office 
into the largest deficits in the history of man.
  Now, you know, I generally prefer to read nonfiction. But I am so 
used to hearing fiction on this House floor that I guess the next time 
I want to read a fiction novel I'm not going to go to The Washington 
Post Book Review or the New York Book Review. I'm simply going to ask 
my friends on the other side of the aisle, ``What's the best piece of 
fiction that you've been reading and been peddling this week, because I 
sure would like to take some lessons from you when it comes to peddling 
fiction.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire the amount of time we 
have left.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Before yielding to the gentleman from Georgia, I 
would just point out, I love the majority party's logic: because the 
Republicans spent too much, we're going to spend more. How does that 
help the American family? It just makes no sense to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I just heard some great news down 
here. We have cut 250 programs. I'm excited because, you know, I used 
to be in the construction business, and one time we had a 
superintendent that was not getting his job done, not performing, not 
getting the houses built on time. And the gentleman we worked for went 
in one day and he said, Jerry, I want you to go out there and I want 
you to fire somebody. And Jerry said, Who do you want me to fire? And 
he said, I don't care. Just fire somebody so they will know who's in 
charge.
  We need to fire somebody. We need to cut something somewhere. And I 
am excited to hear that we have cut 250 programs at a savings to the 
taxpayers of $6 billion because, what that means to the taxpayers, Mr. 
Chairman, is that now we've only spent $80 billion more than we did in 
2007. So we took the first step in a long, long journey to get down to 
where we get back to the level of 2007.
  I hope that the chairman, Mr. Chairman, of appropriations, the full 
Appropriations Committee, will supply every Member in this body a list 
of the 250 programs that have been cut, because I want to see that. I 
want to be able to take that back home to my constituents and say, You 
know what? We are cutting the size of government. And here are the 250 
programs that we've cut.
  Now, what I would also like for him to bring me when he brings me the 
250 programs that we have cut, I hope that he will bring me a list of 
the other programs in the other expansion of government that we have 
done to spend another $80 billion.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people may not understand how much a 
billion dollars is. If you spent a dollar a day, no, if you spent a 
dollar a second, a dollar a second, it would take you 31\1/2\ years to 
spend a billion dollars; 31\1/2\ years to spend a billion dollars if 
you spent a dollar a second.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the people of America know that we have spent 
$80 billion more than we did last year. That scares me. That scares me 
not only for me. It scares me for my children. It scares me for my 
grandchildren. And it scares me for my great grandchildren.
  And so I hope that somewhere we'll fire somebody, just one person, 
one cut that we can make and let the people of America see it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
for his leadership on this issue and for bringing important 
distinctions to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question, though, of the body, and it's 
curious what's going on here. The chairman of the subcommittee yielded 
back his time, didn't even want to engage.
  Can you hear it, Mr. Chairman? That's silence. That's silence on the 
part of the majority party because they aren't even interested in 
defending the spending that is in their bill.
  Before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I knew that I needed to 
listen to patients in order to make the right diagnosis.
  Well, the right diagnosis, Mr. Chairman, here, is that Washington 
doesn't have a revenue problem; it's got a spending problem. And the 
ways that the Democrats are moving forward with their spending spree of 
2007 are very frightening, as the gentleman before me spoke.
  There are a couple of ways to pay for it. One, you can charge it. And 
so they've increased the debt ceiling. They've increased the debt 
ceiling to over $9 trillion for the first time ever in the history of 
this Nation.
  The other way you can pay for it is to tax folks. Mandatory 
withholding, tax increases. And already we've seen the largest tax 
increase in the history of our Nation adopted by this majority party.
  Mr. Chairman, if that were my record, I wouldn't want to talk about 
it either. I wouldn't want to talk about it either.
  So I want to commend my friend from Ohio who is standing tall for 
fiscal responsibility. It's clear that there's a distinction between 
the majority party and the minority party. And the minority party says, 
the Republicans say, we believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe 
that we can hold the line on spending to holding it to where it was 
last year.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. And I will say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland) we are, I have already explained, Mr. Obey's already 
explained why this amendment is not going to be passed by the House 
today, because it's too big a cut. And I would just say, again, and I 
want to say this to every Member: This administration has cut the 
Interior Department budget over the last 6 to 7 years by 16 percent.

                              {time}  1230

  It has cut EPA by 29 percent. It has cut the Forest Service by 35 
percent. It is devastating these agencies, and this amendment would add 
to that devastation.
  What we are doing is adding 4.3 percent to try to turn the corner, to 
try to

[[Page 17705]]

bring these agencies back. And we are not laying back here. We are just 
waiting to move on to more important business.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague on the committee, a 
distinguished member from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from Ohio has offered an amendment which is a 4.3 
percent across-the-board cut, across all of the agencies here in this 
bill. And that is about the final desperate or thoughtless way of 
balancing a budget or of approaching the process of budgeting. After 
all, the amendments that we have been debating for the last day have 
been defeated, to throw up your hands, but I suppose that is really 
progress. At least it is better than trying to reduce the budget down 
to the level of the President's request in the first place, which was 
hundreds of millions of dollars even below what the last year's budget 
was.
  But I think you need to look at the core programs. The core programs 
here are the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Forest Service. Those are the major programs in this 
budget. The budget for 2007 was a very small increase but not as much 
as an increase up to the inflationary amount from the previous year's 
budget, the 2006 budget. So we would have had at least 3 years of 
budgeting below the inflationary level.
  The gentleman's amendment would force all those agencies that cover 
Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, which are the places where 
our Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service serve most of the 
public, the millions of people of this country who use those 
facilities, and it would force them to eat the inflation of that, as of 
now, over a 2-year period, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
  What really is happening is that we are having to try to cover for 
the enormous reductions in the budget from fiscal 2004 to 2005 and from 
fiscal 2005 to 2006. That is where the major budget cuts have occurred 
over the last several years. And this budget only partially, partially, 
replaces for that enormous cut that occurred in those 2 years, way 
below inflation, serious, real cuts in dollars way below inflation.
  Now, I just want to look at a couple of other things not just 3 or 4 
years back but a little bit farther. When President Carter left office, 
the debt of this country was $1 trillion. Twelve years later, after the 
presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the debt of the country 
was $4.3 trillion, $3.3 trillion more. When President Clinton left 
office 8 years later, it was $1.2 trillion above that.
  Now, in only 6 years, with you folks on the other side having been in 
the majority throughout those 6 years, the debt is now up to $8.8 
trillion, another $3.5 trillion. Think of it. Under 8 years of 
President Clinton, the total debt increase was $1.2 trillion, about 
one-third of the debt increase in just 6 years under the present 
President and all of that coming under your leadership. The debt 
increased to that time is all under your majority's leadership.
  So I just want to say in the final analysis when you take into 
account inflation, with this bill, the Department of Interior would 
still be 11 percent below what the budget was in 2001, when President 
Bush took office. For the EPA, it would be 16 percent, still below the 
2001 budget. And for the Forest Service, it would still be 19 percent 
below. Those key core programs would still be 19 percent below the 
budget in 2001.
  I oppose this amendment and hope it will not be adopted.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to know which is it? We just heard from the distinguished 
chairman from Washington that Republicans spent too much; so we are 
going to spend more. We heard about the spending by the Republicans. 
And we just heard from the other gentleman that we cut, cut, cut. I 
want to know which is it?
  All I know is this, what is in the bill, and in the bill it says 
this: The Commission on Climate Change, $50 million of taxpayer money 
for this new Commission. National Park Service, a $199 million 
increase, 10.8 percent above last year. The National Endowment for the 
Arts, a 29 percent increase. We heard a debate about this yesterday, an 
agency that many Americans find offensive using their tax dollars: $160 
million, a 29 percent increase. National Endowment for the Humanities, 
$19 million, an increase of 13 percent.
  Which is it? Did we cut all the time or did we spend too much? I want 
to know which it is.
  What I do know is that in the bill, there are all kinds of excessive 
spending. That is why we just want to say hold the line, let's keep it 
where it is right now.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGovern). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. 29 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $276,330,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member 
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment 
is what became affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. Mr. Hefley 
was a former Member of the House and offered a 1 percent decrease in 
the reduction of the increase on appropriations bills routinely. And he 
no longer serves with us; so many of us believe that it is an 
appropriate way to try to bring about some kind of fiscal restraint and 
fiscal responsibility here in the United States Congress.
  I think it is important to look at the big picture, and the big 
picture is that we always have to remind ourselves whose money this is. 
And there is a sense in this Chamber and in Washington that this money 
is the government's money, that the government somehow makes it and 
discovers it and that it ought to just spend it willy-nilly.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this isn't the government's money; 
it is the people's money. This money comes to Washington through the 
hard work of the American taxpayer. And it is imperative that we 
remember that because only when we remember that will we have that 
touchstone to make certain we spend it responsibly.
  What are the big numbers here that we are talking about in the 
Interior, Environment Appropriations bill? Last year, fiscal year 2007, 
this bill appropriated $26.4 billion. This year the proposal is to 
spend $27.6 billion. That is an increase of $1.2 billion, an increase 
of 9.5 percent, an increase three times the rate of inflation.
  This amendment would decrease that increase by 1 percent. It would 
decrease that increase by $276 million. It would trim one penny out of 
every dollar spent in this appropriations bill. It is the kind of thing 
that American families all across our Nation do when they

[[Page 17706]]

find themselves in times when they are spending more than they are 
taking in, which is what the Federal Government is doing, spending more 
than we are taking in.
  This is a responsible amendment. It starts us down that road of being 
fiscally responsible. It tells the American people that we care about 
their budget and in caring about their budget, we will be responsible 
with the Federal budget. It will begin to restore some of that trust 
that the American people have lost in Washington's ability to restrain 
spending.
  So I offer this amendment in good faith. I believe it is an 
appropriate way to begin the process of gaining back fiscal 
responsibility here in Washington. I encourage my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my good friend 
from Washington if he has any speakers on this amendment?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, we have speakers. How many speakers do you have?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have got more than my 20 minutes will be able 
to fill.
  Mr. DICKS. I am not going to yield you any time; so you might go 
ahead and start.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the silence persists. The silence 
persists on the majority side because they are loathe to defend the 
spending that is going on here in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I find that 
particularly offensive to the American people. This is not government's 
money. It is the American taxpayers' money. It is incumbent upon the 
party that is proposing to spend billions and billions of dollars to 
increase the debt ceiling in this Nation over $9 trillion for the first 
time, to ignore the entitlement spending, to ignore $50 trillion in 
liability. This is the majority party that is silent, silent when it 
comes to this kind of spending.
  So I would urge my colleagues to reconsider their desire not to 
defend their spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from 
California (Mr. Campbell), who is a leader on fiscal responsibility 
here in the House.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding.
  As I listened to the arguments, what arguments that are presented, 
from the majority Democrats, I hear some things that don't quite ring 
true. They talk a lot about their pay-as-you-go rules and that their 
great fiscal accomplishment of this Congress is that they are going to 
pay for spending as you go. Yet this bill increases spending by $1.2 
billion, and it is not paid for. There is no $1.2 billion cut somewhere 
else. They are simply going to increase the deficit by $1.2 billion 
more because they have decided they want to spend it.
  They say that they are not raising taxes. But yet their budget 
increases spending every single year for 5 years and then miraculously 
says they are going to balance the budget. How do they do that? Because 
they did have in their budget the largest tax increase in American 
history.
  You just heard them recently just decry the former deficits. Oh, my 
gosh, Republicans drove up these deficits. And, in fact, we did. And we 
agree that that was not the right thing to do. So what is their 
response? Make the deficits bigger. Take the spending that we had while 
we were in charge and increase it by more.

                              {time}  1245

  And then they have one other thing they continue to do which is to 
call something like this bill a ``cut.'' You heard the gentleman from 
Washington on the last proposal say that it was a devastating cut, when 
in fact all this does, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, is 
take what's already a 4.5 percent increase and reduce it.
  Now, what I want to do is, since they're having a hard time 
understanding this, I want to put this up graphically so that maybe 
they will understand better.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, here are 100 donkeys. I figured that donkeys were 
something that Democrats would be able to relate to. So we have 100 
donkeys here. Imagine that this is 100 donkeys of spending. Here's what 
this bill will do. There, Mr. Chairman, are 99 donkeys; 100 donkeys 
here, 99 donkeys there. Probably having a hard time, I would imagine, 
Mr. Chairman, people in the gallery are probably having a hard time 
telling the difference. That's because there isn't much difference. 
That's because it isn't a big cut, it isn't a big reduction. If you 
have a million-dollar program, all we're asking is for that program to 
get by on $90,000. If it's $100 million, we're asking them to get by on 
a mere $99 million. If it's a billion-dollar program, do you think that 
some government agencies can squeak by on $990 million rather than a 
billion?
  But here's the big point: It doesn't look like a lot of difference in 
donkeys, but if we do that, if we spend the 99 instead of 100 on every 
single government program, we save $30 billion. That is real money. And 
this is how you save it: a little bit at a time. Ask a million-dollar 
program to get by on $990,000, ask a billion-dollar program to get by 
on 1 percent less. And when you do that with every single program in 
government, you save $30 billion a year. That, Mr. Chairman, is how we 
can get to a balanced budget without not only the largest tax increase 
in American history, without raising taxes on the hardworking people in 
America at all simply by asking government day by day, get by on 1 
percent less. I think we can do it. I think we should vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, again, the former ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Conte, when he was here in the House of 
Representatives, used to say that this is the ``meat-ax approach.'' An 
across-the-board amendment doesn't make any selectivity between the 
national parks and other issues. It's just an across-the-board cut.
  Again, I must say that the reason we object on this particular bill 
is because over the last 7 years the administration has cut the 
Interior Department by 16 percent in real terms. And the cut for EPA is 
29 percent and that cuts the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. I 
mean, it's hard to believe that this administration wanted to cut the 
Clean Water Revolving Fund by $670 million. How do you do that and go 
to bed at night and actually get sleep? I mean, it's shocking to me, 
these cuts.
  The Forest Service funds all the programs for taking care of our 
multiple-use Forest Service land. More recreation is provided by the 
Forest Service than actually the Park Service, and they cut that by 35 
percent since 2001.
  This is a crisis. These agencies are headed down a devastating path, 
not having enough staff to do their work. The refuges didn't have 
enough staff. The Park Service didn't have enough staff. Every one of 
these agencies were losing people year after year because their fixed 
costs weren't covered. So this was a crisis situation.
  I think everything we've done in this budget is totally responsible. 
And I reject the idea of any across-the-board meat-ax approach, using 
the language of the former ranking member, Mr. Conte from 
Massachusetts. And I just hope that we can move on here and get to the 
rest of these amendments.
  There are a lot of people on the other side who told me they would 
like to go home on Friday morning, they would like to see us get done 
on Thursday night. So I don't want anybody to think that we're not in 
opposition to all these things. I just want them to know that we're 
trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get the job of this committee 
done as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a 
member of the committee (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished chairman.

[[Page 17707]]

  I took note of the gentleman's $30 billion in donkeys. I would like 
to commend to the gentleman's attention $3 trillion in elephants, which 
is $3 trillion in debt that the other side built up while they were in 
control of this Congress; $3 trillion elephants rampaging through the 
Federal Treasury, crushing our future, strangling them with debt.
  Now, the other side has said that they want to cut and we want to 
spend. Absolutely not true. We've cut these programs. We're being 
stewards with the people's money. We have eliminated over 200 programs 
in this project. The real issue is not cutting versus spending; it's 
priorities. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand priorities.
  The other side had no problem finding the money to give Halliburton, 
in no-bid contracts, unlimited amounts of money to big corporations 
like Halliburton in no-bid contracts. What we're saying is let's 
instead invest that money in the Clean Air Act.
  The other side had no problem bulldozing to passage billions and 
billions of dollars in tax cuts for the richest oil company executives 
on the face of the planet who have made more profits than any company 
has ever made in the course of human history. What we're saying is 
let's prioritize differently. Instead of using that money for tax cuts 
to oil company executives, let's invest it in the Clean Water Act. 
Let's invest it in the Environmental Protection Agency.
  So this isn't just about cutting and spending. This is about 
priorities that the American people want us to pursue. The same choices 
that they make at their kitchen tables, in their living rooms, in their 
dining rooms, in their small businesses are the choices that we're 
suggesting. Instead of the wasteful spending on the special interests, 
the pharmaceutical companies, the big oil companies, we're saying let's 
return some of that money in investments on clean air and clean water.
  Mr. DICKS. And I would just add, if the gentlemen are so confident of 
their position, why don't we just have a vote on this and move along 
and get the committee's work done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the attempt at defending the 
remarkable increased spending on the part of the majority party. To 
describe this amendment as a devastating cut is curious. Only in 
Washington is a decrease in the increase a cut.
  It's important that the American people appreciate that the proposal 
of the majority party is to spend in this bill $27.6 billion. This 
amendment, if enacted would provide for the spending of $27.4 billion, 
hardly, Mr. Chairman, a devastating cut.
  I would also ask my good friend from Washington to simply read the 
amendment. It talks about an across-the-board cut. The amendment states 
that ``appropriations made by this Act are hereby reduced in the amount 
of $276 million.'' That's not an across-the-board cut. That's a 1 
percent reduction in the total allocation in this bill. So it is 
disingenuous of my good friend to make those kinds of comments.
  I would also say that he says that we need to move quickly. I would 
say, Mr. Chairman, that any time we spend defending the American 
taxpayer is time well spent.
  And then they talk about priorities. Mr. Chairman, the correct 
priority we have is defending the American taxpayer.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. 
Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding 1 minute.
  The distinguished colleague who just spoke from New York made a good 
point about the deficit being too large. I agree with him 100 percent 
on that. But now is the chance to step up to the plate. Now is the 
chance we can do something about adding to the deficit.
  The bill in front of us goes $1.9 billion more than what the 
President has requested and $1.2 billion more than last year's amount. 
So we have a chance now to do something about building up the deficit. 
So if we're sincere about being concerned about it, now is the chance 
to actually do something.
  A 1 percent cut allows the committee to do the work of prioritizing 
and making sure that the money goes to the most critical programs and 
has the chance to reprioritize and take away some of the fat. And I 
would suggest that we do not need for the National Endowment of the 
Arts an increase of $35 million, or 29 percent; 29 percent more than 
last year. We have a lot of room to cut this bill.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining on each side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 9 minutes remaining and the 
gentleman from Washington has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I was listening to my good friend and colleague from New York who 
just spoke about the debt that we built up under the Republican 
leadership; I think he mentioned the number $3 trillion. And I don't 
think that's admirable on our part.
  I want to say that I think most Members know that I'm a big fan of 
country music and one of my favorite singers is Randy Travis, and one 
of my favorite songs is ``Diggin Up Bones.'' The American people don't 
want us to be digging up bones and saying, well, you did this, or he 
hit me back first. I think what our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle need to remember, the fact that we are now in the minority is not 
so much about the miscreant action of a couple of Members on our side 
who violated the public trust or the difficult slog in Iraq. That slog 
has been difficult. But more importantly, it's this debt that has been 
built up, this fiscal irresponsibility.
  This Republican Study Committee, the majority of the minority, and 
I'm proud of my Members on this side of the aisle that said enough is 
enough, the American people want us to stop spending their money.
  I support this amendment, a 1 percent cut across the board. It's not 
specifically so much about this particular appropriations bill, but 
it's about all of them. We have got to stop this nonsense spending once 
and for all. This is the time to draw the line in the sand, just like 
our colleague from Colorado, the esteemed Representative Mr. Hefley, 
did every year, 1 percent across-the-board cut. I'm embarrassed that I 
didn't vote for all those amendments, but I strongly support my 
colleague from Georgia in this amendment.
  And as my other colleague from Georgia said, to spend just $1 
billion, you could spend $1 a second for the next 31 years to get to 
this expenditure of $1 billion.
  Support the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the subcommittee (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman from the subcommittee for yielding 
me the time.
  I'm interested by the amendment. Now, as the gentleman from Georgia 
has explained it, I, of course, had thought that without instruction 
the amendment would end up being an across-the-board amendment. But 
what in fact has happened here is that the gentleman's amendment, 
without instruction, allows the executive to decide exactly where those 
$276 million would be cut.
  Now, I would consider that a total abrogation of our responsibility 
for budgeting in article I of the Constitution, where we have taken an 
oath of office to the Constitution, and where our responsibility is to 
define where the budgeting for the country will go.
  So I think that's, in fact, a far worse thing than it would be if it 
were a strictly across-the-board kind of budget, senseless as though 
that would be.
  I often find it necessary to be a little bit repetitious. I just want 
to go back to something that I had pointed out, and that is, that at 
the end of the Carter administration, when President Carter left office 
in January of 1981,

[[Page 17708]]

the debt of this country was $1 trillion. Twelve years later, after 8 
years of President Reagan and four of President Bush, father, the debt 
of the country was $4.3 trillion, more than four times as large in 12 
years, but $3.3 trillion increase. In 8 years of President Clinton, the 
debt was increased by an additional $1.2 trillion to $5.5 trillion.

                              {time}  1300

  After now 6 years of Bush, the son, as President, the debt, at 
present, is at $8.8 trillion, an additional $3\1/2\ trillion in just 6 
years
  Now, I don't know, the gentlemen and women on the other side of the 
aisle were in the majority through all of those 6 years in this House 
of Representatives which starts all the budgets. They can't claim that 
they were out to lunch at all because, in fact, they were here voting 
for those budgets that increased the debt by $3\1/2\ trillion over the 
last 6 years. So if there is fiscal responsibility, it certainly cannot 
be claimed either then or now for what is now the minority in this 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the Chair 
of the Republican Study Committee and the champion of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
I thank him for his leadership in the Republican Study Committee and 
his leadership for fiscal sanity in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that the chairman of the full Appropriations 
Committee is no longer on the floor. I have listened to his comments 
carefully. He alluded to some of the debate being part fiction. Well, I 
must admit, when I have my Democrat colleagues come to the floor and 
lecture on the subject of fiscal responsibility, I do feel like we are 
in the midst of a chapter in ``Alice in Wonderland.'' We hear our 
friends from this side of the aisle lecture us, well, it was you 
Republicans who voted for these budgets that increased spending.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, again, you are entitled to your own opinions. You 
are not entitled to your own facts. Look at the record. Every time that 
the Republicans offered a budget that spent more money, Democrats 
offered a budget that spent even more. It spent even more. Look at the 
record. You have Democrats come to the floor, Mr. Chairman, and say, 
well, the Republicans are responsible for this very expensive 
prescription drug benefit program.
  Well, they are right. But guess what? Their program cost even more. 
It cost even more. Then they say, well, under your watch, the national 
debt went up by $3 trillion. Well, the unfunded obligations, the debt 
that will be imposed on our children and grandchildren for their 
refusal to do anything about out-of-control entitlement spending, is 
$50 trillion. $50 trillion.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to take responsibility 
for $3 trillion when my friends from the other side of the aisle will 
take responsibility for the $50 trillion. They had nothing, absolutely 
nothing, stone-cold silence on entitlement spending in their budget, 
something that the Comptroller General says we are on the verge of 
being the first generation of American history to leave the next 
generation with a lower standard of living. When will the madness stop?
  Then I hear about these devastating cuts. How about the devastating 
cuts to the American family when their largest tax increase in American 
history is imposed? How about those devastating cuts? Then we hear 
about this meat-cleaver approach of an across-the-board cut. Well, my 
friends from the other side of the aisle didn't have any problem with a 
meat-cleaver cut of the American family budget of $3,000 per American 
family. How about that meat-cleaver cut?
  What I am essentially hearing here, and I know much good work has 
been done on this bill, but I am hearing ``NIMBY.'' Sure, maybe there 
is a big entitlement crisis here, but ``not in my backyard.'' It needs 
to begin today.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think people should understand that the 
views that are being enunciated here are not the views of the 
bipartisan appropriations subcommittee that I serve on. Mr. Tiahrt and 
Mr. Dicks have worked very hard to produce a bill that I think is an 
excellent product. It really answers the question these gentlemen have 
raised earlier: What is this bill about? Because what they are talking 
about cutting, folks, is cutting to the heart of what the American 
people love.
  Let's talk a little bit about that. They want to talk about 1 
percent, 4 percent and all of that. But they don't want to talk about 
what they are really cutting.
  Now, the National Wildlife Refuges, the American people love. This 
administration is talking about closing down 200 National Wildlife 
Refuges because we don't have any personnel in them. So you want to 
continue that. The speakers here today want to continue those cuts and 
close down National Wildlife Refuges.
  If you ask the American people, do they love their American parks and 
do they want rangers to be there to service them? The American people 
are going to say, yes, of course, they do. Well, these gentlemen want 
to cut them. That is what is going on here. They want to cut the parks 
and cut park personnel. There is a huge backlog in the parks. They 
don't want to do anything about it. They want to cut further.
  The other part of this bill which is very, very important, is we are 
always hearing about local communities needing water and sewer. Your 
side always talks about mandates. Well, this bill is about giving local 
communities water and sewer grants through the EPA so that they can 
clean up so that cities don't have to be polluters.
  So, we ought to get a little question in reality here when it comes 
to the fringe element that is coming out here, not the bipartisan 
subcommittee that put this together.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time 
available on each side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 4 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, given the discrepancy in the 
times, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate a couple of points, because we 
seem to be having this debate every week. It seems to be on the same 
issues we have always been talking about. But I find it not necessarily 
enjoyable, but an obligation, to get up and communicate to the American 
taxpayer and the citizens of this country that over the last 6 years, 
the Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House, 
borrowed $3 trillion. They asked the Treasury Department to raise the 
debt limit five or six times to allow them to go out and borrow more 
money.
  You borrowed it from China. You borrowed it from Japan. You borrowed 
it from OPEC countries. On and on and on and on. All of a sudden, 5 or 
6 months into this year, before we have even passed a budget, you are 
lecturing us on fiscal responsibility.
  I want the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, to keep their forms from this 
year and compare them to their tax forms next year. They will see 
absolutely no increase in their taxes whatsoever. None. Zero. So, there 
is not a tax increase in this 2008 budget.
  Now, let's talk about what you are proposing to cut with this 
amendment.
  Superfund sites. Okay, you want to cut the Superfund site program 
that is going to clean up the most toxic sites. In many of the old 
industrial areas like mine, the gentleman knows very well, they were 
polluted in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We can't develop the local 
economy because where we have water lines and where we have sewer 
lines, they are contaminated.

[[Page 17709]]

  Quite frankly, the city of Youngstown and the city of Warren do not 
have millions of dollars to put into this because their tax base has 
eroded. If you want us to contribute to the tax base like we did in the 
1930s, 1940s and 1950s when, quite frankly, a lot of that money that 
was taken out of Youngstown, Ohio, was used to develop the West and to 
develop new water lines and sewer lines in the South in many of your 
districts, all we are asking is for a little bit of help.

                              {time}  1315

  Help us clean up the brownfield sites.
  How about your cutting the methamphetamine prevention and treatment 
program? I am sure you can't wait to get back to your districts and 
tell that to your constituents. How about those of you in the West 
fighting wildfires? You are going to cut that program.
  Mr. Chairman, many will say there are not any cuts in this bill. 
There are cuts in this bill: $193 million cut from construction 
account, it eliminates $31 million for landowner incentives; $39 
million cut for the EPA Mexican border program; $24 million cut from 
the EPA Alaska Village setaside; $24 million cut from the Indiana land 
consolidation. There are cuts in here. We are not raising taxes. We are 
making investments into our community.
  Just because, Mr. Chairman, the minority party raised the debt $3 
trillion, just because the minority party is ashamed, quite frankly, of 
their behavior over the past 6 years doesn't mean that they can 
displace all of their shamefulness on the new Democratic majority. I 
wouldn't want to admit that I borrowed $3 trillion from Japan and China 
either. I would run from it as fast as I could. But that doesn't change 
the facts.
  So I think we should vote down this amendment. There are great 
investments for local communities all over the country in this bill, 
and I think we should keep it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a champion 
for fiscal responsibility and fiscal reform in Washington.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a real test here. We all campaign every 
2 years, and we put out campaign literature. We go speak at town halls 
and other events. And I would venture to guess that not one person in 
this body said, Reelect me because we need to spend more on Interior 
appropriations. We need to spend more. We need to spend 4 percent more 
than we did last year. I am going to go back to Washington and spend 
$1.2 billion more than we did last year.
  I venture that nobody said that. Virtually everybody said we need to 
rein in spending. We need to promote fiscal responsibility.
  I am the first to concede we didn't do a good job of it over here. 
For the past several years we have grown government far too big. That 
is part of the reason we are now in the minority. But the majority 
comes now and says, don't lecture us, we are going to increase that 
spending.
  This bill spends $1.2 billion more than last year. Last year spent 
too much. This year spends too much too much again.
  So, please, we know we did wrong. That is why we are in the minority. 
But when you are in the majority now, let's exercise some fiscal 
discipline. There are plenty of areas that can receive cuts. We have 
outlined several of them over the past several hours with amendments.
  Museum funding, part of the reason the gentleman from New Mexico 
mentioned that we have a backlog at the National Parks, he is right. 
But yet in the authorizing committee, we have created several more 
National Heritage Areas and earmarked a lot more money for them. There 
are earmarks in this bill for National Heritage Areas. That is money 
that will come out of the National Parks budget. They will tell you if 
you spend money here on this new area, this National Heritage Area, you 
can't spend money maintaining the parks that we already have. Many of 
us have fought to stop that. We have said don't keep creating these 
National Heritage Areas. Yet with the new majority, we are creating 
them at a faster rate than we ever have.
  I would say, let's promote fiscal discipline. Let's pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak to the gentleman 
who has just spoken. I commend the gentleman who has just spoken. I 
think he has taken a very responsible, very serious approach to 
budgeting over the last several sessions, and I appreciate that sort of 
thing very much.
  But I would say that here we are in this instance with an amendment 
that takes an approach not quite across-the-board, but gives the total 
responsibility off to the President of the United States to decide 
where to make any cuts he wishes to make, which, I repeat, is an 
abrogation of our responsibility under the Constitution that we take an 
oath to.
  I would say that also this is a bad approach because after 40 
amendments, each of which has been defeated, and 40 amendments which 
have had so little merit to them that they have been defeated, many of 
them by roll call votes, by roll call votes, and the sum total of all 
those amendments was considerably more than the $276 million, to now 
throw up your hands and try to do it in a different way, in that kind 
of a meat-ax approach, to use those words, is not a good thing to do. 
It is not an appropriate budgeting thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend my friend, not only for his 
athletic ability and his talents on the basketball court, but also for 
his focus and discipline in regards to this issue.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I have three amendments 
that have not been voted on yet, so I invite the gentleman to support 
them.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in the city of 
Akron, which I represent a part of, their obligation for the EPA is 
$400 million in the city of Akron. Our friends on the other side are 
saying that there is no role for the Federal Government to play.
  You have communities like Akron, you have communities like Youngstown 
that have lost significant industry over the past 20 or 30 years; and 
if we want to bring industry back, if we want to grow industry, we 
can't have brownfields all over our cities.
  This is an investment. This is going to clean the site up. This is an 
opportunity for us to redevelop sites in our communities.
  Now, 30 years ago when the steel mills were pumping, when the rubber 
industry was pumping, a lot of our tax dollars were going to many of 
your communities to help lay down roads, build the interstate, rail 
lines, water infrastructure, all of these things. What this bill does 
is it tries to reinvest back into some of these communities. We want to 
be self-sufficient, but we don't have the local tax base. There is a 
role here for the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my friends, why would you want to prevent us from 
cleaning up brownfield sites in the old industrial areas? We don't need 
it forever. We just need to clean them up, and then we will have a tax 
base there and have more taxpayers to pay taxes and keep the tax rates 
low for everybody, because we will have more. But if we can't develop 
these sites, it becomes very, very difficult for us to grow our local 
economy.
  We need the Federal Government to make these investments, and that is 
exactly what this bill does.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each 
side, if I may?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
  I just would point out to my good friend from Ohio that no specific 
programs are identified in this decrease in

[[Page 17710]]

the increase. So to identify specific programs is a spurious argument, 
truly.
  I would also say that this points out fundamentally the difference 
between the two parties. We believe fundamentally that individuals 
spend their money more wisely than the government. It is clear that the 
majority party does not believe that. They believe that they spend the 
taxpayer money much more wisely. We just think that is a fundamental 
difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my good 
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), on this 
appropriate amendment of fiscal responsibility.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just walked in a moment 
ago. I was on the streets of Washington, D.C. where the heat is truly 
on this Nation's Capital in the high nineties and the humidity is also 
in the high nineties, and here we come to the inside of Chambers, where 
the heat is being put on, on the American taxpayer and the American 
family; but this time it is being placed on them by the Democrats and 
majority party.
  Six months into control by the Democrats, and what have they wrought 
for this Nation? The largest tax increase in U.S. history; an attempt 
to change the rules on the American public going back to 1820; and last 
week, of course, we saw as well the idea by the Democrats that they 
should have some sort of slush fund where your tax dollars go unequated 
for.
  When you look at the basic math I was trying to do here, look at the 
equation, what they give us is this: a tax increase plus a spending 
increase leads to an answer of an increased burden on the American 
taxpayer.
  I have had the opportunity now to serve on the Budget Committee for 4 
years; and during that time the Democrats, when they were in the 
minority, railed against us time after time saying we were spending too 
much. I thought that railing would stop once they were in the majority 
and they had the opportunity to go in the other direction. But as we 
have seen here, the railing has not stopped. They continue to point to 
the past about increased spending, but they then at the same token, out 
of their same mouths, what do they do? They increase spending on the 
American public again.
  If the problem in the past was that the U.S. Government was spending 
too much, you would think that the simple solution to that, the simple 
answer to that math equation, would be spend less. But this budget does 
not do that. This spending bill does not do that. That is why I support 
the gentleman from Georgia's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington 
resumes control of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the 
gentleman from Georgia who said the individual taxpayers can spend 
their money better than government. The taxpayers in my district can't 
clean a brownfield, go out with 50 bucks and clean a brownfield. This 
is something we need to do collectively as a community and as a 
country, to clean that up. Individuals can't do that.
  Individuals couldn't build the interstate highways and the railroads 
and the Panama Canal and all the great infrastructure projects that we 
have had. We need help to do this in some communities so we can be 
self-sufficient, and individuals can't do that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to say to my colleagues, the reason we 
have to make this increase in the Interior appropriations budget is 
because over the last 6 or 7 years the budgets for these agencies have 
been reduced dramatically. The Interior Department has been cut by 16 
percent. We have lost rangers at every national park in the Nation. The 
summer workers have been cut back. The services there are not as good 
as they used to be.
  This was a crisis. The National Parks Conservation Association had a 
pamphlet, ``The Endangered Ranger.'' Here it was, our national parks, 
our national treasure, in decline.
  I am no extremist. I am a moderate in this House, and I always have 
been. But this was a true crisis. And what we had to do was stop this 
decline, this downward trend of our national wildlife refuges, our 
national parks, and we put a little extra money in to get it turned up, 
so we could hire a few more people, so we could cover the fixed costs 
of the rangers and the people running these wildlife refuges.
  That is why we had to do this. It was a crisis. And it is going to 
take us a number of years to get back. We only increased this budget by 
4.3 percent. With a 16-percent cut, it would take 4 years to get back 
to where we were in 2001. With EPA, it would take about 7 years to get 
back to where we were. And with a 35-percent cut in the Forest Service, 
it would take about 8 years to get back. So we have a long ways to go, 
and I don't want to have any downward direction here.
  I do say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is right, the 1 
percent could be taken anywhere, and that might mean that all of the 
projects of interest to the Members would be eliminated by the 
administration. Now, I hope they wouldn't do that. I hope they wouldn't 
fall into that trap. But that is one possibility.
  So, again, I resent the gentleman from Georgia even suggesting that 
we aren't over here fighting against your amendments. We just looked at 
the Record last night and how the votes went, and we thought maybe some 
of the Members would like to get home on Thursday.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I can 
guarantee I think that this amendment will be treated properly by the 
membership.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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. 27 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       Page 110, after line 18, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 417. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 0.5 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the overall 
funding of this bill by .5 percent, one-half of 1 percent. We already 
know that the increased funding in this bill over the last year's 
appropriations is an additional $1.2 billion, 4.5 percent. So my 
amendment would take a 4.5 percent increase to a 4 percent increase. 
That is not a cut. If you look up the word ``cut'' in the dictionary, 
this is still an increase in spending of 4 percent.
  We have a national debt that is at an all-time high, $8.8 trillion. I 
walk around in the Longworth House Office Building where my office is 
and I see these charts on easels out in front of Members' offices and 
they are decrying the national debt. I look at my children and my 
grandchildren and I am very concerned about this $8.8 trillion. I think 
we are leaving a terrible legacy to our children and our grandchildren.

[[Page 17711]]

I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I want to say 
that you are right when you decry the spending levels that the 
Republicans reached while we were in the majority.
  But I want to take it back to a time when I was a teacher, and 
someone in the class would do something and you would try to correct 
this student and they would say, But he is doing it too. And you would 
say, It is still wrong. You are doing it. You stop it. And then you 
deal with this person over here.
  Republicans spent too much. Democrats want to spend even more, Mr. 
Chairman. But as we are standing here today debating these amendments, 
and some people think we need to hurry up and go home, I think the 
American people need to hear this debate.
  I heard the distinguished chairman talking about a meat-ax approach 
that a Republican chairman had alluded to before years ago. I would say 
that the Musgrave amendment is just a shave, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
shave that won't even give you a rash. It is 50 cents on $100. That is 
very appropriate.
  When we look at this bill, we hear things that are very worthy of 
taxpayer spending in this bill. But we also hear other things.
  This bill contains $204 million for land acquisition. If you take a 
map of the United States, Mr. Chairman, and you look and see how much 
land the government already owns west of the Mississippi, if you look 
at that map, it is staggering. I am very concerned about how the 
Federal Government already owns too much land.
  Again, in this bill there is $204 million for land acquisition. I 
have friends in the Western Caucus, and I am a member of it, and we 
talk about what happens to communities when this property is owned by 
the Federal Government, what happens to the revenue stream.
  This bill also has something else that is especially egregious to me, 
$160 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, a 29 
percent increase over the amount that was appropriated last year. I 
love the arts and I know that these things are noble. But, do you know 
what? When I talk to a family in Sterling, Colorado, a farming 
community out there in northeastern Colorado, I would have a very hard 
time convincing them that they need to be taxed at a higher rate, to 
send their hard-earned dollars to Washington, D.C. so that money can be 
handed out for theater productions in Sitka, Alaska. I don't think the 
family in Sterling, Colorado, would get that.

                              {time}  1330

  So I think when we talk about the good things in this bill, we also 
have to look at these egregious things and talk about choices we should 
make.
  So again, I want to trim this. I want to give this a shave of one-
half of 1 percent, which, by the way, in dollar amounts, ends up being 
$138 million, just a shave off of this bill, to exercise discipline in 
our spending just like the families back home have to do to meet their 
budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I just want to say a couple of things. I know, Mr. Chairman, people 
watching this on TV probably think they are in the Twilight Zone or 
caught up in the middle of Alice in Wonderland because you don't know 
which side to believe.
  The chairman of the subcommittee said people couldn't sleep or 
wouldn't be able to sleep worrying about these cuts. Nobody in 
Grantville, Georgia, will be staying up worrying about the government 
cutting its own size.
  We are talking about saving time. We have been debating for about 14 
hours $28 billion. I don't know about anybody on the other side of the 
aisle, but I know that when me and my family sit down and discuss a 
budget, it took a lot longer for us to discuss our little pittance of a 
budget than 14 hours to discuss $27 billion.
  The other thing, we are hearing all of this whining about we borrowed 
$3 trillion in the last 6 years. We ran up the deficit. And then we 
hear about we cut the budget $16 billion. Now listen, where I come 
from, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. We were either wrong in 
borrowing the money, or we were wrong in not spending the money, but 
you can't be wrong in both of them. Somebody has to make up their mind.
  We talked the other night that you can fool some of the people some 
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
  I would like to say that I think the majority is running out of time, 
because pretty soon, the gig is going to be up. We tried pinpointing, 
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Flake, we tried pinpointing, doing some accurate 
bombing or cutting on this bill; but that didn't work.
  Now it's being talked about using the meat-cleaver approach. When I 
get those 250 programs that have been cut and the $6 billion that has 
been saved, and the list of the $80 billion that we are spending more, 
could you send me maybe a method to do some cutting? Because if we 
can't pinpoint, we can't use a scalpel, and we can't use a meat 
cleaver, how can we do it? I think that is what the taxpayers want to 
know. Who is going to stand up for them?
  We call each other ``my good friend'' and ``my good buddy'' and ``my 
colleague'' and this and that. What we need to be doing is being a good 
friend to the taxpayer. We are not being a good friend to the taxpayer.
  We talk about national parks being closed down, and yet we spend 
another $7 million expanding the Carl Sandburg property.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would cut a total of $138 million from environmental 
conservation and Native American programs. It makes no choice based on 
need or merit of the program, but it cuts 0.5 percent in this bill. 
This is not merely an accounting change on a table. Cutting $138 
million from the bill will have very serious consequences.
  All of us have been listening on television about the big wild fire 
at Lake Tahoe. This bill would reduce overall funding for firefighting 
by $14 million at a time when we are facing what is potentially one of 
the worst fire seasons in history. It cuts 125 firefighters, shuts down 
firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It 
would decimate preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical 
support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 80 more 
wildfires to escalate. This would lead to larger, more damaging and 
much more expensive fires, costing in excess of $20 million to 
extinguish.
  This amendment halts hazardous fuel reduction projects without which 
there is little hope for reducing long-term fire costs and harmful 
impacts.
  In our national parks, it cuts overall National Park Service funding 
by $13 million, includes a $6 million reduction below the President's 
request for the basic operational cost of the 391 units of the national 
park system.
  It drastically impacts the President's proposal to hire 3,000 
seasonal and 600 full-time park ranger positions.
  For Native American programs, it rejects $29 million for programs 
that have received bipartisan support. By cutting $16 million out of 
Indian health care programs, this proposal would deny service to 
thousands of Native Americans.
  It takes 4 percent out of the already struggling Indian education 
programs leaving even more Indian children without adequate education 
programs.
  For the Environmental Protection Agency, it reduces a total of $40 
million for EPA. Funding for efforts to help local communities with 
repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure, would be 
reduced by almost $10 million from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels. 
This would mean that many communities would not receive the financial 
assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer 
infrastructure.
  Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a 
toxic waste site, the amendment cuts almost $8 million from programs to 
clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces 
the amount for restoration and protection

[[Page 17712]]

of America's great water bodies, including the Chesapeake Bay, Great 
Lakes, Puget Sound, and others. It would especially jeopardize the 
cleanup of toxic sediments in the lakes, and community efforts across 
this Nation to protect 28 estuaries.
  For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the cuts here would be $7 
million for an agency which has already lost 600 staff positions since 
2004. And means that many of our wildlife refuges today have no staff 
whatsoever because of the devastating cuts that have been imposed over 
the last 7 years.
  It would perpetuate staffing shortfall trends and reduce public 
service by taking funding out of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Forest Service. This amendment reduces funding for the non-fire 
portion of the Forest Service by $13 million. Forces up to 100 employee 
layoffs and closures of more than 10 campgrounds while reducing fire 
improvement activities on several thousand acres.
  It diminishes cooperative land conservation and forestry actions 
which serve thousands of nonindustrial private forest landowners.
  It freezes research efforts and compels the closure of at least four 
labs.
  So these are, I think, very substantial and important reductions that 
would adversely affect this bill. I have a great regard for the 
gentlelady. As much as I enjoy and appreciate her, I can't accept this 
amendment. I want her to know it is nothing personal, it is just that 
we have to do the job.
  We are in a recovery mode here. That is what I tried to explain. The 
gentleman who talked about the $16 billion, it wasn't $16 billion, it 
was a 16 percent reduction in the funding for the Department of the 
Interior. This has had a devastating impact. We also had a 29 percent 
reduction in EPA and a 35 percent reduction in the Forest Service 
budget. All of these budgets have been hit hard. Only the Department of 
Labor has been hit worse.
  What we are trying to do is stop this downward trend in the personnel 
in these agencies. The Park Service budget, 80 to 90 percent of the 
budget are for people. That is why we are so concerned about this. 
Without the people, the American people when they go to the parks are 
not going to have the kind of experience that they should have. That's 
why we have tried to stop this.
  The Secretary of the Interior, he got it. I told him, I said you 
cannot succeed, Mr. Secretary, unless you get 100 percent of fixed 
costs covered in your budget for the Park Service, for the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, for the Bureau of Land Management, the Mineral 
Management Agency, and he did that. But we have to recover over a 
period of time.
  Unfortunately, to make further reductions will take us longer before 
we can restore the services at our national parks, and restore service 
at our national wildlife refuges. This is a very well put-together 
bill. I just regret that these cuts are being offered. I think this 
bill should be accepted as it is. We have to go to conference, 
obviously we know that. So I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding 
me this time, and for bringing this fine amendment forward and for her 
work on fiscal responsibility in her time here in the United States 
Congress.
  I want to make a couple of quick points here. First, the list that 
the chairman just went through, he kept using the term ``cut.'' Let's 
be clear to the American people in particular that the gentlelady's 
amendment is not a cut, it is an increase of 4 percent. What the 
gentleman was referring to was the spending levels at 4.5 percent which 
the bill contains within it. All she is saying is let's increase 4 
percent instead of 4.5 percent. Again, only in government-speak, only 
in Washington can that be termed a cut. She is not cutting at all. She 
is just saying let's not increase it quite as much.
  A couple of other things we have heard in the course of the debate 
this afternoon which I think has been healthy. The chairman indicated 
that he wants to move on, we need to limit debate and get out of here. 
Look, 40 minutes on three amendments, 2 hours total on debate, on the 
most fundamental question, the most fundamental issue the United States 
Congress deals with: How we spend the taxpayers' money. So 2 hours 
debate on what level that should be is not too much debate. Frankly, we 
should have more on this fundamental question.
  The other point that the majority party makes is, and again, I find 
this logic fascinating. Republicans spent too much, so we are going to 
spend even more. It is amazing that is the logic that the other size 
entails and brings forward in each of these appropriations bills.
  Talking about the spending contained within this bill, let me just 
cite a couple of things.
  The Commission on Climate Change, a brand new commission, $50 million 
on the Commission on Climate Change, adaptation and mitigation, a new, 
additional study on global warming, as if we haven't had enough studies 
on that already. So $50 million on that.
  The National Park Service, $199 million increase, 10.8 percent above 
last year.
  National Endowment for the Humanities, $19 million increase, 13 
percent above last year.
  Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency that the gentleman said 
that if it didn't get the right amount of funding, people would lose 
sleep over, $361 million, or a 4.7 percent increase above last year.
  And of course, my favorite, and I am sure the favorite of the 
American taxpayer, National Endowment for the Arts, a $35 million 
increase, 29 percent above last year.
  There is all kinds of additional government contained in this 
legislation. I am reminded of the old statement by our third President, 
Thomas Jefferson. He said: ``When government fears the people, there is 
liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny.'' Now keep 
that statement in mind and ask yourself the question: If next week when 
we are back home on break and you are at some friend's business and 
someone walks up to the door and knocks on the door and the individual 
identifies himself, I'm Mr. Smith and I am from the EPA, the Agency 
that gets a 4.7-percent increase in this bill. If you are that 
individual who owns that business, is your first response, oh, joy, one 
of my government's servants is about here to help me today.
  That is what this debate is about, and 2 hours debate on the most 
fundamental question that the United States Congress deals with, how we 
spend taxpayer dollars, is not too much debate.
  We should debate this long and hard and we should support the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado. It simply slows down the 
rate of government growth, slows down that government that Jefferson 
warned us about in his statement. I certainly support the gentlelady's 
amendment, and thank her for bringing it forward.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give my friend from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) 2 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who 
supports the protection of our national parks and as an individual from 
the very crowded State of New Jersey who is seeking to make sure that 
we preserve the open space of this country as best we can, I rise in 
support of the gentlelady from Colorado's amendment which would 
increase spending on these worthwhile causes by 4 percent.
  You know, the American public who watches this debate right now might 
wonder sometimes, do we have a schizophrenic state of mind by the 
majority party in control today? Out of their mouths come one thing now 
and something else later on. What is white is black, what is day is 
night. One moment we are railing against and saying spending, spending, 
spending is the problem and it's been the problem of

[[Page 17713]]

the Republican Party for years and years and it still is their problem. 
Just a moment later, we hear that spending is not the problem from the 
other side. The problem all these years has been cuts, cuts, cuts. The 
problem that we have now is that we've been cutting too much in the 
past. Which is it?
  The American public must do as I do sometimes when they hear the 
debate from the other side of the aisle and scratch their head. Which 
are the facts that they want to go by today? Is it the problem that 
we've been spending too much, as the other side of the aisle says? Or 
is the problem, as the gentleman just recently said, that we were 
cutting too much?
  I would argue that the problem has been that we've been spending too 
much of the taxpayers' dollars in an unaccountable manner. And the 
budget that has come before us would give the American taxpayer the 
largest tax increase in U.S. history.
  The amendment from the gentlelady from Colorado would try to do 
things on an even and moderate manner. It would still increase spending 
by 4 percent so that all the worthwhile programs in the bill that's 
before us would be able to be continued to be fully funded at the 
necessary levels. But at the same time, the gentlelady from Colorado 
takes in mind the efforts of the American taxpayers to make sure that 
we will not have the largest tax increase in American history on that 
family.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the committee chairman if he 
has any more speakers.
  Mr. DICKS. I may have one more speaker. I think I have the right to 
close, don't I?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGovern). The gentleman from Washington has 
the right to close.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining for both sides.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
  You know, we have heard a lot today from the majority party whenever 
we talk about this amendment, this bill, this spending, they want to 
bring up last year's bills, last year's spending. We acknowledge, last 
year's spending was too much. Last year's bills were too much. That's 
not what we're talking about. It's like the baseball team wanting to 
play last year's season again. Look what we did last year. Look what 
happened last year. No, we're in the middle of this year. We're in the 
middle of this season. It doesn't matter who won the World Series last 
year. It matters who's in first place this year. What matters is this 
year. How much are we going to spend this year? That's what we're 
voting on. How much are we going to increase the deficit this year? How 
much further are we going to raid the Social Security surplus this 
year? That's the question before us. And we think we ought to have the 
deficit increase a little less and that we should raid the Social 
Security surplus a little less and that we shouldn't set up a situation 
where you're going to raise taxes on all of the American people.
  The previous amendment, I showed a couple of charts. The previous 
amendment was to reduce spending by 1 percent. I tried to point out to 
the majority that it's like this. Here are 100 donkeys, something they 
can understand. If we reduce that by 1 percent, we have 99 donkeys. Not 
that big a difference in donkeys. And so we proposed an amendment last 
time, which the majority party defeated on voice vote, will undoubtedly 
defeat later, that said, let's just get by on 99 donkeys, money, 
instead of 100 donkeys, money. Well, they said they couldn't do it.
  So the gentlelady from Colorado offers an alternative, which is get 
by on 99\1/2\ donkeys. If I had a half donkey, I would stick it up 
there. You can pick whichever end of the donkey you want, but put 
another half a donkey on that chart. And so we're saying rather than 
100 donkeys, get by with 99\1/2\. It's just saying if you have a 
million-dollar program, we said, well, get by on 999,000. They're 
saying, no. Okay. How about $999,500? If you have a $100 million 
program, we're saying can you get by on $99 million. They said, no. 
We're saying, okay, how about $99\1/2\ million.
  That's what this argument is about. Just asking for a half a percent, 
each government agency, each government program to deal with a half a 
percent less. People at home make these kinds of decisions with way 
bigger percentages than that all the time, Mr. Chairman. And if we do 
it, if we reduce it by 1 percent, we would save $30 billion if we did 
every program every year. If it's a half a percent, it's still $15 
billion. That is real money, Mr. Chairman. Real money no matter how you 
cut it. And that is the way we can balance this budget without raising 
taxes.
  There, Mr. Chairman, is the big difference between the majority 
Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We're saying, get by on 99 
donkeys or 99\1/2\ donkeys instead of 100. Tell government bureaucrats 
that we can balance this budget without raising taxes. They, however, 
want to give the bureaucrats 100 donkeys of spending every time and 
raise taxes on the American people to make up the difference. That's 
what we're talking about here. That's the difference in this debate. 
That's the difference between these parties.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members to vote to make government 
bureaucrats deal with a tiny bit less and let people save and keep 
their own money.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 3 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Washington State has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I come in support of my friend from Colorado's amendment that would 
reduce this by one-half of 1 percent below the spending levels of last 
year.
  Over the last 6 months, the new majority has passed or paved the way 
for $103.5 billion of increased spending. I guess actually, to be 
technically correct, it's $103.4 billion. While $0.1 billion may not 
matter here, it sure matters in America. $103.4 billion in new 
spending.
  We have already enacted over a $6 billion increase in the continuing 
resolution for this year. We added $17 billion in unrequested funding 
to spend in the supplemental for this year. And now we're beginning 
this process of moving toward the additional $80.3 billion added to 
spending on this year's budget.
  $100 billion is a huge amount of money. Today we're considering the 
Interior and Environment appropriations bill that really makes a good 
portion of that increase happen right here. This bill increases 
spending by almost 5 percent over last year's level, $1.2 billion of 
new spending.
  And here, if you look at this spending thermometer, we're halfway up 
to what may be the taxpayer's boiling point. Somebody has to pay the 
bill. Somebody has to produce the revenue. Some American family is 
going to have to have a little less take-home pay because government 
wanted just a little bit more here, a little bit more there, a little 
bit more everywhere else.
  And all my good friend from Colorado's amendment does is say, let's 
reduce spending here by one-half of 1 percent. Let's reduce spending by 
$138 million and still see if we can't do the things that need to be 
done in this appropriations bill in the right way. If you add this 
increase to the increases already proposed and passed over the past 2 
weeks, we're spending $23.8 billion more than last year.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. I respect both the 
chairman and the ranking member of the

[[Page 17714]]

committee and believe that they've done a good job with this bill, but 
I believe you could do that same job, I think you could do the same 
job, produce the same results with asking the American taxpayers not to 
have to carry a burden of 4\1/2\ percent new spending in this part of 
the budget. And so I strongly recommend that we take this, what may 
seem like a slight reduction here, but when families have to start 
paying that $138 million in additional taxes, it's a big deal for 
American families. It should be a big deal for us.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. I would like to make a few comments on the remarks of my 
friend from Missouri. We've just heard an expression of deep concern 
about the so-called runaway spending in this bill and other 
appropriation bills. And we've heard deep concern expressed about how 
this is going to hurt the average taxpayer.
  Well, I would like to compare priorities. They've talked about our 
budget. I would like to talk about theirs, although I must admit that 
in 3 of the last 6 years, they couldn't even pass one. We passed a 
budget. In 3 out of the last 6 years, they couldn't even pass their own 
budget because of internal squabbles between themselves. But I want to 
talk about the budget that they attempted to pass. The budget that 
we're operating under was signed by the President, passed by a 
Republican Congress, and this year will give over $50 billion in tax 
cuts to people who make over a million bucks a year. That seems to be 
the top priority of folks on the other side of the aisle, to preserve 
that high-roller tax cut above all else.
  Well, let me tell you what we think should be higher priorities. 
They've attacked us because of what we did in the continuing resolution 
last year and they attack us for what we're trying to do in this bill 
today. I plead fully guilty of trying to add, in fact we did add almost 
$4 billion of additional funding for veterans health care. I see no 
sense of shared sacrifice in this country when it comes to the war. 
Only military families are being asked to pay a price. We decided that 
we ought to at least see to it that veterans are taken care of when 
they come home. So we added $4 billion.
  Then you bet! We added some more so-called ``runaway spending,'' so 
that middle-class kids could get more help to go to college by raising 
the Pell Grants. Now, I've never had anybody in my district say, ``Why 
don't you guys get your act together and cut cancer research?'' But 
that's exactly what the Republican-controlled Congress did in the last 
2 years. They cut health grants, research grants at the NIH, over 500 
grants. So we put $610 million back into that continuing resolution to 
wipe out those cuts, because we think it's more important to save 
people's lives from cancer and Parkinson's and heart disease than it is 
to wear a green eye shade that says ``Mr. Perfect'' on it.
  Then we added additional funding for community health care. 1.2 
million additional Americans are going to be able to access community 
health centers and get health care without begging.

                              {time}  1400

  I do not apologize for that. Nobody does on this side of the aisle. 
When it comes to this bill, we make no apology of the fact that we are 
trying to restore funds which were cut out of this Interior budget for 
the last 3 years, cut out of the EPA budget, for the clean water 
revolving fund. There isn't a bigger need in rural America than clean 
water and decent sewer systems.
  I represent all kinds of communities of less than 2,000 people. At 
least half of the families are headed either by women or people over 
65. They do not have the tax-paying capacity on the property tax to 
meet the standards required of them to clean up their water and their 
sewer problems. Mr. Dicks has tried to deal with that. We do not 
apologize for that one iota.
  We've got some other priorities too. We're going to try to provide 
additional funding for energy. We have added, in the three bills that 
have passed this House so far, and including this bill, we will have 
added more than $1 billion in an effort to increase and strengthen our 
energy research so that we aren't the prisoners of gas and oil 
companies and so that we aren't the prisoners of Middle East oil. We 
make no apologies for that.
  Admittedly, there are some people in this House who know the cost of 
everything and the value of nothing. I'm looking at a few of them right 
now.
  But the fact is that we recognize that it is important to make long-
term investments so that 10 years from now, we can have the kind of 
country we want it to be, rather than having the kind of country we 
don't want it to be.
  I would suggest I will compare our priorities to yours any time. You 
can defend those $57 billion in tax cuts for millionaires until the 
cows come home. I would rather defend increased service at our national 
parks, increased educational opportunity, increased health care, 
increased clean water and clean air opportunities. I think the public 
will take those priorities any time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague 
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a healthy 
debate.
  I appreciate my good friend from Colorado for yielding. I want to 
commend as well my friend from Washington, the subcommittee chairman, 
for the work that he has done and the ranking member for work that they 
have done. The subcommittee chairman said that there was nothing 
personal in his opposition to this amendment, and that's true. There is 
absolutely nothing personal here in this Chamber.
  But this discussion is personal to the American taxpayer, and it's 
all about priorities. We have offered today a series of amendments. One 
amendment said we ought to spend exactly what we spent last year, tens 
of billions of dollars in this area of the government. The majority 
party declined to accept that amendment.
  Then we offered an amendment that said instead of increasing spending 
by 9.5 percent, we ought to increase spending by 8.5 percent, and they 
said, no, they weren't interested in that.
  So the gentlelady from Colorado says, well, if you can't save $1 out 
of every $100, how about 50 cents? How about 50 cents out of every 
$100?
  What Congress is spending in this appropriations bill and in every 
appropriations bill, because of the increase in spending, is money that 
we don't have. It's money that the Congress doesn't have. This money 
represents the debt that Congress is burdening on future generations, 
our children, and our grandchildren. It is simply time, it's time for 
Washington to stop finding ways to spend more money.
  I commend the gentlelady from Colorado for her amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support her amendment by decreasing by one half of 1 
percent the increase in this appropriations bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as I think about this amendment again, I 
have heard from the distinguished chairman, and I do applaud his work 
and the work of the ranking member on this appropriations bill, but I 
heard, I believe it was Representative Contee talk about a meat-ax 
approach to reducing spending.
  I would just like to say again that this .5 percent is just a gentle 
shave. We need to look at the trajectory when we look at appropriations 
bills and see where they are going. We need to ask the American family, 
are you guaranteed a 4.5 percent increase in your income every year?
  I think we need to think of that American family, particularly moms 
and dads with children that are trying to figure out how long they are 
going to have to work in the year before they reach tax freedom day. 
How many days do they have to work before they have earned enough money 
to pay the government to spend like this with increases every year?
  I am hoping we can look out for the American taxpayer, we can look 
out for hard-working Americans and say

[[Page 17715]]

we are going to exercise fiscal responsibility, and we are going to 
start out with a very small step, reducing spending in this Interior 
appropriations bill by .5 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 gentlewoman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania the designee 
for Mr. Doolittle?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Yes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new title:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amounts under the following headings 
     ``Bureau of Land Management--management of lands and 
     resources'' by $34,341,000, ``Bureau of Land Management--land 
     acquisition'' by $17,015,000, ``United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service--land acquisition'' by $25,035,000, ``United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service--multinational species 
     conservation funds'' by $4,655,000, ``United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service--state and tribal wildlife grants'' by 
     $17,508,000, ``National Park Service--land acquisition'' by 
     $76,873,000, ``National Park Service--centennial challenge'' 
     by $22,721,000, ``Environmental Protection Agency--
     environmental programs and management'' by $37,660,000, 
     ``National Park Service--office of inspector general'' by 
     $6,328,000, ``Forest Service--forest and rangeland research'' 
     by $7,500,000, ``Forest Service--state and private forestry'' 
     by $13,476,000, ``Forest Service--national forest system'' by 
     $53,773,000, ``Forest Service--capital improvement and 
     maintenance'' by $25,000,000, ``Forest Service--land 
     acquisition'' by $28,782,000, ``National Endowment for the 
     Arts--grants and administration'' by $35,438,000, and 
     ``National Endowment for the Humanities--grants and 
     administration'' by $18,895,000, and $425,000,000 shall be 
     available for payments during fiscal year 2008 under sections 
     102 and 103 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 
     note), as reauthorized by section 2201 of Public Law 110-28.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I rise to support the Secure Rural 
Schools Act. My district in Pennsylvania is affected by this and many 
districts in the west are affected by this Act.
  Over the years, timber harvesting and other mineral resources 
harvesting provided a huge resource for local governments, and, 
specifically, schools.
  When those who chose not to continue the wise management of our 
forest by allowing the mature trees to be harvested, America's most 
renewable resource, we had school districts and governments in 
tremendous financial crisis. Several years ago, Congress had the wisdom 
to pass the Secure Rural Schools Act that helped stabilize the ability 
to educate our young people and give them the chances of an adequate, 
good education, because these rural communities did not have the 
infrastructure, because most of the property and land and resources was 
owned by the Federal Government. This Act has helped in immense ways, 
and this chance, this amendment, will continue that funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the most critical crisis in rural 
America, where there are large tracts of public forest land, is to deal 
with this issue of funding for the Secure Rural Schools.
  The funding did finally come this year, but it came too late, at 
least for my district, and I think for many. Our State law requires 
that if you are going to give layoff notices to teachers, they have to 
go out in the month of March. All the layoff notices already went out. 
Most of the teachers already left the schools to find other employment. 
The funding for this finally came through in late May, as I recall, in 
the supplemental, but by that time the damage had been done.
  We have to find a solution. This amendment that Mr. Peterson and I 
are offering is an approach. I know there is a point of order that has 
been reserved, but we have to have timely funding for our rural 
schools. If we put it in this bill, it doesn't actually increase the 
deficit as it would if it went as a new mandatory program, or if it 
went in the supplemental. By the way, this is important enough, I would 
certainly support either of those other approaches.
  But the fact of the matter is, we need to assure timely funding so 
that we don't have the situation where the funding comes in, but it 
comes in too late in order to really matter for the schools and the 
students.
  Plumas County, for example, one county in my district, issued layoff 
notices to 55 personnel earlier this year, and most of them are gone, 
even though the funding ultimately came through. So this is timely 
funding. It does it in a way that's least detrimental to the whole 
budget picture. I have worked, I have tried to work on every possible 
solution that I could think of. This is really a critical situation for 
all of rural America, where there are tracts of public forest land, and 
I really strongly hope that the Members will support us on this, help 
us to get a resolution to this crisis so that we can meet the needs of 
the people that we represent.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, with deep regret, I insist on my point of 
order.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an 
appropriation for an unauthorized program, and, therefore, violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, 
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an 
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  The amendment proposes to appropriate funds for the rural school 
program that has not been reauthorized. The amendment, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I am sorry that I have to raise a 
point of order, but the payments for the Secure Rural Schools Act of 
2000 are not authorized.
  This is a reachback appropriation for an unauthorized program and, 
therefore, I am sorry I must insist on my point of order. I will also 
point out that it would be irresponsible to cut this budget bill by 
$425 million.
  Public Law 110-28 did not reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I appreciate the chairman and his accuracy on what he is 
reserving a point of order on.
  However, I would like to point out that we have other issues pending 
that are also subject to a point of order. It seems arbitrary to me 
that we do not let the House work its will on Mr. Doolittle's efforts, 
and yet we move forward on other areas which are under the same point 
of order, and we expect some comity.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the gentleman is addressing 
the point of order.

[[Page 17716]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear any Member on the point of 
order.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is an arbitrary 
reservation on a point of order, and because other similar issues are 
pending, that it should be withdrawn so that we can move on and let the 
House work its will.
  Mr. DICKS. I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is pending. The gentleman may 
not strike the last word.
  Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of 
persuasion on the question whether it is supported by an authorization 
in law.
  Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point 
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of 
appropriation contained in the amendment is authorized in law.
  Under the precedents of July 12, 1995, as recorded in House Practice 
at page 145, and July 16, 1997, an amendment adding matter at the 
pending portion of the bill to effect an indirect increase in an 
unauthorized amount permitted to remain in a portion of the bill 
already passed in the reading is not ``merely perfecting'' for purposes 
of clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to say how badly I feel about this because this 
Secure Rural Schools program is a very important program in the 
northwest, as well as in California. But I just could not allow this 
amendment to come for a vote because it would have cut $425 million out 
of this bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we have an issue pending which is going to 
come up, I think, rather quickly, from the gentleman from Oregon who is 
worried about the very same issue, and he's coming at it from a 
slightly different angle.
  And, yes, the gentleman from California was having offsets for his 
cuts, but I see no ill will in allowing the House to work its will on 
Mr. Doolittle's amendment, which affects Western States deeply. It's 
very similar to what the gentleman from Oregon is also trying to do, so 
why don't we just let both of them go, let the House work its will?
  Mr. DICKS. I regret that I can't take that chance. If this amendment 
were enacted, it would have a devastating consequence on this bill. And 
it was subject to a point of order, and I had to insist on it. I regret 
that we have this controversy, but that's the reality of the situation 
we're in.
  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'd like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to express my deep 
disappointment that we're not able to move forward on the gentleman's 
amendment from California, and the peril that it may put the next 
amendment in.
  If you want to talk about cuts in crisis, you come out to rural 
Oregon, rural Washington, rural Northern California, the areas that my 
friend and colleague from Washington knows all too well.
  The largest county in my district had 15 or 16 libraries, all of 
which are now shuttered and closed because this Congress and the last 
failed to reauthorize the Secure County Roads and Schools legislation 
that the Congress before, in 2000, put into law.
  The effect of all that, and the effect of this not going forward is 
those counties have a 1-year stay of execution because in the emergency 
supplemental there was legislation that funded them for one more year.
  But as the good gentleman from Washington State knows, with the 
decline in the timber industry, the decline in harvest on Federal 
lands, these rural counties have been devastated. They have no tax base 
in some cases, or very little; 70, 80 percent of land mass is Federal 
lands. There's been a commitment for 100 years by this Congress to 
share revenues, and then those revenues went away. Law enforcement is 
going away. Basic services. You all would throw a fit if they went away 
in Washington, D.C. or any other urban area.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The point I'd like to make, this is an authorization 
problem. This isn't supposed to be handled on the appropriations bill. 
We had an agreement that we would help you do this for 1 year, but then 
you would go back to the Natural Resources Committee and find the 
mandatory spending to offset this. This is not an appropriations 
matter.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, I understand, and I 
appreciate what the gentleman has done to assist us in the past. My 
frustration is the one I have to share, because when I go home, people 
don't understand why we can keep funding all these other things and 
can't take care of sort of an organic funding issue that affects them 
deeply.
  The first bill I cosponsored in this Congress with my colleague from 
Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, and many others was to reauthorize this program. I 
believe the first letter I sent was to the new chairman of the 
Resources Committee begging for a hearing to reauthorize this program.
  The folks at home don't understand this process, and sometimes 
neither do I. But if we have to bring down the House to try and get 
help to people who deserve it, then that's what we'll have to do.
  It's really unfortunate that we would abrogate this commitment to 
these people in rural areas and not allow us at least to move forward, 
and certainly with the next amendment, which merely fixes a technical 
correction, allows the Resource advisory committees to go forward, but 
spends no money.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I just want to point out to the 
chairman that we're now picking winners and losers, and it's an 
arbitrary decision. And if we allowed the House to work its will, I 
think the gentleman would be successful and his worries would be 
abated.
  But right now we've gone into this selection process of who's going 
to win and who's going to lose. The gentleman from California loses, 
the other gentleman from Oregon wins. And I don't think that's right. I 
think we ought to have a consistent manner to move forward.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The only thing I would say here is that you can raise a 
point of order against the gentleman from Oregon's amendment, but that 
is going to hurt the other gentleman from Oregon. I mean, this is a 
partial help as a place holder in this bill.
  And the distinguished chairman and I were just talking about we put 
$425 million in the supplemental to take care of this problem. Now, 
you've got to go get this done in the authorization committee. And I'm 
not going to risk this bill, which we fought so hard to create, on a 
chance that we might pass this amendment and cut all this other 
spending that's important in the bill to my constituents.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that 
we're being inconsistent here. And I would hope for some consistency in 
the way we administer these areas where

[[Page 17717]]

we have a point of order that can be reserved or can't be reserved. I 
think you should let the House work its will.
  And when we make some winners that are chosen on your side, and then 
we arbitrarily choose not to allow Republicans to have the same 
opportunity, I think it's unfair. I would like some consistency in all 
the appropriations bills and not just this one.
  And here we have a very critical need that affects both Republicans 
and Democrats. It's a critical need in these areas. And as the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) can tell you, it's going to be a 
big problem for him as well. So I just want some consistency here and 
allow the gentleman from California to have the House work its will.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas' time has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if somebody could call the Attending 
Physician's office. I'm getting a bad case of whiplash here just 
listening to these arguments that run in opposite directions.
  I just heard the gentleman say a minute ago, and I must say, I'm 
sympathetic to his problem, but I just heard him say a minute ago that 
he's frustrated. Well, I'm frustrated too because, what I'd like to 
point out, as the President of the United States pointed out just a few 
weeks ago, is that the gentleman's knocking on the wrong door.
  And with all due respect, when Mr. Lewis was chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee last year, it wasn't his job to reauthorize 
this program. And as chairman of the committee this year, it isn't my 
job to reauthorize this program. You need to go to the authorizing 
committee.
  We have gotten dozens of lectures through the last month from Members 
on your side of the aisle who fuss and fume about individual earmarks 
that they say are not ``authorized.''
  Well, this is a case where we on the committee are saying the 
following: you came to us last year. You said you couldn't get the 
authorizing committee off its duff, and so you wanted some help to 
sustain this program until you could get them to reauthorize it. So 
even against the strong objection of the President of the United 
States, and the last time I looked, he was a Republican, even in the 
light of his objection, we put in over $400 million to create a bridge 
for you until you could get this problem resolved.
  Now, I'm sorry that this has not been reauthorized. You need to take 
that up with another committee. All I can tell you is that we're taking 
time on this bill, on this amendment because you think somebody else, 
in some other committee, didn't do their job.
  Well, you can't have it both ways, and neither can we. So I would 
simply ask the gentleman to please go to the right committee. And I'd 
be happy to send them a letter. The fact is you're taking up this 
committee's time, and we're getting squawks from Members on both sides 
of the aisle saying, ``Why are you appropriators taking so blessed much 
time.''
  Well, with all due respect, it's not the appropriators trying to take 
the time. It's people who are not on the Appropriations Committee who 
are aiming at the wrong committee in their search of solution to a 
problem.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to yield to my tire-changing friend from 
Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, a real crisis in the 
rural areas, and I do not blame the Members for using every means 
available to them to try to solve the problems in their districts. And 
I know it's not your responsibility to do it, but we've come through 
for these folks in the past, and I would just ask consideration in the 
future.
  Mr. OBEY. I understand. All I can say is, we did respond. We've just 
heard umpteen speakers on your side of the aisle kick the blazes out of 
us because they're saying we're spending too much money. And now you're 
telling us that you're unhappy because we're not spending enough money 
on this program, and we're not even authorized to spend it. I have a 
difficult time following that logic.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Sure.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I understand the difficulty in it, but it was off-set. 
And the chairman of the Interior Committee did not like the offsets, 
and that's why he pushed the point of order. But it's just a different 
priority. And I have to say that is a pretty high priority.
  I yield back.
  Mr. OBEY. I understand. And I'm more than willing to cooperate 
because, unlike some people in this Congress, I recognize this is all 
one country. And we've got an obligation to recognize different needs 
and different demands in different districts. I wish we had the same 
courtesy extended to us by certain other Members of the body.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank the chairman, and I've commended him 
before for his work in our behalf in this very difficult problem we 
face in the rural areas. And you've been terrific to work with. You've 
been most generous, not only with your time, but with your assistance. 
And I supported you and that bill when it came before, in opposition to 
my own President, and would continue to do so, because I know who sent 
me here, and I know what they want. And you may have missed my earlier 
comments.
  Mr. OBEY. No, I have been watching them on television.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I'm sorry you've had to put up with me there. 
The point is, I've done everything I can to try and get the committee 
that I served on for 8 years to even hold a hearing to reauthorize this 
bill. When I was on that committee in 2005 and chaired the Forestry 
Subcommittee, we marked up a reauthorization in 2005 by March, and we 
passed it out of the committee by June.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of Mr. Lewis?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I do so to yield to those who would like to 
continue this conversation. I'm glad to yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I very much appreciate that. I'd like to ask Chairman 
Obey a question, if I may.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. By way of me, certainly.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Actually, I want to ask you one too, so I'm glad 
you're both up here.
  Mr. Chairman, you have worked with us and tried to help us, and I 
would agree with Mr. Walden on that.
  You were kind enough to offer something a minute ago that I'd just 
like to, if I may, accept that offer. You said you would write a letter 
to the chairman of the authorizing, the respective authorizing 
committees, which I think are both Resources and Agriculture in this 
case.
  Could we, and with our ranking member, could I invite both you 
gentlemen to maybe submit such a letter to the relevant authorizing 
committee chairmen? I think that would be a step in the right direction 
here.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield, certainly.
  Mr. OBEY. I will be happy to try to assist the gentleman in any way 
that makes clear that the authorizing committees need to act, because 
this is not a matter under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations 
Committee. I've only been around here 38 years; and on occasions, 
believe it or not, I've seen an authorizing committee object when the 
Appropriations Committee invades its jurisdiction.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. And I appreciate that.

[[Page 17718]]


  Mr. LEWIS of California. I continue to yield.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir. The problem we have had is, frankly, 
the authorizing committees, for whatever reason, have chosen not to 
act. And in that vacuum we've been faced with a crisis of what do we do 
with the teacher being laid off or in Oregon's case with people being 
let out of the county jails because they're lacking this funding. We've 
had to come up with some extraordinary ways to respond to it.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Certainly. Happy to yield.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, I would not say that it's fair to 
characterize the authorizing committees as refusing to move. We have 
only been in charge of this Congress for the last 6 months, and there 
have been a few other basic priorities, including reauthorization of 
the basic farm bill that I'm sure have occupied the authorizers. I 
thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I'll be happy to continue to yield, but I'd 
like to take some time as well.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I didn't mean to imply, Mr. Chairman, that this was 
just this Congress' authorizing committees. I'm reaching back in time 
to include the previous Congress as well.

                              {time}  1430

  It did pass out of the Resources Committee. And I think the bill 
passed out handily. But it never cleared the other committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I find 
this conversation to be very interesting, and I noted that there is a 
tendency not to accept authorizing language in this instance because of 
a very specific problem, and because the authorizing committee has not 
acted. I, frankly, think there are a number of circumstances, including 
the next amendment that is even more significantly an authorizing 
problem that probably ought to be stricken as well. But if we are going 
to be consistent here, let's be consistent. And, indeed, I would be 
more than willing to join my colleague in communicating with the 
authorizing chairman in connection with this. But perhaps the time to 
draw a line is now and say we are not going to authorize in this bill 
and then see how they respond to us.


             Amendment 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 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       The amount otherwise provided in this Act for ``The 
     Historic Preservation Fund'' is hereby decreased by 
     $1,000,000 and increased by $1,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Just a few minutes ago, the full committee Chair mentioned the value 
of this bill, and I salute the appropriators, the chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee, for the valiant effort that they have made, 
whether it is about hazardous toxic cleanup; Superfund sites; national 
parks; historic preservation, where $102 million is appropriated, $30 
million over the budget of the President, $30 million over the 2007 
mark and $20 million above the President's request. This is a very good 
effort, and I want to thank Mr. Tiahrt and I want to thank the chairman 
of the subcommittee and both the chairman and ranking member of the 
full committee.
  The chairman of the subcommittee just a moment ago mentioned the 
words ``downward trend'' in the budget process as another amendment was 
being debated. I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the 
downward trend of historic preservation around America.
  My amendment is simple. It is to encourage through reprogramming the 
National Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation to redouble their efforts to assist State and 
local governments and community groups in identifying and working to 
preserve nationally significant sites, structures, and artifacts, 
particularly those relating to communities founded by newly emancipated 
slaves such as Freedmen's Town in Houston, Texas, or Tulsa in Oklahoma 
or the work that was done to serve the pre-Civil War and post-Civil War 
mansions in Savannah, Georgia, or the meat packing area in New York. We 
have to be able to stand for preservation in the face of urban renewal, 
in the face of urban infrastructure that has to be done.
  I am hoping the reprogramming of $1 million will help communities 
like Freedmen's Town, help the city of Houston to realize that we mean 
business and the acknowledgment of the importance of historic 
preservation. This is the historic Fourth Ward. These are the 
cobblestone streets that have been laid by the hands of slaves. And 
just a few days ago, we commemorated emancipation. These are the 
remaining churches where pastors have dedicated their congregations and 
their moneys and themselves to historic preservation. These are the 
streets that have been disrupted.
  And what we are hoping by this amendment is that the present project 
of infrastructure work for clean water, which is crucially important, 
can be done by the work or the analysis of an engineer that says you 
can do this on a sidewalk and preserve these cobblestone bricks that 
were laid by hand by 34 freed slaves who were bricklayers at that time. 
We know that the repetition of disrupting these bricks will destroy 
them forever, and there is a community that desires to have this 
preserved. This amendment, which is a reprogramming, emphasizes the 
importance of this.
  Let us not have a downward trend, if you will, of historic 
preservation. Many Members have come to the floor with issues of value 
around Interior and Environment. We want the environment to be safe, 
but we want the historic environment to be preserved for those who are 
a valuable part of the historical story of America.
  So I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is crucial 
to the Freedmen's Town community in Houston, but it is crucial to the 
Tulsa story in Oklahoma. It is crucial to the story of Chicago, crucial 
to Savannah, crucial to New York, and many other States where we have 
systematically ignored the historic preservation of our Nation. Who 
will tell our children the story? I am fighting in Houston. Others are 
fighting elsewhere. This amendment is to create the historical record, 
the legislative record, that we are committed to.
  Let me thank the committee for its commitment. We know the fund is 
sizable, but this is an important step. And the funding that was given 
is an important affirmation of historic preservation, particularly when 
engineers recognize that you can construct infrastructure work and 
preserve the historic identity of this community.
  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. Most 
Americans do not know that this bill also funds a very special agency, 
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and its adjunct, the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important 
message from the Congress of the United States. The purpose of my 
amendment is to encourage the National Historic Preservation Fund and 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to redouble their efforts 
to assist state and local governments and community groups in 
identifying

[[Page 17719]]

and working to preserve nationally significant sites, structures, and 
artifacts, particularly those relating to communities founded by newly 
emancipated slaves, such as Freedmen's Town in Houston, Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, just west of downtown Houston lies the Fourth Ward. It 
is the city's oldest Black community. But before it was the Fourth 
Ward, this community was known by its original name, Freedmen's Town, 
given by freed slaves who settled it shortly after receiving the news 
of their emancipation on Juneteenth.
  Initially located where Allen Parkway Village now stands, Freedmen's 
Town was established immediately after the Civil War, when many farmers 
gave or sold their truck farms and property to freed slaves. Freedmen's 
Town prospered during the turn of the century.
  Economic, community, and social development were at a peak until 
local government became threatened by the prosperity of this area and 
its residents. In the 1920s, Freedmen's Town was the ``Harlem of the 
Southwest.'' The area was filled with many restaurants, jazz spots, and 
night clubs. These establishments were frequently visited by Houston's 
white citizens as well. West Dallas was the community's main commercial 
strip.
  As the years passed and with the coming of integration, many 
Freedmen's Town residents began to move toward Texas Southern 
University, in the Third Ward, and other areas of the city, such as 
Studewood, South Park, Riverside Terrace, Kashmere Gardens, and Acres 
Homes. And the size and population of Freedmen's Town began to shrink. 
Much of this was due to construction in the late 1930s against the 
wishes of Blacks here, which continued to sever the historical 
neighborhood, divided nearly at midpoint by the addition of the Gulf 
Freeway.
  The struggle for justice by community residents and leadership is 
only one facet of Freedmen's Town's rich and colorful past, which is 
still home to many significant historical landmarks and features. Hand-
laid brick streets, constructed by Rev. Jeremiah and his congregation 
over half a century ago, still run through the area. Houston's first 
cemetery, Founder's Cemetery at Valentine and West Dallas, contains the 
graves of military men who fought in the Civil War, as well as the 
historical remains of John and Augustus Allen, the founders of Houston.
  Immediately adjacent to Founder's Cemetery stands the ``Hanging 
Tree'' where several Blacks were hanged. During World War I, Camp 
Logan, located just west of Freedmen's Town, was the site of the worst 
race war in the city's history--the ``Camp Logan War'' in August of 
1917.
  Behind Founder's Cemetery lies Congregation Beth Israel, the oldest 
Jewish cemetery in Houston, which is beautifully maintained to this 
day. Among other historical churches in the area, Antioch Missionary 
Baptist Church built in 1866 continues to be a major focal point of 
Freedmen's Town, though it has been relocated from its original site on 
``Baptist Hill'' where the Music Hall and Coliseum now stand.
  Reverend John Jack Yates, the first Black pastor of Antioch, was a 
dynamic and influential leader known for his deep commitment to the 
education of Black youngsters. He often used his personal finances to 
send Freedmen's Town children to school. Today, Jack Yates High School 
in the Third Ward stands in his honor.
  Of the houses that Reverend Yates built, only the one he built for 
his brother remains at 1314 Andrews. Yates' historical homestead at 
1318 Andrews, believed to be the oldest two-story home built by an 
African American owner, was moved to Sam Houston Park (ironically, a 
park commemorating a slave-owner), while the house at 1204 Wilson was 
demolished by the City of Houston in 1986. Further plans promoted under 
the name of ``Founders Park'' so threatened the historical preservation 
of Freedmen's Town that outraged residents and leadership organized 
opposition through the Freedmen's Town Neighborhood Association to 
defeat the plans of outside private interests. However, the constant 
encroachment on Freedmen's Town and Fourth Ward continues to date with 
the plans of the Houston Renaissance and private developers.
  Although Freedmen's Town is a nationally registered historical site, 
and the largest intact freed slave settlement left in the entire 
Nation, its official designation protects only 40 of the 80 blocks or 
more of the remaining Freedmen's Town area.
  To preserve what remains of Freedmen's Town will require the combined 
efforts of community groups working with local, State, and Federal 
Government to reach a consensus of projects worthy of preservation.
  One such project for Freedmen's Town is the ``Bricks Street 
Project,'' which is intended to preserve the original brick pavers of 
Freedmen's Town along Andrews Street and Wilson Street. These streets 
have been found to contain brick pavers patterns which may be unique to 
the Freedmen's Town area, and are consistent with brick patterns seen 
on architectural features located in the Historic District. Oral 
histories indicate the possibility that portions of the iron rails 
which once carried a Freedmen's Town trolley car may still remain in 
situ in the rail track ways.
  Three of these community groups include the Rutherford BH Yates 
Museum, Inc., which has played a leading part in promoting the Bricks 
Street Project; the Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village, which 
works to educate the public on issues of Federal housing and historical 
preservation laws; and the Freedmen's Town Association, founded for the 
purpose of assuring the active and effective participation of current 
residents in planning the preservation, restoration, and development of 
the area, especially in the area of business and private home 
ownership.
  Mr. Chairman, hearts break when irreplaceable structures are 
destroyed or damaged beyond repair, instead of preserved and protected 
as they deserve. A plaque pointing out ``on this site a great building 
once stood'' simply cannot tell the story in whole or in full. Equally 
tragic is the loss of traditions: a way of living or crafting wood or 
farming, of celebrating holidays or worshiping or feasting on 
``Juneteenth'' cuisine. The preservation and perpetuation of artifacts 
as well as traditions is important to telling the story of the people 
who settled a community. By protecting the buildings, landscape or 
special places and qualities that attract visitors, we preserve our 
history for future generations.
  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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would say that on behalf of 
the majority, we would accept the gentlewoman's amendment and would be 
willing to work with her closely on it.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I was just curious as to which line this 
amount was coming from and where it is going to because the amendment I 
have just says it decreases $1 million and it increases $1 million.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it goes right into the same 
appropriations, historic State offices, but it doesn't take any money 
out without putting it right back in.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Okay. I have no problem with that.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for accepting the amendment, and I look forward to working with 
committee and working with the chairman on this important historical 
statement and language as we move forward to conference.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, 
the chairman and ranking member look forward to working with the 
gentlewoman on this very important issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and ask 
my colleagues to support this 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. 17 Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 17720]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Inslee:

                TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to issue any permit for, or otherwise approve or 
     allow, importation of any polar bear or polar bear part under 
     section 104(c)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(A)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, behold the polar bear Ursus maritimus, one 
of the most magnificent creatures on earth, legendary in its strength 
and to date its survival.
  But today its survival is at great risk. It deserves the protection 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and it does not have it.
  Today we seek to close the loophole that alone amongst marine mammals 
allows the importation of bear heads, bearskins, bear claws in 
opposition to the basic concept of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
And we do so because this animal certainly is at risk. It is at risk 
because where there is no ice, there are no polar bears. This creature 
is dependent on the ice, and the ice is disappearing. That is what has 
led the Bush administration's Secretary of Interior to propose to list 
it as a threatened species.
  But it gets worse. If you look at what the future is going to bring 
this bear, by 2040 the recent studies indicate that there will be no 
meaningful sea ice in the Arctic ocean by 2040 upon which these bears 
depend for their survival.
  Now, we have folks who do enjoy trophy hunting in the United States, 
and there is nothing wrong with hunting or any suggestion of that in 
this amendment. But the truth is this: At this moment of risk to these 
bears, polar bear cubs need their parents in their dens more than we 
need polar bearskins in our dens. And this will simply close that 
loophole to remove that lack of protection from these animals.
  Now, these animals are not threatened just in the United States. The 
ongoing trophy hunt is going on in Canada, where the International 
Polar Bear Community has found that at least half of the specific 
populations of polar bears are at great risk for extinction. And we 
know that hunters can be a force for conservation. We know they help 
provide habitat for ducks with Ducks Unlimited.
  But the fact of the matter is, is that with a bullet to a bear, you 
cannot conserve it. And the fact of the matter is that the $750 permits 
that go to this bear hunt cannot solve the problem of global warming. 
And we stand here today to say that we ought to have the same level of 
American national commitment to the polar bears' continued survival as 
we have had for the bald eagle. And if we demonstrate that commitment, 
our grandchildren will enjoy these polar bears. And if we do not, they 
will not.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Inslee 
amendment.
  This amendment would restore a ban on taking polar bear parts and 
importing them into the United States, a ban that was in place for 22 
years. As Mr. Inslee indicated, it was right around the end of last 
year when the Secretary of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife service 
surprised many of us by proposing to list the polar bears as threatened 
under the Endangered Species Act. They have now taken public comments 
and must issue a final decision by December, 2008. At the very least, 
stemming the tide of polar bear imports, imports, I stress, until this 
decision is made makes sense.
  Those who oppose the amendment would like to use the argument that 
this is all about restricting the right to hunt. It is not. If it were, 
I would not be standing here in support of it. I remember fondly, with 
my dad, my cousins, my uncles, hunting as a young man, and I don't 
believe this restricts the right of hunting.
  So I would ask my colleagues to think seriously about the importance 
of this amendment and to give it their utmost consideration and strong 
support.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) for a brief question.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the simple question I have is the 
picture of the polar bear that is down there, that is not, by any 
chance, new, is it?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this is an old polar bear species that has 
been around here for centuries, and the ice is melting under its feet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
offering this amendment.
  It is illegal to hunt polar bears in America today except for 
subsistence. You cannot do trophy hunting of polar bears today. So what 
happened is you have wealthy American hunters that go to Canada. They 
pay $30,000 to kill a polar bear for one reason, and that reason is to 
cut its head off, send it back to America, and put it above their 
fireplace.
  There are only 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears left in America. This 
amendment simply prohibits funds from being used to permit these 
wealthy hunters from sending polar bear parts back to the U.S.
  We should protect polar bears. This amendment is the right approach 
to take.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Under the current law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits, 
under very stringent rules, the importation of bear parts for trophies. 
But this is only allowed from an approved management area in Canada.

                              {time}  1445

  Importation from other countries is prohibited because they are 
covered by the CITES, or Convention on International Trade and 
Endangered Species.
  Also allowed under current law, other exemptions are permitted, but 
limited to Native American purposes, for medicines, for religious 
reasons and for certain scientific purposes. All of these require a 
permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service. And as far as the committee 
knows, the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing a very good job.
  I also have a letter from the Canadian embassy. The Canadian 
Government is opposed to banning the polar bear trophy imports. Canada 
has strong opposition to this amendment, where two-thirds of the 
world's polar bear population exists. Now they're studying this through 
their endangered species group. We are studying this, as far as America 
is concerned, under our Endangered Species Act. And these two reviews 
are just about to be done. So this amendment is actually premature. And 
knowing that these two studies are pending, the Canadian Government has 
decided to oppose this. So I think this is premature. It should 
probably wait until next year, or they should just wait until the 
governments of the United States and Canada come to a conclusion.
  Also, I want to note for the record that there are groups that are 
opposed to this amendment. These groups, besides the Canadian 
Government, include the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association, Boone & 
Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, the Conservation 
Force, the North American Bear Foundation and the Wildlife Management 
Institute, among others.
  So I think it is very important that we allow top scientists in both 
the United States Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
do their polar bear population studies and see what problems exist 
before we start to limit what's going on under the current situation. 
So I think it's premature.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).

[[Page 17721]]


  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding.
  I have listened to the opening of this debate, and I think sometimes 
we get a little bit confused about what it is about. But there is 
plenty of evidence out here and plenty of support out here that the 
polar bear population is not threatened. There is a healthy population 
of 25,000 worldwide, I think. And contrary to the gentleman's remarks 
about it being in America, it's globally, that population; and that it 
has been carefully studied, and that the permits that are issued 
generate funds for Native North Americans as well as funds to help 
sustain the polar bear population.
  I think what this debate is about, and I can't question, certainly, 
anybody's motives, but I can tell you what I got here. I got an 
announcement that said: ``This recorded vote will be scored on the 2007 
Humane Society scorecard.''
  So I look at the information that I see, and much of it is source 
from that Web page, which I happened to have printed as well.
  But I think the debate is a broader debate than the debate of the 
welfare of the polar bear. I think this debate is about, and I am going 
to broaden this, ``the incremental implementation of global 
vegetarianism.'' That's the big picture. And the second picture is, ban 
sport hunting. And the third picture is, ban livestock production and 
feeding. And the fourth picture is, ban the consumption of meat. All 
that stuff fits within this big umbrella. This is one component of the 
much broader picture.
  But if you take it back down to the issue that was raised, and 
another one is using the canard of global warming being the issue, 
well, it actually works against you, gentlemen. If you're worried about 
global warming and if you're worried about the habitat for polar bears 
being diminished by global warming, then humane hunting would be the 
thing to do as the habitat diminishes to make sure they had a healthy 
habitat for them to roam on. That's not the case. It's a canard, not a 
reason. And it's not an environmental reason. It's a broader agenda, 
through which the environmental and global warming agenda fits.
  So this is sound science that holds this up on this side. And sports 
hunting is a good way to manage population.
  I would urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining, and the 
gentleman from Washington has 15 seconds.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I want to thank my friend from Washington for yielding me 
this time. And, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I have had numerous conversations with Mr. Inslee, who I consider one 
of my closest friends and colleagues in the House, and I certainly 
understand the appreciation that he has in light of the challenges we 
face with global warming and the potential impact it's going to have on 
polar bears. But as one of the cochairs of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus in the House, we think this amendment is unnecessary 
and, in fact, counterproductive.
  I contacted the Canadian embassy and the Canadian Government, who 
opposes the amendment. They say it would risk crucial conservation 
funding streams and habitat protections for the very polar bears that 
we're all interested in protecting. Also, our own U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service opposes this, again because of the cooperative 
alliance that we've established not only with Canadian officials in the 
proper wildlife management of this special species, but the fees 
collected from hunting that go right back into a conservation program 
that the U.S. and Russia have partnered with in order to enhance the 
protection and the growth of this population.
  Now, I've got a letter from the Canadian Government, as well as from 
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, that I will submit for 
the Record that states forth more fully the science behind their 
calculation and the limited number of permits that they're allowing in 
Canada.
                                               Association of Fish


                                          & Wildlife Agencies,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2007.
       Dear Member of Congress: The Association of Fish and 
     Wildlife Agencies strongly opposes H.R. 2327, the so-called 
     ``Polar Bear Protection Act'', both as a stand-alone bill and 
     as an amendment to any other legislation. This bill, which 
     would ban the importation of trophies of polar bears legally 
     taken from polar bear populations in Canada, will further 
     complicate polar bear management and not contribute to polar 
     bear sustainability.
       The Association was founded in 1902 as an inter-
     governmental organization of public agencies charged with the 
     protection and management of North America's fish and 
     wildlife resources. The Association's members include the 
     fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, as well 
     as federal government agencies in the United States and 
     Canada. The Association provides a forum for hundreds of 
     senior level fish and wildlife public agency biologists 
     across North America to develop positions on public policy 
     issues involving wildlife conservation. The Association has 
     been instrumental in promoting sound resource management and 
     strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in 
     protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats 
     in the public interest.
       This legislation would diminish the bear's value to the 
     local communities which depend on hunts by United States 
     hunters for income. We know from long experience that most 
     successful wildlife conservation programs have, at their 
     core, value to local people and communities. We are advised 
     by our Canadian colleagues that many native communities 
     earnestly engage Canada's polar bear management programs 
     because these animals have value--funding schools, community 
     centers, etc. in those northern communities. This 
     legislation, if passed and enacted, would just add to the 
     list of other factors already complicating polar bear 
     management--melting ice pack, warming seas and loss of snow 
     cover.
       The Marine Mammal Protection Act prerequisite that imports 
     come from certified stocks is an important tool for those 
     biologists working with these local communities to regulate 
     the harvest of the various polar bear populations. These 
     carefully set and intensely monitored harvests are critical 
     for the local community and are an important negotiating tool 
     for the biologists. Science-informed regulated hunting 
     ensures sustainability of polar bear populations.
       Passage of this bill would not result in the taking of 
     fewer polar bears; it will just complicate the work of those 
     trying to conserve them. We urge that you not favorably 
     consider H.R. 2327 either as a stand-alone bill or as an 
     amendment to other legislation. Thank you for your sincere 
     consideration of our perspectives.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Matt Hogan,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                             Canadian Embassy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2007.
     Hon. Jay Inslee,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Inslee and LoBiondo: I am writing 
     regarding your amendment to ban the importation of polar bear 
     trophies from Canada, which I understand may be offered to 
     the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act 2008, when the spending bill is 
     considered on the floor of the House this week. I would like 
     to express Canada's strong opposition to such an amendment 
     for the reasons outlined below.
       Canada is home to two thirds of the world's polar bear 
     population. There is broad consensus among scientists that 
     climate warming is negatively impacting Arctic sea ice, 
     however, these impacts occur at different rates and times in 
     different Arctic regions. The Committee on the Status of 
     Endangered Wildlife in Canada, an independent scientific 
     body, is currently assessing the status of polar bears and 
     will submit its conclusions to the Government of Canada in 
     2008. Based on that assessment, consideration will be given 
     whether to list polar bears under the federal Species at Risk 
     Act.
       I understand that the United States is also reviewing the 
     status of polar bears under the U.S. Endangered Species Act 
     (ESA). Canada has made a submission in the U.S. review and is 
     working with other polar bear range nations on issues related 
     to polar bear research and management. Any action, such as 
     that proposed in the amendment is premature and should at 
     least await the outcome of the two reviews.
       I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify that 
     the annual harvesting of polar

[[Page 17722]]

     bears in Canada is strictly regulated within scientifically 
     determined sustainable levels. Northern Communities receiving 
     a share of the annual quota allocate their share between 
     subsistence hunting and sports hunting, Removal of the sports 
     hunting exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act will 
     have no impact on the numbers harvested but will cause 
     economic hardship to Canadian Northern indigenous 
     communities. Finally. I would point out that the export of 
     polar bears from Canada is governed by the provisions of the 
     Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
     (CITES), of which Canada and the United States are both 
     signatories.
       The Government of Canada takes seriously its internationa1 
     obligations with respcct to the conservation of polar bears 
     and their habitat, inc1uding under the International 
     Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears which was signed 
     by all five polar bear nations, including Canada and the 
     United States.
       The Embassy staff remains available to meet with your staff 
     to discuss these issues further.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                   Michael Wilson,
                                                       Ambassador.

  But this would also, I believe, not reduce the number of polar bears 
harvested. There is a certain number, again based on scientific studies 
in Canada, that go to native tribes in northern Canada for their 
management and use. If it's not hunters using it, the natives will use 
it. So this will not in any way diminish the number of polar bears 
being legally hunted right now in Canada.
  I would ask my colleagues, take a look at the ``Dear Colleagues'' 
that we've submitted as part of the Sportsmen's Caucus setting forth 
more fully an explanation of why we oppose the amendment. And I would 
encourage our colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will notify Members that debate on a 
pro forma amendment is not controlled.
  Mr. DICKS. Okay. So I just yield?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. DICKS. Can you let me know when 1 minute is gone?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will let the gentleman know.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Inslee 
amendment. This amendment would ban the importation of trophies taken 
legally from healthy polar bear populations in Canada.
  Removing incentives for U.S. hunters to hunt polar bear in Canada 
would do nothing to reduce the number of polar bear harvested in 
Canada. It would just lessen the resources that can be used for 
conservation and management of these species.
  Similar to all wildlife conservation funding, U.S. hunters support 
polar bear conservation through fees that they pay. Permit fees 
directly support polar bear research and conservation in the United 
States and Russia.
  Mr. Chairman, this management practice that has occurred in places 
like Canada has contributed to the rebound of the population of the 
polar bear for numbers somewhere around 6,000 to 20,000 today. Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment would do nothing for conservation of polar 
bears. It is simply one step further in the campaign to ban hunting.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I now will yield my remaining time to Mr. 
Inslee, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Ferguson.
  Mr. FERGUSON. I want to thank my friend from Washington and my friend 
from New Jersey, and others, for supporting this amendment.
  I also rise in strong support of this amendment today. We can see 
here a picture of a beautiful polar bear. Recently, the polar bear was 
listed as threatened under our Endangered Species Act. I don't believe 
that allowing hunters to obtain permits to hunt these animals and bring 
them into our country is a responsible environmental policy, with the 
loss of habitat that these animals are enduring. And with a 30 percent 
population decline predicted in the next 35 to 50 years, we ought to be 
doing everything in our power to preserve this species, and this 
amendment seeks to do just that.
  It is our responsibility to create responsible environmental policies 
to protect our planet for future generations, and I think this 
amendment does exactly that.
  Mr. INSLEE. I would like to address this canard that this is an anti-
hunting amendment.
  In fact, Americans enjoy passing down the tradition of hunting to 
their kids, their sons and daughters; and that tradition should be able 
to continue. But if the prey is gone, there is no hunting. And if we 
don't get serious about recovering polar bears, we will not be able to 
hunt anything because they will not exist. And if we don't stop this 
loophole which allows importing polar bear heads, contrary to the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act, we cannot tell our children we are 
serious about recovering this species.
  Listen to the science. In 40 years will there will be no polar ice 
cap. And shooting polar bears and putting them in our dens in Texas or 
any other great State in this country is not consistent with what we 
did for the American bald eagle. And if we work together, hunters, 
nonhunters, left and right, east and west, we can accomplish this goal. 
But I'm suggesting this is a commonsense measure to close this loophole 
and listen to the science.
  These species are going to have a 30 percent decline in the next 30 
years. Three of the six Canadian groups that are already hunted are 
deemed at risk by the international scientific community.
  I don't know what the Canadians are thinking. It's a great country; 
they're the greatest ice hockey teams in the world. But maybe they 
haven't got the best polar bear policy like we do in the good old USA.
  Enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Bring some common sense. 
Tell our kids we're going to keep these species available to them and 
pass this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind the gentleman from 
Washington that he has 15 seconds remaining in his previous time which 
he may wish to reserve to close.
  Mr. INSLEE. I will reserve to close.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I just want to remind the gentleman from Washington, it's 
not a loophole, it's the law today.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me just say I appreciate the gentleman 
representing this picture of a polar bear. It's not Knut. Knut, of 
course, is the infamous polar bear cub the animal rights groups who 
support this amendment wanted the Berlin Zoo to kill as opposed to 
allow it to live in captivity. I'm glad it's not the same one.
  This amendment does nothing to preserve polar bears. It's not about 
preservation, especially when it cuts conservation funds in the 
process.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am thankful for the comments of the previous 
speaker, and of course the ranking member. I'm disappointed in those 
that are offering this amendment.
  The supporters of this amendment and the proposer of this amendment 
like to believe that Chicken Little threats have been thrown about. 
Instead of the sky falling, it's the Earth warming, and bears are in 
extreme danger of extinction and we must act now. I just heard that 
speaker from Washington say that.
  Let's take care. Polar bears are not threatened; they're not 
endangered. The worldwide population of polar bears is around 30,000. 
While there may be polar bear populations feeling the effects of a 
warming climate, and I say ``may,'' we need to remember these species 
have survived past warming cycles.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This species is not at the end of its rope, 
contrary to

[[Page 17723]]

those who proposed this amendment. Thirteen of the 19 polar bear 
populations are under the jurisdiction of Canada. Canada has one of the 
best management programs, using state-of-art scientific practices to 
manage these populations. While that should be enough, it's not the end 
of the oversight or management of polar bears in Canada.
  The United States Marine Mammal Protection Act requires the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to review the status of polar bear populations in 
Canada. After conducting their review of the service-approved, stable 
and healthy populations, hunters can only import trophies from those 
approved populations.
  Supporters of the amendment like to refer to the 1994 amendments of 
the Marine Protection Act that allowed an importation of polar bear 
trophies as a loophole. It was the law. These statements are far from 
the truth. In fact, we worked on it with a Democrat-controlled 
Congress. We worked on it together to improve the species in Canada 
because Canada asked us to do so.
  In 1970, many marine mammal populations faced numerous threats. The 
Marine Protection Act was very effective in restoring many marine 
mammal populations to healthy or historic levels. Unfortunately, the 
act does not discriminate between healthy marine mammal populations and 
those still in need of rebuilding. Robust populations of marine mammals 
are treated like they are on the verge of extinction.
  While the 1994 amendments did not address this issue, the Democrat-
controlled Congress, specifically those enlightened members of the 
Merchant Marines Fisheries Committee, had the foresight to understand 
that the sustainable use of resources and conservation activities are 
not mutually exclusive. The committee developed strict requirements to 
ensure the protection of polar bear populations in Canada, while 
allowing for the importation of sport-hunted polar bear trophies.
  The idea of incentives to give value to natural resources was very 
new at the time. A similar program was developed for African 
communities to protect big game resources in Africa using the same 
incentive structure. These programs have proven their worth and are 
very successful.
  There will always be a sector of the population that believes we 
should not kill anything or eat anything and, in fact, we should eat 
grass. However, we need to keep in mind there are still areas in the 
world that rely on the natural resources around them and still subsist 
on these resources.
  The argument is not that polar bears need to be protected due to the 
effects of a warming climate. The argument is that certain groups do 
not like hunting, regardless of what those are saying promoted, and 
want it stopped.
  The Canadian polar bear populations are healthy and well managed. 
Sport-hunting activities provide important incentives and support 
remote Native villages and important conservation programs in Canada, 
the U.S., and Russia.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest, respectfully, go back to the history. This 
saves the polar bear as is in place. This amendment will extinguish the 
polar bear.
  For those who don't know anything about the polar bear, and I 
suggest, respectfully, those two gentlemen that introduced this have 
never seen a polar bear in the wild, don't know anything about it, read 
it in a book.

                              {time}  1500

  I suggest respectfully that before this was in place, in 1994, what 
was happening was that the Canadian natives, bless their hearts, would 
hunt polar bears. They would kill the sows and the cubs but not the 
boars. The boars would kill the cubs so they can breed the sows. Our 
polar bear population was going down. Because of our actions, in fact, 
the polar bear population increased. That is what we were trying to do. 
It was a true conservation method, a method of science, a method that 
works.
  Mr. Speaker, if this amendment is adopted, you can forget your polar 
bears in the wild. They will be extinguished. This is a bad amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Just to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, numerous agencies that have looked 
at the science of polar bear management in Canada and other places feel 
that the limited permits that are issued for this hunting purpose is 
conducive to conservation efforts and habitat protection up in Canada, 
especially through the indigenous tribes there that are issued these 
permits every year.
  The Canadian letter that I just referenced earlier stated, ``Removal 
of the sports hunting exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
would have no impact,'' no impact, ``on the numbers harvested, but 
would cause economic hardship to the Canadian northern indigenous 
communities.''
  Again quoting from the letter from Canada, ``Any action such as that 
proposed in the amendment is premature and should at least await the 
outcome of the two reviews.'' The two reviews they are referring to is 
our own Fish and Wildlife review and also a Canadian review in regards 
to the status of polar bear populations, those reports are going to be 
coming due some time early next year.
  Also, the National Wildlife Federation, I want to clarify, the 
National Wildlife Federation has not endorsed nor opposed Mr. Inslee's 
amendment, but they stated in a letter submitted to Members of Congress 
yesterday, ``We understand that there may be a debate about managing 
polar bear populations, which we believe is a distraction from the real 
issue of global warming.'' They go on to state that the only thing that 
could adequately protect the polar bear population is prompt action 
taken on global warming.
  Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee) on the importance of that issue.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is 
recognized for 15 seconds.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to submit that the day we 
yield to Canadian judgment, we would replace baseball with ice hockey. 
It is not the American principle. We have a strong Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. It has a clear loophole. We do not want the last polar 
bears to be head and skins in dens. We want this species to continue. 
This will do that. Pass this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. INSLEE. 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 Washington 
will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
       Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to prepare or publish final regulations 
     regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale 
     resources on public lands pursuant to section 369(d) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) or to conduct 
     an oil shale lease sale pursuant to subsection 369(e) of such 
     Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Snyder). Pursuant to the order of the House 
of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar the 
Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management from issuing any final 
regulations for commercial-scale leasing of oil shale and from offering 
any

[[Page 17724]]

commercial oil shale leases during fiscal year 2008.
  Current law requires BLM to issue those regulations, and to move to a 
full-scale commercial leasing program, on a crash basis and under a 
tight deadline.
  I think that is a mistake, so I want to make it clear I support 
Chairman Rahall's bill, H.R. 2337, that would change that and other 
parts of the 2005 Energy Act. The Natural Resources Committee has 
favorably reported the chairman's bill and it is headed toward this 
very floor.
  The purpose of this amendment is to slow the administration down in 
the meantime, in order to give Congress time to complete action on that 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, oil shale has great potential as an energy source, and 
therefore it is an important part of our energy policy. But it is also 
important to American taxpayers, because they own most of it. But it is 
particularly important for Colorado.
  Our State has some of the most large-scale deposits of oil shale, and 
Coloradans, particularly those on our Western Slope, will be directly 
affected by its development.
  Back in 2005, the RAND Corporation reported that the potential 
benefits of developing oil shale were significant. But they also made 
it clear that development will affect not only our land but our air and 
the quality and quantity of our very limited supplies of water. It was 
noted that large oil shale development will bring significant 
population growth and is likely to put stress on the ability of local 
communities to provide the needed services.
  In short, the report reminded us how much Colorado and our neighbors 
had at stake when Congress debated the oil shale provisions of the 2005 
Energy Policy Act.
  As I said, that law now calls for a crash program. I have been 
concerned, as many people have in Colorado, that that would bring a 
rush to commercial development before the Interior Department knows 
enough to do it right and before Colorado's communities have had a 
chance to prepare for what it will bring.
  My concerns grew this year, when a witness from RAND told our 
committee that the economic, technical and environmental feasibility of 
oil shale development is not adequate to support the formulation of a 
commercial leasing program on the time scale mandated and the 
fundamental approach the Department of the Interior is currently taking 
may be counterproductive if the goal is to keep open the option for a 
sustainable domestic oil shale industry. Chairman Rahall's bill would 
correct some of those problems.
  I want to be clear, I strongly support oil shale provisions, because 
I think they will help assure that any commercial development is done 
in an orderly way that takes full advantage of the important research 
and development work underway.
  The bill would also relax the unrealistic deadline for the BLM to 
finish the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement now underway, 
and then the bill would allow a year, not just 6 months more, for the 
BLM to prepare a draft, not a final, but a draft commercial leasing 
regulation, after which the people in Colorado and elsewhere would have 
180 days to comment.
  I also support the bill and its mandate for developing a strategy for 
sustainable and publicly acceptable large-scale development of oil 
shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and its continued requirement that 
we consult with the governors of those States.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Natural Resources Committee on a 
bipartisan basis adopted my amendment to set aside part of the money 
that the Federal Government will get from oil shale leases to help 
affected counties pay for construction, operation and maintenance of 
public facilities and for the provision of public services. This 
addition reflects my concern about what large-scale oil shale 
development can mean for Colorado's Western Slope.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the full House will follow our committee's 
lead and approve these changes in the current law. I certainly will do 
all I can to help Chairman Rahall be successful in this effort. But 
there is a risk that these efforts could be frustrated unless Congress 
first acts to relieve the pressure current law puts on the BLM to move 
ahead on a crash basis.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the amendment, and I urge the 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to tell 
the gentleman that I think he has got a good amendment here. Our side 
is prepared to accept your amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the chairman for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I hate to have to disagree with my 
colleague from Colorado on this issue, but I definitely do so. Oil 
shale resources in the United States, as was just stated, are 
tremendous. The potential is that there could be 2 trillion, not 
billion, 2 trillion barrels of oil in place in the oil shale bands of 
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. It is, therefore, a strategically important 
domestic resource that should be developed on an accelerated basis to 
reduce our growing dependence on politically and economically unstable 
sources of foreign oil imports.
  The Department of Interior has issued the Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement and is now working on regulations for a commercial 
leasing program. Stopping them now in their tracks would be a waste of 
taxpayer dollars. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that the research 
and development of this important resource have been paid for by the 
private sector at no cost to the taxpayer.
  The Udall amendment is unnecessary, because oil shale provisions in 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 require approval of the governor before 
commercial leasing can go forward. So it is not yet entirely even in 
place. Therefore, this amendment would delay development of this 
important domestic resource.
  If we commercialize oil shale, that would provide significant public 
benefits, including increased fuels available, reduced risk of supply 
disruption, reduced imports, improved balance of payments, new Federal 
and State royalty and tax revenues, increased domestic employment and 
increased economic growth. Tremendous benefits will come from this.
  Further, oil from shale will place appreciable downward pressure on 
the world prices of crude oil, which would improve America's, and, 
indeed, the entire world's economies.

                              {time}  1515

  Oil shale is highly concentrated and gives the greatest yield of oil 
per acre disturbed of any of the Nation's energy resources. The oil 
shale resources of the Nation, besides totaling 2 trillion barrels, 
would yield 750 billion barrels with a richness of 25 gallons per ton 
or greater with near-term adaptations of existing technology. It is 
possible that an oil shale industry could be initiated by 2011, with an 
aggressive goal of 2 million barrels a day by 2020, which would create 
100,000 new jobs directly and indirectly, and ultimately the capacity 
could reach 10 million barrels a day, which is comparable to the oil 
sands up in Canada.
  So apart from the energy independence problems that this amendment 
would cause, that production of oil shale is close to starting, and, 
therefore, it is not right to pull the rug out from under the private 
sector companies that have been working on and investing in this 
resource.
  In summary, there is no proven need to delay the use of this exciting 
new source of domestic energy. The environmental concerns have been 
addressed in a responsible and careful way. Billions of gallons of oil 
will make our country freer from foreign pressure and our economy 
stronger, with more energy available, gasoline prices lower at the 
pump, and more jobs for our working families.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the first chart that will 
eventually come up here, and I am sorry about

[[Page 17725]]

this, indicates the States in the United States that have the hardest 
time increasing their education funding. This is where the funding is 
growing the slowest.
  You notice the common denominator with these is not an attitude 
towards education, it is that most of these are land-based States. The 
land has been taken away from us to develop a property tax base. 
Fortunately, God has given us resources underneath that to compensate 
for that. But any program that would retard the leases or the royalties 
that will come from those will harm education in Western States.
  My kids in Utah will be put at a disadvantage because of this 
particular amendment. There is collateral damage that takes place with 
amendments, and one of those deals with education.
  If you can look at this chart in the proper way, this chart shows the 
salaries that are given for first-year teachers in Wyoming versus the 
salaries on average for fourth-year teachers in Montana. Now, this 
should not be that way, because Montana has the fewest amount of public 
lands of any of the Western States. They have more of a property tax 
base. The difference is Wyoming has the resources that they have 
developed, which allows them simply to put more money into their 
education system.
  My colleagues who are still teachers deserve a decent salary, they 
deserve a decent retirement, we deserve the right to build our public 
schools. When you ask anything that shackles them from a brighter 
future, either by postponing or forcing to replow the data that the 
professional land managers have already established, it harms them.
  You have taken away our land for property tax benefits. Allow us to 
develop the resources so that we can have a future for education in the 
Western States that is on par with those in the Eastern States. It is 
important that we move forward. And I'm sorry, but there is collateral 
damage with this amendment that harms educators and education in the 
West.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr. 
Lamborn) has mentioned that there are 2 trillion barrels of oil. That 
is a conservative estimate. Estimates go way, way, way beyond that. The 
only way we are going to know how much oil there is is if we actually 
have the opportunity to unleash the creativity of the American genius 
to go after that oil and develop it.
  Mr. Lamborn also said that we expect to have a large production by 
2011, 4 or 5 years from now. The fact is, we could have big production 
out of shale much sooner than that if we continue on the path that we 
are on. If we delay, we will not have that opportunity.
  I have an amendment that I am going to offer in a few minutes, and I 
will continue to talk about this point.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the question here is not whether 
to develop oil shale, but how and when. The amendment would not stop it 
in its tracks, as my good friend from Colorado suggests, but it would 
direct those tracks on to a gentler and a more sustainable route.
  We have always heard, Mr. Chairman, about oil shale being the fuel of 
the future. But as the Rand Report mentioned, I remind us, so are the 
potential problems. My amendment says, as we work to realize this 
promise, we are not closing our eyes to the problems in front of us.
  I urge adoption of this amendment. It is a smart amendment. It is a 
wise amendment. It keeps faith with the people of western Colorado.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly in a balanced energy policy. We need 
to invest in alternative energy sources and we need to tap the 
resources that we have in a responsible manner.
  The Department of the Interior is now completing a programmatic 
environmental impact study on the commercial leasing program that is 
authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This study is focused 
on evaluating the potential impacts associated with the development of 
commercial leasing programs for oil shale and tar sand resources on 
public lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
  The scope of this environmental impact study will include an 
assessment for the positive and negative environmental, social and 
economic impacts of leasing oil shale and tar sand resources, both the 
positive and the negative impacts. I think that is important.
  This will also include a discussion of the relevant mitigation 
measures to address any potential impacts on the Bureau of Land 
Management's administered lands in Colorado, as well as in Utah and 
Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management anticipates that the draft Oil 
Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact Study 
will be issued just this summer. But this amendment would stop that 
from occurring.
  The draft environmental impact study will be followed by an extensive 
public comment period, and a second revised programmatic environmental 
impact study will be issued prior to the final record of decision.
  I believe we must pursue environmentally responsible means of 
developing domestic energy sources, and this amendment delays the 
responsible planning process already in place.
  The gentleman from Colorado said this is important to our energy 
policy, and I agree. He also said that this was important to our 
taxpayers. I also agree. But the leases that were expected to come in 
under the Energy Act of 2005 have been taken into consideration in the 
budget we already passed this year. By stopping this, you will stop the 
income from those leases in fiscal year 2008. So this will cause us to 
exceed the budget authority.
  I would suggest the gentleman from Colorado withdraw this amendment 
because it is subject to a point of order because your budget authority 
is going to be exceeded by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Colorado, but I 
would request that he withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my great 
friend from the Midwest, I will not withdraw the amendment. I would 
make a point there, I don't believe a point of order is in order, 
because there is no revenue anticipated from the leases that are 
anticipated.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time to explain the reason the 
revenue would be depleted, there was planned income from fiscal year 
2008 from the leases on the oil shale. So I believe, in my estimation, 
I am waiting for confirmation from the Congressional Budget Office, 
that it will be out of order.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
further, and I thank you again for yielding, I am very certain that 
that is not the case, and I would just again remind all of my 
colleagues that the intent here is to do this right. Not to stop this 
from happening, but to do it right, given our history of oil shale 
development or the lack thereof in western Colorado.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
I would say it is important that we let this process continue, and 
therefore I think we should vote down the Udall amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Kansas is referring to the 
other Udall amendment, not this amendment. I don't think there is a 
point of order here. There is another Udall amendment that did have an 
issue with it. There are a lot of them, so I can see how he could get 
confused.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the 
chairman for trying to continue to hold the ranking Member in accuracy, 
but I believe it applies to both Udall amendments.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, we will wait and see. But I didn't note the 
gentleman making the point of order.
  Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand 
that I have missed my window of opportunity at this point in time to 
raise a point of

[[Page 17726]]

order, but I will reserve that opportunity in the future, if such an 
opportunity will present itself.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement Bureau of Land Management regulations on 
     Recordable Disclaimers of Interest in Land (subpart 1864 of 
     part 1860 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations) with 
     respect to a claimed Revised Statue (R.S.) 2477 right-of-way 
     or to issue a non-binding determination pursuant to the 
     Secretary of the Interior's Memorandum to Assistant 
     Secretaries dated March 22, 2006, revoking the Department of 
     the Interior's previous Interim Departmental Policy on 
     Revised Statute 2477 Grant of Right-of-Way for Public 
     Highways.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in a moment I am going to ask to withdraw the 
amendment, but I want to engage Chairman Dicks in a brief colloquy. But 
first let me provide a little bit of background here.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the amendment deals with claims under an 
1866 law known as R.S. 2477 that granted rights-of-way to build 
highways over Federal lands. This act was repealed in 1976, but because 
Congress did not set a deadline for people claiming these rights-of-way 
to come forward, we still do not know what valid rights-of-way may 
exist.
  There are pending claims that affect military lands and lands once 
owned by the Federal Government that are now private property. Other 
claims involve national parks, national forests and other conservation 
areas.
  When the Clinton administration tried to resolve this problem 
administratively, Congress blocked that by passing a law barring 
issuance of final regulations on this subject until Congress authorized 
them. That law is still on the books. The Bush administration has not 
asked Congress to change the law. Instead, they want to do an end run 
around Congress and to deal with these claims through an administrative 
process.
  My amendment would have blocked them from doing that because I think 
we should deal with that problem through new legislation. Toward that 
end, I have worked for a number of years with counties in my State and 
introduced a bill based on the results of that work.
  My goal has been and still remains to establish a fair and neutral 
process that will result in setting a time certain for claims to be 
brought forward so valid claims can be recognized and any invalid ones 
will be resolved and so to bring an end to litigation and controversy. 
I do plan to continue to work on that approach in this Congress.
  If I might, at this time, I would turn to the chairman and ask him, 
does the chairman agree with me that it would be better for the 
administration to work with Congress to resolve this issue, rather than 
trying to follow a course that will lead straight to more litigation?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, I agree. 
In our report on this bill, the Appropriations Committee warns the 
Interior Department that we are concerned about the Department's 
interpretation and actions that would disclaim Federal interests in 
lands subject to an R.S. 2477 claim or issue any nonbinding 
determination that would have a similar effect. That is why we tell 
them to provide advanced notice to the Congress if the Interior 
Department plans to approve any R.S. 2477 claims. We also require them 
to provide quarterly reports on activities concerning claims under the 
R.S. 2477 statute. But it would be even better for the administration 
to work with the gentleman and the Natural Resources Committee to 
develop a legislative solution for this serious problem, and I urge 
them to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to 
thank Chairman Dicks for his thoughts.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to impose on the time of the House by 
calling for a vote on the amendment today, although the problem has not 
gone away and it will not go away unless Congress acts.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. 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. 12 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new title:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. In implementing the amendments made by section 
     5401(c) of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina 
     Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 
     (Public Law 110-28), a resource advisory committee 
     established under section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and 
     Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; 
     Public Law 106-393), in addition to the duties assigned to 
     the committee by subsection (b) of such section, shall--
       (1) monitor projects submitted by that committee that have 
     been approved by the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture;
       (2) advise the designated Federal official on the progress 
     of monitoring efforts under paragraph (1); and
       (3) make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior 
     or the Secretary of Agriculture regarding any changes or 
     adjustments to the projects being monitored by the committee.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that the other side is reserving a point of 
order on this because of a previous objection to an amendment which 
would have allocated $425 million into the Safe and Secure Rural 
Schools program, a program which I very much support. I am on the 
authorizing committee and I can assure them that the authorizing 
committee is determined to move forward on, one of the authorizing 
committees at least, in the near future. In the last Congress, the 
Resources Committee did act and the Agriculture Committee did not on 
reauthorizing this program.
  So we are engaging in that process in good faith and hope to be 
working with our friends on the Appropriations Committee in the not-
too-distant future to

[[Page 17727]]

extend this program for a number of years as we phase it down.
  But in the interim, the Appropriations Committee and this Congress 
did, in the emergency supplemental, approve 1 year of temporary 
funding, which was excellent. It staved off disasters in county after 
county in terms of closed jails, loss of rural sheriffs patrols and 
many, many other vital services.
  But, unfortunately, in doing that there was an oversight, and it is a 
simple oversight, easily rectified if there is not an objection. One of 
the most beneficial parts for the Federal taxpayers generally beyond 
the services that are provided within the counties and school districts 
across America is the Resource Advisory Committees, committees made up 
of a broad cross-section of communities across the Western United 
States, both environmental, timber interests, general community 
members, who have come forward, worked collaboratively, and have put 15 
percent of the funds under the program, reinvested it back into the 
Federal lands, providing tremendous benefits ecologically to those 
lands, economically, in terms of thinning projects and other things, 
things that were not within the budget of the United States Forest 
Service or the Department of the Interior in the case of the O&C lands.
  Unfortunately, since these committees, which are widely applauded in 
a bipartisan way across the Western United States, were not 
reauthorized, this language simply would give them authorization to 
monitor the ongoing activities.
  It is extraordinarily noncontroversial, and it would be 
extraordinarily regrettable if in some sort of a misplaced tit for tat 
there was an objection to this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague Mr. 
DeFazio for his work on this amendment with me.
  I would like to point out that on page 182 of the committee report 
there is listed 30 different laws that have not been reauthorized and 
are being funded. Some of these laws were last reauthorized 28 years 
ago. So the fact that we have something before you that has just gone 
out of operation here in less than a year, and we are trying to do a 
technical correction here to reauthorize it, I don't think is deserving 
of a point of order.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am prepared 
to accept the gentleman's amendment. I think this is a very positive 
amendment. It has nothing to do with what we were discussing earlier, 
and I am prepared to accept your amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Well, I'm not sure everyone is, so if I may 
continue. There are over 4,500 projects that these resource advisory 
committees have worked on. They have leveraged $292 million to improve 
watersheds and wildlife habitats, and reduce the risk of catastrophic 
fire. No resource advisory committee has been disbanded or melted down. 
There are 70 of them in 13 States. No RAC-approved project has been 
appealed or litigated. No other active land management initiative in 
either the Departments of Agriculture or Interior can equal such a 
track record.
  This has brought disparate individuals together to do good things for 
the land, habitat and watersheds in a comprehensive way that leverages 
local funds and support.
  Today, as we debate this issue on the floor of this House, fires are 
raging at Lake Tahoe, destroying homes and habitats and watershed. 
Those sorts of efforts, where they tried to get in and thin in this 
watershed and protect it and reduce the threat of fire, might have been 
allowed to occur had there been a resource advisory committee like 
these, and I don't know what they have got there, but certainly they 
were not able to get the job done before the fire hit.
  We are trying to do good things for our national forests, and I know 
others are trying to as well. I just hope we can approve this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my remaining minute.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are few Members of Congress who have more open 
territory than I do in my district. There is enough space there to put 
four eastern States easily and have room left over. I have rural 
schools and problems that very much reflect the concerns that have been 
expressed here.
  But at the same time, I must say to the chairman and to the House, I 
was sitting in my office observing the discussion early when the 
Doolittle amendment was up. I was about to come to the floor because 
the chairman of the full committee was beginning a discussion regarding 
who taxes too much or too little, and who spends too much and too 
little, and we will have that conversation as we go forward. But that 
is what caused me to want to come to the floor.
  In the meantime, Mr. Doolittle had a very specific problem that was 
going to be taken care of, and it was objected to because it was 
legislating on an appropriations bill. Because of that, I am going to 
be pretty tough on this. The reason I reserved in this case, even 
though it affects my own district, it is my intention to ask that the 
amendment be stricken.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. The only thing I would say here is that this amendment is 
much different than the Doolittle amendment. This would help the 
gentleman from Oregon and Mr. Doolittle in having a placeholder in the 
bill.
  As the gentleman knows, we agreed to $425 million in the supplemental 
to help these gentlemen on the rural schools. My concern here is that 
this is not an appropriations problem, this is supposed to be an 
authorization problem. I even helped them way back in 1992 or 1993 when 
the timber harvest went way down--Congresswoman Dunn and I got the 
first program through Congress to keep this going for 10 years.
  I have been a friend of this rural schools program. I don't quite 
understand why this very small amendment that doesn't have any negative 
impact on anyone would be stricken.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I 
could.
  I understand the point that the chairman is making, and I am very 
appreciative of it.
  The bill, as you know, was slushed with an awful lot of money above 
and beyond what we anticipated. Before we got the last $3 billion we 
had a fine bill. It strikes me that as we were slushing, we might have 
put some money in this category if we were so concerned about it.
  But in the meantime, there is little doubt that because of the need 
for consistency here, if we are going to be striking language in the 
fashion that I saw as I was sitting in my office, selectively, then it 
seems to me we ought to try to at least raise the flag of consistency, 
and it is my intention to do that here.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. At your will, Mr. Chairman, 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 rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment in this case imparts direction, so I insist upon my 
point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, to the point of order, again, the 
gentleman is technically correct. But again, unlike the previous 
amendment, this amendment not only does not cost money, it actually 
benefits the Federal Government and the Federal taxpayers.
  I wish the gentleman would reconsider that point and not target this 
because of an earlier debate on a different

[[Page 17728]]

issue having to do with spending levels. This actually would save the 
taxpayers money. I would ask that the gentleman reconsider his 
objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Seeing no further speakers on the point of 
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  Mr. LAMBORN. 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. Lamborn:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       None of the funds in this Act may be used for the National 
     Endowment for the Arts.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 26, 2007, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
recognizes the difficult fiscal situation facing our government.
  The Interior Appropriations bill has the largest increase over the 
President's request of any of the spending bills, and I will support 
efforts to bring the costs down as these opportunities arise. At a time 
when our budget needs balancing, we must reprioritize our spending. 
That is why the amendment I am proposing now would eliminate funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  I am disappointed that my earlier amendment yesterday was not 
accepted as it would have directed some of the funding toward the PLT 
program, or payment in lieu of taxes by the Federal Government to 
compensate for lost revenues to local governments.
  But I still maintain that particularly in this budget environment, 
taxpayers should not be asked to fund the National Endowment for the 
Arts. Now opposition to the NEA should not be perceived as opposition 
to the arts. My wife is an artist, and I support the arts 
wholeheartedly. But I do feel strongly that it is something that the 
private sector can fully, and has in the past fully and wholeheartedly 
supported.
  True art can and does survive without Federal handouts. Artists have 
every right to be creative without forcing the taxpayer to fund it. The 
private sector is the appropriate venue to fund such projects. I know 
artists who refuse to take money from any level of government because 
they want to be independent. They don't want to have any strings 
attached. They don't want to be beholden to anybody, and they will 
refuse government funding.
  While there are certainly projects that the NEA does that are 
worthwhile, some are objectionable and have been over recent history. 
And at a time when fiscal restraint is crucial, we must examine closely 
how and where we are spending taxpayer money. It is not only 
appropriate but necessary to question some of the funding in this bill 
and see if it can be either reduced or directed to more worthwhile 
programs.
  My amendment would save taxpayers an immediate $150 million in budget 
authority spending in fiscal year 2008, and allows the remaining $10 
million to be spent on shutdown costs. This still reduces the overall 
cost of this spending bill and sends a message that in this budget 
environment we are willing to tighten our belts here in Washington just 
as any American family or business would have to.
  It is disheartening to think there is an assumption of continued 
taxpayer support for every single discretionary program. Yet that is 
exactly what we are hearing today in this debate on funding for the 
NEA. There are arguments for why we must continue to spend money on an 
art program when we face budget constraints in trying to adequately 
provide necessary treatment for our returning veterans and all of the 
many priorities in our almost $3 trillion budget.
  I come from a commonsense perceptive that says when my bank account 
is low, I make tough decisions on where my money must be spent. None of 
my colleagues supporting this funding seem to fully appreciate this 
approach, and it is disappointing and it is in large part why we face 
the budget situation that we are in.
  I would note that the budget for this appropriations bill is I 
believe $1.9 billion over what the President has requested. I hear talk 
about how our deficit is going up every week, every day, every month. 
This is a great opportunity that we have to stop the hemorrhaging. We 
can stop the spending. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are contemplating not extending the Bush 
temporary tax cuts. They want to end that in their budget plan. That 
would amount to the largest tax increase in American history. We have 
this opportunity now to take $160 million and save it for the taxpayer. 
So I just think this would be a well-considered thing.
  The arts are valuable in American life and culture. For anyone to say 
let's do this through the private sector as opposed to the taxpayers 
does not make them a member of the Flat Earth Society. The arts are 
valuable, but they are well supported in our society and culture. We 
just have so many other priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We have heard speaker after speaker on the Republican 
side say how concerned they are about spending. The minority whip stood 
in the well and castigated the Democrats for spending. He has $950,000 
of earmarks in the bill.
  The woman from Colorado has $150,000 of earmarks in the bill.
  If the gentleman is so sincere, let's entertain a unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. Chairman, is it in order to make a unanimous-consent request?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It depends on the nature of the request.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Republicans be allowed to voluntarily strip their $45 million of 
earmarks from this bill, which would save one-quarter of the amount of 
money that the gentleman is trying to save by cutting all the funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The order of the House allowing only certain 
amendments may not be varied by the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. In conclusion then, we have a bit of hypocrisy here. 
They want to complain at the same time as they put the projects in 
their pocket and they go home and brag about it. They brag about how 
they want to cut spending in Washington, and they brag about the money 
they bring home.
  I believe in investment in America in many ways, and this bill is 
making many crucial investments in America.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is important for Members to realize as they consider the committee 
action that the $160 million recommended only partially restores cuts 
made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in this bill is 
still $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After adjusting for 
inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below the level in 
1993, as displayed on a chart that I showed Members earlier.
  As we debate this amendment, Members should also note that the 
National Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts 
funding debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the 
NEA into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivey, appointed by 
Bill Clinton, negotiated and implemented bipartisan reforms in NEA's 
grant structure to ensure that funds go to activities for which public 
funding is appropriate.
  Dana Gioia, the current chairman, then energized the agency with many 
new programs and a commitment to reach beyond the cultural centers of 
our major cities.

[[Page 17729]]

  Last year, every single congressional district received NEA support 
through innovative programs such as the American Masterpieces, 
Operation Homecoming and the Big Read.
  Today, NEA is a truly national program with outreach efforts to every 
corner of America and every segment of her society. Each of us have 
different reasons to support the arts. Some will describe their support 
in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a personally enriching 
experience. Others support the arts as engines of job development and 
economic growth.

                              {time}  1545

  It is equally important to emphasize that most Members of the House 
in recent years have been supporting funding for the arts and for the 
humanities. I believe the cultural wars should be over. For each of the 
last 7 years with the help of many Members in this Chamber, a 
bipartisan majority in the House has voted to increase funding for the 
NEA. During the last 2 years, Ms. Slaughter's and my amendments to add 
funds were adopted by voice vote, without opposition from Mr. Taylor.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not normally include quotes in my floor remarks, 
but I was struck in preparing for this year's art debate by a quote 
attributed to actor Richard Dreyfus at the Grammy awards ceremony:
  ``Perhaps we've all misunderstood the reason we learn music and all 
the arts in the first place. It is that for hundreds of years, it has 
been known that teaching the arts helps to create the well-rounded mind 
that western civilization, and America, have been grounded on. 
America's greatest achievements in science, in business, in popular 
culture, would simply not be attainable without an education that 
encourages achievement in all fields. It is from that creativity and 
imagination that the solutions to our political and social problems 
will come. We need that well-rounded mind now. Without it, we simply 
make more difficult the problems we face.''
  I believe Mr. Dreyfus is right, and the committee has acted to 
provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American 
communities with a richer variety of programs.
  I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment and support for the 
committee position.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 
his remaining 30 seconds.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My wife, Jeanie, is an artist. I support, she supports, the arts. I 
agree with what you said about the importance of arts in our culture. 
The only question is who should pay for it. Should the taxpayer pay for 
it or the private sector? The $160 million budget in this bill is $35 
million, or 29 percent, higher than last year's budget. Do we need a 29 
percent tax increase? I think the arts are great, but let's support it 
in the private sector.
  I would urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 
his remaining 30 seconds.
  Mr. DICKS. I just will wrap this up.
  I would say, you know, it's very unusual to say you support a program 
or support the arts when you offer an amendment to eliminate the entire 
program. It's like saying I'm for the B-2 bomber but I want to vote 
against it. You can't have it both ways. Either you're for the arts or 
you're not. When you're here, you have to demonstrate that support by 
supporting the program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cannon

  Mr. CANNON. 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 offered by Mr. Cannon:
       At end of bill add:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     implement section      of this bill (relating to oil-shale 
     leasing) in the States of Utah or Wyoming.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would limit the effects of the amendment by my colleagues from Colorado 
to Colorado.
  I am deeply troubled by my colleagues' zeal to stop oil shale leasing 
and development in the West. Oil shale is not a new idea. In fact, the 
lands in question were once part of a strategic reserve. Rather than 
limiting our energy resources, I am offering this amendment in an 
attempt to make sure that Americans have the opportunity to be energy 
independent and to create more American jobs.
  Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming hold a conservative estimate of 2 
trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Formation. We 
have one or two times the total crude oil reserves of the whole world 
and triple the amount of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Two trillion 
barrels of oil is enough to meet current U.S. demands for hundreds of 
years.
  At a time when the price of consumer goods and services are soaring 
in large part because of the cost of energy resources, why would we 
intentionally hinder our ability to develop our most promising 
resource? It is no secret that the environmental community does not 
want shale development to succeed in this Nation, but we have 
environmental laws that are designed to protect our Federal lands. If 
those laws are not sufficient, let's talk about those issues as opposed 
to simply putting up roadblocks to this promising resource. Increased 
global demands, skyrocketing energy prices, geopolitical instability, 
concerns about peak oil production and supplies are all economic 
factors that we believe make oil shale an attractive natural resource 
to help solve our country's dependency problems.
  The U.S. and world demand for oil is increasing, and we will not be 
able to conserve our way out of this dilemma. We must as a country look 
to other sources of energy. Many experts agree that oil shale in Utah 
can be a major part of the solution. Issues regarding environmental and 
community impact will need to be addressed at a local, State and 
Federal level and also by private industry. I believe Utah and the 
region can look to Canada's oil sands to see what other countries have 
done to develop their resources and the benefits that come with such 
development. Canada has invested vastly in oil sands and has seen a 
huge return in royalties. Oil sands are now a $20 billion-per-year 
industry in a remote area of Canada.
  We cannot leave our constituents holding the bag on higher energy 
prices. Development of oil shale as well as oil, gas and renewable 
energy technologies will lighten the load of our constituents. 
Successful development of oil shale can help solve the Nation's energy 
dilemma and also bring millions and eventually billions of dollars to 
the Federal Treasury, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming through royalties and 
mineral lease moneys.
  We have heard that we need to be energy independent. How, then, can 
we criticize the BLM for moving forward in helping us achieve this 
goal? We should be encouraging the responsible development of oil shale 
so that we can in part fulfill our desire to keep from relying on 
foreign and often unstable nations for our energy resources. These

[[Page 17730]]

are nations that hate us and who use our American dollars to hurt our 
interests.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and resist 
the urge to destroy the potential of oil shale before it is developed. 
I would encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to allow States 
that want to develop oil shale, that they be allowed to develop that 
oil shale.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. This amendment is a mistake. There are plenty of reasons 
to delay the oil shale leasing which the BLM is doing. The Governor of 
Colorado and several other local Members of Congress have also asked 
for an appropriate delay so the public can fully understand the 
ramifications of massive oil shale leasing. Furthermore, the large-
scale demonstration projects have begun and it is far too soon for 
large-scale commercial leasing.
  To give the companies time to learn from the demonstrations, I think 
we should defeat this amendment and stay with the Udall amendment. What 
this does is basically overturn the Udall amendment, which is pending 
at this time.
  I urge opposition to the Cannon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw his 
point of order?
  Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his point of order 
and would point out, I understand that the Governor of Colorado, a 
Democrat, has decided that he doesn't want oil shale development in 
Colorado and my Democratic colleagues have opposed oil shale 
development in Colorado. It is true that in Colorado there are major 
projects that are underway and that have begun with some small-scale 
demonstration projects. That is fine for Colorado. It does not make 
sense for America to impose on Utah and Wyoming the same concerns that 
the Democratic leadership of Colorado wants to have in Colorado. And so 
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The fact is I 
think, having looked at the industry, the likelihood of significant oil 
shale development, oil coming out of shale, is more likely to be from 
entrepreneurial sources that are not dependent upon these vast, vast 
projects that are being done in Colorado.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Do you want us to all vote for the Udall amendment so that 
your amendment can repeal it?
  Mr. CANNON. No, no. If the Udall amendment passes, then my amendment 
would become irrelevant. But I think under the rules of the body today, 
we were not able to do a second-degree amendment which is what I would 
have preferred. That being the case, the fact is Colorado has expressed 
itself I think pretty clearly here today that they don't want this 
development and, in fact, the case is different in Colorado than it is 
in Utah. I think that the opportunity for entrepreneurial development 
of oil shale should not be inhibited by frivolous government 
regulations. We have laws in place. In Utah, we are not going to do 
things that don't make sense environmentally.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. 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. For purposes of discussion, I would like to ask the 
gentleman from Utah if it is correct, and my understanding of what 
you're trying to do is offset what Mr. Udall is doing because he is 
stopping the permitting process not only in Colorado but also in Utah, 
your home State.
  Is it also true he would stop the permitting in Wyoming as well?
  Mr. CANNON. That is true. This would delay the development of oil 
shale. The Udall amendment would delay it in Colorado, Utah and 
Wyoming. My amendment would limit that effect to just Colorado and 
allow Wyoming and Utah to develop their shale as they wish.
  Mr. TIAHRT. So, Mr. Chairman, as I understand this, what the 
gentleman from Utah is doing is his very best to represent the 
interests of his State. And what the gentleman from Colorado is doing 
was try to represent the best interests of his State. So I think in 
fairness to the Members of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, it would be 
proper for us to adopt Mr. Cannon's amendment. That way it would 
satisfy Mr. Udall by restricting and limiting the permitting process in 
Colorado but allowing the gentleman from Utah to represent his district 
by letting the permitting process move forward.
  So I would encourage the Members of the House to support Mr. Udall 
via Mr. Cannon's amendment and vote to accept the Cannon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANNON. 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 Utah will be 
postponed.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
  Amendment No. 51 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on Greene County, Pennsylvania.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on Columbus, Ohio.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on Greensburg, Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 22 by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 27 by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Inslee of Washington.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Udall of Colorado.
  An amendment by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
  An amendment by Mr. Cannon of Utah.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for 
any electronic vote after the first in this series.


         Amendment Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:
        At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities--
     National Endowment for the Arts--grants and administration'' 
     is reduced by $32,000,000.

                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 285, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page 17731]]



                             [Roll No. 564]

                               AYES--137

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--285

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bishop (UT)
     Braley (IA)
     Costa
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Giffords
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Meek (FL)
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pearce
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1621

  Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. SHIMKUS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. LUCAS and Mr. MOLLOHAN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 564, I was at the White 
House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


         Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       None of the funds in this Act may be used for Wetzel County 
     Courthouse, New Martinsville, West Virginia.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, 
noes 323, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 565]

                               AYES--104

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hastert
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--323

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin

[[Page 17732]]


     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Braley (IA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Giffords
     Jones (OH)
     Meek (FL)
     Ortiz
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1626

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 565, I was at the White 
House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       None of the funds in this Act may be used for the Conte 
     Anadromous Fish Laboratory.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 330, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 566]

                                AYES--97

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--330

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 17733]]



                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brady (TX)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hirono
     Jones (OH)
     Levin
     McDermott
     Moore (WI)
     Ortiz
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
is 1 minute remaining on the vote.

                              {time}  1630

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 566, I was on the floor, 
but in a discussion with collegues, and missed the vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of Georgia was allowed to speak out 
of order.)


        Mourning the Passing of the Honorable John J. Flynt, Jr.

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to announce to the body 
that a former Member of this body, John J. Flynt, Jr., better known as 
Jack Flynt, of Georgia, passed on Sunday at his home in Griffin, 
Georgia.
  Congressman Jack Flynt was 92 years old. He served in the Congress 
from 1954 until his retirement in 1979, and he was a member of the 
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, and at one time, he was 
also the Chair of the Ethics Committee.
  Congressman Flynt had many varied professional experiences. He was a 
prosecutor and the founder of a bank. During World War II, he joined 
the Army Reserve and was aide-de-camp to Brigadier General Robert W. 
Grow in France. For his service he was awarded the Bronze Star.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague from Georgia 
(Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  Congressman Jack Flynt was a lifelong resident of Spalding County in 
my district. After gaining a bachelor's degree at the University of 
Georgia and a law degree at George Washington University, a young Jack 
Flynt enlisted in the Army Reserves. He fought the war in France, won a 
Bronze Star, and retired as a colonel in the Reserves.
  After serving his Nation at war and in the Congress, Congressman 
Flynt came home to Griffin for the last 20 years of his life and he 
continued working in his hometown community.
  On behalf of the people of my district, the Third District of 
Georgia, and the great State of Georgia, I thank Congressman Flynt for 
his lifetime of service, and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife 
and family.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield now to my 
colleague from Georgia, Congressman Phil Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Mr. Lewis for 
yielding.
  Former Member Jack Flynt served in this body for 24 years. It has 
been mentioned that he served on the Appropriations Committee. Some 
could say that he is neither a Democrat nor a Republican but an 
appropriator. But Jack Flynt was a boll weevil Democrat. If he were 
here today, he would be a staunch member of the Blue Dogs, I feel 
confident.
  When I was running in this district originally, that area was in my 
district and many people said to me, You need to know Jack Flynt. I am 
disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that I never did get to know him. But in 
every instance the word about Jack Flynt was he was a gentleman.
  And he and his wife of 65 years, Patricia of Griffin, Georgia, they 
have three children: Susan Flynt Stirn of Arlington County; John J. 
Flynt III of Augusta, Georgia, my hometown; and Crisp B. Flynt of 
Griffin; four grandchildren and two great grandchildren.
  I am humbled to have an opportunity to just say a few words about a 
great Member of this body and to pay respect to him and offer our 
condolences to his entire family.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the House now join in 
a moment of silence in memory of John J. Flynt.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members will rise and the House will observe a 
moment of silence.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 2-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on Greene County, Pennsylvania, on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, 
noes 328, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 567]

                               AYES--104

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--328

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)

[[Page 17734]]


     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Jones (OH)
     Ortiz
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1639

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 66, 
noes 364, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 568]

                                AYES--66

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Graves
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--364

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Jones (OH)
     Kirk
     Ortiz
     Pence
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1643

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on Greensburg, Pennsylvania, on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page 17735]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86, 
noes 343, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 569]

                                AYES--86

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bono
     Burgess
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Graves
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hunter
     Jones (OH)
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Sessions
     Sullivan


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on 
this vote.

                              {time}  1647

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


             Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 281, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 570]

                               AYES--150

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah

[[Page 17736]]


     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on 
the vote.

                              {time}  1651

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


            Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote. There are five 2-minute 
votes after this vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 254, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 571]

                               AYES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--254

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Marchant
     Ortiz
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are less than 30 seconds 
remaining on the vote.

                              {time}  1654

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

[[Page 17737]]




               Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Mrs. Musgrave) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 238, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 572]

                               AYES--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on 
the vote.

                              {time}  1658

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


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Inslee

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
  There are three more 2-minute votes continuing after this vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 242, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 573]

                               AYES--188

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gillmor
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns

[[Page 17738]]


     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--242

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Burgess
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Herger
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on 
the vote.

                              {time}  1702

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


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 215, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 574]

                               AYES--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan

[[Page 17739]]


     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1709

  Messrs. SNYDER, RANGEL, BOYD of Florida, LEVIN and BACA changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, rule XX, clause 2(a) says that no 
vote will be held open to change the outcome.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman states a fair question. The vote 
was kept open to do the numerical calculation to see if the votes of 
the Delegates would change the outcome.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you hold the vote 
open for people not having voted, but this was a specific case of 
people changing their vote after the limit.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The vote was not kept open for the purpose of 
allowing Members to vote. There had to be numerical calculations on the 
votes of the Delegates to see if they changed the outcome of the vote. 
That was the purpose of the delay. It was not for any other reason.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, if I understand it correctly, the 
rule XX, clause 2(a) was put into effect to keep votes open and keep 
people from lobbying to change their votes. That is exactly what 
happened on this vote, and it is against the rules.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 335, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 575]

                                AYES--97

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Radanovich
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--335

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Abercrombie
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Sessions

                              {time}  1715

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cannon

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page 17740]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 223, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 576]

                               AYES--204

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gohmert
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Conyers
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Ortiz
     Reyes
     Sessions
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1719

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McNulty) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, 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, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to 
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 514, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole?
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the Udall 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put the remaining amendments en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on which 
a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment:
       Page 111, after line 17, insert the following:

                TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to prepare or publish final regulations 
     regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale 
     resources on public lands pursuant to section 369(d) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) or to conduct 
     an oil shale lease sale pursuant to subsection 369(e) of such 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 210, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 577]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah

[[Page 17741]]


     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ortiz
     Sessions
     Smith (NJ)
     Waxman

                              {time}  1741

  Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Interior 
Appropriations bill, and in favor of the rational funding increases it 
proposes to help manage federal lands, support Native Americans, 
protect our environment, and address the urgent problem of global 
climate change.
  Chairman Dicks and his staff have put together a great bill that 
finally reverses the long series of cuts for environmental programs 
imposed by the President and previous Republican Congress.
  With $2.047 billion in this bill, we can finally take a step forward 
to address the huge backlog of maintenance projects in our national 
parks system.
  With $8.086 billion in this bill we can finally put some teeth into 
the Environmental Protection Agency's mission as it now moves to comply 
with the recent landmark Supreme Court decision requiring regulation of 
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
  With $5.731 billion in this bill we can finally make good on some of 
the promises we have made to Native American communities by supporting 
health care, education, economic development and law enforcement, 
including a targeted methamphetamine prevention initiative.
  And with the important creation of a new Commission on Climate Change 
Mitigation and Adaptation with a $50 million budget to jumpstart 
scientific activity, we can begin to implement some real solutions to 
the problem of global climate change.
  I am also pleased that in addition to making these much needed 
investments, the Interior bill maintains the bipartisan moratorium on 
new oil and gas drilling on our outer continental shelf.
  We recognize that safeguarding the health and natural beauty of our 
coastal environment for future generations is an important priority for 
our nation.
  We don't believe that it is worth trading away coastal habitats to 
the administration's cronies in the oil and gas industry to continue 
their massive shakedown of our constituents through tax incentives and 
high prices at the pump.
  I again want to applaud my colleague Chairman Dicks for writing such 
a well-crafted, thoughtful, and forward looking bill and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2008.
  This bill is the first step on the long road back to re-investing in 
our environment after years of neglect. It is a much-needed turnabout 
from the practice of treating the natural world merely as a source of 
material, rather than as the human race's one and only home. It is a 
necessary reversal of past policies which disregarded the value of 
clean water, clean air, and our public lands.
  It represents the commitment of the new Democratic majority to 
strengthening the long-term viability of our environment. At the same 
time, it protects public health and demonstrates how important it is 
for us to act as stewards for our communities.
  Treating our wastewater before it is discharged into our oceans and 
rivers is a crucial part of this process. However, the equipment and 
infrastructure that we use to clean our wastewater is rapidly aging. It 
no longer has the capacity to treat the amount of waste produced by our 
growing population. My constituents in Sacramento have battled this 
problem for years. When heavy rains come, the specter of sewers 
overflowing into our streets can become a harsh reality.
  That is why I am so pleased that the Appropriations Committee has 
used this legislation to renew our commitment to clean water 
infrastructure. H.R. 2643 increases water-related research, restores 
funding for clean water grants to States, and directs greater resources 
to cleaning up contaminated groundwater sites. In doing so, this bill 
recognizes that investing in clean water protects our drinking supply, 
restores our rivers and lakes, and strengthens public health.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans across the country--and in particular the 
people I represent from Sacramento--will benefit from this 
legislation's clean water provisions. No longer will we have to worry 
about untreated wastewater stagnating in our streets and polluting our 
rivers. No more will raw sewage seep into basements, public parks, and 
other areas where young children play.
  When we pass this bill, the water our constituents drink will be 
cleaner. The rivers they swim in will house fewer bacteria. The sewers 
they rely on to transport wastewater will stop overflowing. Every 
Member of Congress has an interest in solving the problems of 
overwhelmed wastewater infrastructure, and H.R. 2643 begins to do so.
  While this bill is but a beginning, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that 
the Democratic Congress will use it as a building block to continue 
restoring past cuts to clean water programs. The tangible benefits of 
this bill's clean water

[[Page 17742]]

funding levels are considerable, but they are still just the first step 
in renewing our country's commitment to that basic building block of 
life that sustains us all.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2643.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns 
about legislative amendments related to permitting drilling for oil or 
natural gas off of our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OSC).
  I want it to be very clear what I support with regard to offshore 
drilling. I believe it is important to ensure that we can adequately 
protect Florida's shoreline and I believe that the legislation approved 
last year by the Congress more than protects Florida's shoreline. I 
support a 100-mile buffer of protection for our beaches when it comes 
to drilling oil wells. Additionally, I am not opposed to allowing 
natural gas only wells at a distance closer than 100 miles, 
particularly in those States that want to permit natural gas wells 
closer to their coasts.
  The current Federal moratorium on offshore drilling bans natural gas 
wells not only along the Florida coast, but also along southern, 
central and northern California; Washington; Oregon; and the North 
Atlantic, including Virginia. The State of Virginia has indicated that 
it would like to permit drilling off of its shore. The Democrat 
Governor of the State has asked for the ability to allow drilling off 
of Virginia's shore. The Republican legislature of Virginia has asked 
the Federal Government to remove the barrier to drilling off the coast. 
The Federal moratorium in the Interior and Environment Appropriations 
bills stops this policy asked for by the State of Virginia.
  Additionally, with regard to Florida, I would like to clarify some 
confusion on this issue. Some have suggested that without the Federal 
moratorium rider on the Interior bill drilling would be allowed within 
3 miles of the Florida coast. That is just simply not the case. The 
Presidential moratorium would remain in place protecting Florida. 
Additionally, President Bush has pledged to ensure that Florida is 
permitted to maintain at least a 100-mile protective buffer. Moreover 
should the Presidential moratorium be removed, the Congress must enact 
legislation directing the Department of the Interior on where to permit 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases. This is not a one step process.
  Some have suggested that allowing natural gas wells will do little to 
address the energy costs in the United States. This claim simply is not 
based on sound economics. As many of my colleagues know, over the past 
decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of natural gas to 
produce electricity. Switching to natural gas for electric power 
generation has been a very quick and cost effective way to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. According a 2005 report from the Florida 
Public Service Commission, in 2003, 26 percent of Florida's electric 
power was generated using natural gas. By 2013, just 6 years from now, 
the FPSC projects that over 50 percent of Florida's electric power will 
be generated using natural gas. The cost of natural gas for electric 
power generation has more than doubled since 2002 from about $3.00 per 
thousand cubic feet to more than $7.00 in 2007. Clearly, Florida is 
increasingly relying on natural gas to meet our everyday energy needs 
and ensuring a longer term affordable supply of natural gas will make 
Florida consumers' power bills more affordable.
  When you consider this growing reliance on clean burning natural gas 
along with price increases we have seen, it is clear that Florida 
consumers will continue to pay higher costs for electricity if we don't 
expand our natural gas supply.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Florida 
has an adequate protective buffer while looking to meet our 
constituents' long-term clean energy needs.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
strengthening environmental protections, preserving public lands, and 
confronting global warming.
  In the past 6 years of Republican budgets, our National Parks, 
forests, and wildlife refuges were recklessly neglected. The 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the main entity responsible for 
enforcing environmental laws, was left scrambling for funding. 
Nonetheless, President Bush suggested another big cut in his budget 
request. Fortunately for the millions of people who enjoy our public 
lands and who rely on the EPA to protect our air and water, the new 
Democratic Congress is committed to reversing years of dereliction. 
Instead, we are making overdue investments in environmental 
protections.
  The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
(H.R. 2643) provides for modest, but crucial, funding increases in a 
number of areas including: $437 million above the President's request 
for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that will allow approximately 
150 communities to modernize their drinking water and wastewater 
infrastructure; $200 million increase over 2007 levels for the National 
Park Service to end a decade of declines in staffing, visitor services, 
and maintenance; $900 million more than the President proposed for EPA 
enforcement and scientific research.
  This bill protects coastal ecosystems and communities by maintaining 
the longstanding moratoria on oil and gas drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf. This restriction protects the California coastlines 
that my constituents and I hold dear.
  Finally, after years of denials and stonewalling by Republicans, this 
bill recognizes that climate change is a reality and requires us to 
act.
  It would create a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and 
Mitigation to make recommendations on how to best respond to climate 
change. This long overdue step will allow us to begin to address the 
many challenges that global warming presents.
  President Bush has issued a veto threat and called this bill 
``irresponsible and excessive.'' What is truly ``irresponsible'' is 
wasting billions of dollars on a fraudulent war while ignoring the 
threat of global warming and failing to protect the environment and the 
public health. This bill begins to alter the dangerous environmental 
course that the President and the Republicans have led us down the last 
6 years. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, the Report accompanying H.R. 2643, the 
fiscal year 2008 Interior and the Environment Appropriations Act, urges 
the Environmental Protection Agency to study the health and 
environmental effects of using trona in air pollution control systems. 
Trona is a naturally occurring, non-toxic mineral widely used in food 
additives, in glass manufacturing, paper, laundry products and 
medicine. It is odorless, non-combustible and stable in the air. Trona 
is a key ingredient of baking soda. Here in the United States, we are 
fortunate to have an abundance of this incredibly useful mineral. The 
Green River Basin of Wyoming is home to the world's largest trona 
deposit, and the Wyoming trona industry alone products close to 20 
million tons of trona every year and employs more than 2,000 people.
  For almost 20 years, trona has also played a critical and growing 
role in air pollution control at coal-fired power plants, cement 
plants, municipal incinerators and similar facilities around the 
country, including Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Washington. 
Texas-based Solvay Chemicals, Inc. pioneered the use of trona in air 
pollution control systems, and it is the only company in the United 
States that produces trona products for that purpose.
  Trona simply works in air pollution control systems, and it works 
incredibly well. The EPA, which has repeatedly approved the use of 
trona in air pollution control systems, reports that those systems have 
actually reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 85 percent and 
hydrochloric acid emissions by 95 percent at several power plants 
around the country, without increasing particulate matter emissions.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2643. I want 
to thank my colleague and friend, Chairman Norm Dicks, for his tireless 
work in bringing to the floor a bill that we should all be proud of 
because of its commitment to protecting and conserving our environment 
and natural resources for future generations to enjoy.
  John F. Kennedy said in March 1961, ``It is our task in our time and 
in our generation to hand down undiminished to those who come after us, 
as was handed down to us by those who went before, the natural wealth 
and beauty which is ours.'' In previous years we have passed Interior 
Appropriations bills that do exactly the opposite--we have cut 
essential funding that has put our natural resources at risk as well as 
allowed policy decisions to hamper our ability to protect at-risk land, 
wilderness and wildlife. In previous years, I have stood before this 
Congress and expressed disappointment and anger with our complete 
disregard for environmental stewardship. But this year is different.
  We finally have a bill that reflects where our budget priorities 
should be. While this legislation may not solve all of our problems, I 
believe it is an enormous step in the right direction.
  First, I am proud to say that this bill allocates $50 million for the 
stateside grant program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 
Land and Water Conservation Fund was separated into two components--the 
full federal program and the stateside grant program--to help address 
overdevelopment in both urban and rural areas. The stateside program 
has increased the number of recreation

[[Page 17743]]

areas and facilities in our communities. It has also increased local 
involvement in land protection and open space preservation.
  In New Jersey alone, the LWCF program has helped preserve of 73,000 
acres of land by providing more than $111 million in funding. Some of 
the funding has been used to cleanup playgrounds, and build baseball 
fields, develop waterfront parks and restore open spaces. It is beyond 
me why the President continues to propose eliminating a program that is 
so successful. Fortunately, Chairman Dicks and the members of the 
Subcommittee understand the vital role this program plays in protecting 
and maintaining vital open spaces. They have invested in a program that 
remains a staple for conservation and land protection across the 
country.
  These funds are long-term gifts that allow for the preservation of 
the wild and untouched places in America that our children and their 
children should have for their enjoyment.
  These funds provide for Tuesday night baseball games and Sunday walks 
along the river, along with keeping what remains of our natural 
resources clean and pollutant free.
  I also want to commend the committee for recognizing the dire 
situation of the National Parks. In preparation for the 100th 
anniversary of the National Parks System in 2016, we have included a 
hefty increase in the Parks budget for this fiscal year. This will go 
to park improvements, staffing increases, and visitor center upgrades 
in the Parks. Nearly a hundred years ago, Theodore Roosevelt urged the 
American people and the government to begin to conserve what natural 
resources we had so that some of the most majestic parts of this 
country would remain intact. With the 100-year anniversary of the 
National Park Service drawing closer, I echo the call to bring our 
National Parks up to standards.
  Again, I would like to commend Chairman Dicks for crafting this bill 
before us today and I urge my colleagues to support it. By starting 
here today with this bill, we are voting for our sons and daughters and 
our grandchildren to be able to enjoy the natural resources of our 
country that so many of us have had the opportunity to experience in 
our lifetimes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.

[[Page 17744]]

TH27JN07.001



[[Page 17745]]

TH27JN07.002



[[Page 17746]]

TH27JN07.003



[[Page 17747]]

TH27JN07.004



[[Page 17748]]

TH27JN07.005



[[Page 17749]]

TH27JN07.006



[[Page 17750]]

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to voice my support for a 
very important program to Eastern Washington, the Payment in Lieu of 
Taxes (PILT) program.
  The PILT program is essential for the livelihood of our rural 
communities in Eastern Washington. Ferry County is 86 percent publicly 
owned. The PILT funding that Ferry County receives accounts for nearly 
two thirds of their budget to provide essential services.
  The government owns 73 percent of Okanogan County. More impressive is 
the amount of land owned by the public--over one and a half million 
acres. According to the Okanogan County Assessor, the loss in property 
taxes amounts to more than $4.5 million every year. That's a loss of 
funding for police, search and rescue, and emergency management.
  I could continue to list additional examples since all 12 counties I 
represent receive funding from this program, but I want to describe the 
importance from someone who is on the ground and impacted by these 
decisions, Stevens County Treasurer Sue Harnasch.
  She wrote, ``The Federal Government has long recognized and accepted 
that Federal land holdings are a burden on local governments and that 
funding is necessary to provide services needed to access and use those 
lands. County taxpayers have been left to fend for themselves, 
subsidizing public services on Federal land with local property 
taxes.''
  Let's stop placing the burden on local communities and start keeping 
our promise.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     2643 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House promptly with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:

                       TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE

       Sec. 701. The effective date of section 115 of this Act and 
     of title VI of this Act shall be the day that the Secretary 
     of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy 
     and the Energy Information Administration, certifies that 
     nothing in this Act--
       (1) shall reduce the amount of domestic energy available 
     from the public lands of the United States;
       (2) shall result in the increased imports of any energy 
     otherwise available from the public lands of the United 
     States; or
       (3) shall result in higher costs, to Federal agencies 
     funded in this Act, for gasoline, natural gas or home heating 
     oil.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, no issue in this bill is more 
important than our striving towards energy independence, and to discuss 
that by way of our motion to recommit, I yield to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), my colleague who is an expert on energy 
policy.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  I did make my living in oil and gas. I never owned one oil and gas 
well; but I will tell you, we went down holes. We were plumbers, and we 
fixed the oil wells and so I have seen the cost and difficulty of 
producing energy from a very close point of view. My wife and I 
employed 50 people in a small company that simply repaired oil weapons.
  Reasonable people can have different points of view, but I have 
watched the trajectory of the Democrat energy bills, first H.R. 6, the 
energy bill that came through our Resources Committee and now this 
Interior Appropriations. And I will tell you that from my point of 
view, the Democratic energy agenda is anti-American energy. It insists 
that we import more. It is going to send more jobs to China and it is 
going to make life harder for Americans.
  The motion to recommit simply says let's have the secretary certify. 
If you reasonably believe that I am wrong about my assumptions, we are 
going to send this back to the secretary to certify that nothing in 
this bill will reduce the amount of domestic energy or result in 
increased imports. I think if you believe in your bill, you should not 
be afraid to cause that review by the secretary and that certification 
that we are going to protect consumers. Because every one of us hear 
from consumers every day, our constituents, that the price of gasoline 
is too high. It is too high because of the policies that we in America, 
we in this American government have caused.
  Section 115 is a very simple section. It is the only research and 
development section for ultra-deep oil. I can tell you that the deeper 
you go, the more expensive oil is to get. And it is not for the big 
companies, it is for the small companies that can't have research and 
development. The only research and development money that is available 
for small companies is in section 115. It has been taken out of every 
other section.
  Shale oil is title VI. Shale oil is two times all the reserves of oil 
and gas in the entire world. Two times. It would make us self-
sufficient, and yet we are removing shale oil.
  My friends, these are the reasons that I believe the policies that 
are being promoted are anti-American and pro-import, will send jobs to 
China, and will make life harder for Americans.
  The Washington Post, in review of the very first shot of this 
Democrat energy agenda, H.R. 6, The Washington Post said, ``This is 
something Hugo Chavez would be proud of.''
  My friends, we are not on a track to make life easier for Americans; 
we are on a track to make life very difficult for the American economy 
and the American consumer.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the motion uses the word ``promptly,'' as 
this one does, it takes the bill off the floor and sends it back to the 
Appropriations Committee. The committee is not required to act because 
the instructions are considered merely advisory to the committee. In 
other words, by using the word ``promptly,'' they would kill the bill.
  Now this motion to recommit is simply a device to protect excess 
profits of the energy companies. It does this by overturning section 
115 of the bill. This section simply requires energy companies who are 
realizing $9 billion of excess profits to renegotiate the faulty leases 
which were signed in 1997 and 1998. In legal terms, this is called 
``unjust enrichment'' at the expense of the taxpayers.
  The motion overturns section 115 by delaying it until impossible 
conditions are met, as certified by the secretary. If this language is 
adopted, these enormous unjustified profits will continue for an 
industry making tens of billions of dollars of profit.
  Adoption of the amendment would kill the bill and with so many good 
things in it, I urge all Members to vote against the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX and the 
order of the House of June 26, 2007, the Chair will reduce to 2 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, 
nays 233, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 578]

                               YEAS--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page 17751]]


     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boehner
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Feeney
     Hall (TX)
     Melancon
     Miller, George
     Ortiz
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sessions
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  1806

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272, 
nays 155, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 579]

                               YEAS--272

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foxx
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--155

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves

[[Page 17752]]


     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Frank (MA)
     Ortiz
     Sessions


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they 
have less than 1 minute to vote.

                              {time}  1812

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

                          ____________________