Expressing the sense of Congress welcoming President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to the United States on October 31, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for this conference report.

The annual appropriations bill for the Interior Department and related agencies is important for the whole country, but particularly for Colorado and other states that include extensive tracts of Federal lands.

It benefits all Coloradans for the Interior Department and the Forest Service to have the funding they need to do their jobs. I also support many other things that are funded in this bill, such as energy conservation programs of the Department of Energy, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

However, when the House first considered this bill, I found it so flawed that I could not support it. I voted against it in hopes that after the Senate acted and the bill came back to the House from conference it would be improved enough so that I could vote to send it to the President for signing into law.

To a degree, that hope has been realized. The conference report does include some definite improvements on the House-passed bill.

Perhaps most importantly, the bill would provide $400 million to repay the accounts from which the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other agencies had to take funds in order to fight forest fires. This is a very great improvement over the House-passed bill, as is the fact that the conference report restores $70 million for Forest Service wildfire preparedness to keep firefighter readiness at the 2003 level, and also would provide $2.5 billion for the National Fire Plan--$1.8 billion for the Forest Service and $694 million for the Department of the Interior--which is $126 million above the President's request and includes an increase of $289 million for wildfire suppression, $11 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and $9 million for State and community fire assistance.

Those are good provisions that deserve support. And, in addition the conference report also includes some items of special value to Colorado.

For example, I am particularly glad that the conference report-- unlike the House-passed bill--includes $2.5 million to enable the Forest Service to continue its acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed, in Clear Creek County, now owned by the city of Golden. Together with others in the Colorado delegation, I have been working to complete this multi-year project, and am pleased that the conference report would enable it to go forward.

Similarly, the conference report improves on the House-passed bill by providing $9 million for the acquisition of lands in the San Luis Valley--$7 million for the portion of the lands that will become a new National Wildlife Refuge and $2 million to round out the Great Sand Dunes National Park.

I strongly support this, as I also do the provisions of the conference report that would provide the Forest Service with $1 million for acquiring lands in an elk corridor in the White River National Forest and the same amount of needed work on the Continental Divide Trail, the National Park Service with funds for planning for a new curatorial facility at Mesa Verde cultural center, and the Bureau of Land Management with money for acquisitions in the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument.

But in other respects the conference report not only fails to improve on the House-passed bill, but actually is even more flawed--so flawed that I think it deserves to be rejected.

Two aspects of the conference report are particularly bad, in my opinion--one involving language that is included, and one involving a provision of the House bill that has been dropped.

The conference report includes a remarkable legislative rider that says--

nothing in the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act of

1994, Public Law 103-412, or in any other statute, and no

principle of common law, shall be construed or applied to

require the Department of Interior to commence or continue

historical accounting activities with respect to the

individual Indian Money Trust until the earlier of the

following shall have occurred:

(a) Congress shall have amended the American Indian Trust

Management Reform Act of 1994 to delineate the specific

historical accounting obligations of the Department of the

Interior with respect to the Individual Indian Money Trust;

or

(b) December 31, 2004.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems clear that this provision is intended to at least temporarily allow the Department of the Interior to refuse to comply with a recent decision in the pending Cobell v. Norton litigation dealing with the management of Indian trust accounts.

Whatever might be said in its favor, it is not the kind of thing that should be included in an appropriations bill. In fact, it would be subject to a point of order under the rules of the House except for the decision of the Republican leadership to waive the normal rules.

The subject matter of this provision is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. As a member of that committee, I share the view of Chairman Pombo that the inclusion of this language--which was not in either the House or Senate bill--in the conference report is ``an affront'' to our committee. I also share the Chairman's view that its enactment could make it even harder for our committee to play a constructive role in trying to resolve a situation that is a serious problem for both Native Americans and the Interior Department as well.

And at the same time this was being put into the conference report, section 337 of the House-passed bill was being deleted. That section was added when the House adopted a revised version of an amendment I had offered to protect not just Federal lands but also private property and the public interest.

It would have done that by preventing the Interior Department from going ahead with secret negotiations leading to back-room land deals under which the Interior Department would issue ``disclaimers of interest'' that would give away the government's claim to an interest in land.

For decades, the Interior Department issued such disclaimers to people who were on record as owning the lands involved. It was a legal technicality--important for the people involved but not a tool for changing the management of sensitive Federal lands or creating problems for private land owners. But that has changed because the Interior Department has changed its regulations. It has adopted new rules to claim broad authority to issue ``disclaimers'' to parties that wouldn't have been eligible under the old rules--and it has announced it is ready to give those `'disclaimers'' to parties seeking them in order to clear the way for building roads.

This involves the lingering ghost of the Mining Law of 1866. That was one of the 19th-century laws to promote settlement and development in the West. Among other things, it granted rights-of-way ``for the construction of highways'' on Federal lands. That provision later became section 2477 of the Revised Statutes--or RS 2477.

In 1976, RS 2477 was repealed. But the repealing law did not affect existing rights under RS 2477, and did not set a deadline for claiming those rights. So, there is no way of telling how many claims might be made or exactly what lands are affected.

But we do know that RS 2477 claims can involve not just Federal lands--lands that currently belong to the American people--but also lands that once were Federal but that now belong to other owners. That includes the

lands that were homesteaded, as well as patented mining claims and the lands that the Federal government gave to the states, the railroad companies, and other entities during the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Millions of acres of those lands now are ranches or farms, or residential subdivisions, or single-family homes, or private cabins in the mountains like ones owned by some of my constituents. And millions of acres of those lands now belong to the Native Corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Also at risk are millions of acres that are still owned by the American people--including National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as wilderness areas and areas that deserve protection as wilderness areas. This problem is not new, but it is very serious. It needs to be resolved--but not the way the Interior Department wants to resolve it. What the Interior Department wants is to negotiate in secret and then issue ``disclaimers.'' They have already started that process with the State of Utah. And other parties--including the current state Administration in Colorado--are starting to ask for deals of their own. These backroom talks need to stop. Instead of making deals, the Bush administration needs to come to Congress for new legislation.

That was what Congress told the Clinton administration when Secretary Bruce Babbitt moved to change the Interior Department's RS 2477 regulations. To make sure that Secretary Babbitt got the message, Congress passed a law that says any new RS 2477 rules must be authorized by Congress. That law is still on the books. But the Bush administration says that is irrelevant because the new ``disclaimer'' regulations are not covered, even though they intend to use their new rules for RS 2477 claims. It's an interesting argument--but, frankly, it reminds me of the argument about defining the meaning of the word ``is.'' In other words, it may be clever, but it fails the test of common sense.

Of course, the administration also says they will only make deals that are in the public interest, so Congress doesn't need to get involved. But the best way to promote the public interest is to involve the public--not to make secret deals. And the best way to resolve this issue is by enacting new legislation, after public hearings and open debate. That's why I have introduced a bill--H.R. 1639--to do just that. My bill would set a deadline--four more years--for filing RS 2477 claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative process for handling those claims and would set another deadline for any lawsuit challenging the result of that administrative process. Maybe my bill could be improved, and some of our colleagues may want to propose their own ideas--that is the legislative process. And that is how this issue should be resolved, not by backroom deals or clever maneuvers to try to side-step Congress.

That is why I offered my amendment--to block the administration from trying to circumvent Congress. And while my original amendment was not adopted, the House did adopt a narrower version proposed by Chairman Taylor himself.

That part of the House bill would have barred implementation of the new ``disclaimer'' regulations with regard to any lands within a designated National Monument, Wilderness Study Area, National Park System unit, National Wildlife Refuge System unit, or lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System.

This did not go nearly far enough, in my opinion. It did not address and would not protect all lands that could be affected by the new regulations. However, it would have protected some of the most sensitive parts of America's public lands.

That was why last week more than 100 of our colleagues joined the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and me in sending a letter urging the conferees to at least include the House language in the conference report. We thought that was a very reasonable request, especially since that part of the House bill had been written by the chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee and that the administration had not expressed any opposition to it during the debate on the House floor.

However, our request was not granted, and the House's provision on this subject was omitted from the conference report. As a result, nothing in the conference report will restrain the Interior Department from implementing its new ``disclaimer'' regulations in ways that could have serious consequences for the National Parks, National Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, or the wilderness and wilderness-study areas.

Of course, I hope that won't happen. I hope that the administration will recognize that proceeding in that way will yield only unnecessary controversy and protracted litigation. I do have hope--but, frankly, I have little confidence. The administration seems determined to press ahead, and I expect that they are headed straight for the courts.

There are other things I dislike about this conference report--for example, the fact that it includes a provision to extend the recreation fee demonstration program for 15 months, which is another instance of a violation of the House's rule against including legislation in an appropriations measure. Even so, if the Indian trust provisions had been omitted and the House-passed restrictions on the new ``disclaimer'' rules had been included, I might still have been able to support it. However, I have concluded that I cannot vote for the conference report as it now stands.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 418, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2691) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2691, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we bring to the House the conference agreement on H.R. 2691, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.

Let me take a moment to thank the members of the Interior subcommittees for their support and guidance this year. I want to especially and personally thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for the extraordinary assistance that he has given in helping us to shape this bill.

This conference report balances many competing needs and stays within the 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. It is fiscally responsible, providing $19.6 billion for our public lands, Indian programs, and critical science and energy research programs, and for cultural institutions like the Smithsonian Institution. It also provides $400 million as requested by the administration to repay partial funds borrowed from the program accounts to pay fire suppression. Also, another $289 million for wild fires and I will talk about that again.

You may hear that we are not doing enough for conservation programs in this bill. I disagree. Given the constraints allocated, we have provided over $1 billion for programs in the conservation spending category. But more to the point, there are a number of critically important conservation programs in this bill that have never been included in the conservation spending category, but are equally important. We provide increases of $65 million for national parks, $47 million for national wildlife refuges, $27 million for forest health, $10 million for hazardous fuel reduction. And I would like to argue that most of the funding of this bill is for conservation activities.

Some Members will argue that we need to buy a lot more Federal land. What we really need to do is a better job of taking care of the lands we have, and this bill does that by providing additional operation increases and funds for critically backlogged maintenance activities.

Firefighting needs are addressed in this bill as I mentioned before, $400 million in the President's requested amount and another $289 million above the enacted level for suppressing the wild fires. That is almost $700 million for the fire programs. We continue to provide support for the national fire plan with the investment of $2.5 billion. We support preparedness activities so that we have the people and the equipment in place to handle wild fires. We provide funding increases for hazardous fuel reduction, State fire assistance and forest health programs. And with the passage of that bill, I think we can stop many of the fires that we will have to contend with this past year.

We have provided substantial new resources to handle the Southern pine beetle and mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the West. I am proud of the balance we have achieved in these critical programs that are important to all Americans.

The bill ensures that energy research programs are appropriately funded and that we maintain a proper mix between research on improvements to existing technologies and longer-term higher risk on new technologies. We need to keep all of our options open and not fall into the trap of picking winners and losers.

When it comes to energy resources, ultimately the consumer, not the government, will determine what energy technologies will be successful in the marketplace.

The bill provides for the continued crux of critically needed schools and hospitals for American Indians and Alaskan natives. It also includes a 1-year limitation of funds for historical accounting.

The September 25, 2003, court order would require the Department of the Interior to spend an estimated $9 billion for an accounting that benefits attorneys and accountants. This subcommittee has maintained that this lawsuit continues to divert scarce resources away from critical programs that benefit Indian people and other programs in the bill. If we were to fund this court-required historical accounting, we would have to shut down one-third of the U.S. Department of the Interior. We would critically underfund education for Indians and health care for Indians. This is not worth the recommendation of the accountants and lawyers.

Finally, the bill takes care of our cultural agencies and provides the funding needed to ensure that the Smithsonian Institute maintains its responsibility for providing quality visitor services and world- renowned research. It provides increases above the enacted level for the National Gallery of Art and for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities. The conference agreement for the interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 strikes an appropriate balance among competing funds needs, and I ask for support for this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.005

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I share the frustration of many of those who have spoken on the Indian trust issue. I represent the eastern band of the Cherokee Indians. I have been taught and seen it over and over again, the old adage that government will mess up a one-car funeral.

The committee spent $20 million of the taxpayers' money to do a transaction-by-transaction accounting of five named plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Norton litigation and found that one check for $60 went to the wrong person; $20 million to find a $60 error. Can anyone argue that this is a good use of the American taxpayers' money? A Federal court ruling on September 25, 2003, in the class action lawsuit ordered an expanded transaction-by-transaction historical accounting from 1887 to the present. Initial estimates indicate that the accounting ordered by the court would cost between $9 billion and $12 billion. Nobody ever envisioned that we would be spending $12 billion on an accounting that does not provide one dollar to Indian country. We have included language that limits funds available to the Department of the Interior for historical accounting to those activities that need to be accomplished and can be accomplished in the short term. Beyond the funding limitation, language has been included protecting the Department from further court action during this 1-year time-out period. This gives the authorizing committees time to address the issue. The appropriations committee is not addressing this. We are putting this with the authorizing committee.

Without this language in our bill, the court would likely hold the Secretary in contempt and find for the plaintiffs' accounting that the government owes $176 billion in this matter without any further negotiation or findings. For the past 3 fiscal years, the Committee on Appropriations has stated that it will not appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars, now billions of dollars, for a historical accounting. There was no other option but to include the time-out provision in this bill. There is only one source of money available to the committee; and an accounting of this magnitude, $12 billion, would require that vast sums be diverted away from other programs in the bill. Without the time-out language, we would have to divert vast amounts of money from Indian education, health care, the National Park Service, as well as critical fire fighting funding; and that is just to name a few. There will be further court proceedings in this case based upon the government's appeal of this court ruling. We should not expend hundreds of millions of dollars while this case is under appeal.

We fully agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that the authorizing committees should address this issue, and we are not trying to do that. All the interior bill does is provide for a 1-year time-out, basically the remaining term of this Congress, to allow the Congress to provide, hopefully, a comprehensive solution to the Indian trust issue, or at least address

the scope of the historical accounting so the Congress will not be put in the position of cutting programs in this bill to fund a $12 billion accounting. If the language is struck from the bill without providing full funding for the court-mandated accounting, some $3 billion in 2004, the court will likely hold the Secretary of the Interior in contempt and find summary judgment for the plaintiffs' accounting which purports to show that the government owes $176 billion.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out that we were $400 million short in this bill. If we have to pay $3 billion just for an accounting next year or we are asked to pay $176 billion in the next year, or $12 billion maybe in a short period of time, imagine what will happen to this bill and the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, Energy and the critical funds that we provide for Indian health, education and other needs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding me this time.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member, has referred to the fact that I am facing a rather tremendous challenge in California with the devastation that is impacting my District directly. In talking early this morning with one of my very dear friends that has great expertise in this arena of professional work, it was from him that I first heard the reality that there are two kinds of money that involve fire money. When we are talking about protecting the forest and trying to get the dollars that are necessary to clear the brushes, make sure we do not have too many trees go through, et cetera, et cetera, that kind of money is very, very difficult to come by, and then suddenly we have a disaster, a fire, and a green light goes on. The difference is red money, green money. A green light goes on, and whatever is available or required suddenly comes forth.

The deal with the challenges in my forest in recent years was we worked very hard to try to get some money to lay the foundation for a better management of the forests. Just in the last couple of years, we have finally gotten as much as $30 million. This evening, later, we will be considering the supplemental. After the fires had begun in the West, and within that package, there is a $500 million addition to the process that will help us deal with these problems in the West now, after the fire occurred.

So I have great empathy for the challenges of the people on this committee who struggle to get adequate dollars up front to make sure we are managing our forests well, and it takes the kind of challenge we are facing at this moment to really bring the point home.

I would have my colleagues know that I am very sensitive about my following remarks, and I would have the Chair be very careful with me, for it is a very unusual thing for me to do. Each of us has two U.S. Senators in each of our States. And in my case, there are two U.S. Senators and they are speaking about this general subject area, and I find great confusion here. I am going to be very careful as I refer to the other body and even Members in the other body to only use quotations from those individuals, but it makes it a very significant point as it relates to this bill.

So in an attempt to do that, I would speak of one of my Senators first. The gentlewoman speaking on the Senate floor about the healthy forest legislation currently under consideration has said, ``We have an open invitation to destroy our forests without getting anything back for it. There are no limits on old growth forest logging. Timber companies will pick the trees they want with no veto from the forest service and a complete change from what we have had before.''

My other colleague, another Senator from California, has been heard to say about this same proposal, speaking on the Senate floor and saying, ``This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify it, I think, falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be cleared out, and it would also provide the first statutory protection for old growth stands and large trees ever in the history of this Nation. I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation, and it seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests and restore their healthy condition.''

Two contrasting points of view that are difficult for me to understand from two Senators from the same State, but they make the point that unless we are able to recognize that there are very serious challenges here and recognize that this bill attempts to begin to deal with some of those challenges, we will never overcome the kind of tragedy that we are now experiencing in the West.

There are some 18 people who have died in southern California. Over 2,600 homes have been burned. Three-quarters of a million acres have been burned. At this very moment in regions in my District, literally thousands of families are trying to figure out what to do with the rest of their life because I think we have not in the past been able to give the kind of broadly-based support that we need to give to this subcommittee.

I think the report we have before us tonight is a reflection of very fine work between the ranking member and the chairman of our subcommittee. I very much appreciate their effort, but I want them to know from this Member's perspective, tonight's work is just another down payment. We will be making a down payment as it relates to the supplemental later. Indeed this down payment is very, very significant, and I want my colleagues to know that I appreciate the work they have done.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to respond that in the recent reorganization, we shifted FEMA from VA-HUD to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. So there has been that change. And we have appropriated additional money there because in the middle of last year FEMA was running out of money. They were at least talking about the shortage. Suddenly we are going to add some money to that pool that they can draw from, and certainly that is a reflection of the challenges throughout the West.

Colorado, just today, has another new problem. But before another 6 months goes by, even FEMA is going to be stretched to the wall again, and that is why what the gentleman did last night was very important, and I appreciate my colleague's support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with reluctance to oppose this bill. I have not opposed an appropriations bill for many years. I appreciate the difficulty the subcommittee chairman and the gentleman from Florida have with the Senate, with the budget, and with all of the demands from Members, but I stand with the chairman of the Committee on Resources. I believe the administration committed an egregious process, a mistake, in going around the authorizing committee at the last minute without even telling the authorizing committee, and we cannot do business that way.

I have a second problem with the bill, but it would not have caused me to vote against the bill. I believe the provision by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) on the National Park Service should have been left in the bill. It is the most successful outsourcing organization in the country, and instead of attacking the most successful and highly-rated government organization in the country, even with the guidelines of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) which are very well written, basically guarantee that this money will be wasted.

This is the type of thing that when President Bush has made national parks a centerpiece, his staff did him a disservice by having this in the bill that is aggressively focused at the park service when they are already over a majority, one of the only organizations in the government that is over a majority already outsourced, it is not only wrong, wasteful, but it is politically stupid. I hope we can get this fixed with the administration as we work through. I know the committee understands my concerns, and we will continue to work with them, but we have to have some kind of process where the authorizing committees are respected, and I stand with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

It is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose this appropriations bill. I rarely vote against appropriations bills because I know how hard it is to reach the compromises necessary to pass these bills.

I rise partly in opposition to the imposed language, with no participation from the authorizing committee on the Tribal funds issue. We have clear conference guidelines to protect against this very thing and this was a blatant violation that threatens the committee system.

Secondly, I deeply believe that the provisions on outsourcing in the National Park Service is a terrible policy mistake. I have been a consistent supporter of competitive bidding, outsourcing and/or privatization. But the way OMB is approaching this issue endangers the process as a whole.

Employee work in our national parks is already under 50 percent. It is a serious story. Some outsourcing has been pulled back because, for example, private contractors found that it was hard to remove waste from remote mountain ranges. Or they only wanted to do it when economic times were hard. In other cases, bids were sought and none arrived.

In other words, the National Park Service is a success model. But if OMB won't distinguish between success and failure, if money must be wasted in a never-ending hunt, not only will organizations like the National Park Service become demoralized, there will be no voluntary efforts, even more resistance and bitterness, and eventually a revolt against all outsourcing.

Relatively mindless ``cookie-cutter'' approaches are an abdication of responsible government. The National Park Service rangers have among the highest, if not the highest, public approval ratings of any government or private sector employee. Even if the Park Service wasn't already 50 percent contracted out, why fix something that is not broken? We have enough problem areas on which to focus.

Furthermore, President George W. Bush fully understands the importance of our national parks, to our nation, and from his personal comments, to his family.

While the President favors outsourcing, as I do, it is poor staff work to further attack the National Park Service and waste more funds on outsourcing. Instead, the funds should be used to help eliminate the national parks maintenance backlog. Or it could be used to reduce the $30 million this bill is overbudget. Instead of staff attacking the National Park Service, the President should be told of its successes, and bragging about it.

The original House language exempted the National Park Service. By friends and colleagues, Congressman Tom Davis and Pete Sessions were going to introduce an amendment to remove the provision. After discussions, during which it was apparent the amendment would likely overwhelmingly lose, they withdrew their amendment. Later in the bill, Congressman Bereuter offered a specific exclusion amendment for the archaeological centers. He won overwhelmingly. Repeatedly this House has made it clear that the National Park Service is not like other agencies.

I do want to thank the Committee for definitive language forcing detailed guidelines on such studies. It means that, most likely, most of the outsourcing dollars being spent will be wasted money but at least it will be reasonably fair. As chairman of a subcommittee with National Parks oversight and as a member of the Resources full committee and National Parks subcommittee, I will be closely monitoring every threat to dangering our Park Service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2691. I am generally supportive of the bill's thrust and appreciate the good work of both the Committee on Appropriations chairman and subcommittee chairman. However, the provision inserted into this legislation relating to the Indian trust issue makes it personally unacceptable for a variety of reasons.

It is unacceptable, first, because it amounts to legislating in an appropriation bill, and I find that unfortunate.

Second, it was not included in either the original House or Senate bill, and consequently did not receive the scrutiny and debate that it deserved.

Finally, it is an effort, I think, inappropriately, to derail a judicial process that is already in progress. It is unfortunate that we are at this particular moment, and I regret having to vote against this bill. But I think had we operated through the Committee on Resources, let the processes in place work out, we could have arrived at a solution to the problem that was fair and equitable and trusted by all sides. It is with great reluctance that I rise in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 2691, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. I am supportive of the general thrust of this bill, particularly the emergency funds to help fight the wildfires in the West. Moreover, I recognize the need to finish appropriation bills on a timely basis.

I respect the Appropriations Committee chairman and subcommittee chairman who laid out the broad framework for this generally laudable appropriations measure. I want to be clear that my criticisms of the substance of one part of this bill in no way are intended to reflect on the fine work and integrity of the chairman and the members of the committee.

However, I feel compelled to vote against H.R. 2691 because of one provision in the bill concerning the Indian Trust issue. This provision was inserted in language funding the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians and would dictate the manner in which the Department of the Interior undertakes a complete historical accounting of individual Indian Trust accounts. It is clearly the first step in a process designed to impose rather than negotiate a settlement of Indian Trust account claims and to do so for as little money as possible regardless of the merits of individual cases or the historical culpability of the Federal Government in the mismanagement and theft of Native American assets held in trust.

This provision clearly violates the House Rule against legislating in an appropriations bill. Moreover, it undermines the excellent work of the Resources Committee, which has held two hearings on the Indian Trust issue and has been in the process of building a bipartisan framework to settle the Indian Trust issue in wake of the questions arising out of the so-called Corbel litigation. If this conference report is approved in its present form it will hinder the efforts of the Resources Committee to resolve this issue fairly and honorably for all concerned.

In addition to being legislatively and procedurally unsound, the provision in question is clearly designed to limit the ability of Native Americans to pursue their legitimate claims in court. Frankly, I predict that this effort will fail. However, it will cost the litigants and the Federal Government more rather than less money in the long run. Moreover, it will further poison the historically poor relations between Indian tribes and the Federal Government.

Frankly, I am appalled that this language was included in the conference report on H.R. 2691 since it was not part of either the original House of Senate Interior appropriation bills. It was added in the dead of night in order to avoid legislative scrutiny and open debate. This is a clear violation of the spirit if not the letter of the normal rules that govern the legislative process. It discredits the legislative process and should embarrass and disappoint every member of this body regardless of their position on the issue.

In my opinion, this language delays justice for half a million individual Indian Trust beneficiaries who have waited over 100 years for a full and fair accounting of the property which the Federal Government holds in trust for them. This is both reprehensible and unacceptable. I intend to work within the framework of this institution to see that the mischief done in this appropriations bill is ultimately undone.

Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that this provision was added to this otherwise praiseworthy and essential piece of legislation. Its inclusion makes it impossible for me or any other member who cares about the rights of Native Americans to support this bill. However, I take comfort in the fact that this issue will be dealt with again, both in the courts and in the halls of the Congress of this great republic.