To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.

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

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I have nothing but the highest personal regard for the gentlewoman from Texas who is offering this motion to instruct conferees. She and I have served together in this body for, I think, approximately 11 years; and we have worked together on many, many issues and spent many, many moments together in very positive dialogue, and I appreciate her bringing this issue to the floor. My objection to the resolution is based on the policy, not on the person who is bringing the resolution.

I do rise in opposition, respectfully, to the Johnson motion to instruct. To put it in the simplest terms, the issue before us today is not whether any Member of this body does not want the cleanest air possible for our citizens; the issue is whether we want to apply common sense to the Clean Air Act and to codify Clinton administration policy that was explicitly designed to avoid what the EPA, under the Clinton administration back in 1994, called an odd or even absurd result that penalizes an area for pollution that is beyond their ability to control.

Let me put this in language that everybody can understand. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 categorized in a more definitive way ozone as a pollutant that needed to be regulated, and it set standards. It is the only pollutant in the act that has gradations of standards. For the other controlled pollutants, it is kind of an in or out, yes or no, pass or fail. But for ozone, it has different levels, from very moderate to very severe; and each of the levels has a different standard and a different timeline for compliance.

I am an author of the Clean Air Act amendments. I spoke for them on the floor. I helped to work to put the bill together in the committee. So I have some personal history in this issue.

As the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 were being implemented, it became apparent that there were many regions of this country that were trying to comply; but because there were other areas down wind from them that had a different timetable and a different compliance criteria, it was making it difficult for some of these regions to comply in the technical sense with the act. So the Clinton administration came up with a proposal that said, we will show some flexibility. If, in fact, you have a State implementation plan that has been approved or is in the process of being approved and if, in fact, it looks like you are making a good-faith effort to come into compliance, we will give you an extension if we think it is meritorious and the reason that you need the extension is because there is another region that is not in compliance that is transporting their ozone pollution to you. That is common sense. There is nothing wrong with that.

I want to put into the Record at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, the 1994 Clinton administration policy that was contained in a memorandum signed by then-Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Mary Nichols. This memorandum attempted to reconcile the conflicting provisions of the Clean Air Act and to give effect to as much of Congress' manifest intent as possible. I also want to put into the Record the 1998 Clinton administration policy on this issue that was actually published in the Federal Register.

Environmental Protection Agency

Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Action: Proposed interpretation; request for comments.

Summary: Today's notice announces EPA's interpretation of

the Clean Air Act (Act) regarding the possibility of

extending attainment dates for ozone nonattainment areas that

have been classified as moderate or serious for the 1-hour

standard and which are downwind of areas that have interfered

with their ability to demonstrate attainment by dates

prescribed in the Act. The guidance memorandum that is being

printed in today's notice is entitled ``Extension of

Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' and was

signed by Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation, on July 16, 1998. This notice follows

up on the statement made in the guidance memorandum that EPA

would request comments on its interpretation.

A number of areas may find themselves facing the prospect

of being reclassified or ``bumped up'' to a higher

classification in spite of the fact that pollution beyond

their control contributes to the levels of ozone they

experience. The notice addresses the problem by providing an

avenue to extend the attainment dates for areas affected by

transported pollution. The EPA intends to finalize the

interpretation in this guidance only when it applies in the

appropriate context of individual rulemakings addressing

specific attainment demonstrations and requests for

attainment date extensions. If EPA approves an area's

attainment demonstration and attainment date extension

request, the area would no longer be subject to bump up for

failure to attain by its original attainment date.

Dates: The EPA is establishing an informal 30-day comment

period for today's notice, ending on [insert date 30 days

after date of publication in the Federal Register].

Addresses: Documents relevant to this action are available

for inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6101), Attention: Docket No. A-98-47, US

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-

1500, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548, between

8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

Written comments should be submitted to this address.

For Further Information Contact: Denise Gerth, Air Quality

Strategies and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency,

MD-15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-

5550.

Supplementary Information: On July 16, 1998, the following

guidance was issued by Richard Wilson, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation. It should be noted that

the July 16, 1998 memorandum reprinted in this notice refers

to EPA's proposed NOx SIP call. After the

memorandum was signed, EPA took final action on the SIP call

and promulgated a final rule. See 63 FR 57356 (October 27,

1998).

Guidance on extension of attainment dates for downwind transport areas

Preface

The purpose of this guidance is to set forth EPA's current

views on the issues discussed herein. EPA intends soon to set

out its interpretation in an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking on which the Agency will take comment.

While EPA intends to proceed under the guidance that it is

setting out today, the Agency will finalize this

interpretation only when it applies in the appropriate

context of individual rulemakings addressing specific

attainment demonstrations. At that time and in that context,

judicial review of EPA's interpretation would be available.

Introductory Summary

A number of areas in the country that have been classified

as moderate or serious nonattainment areas for the 1-hour

ozone standard are affected by pollution transported from

upwind areas. For these downwind areas, transport from upwind

areas has interfered with their ability to demonstrate

attainment by the dates prescribed in the Clean Air Act

(Act). As a result, many of these areas find themselves

facing the prospect of being reclassified, or ``bumped

up,'' to a higher nonattainment classification in spite of

the fact that pollution that is beyond their control

contributes to the levels of ozone they experience. In the

policy being issued today, EPA is addressing this problem

by planning to extend the attainment date for an area that

is affected by transport from either an upwind area with a

later attainment date or an upwind area in another State

that significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment,

as long as the downwind area has adopted all necessary

local measures, and has submitted an approvable attainment

plan to EPA which includes those local measures. (By

``affected by transport,'' EPA means an area whose air

quality is affected by transport from an upwind area to a

degree that affects the area's ability to attain.) EPA

intends to initiate rulemaking for each area seeking such

relief and contemplates providing such relief to those who

qualify. If after consideration of public comments EPA

acts to approve an area's attainment demonstration and

extend its attainment date, the area will no longer be

subject to reclassification or ``bump-up'' for failure to

attain by its otherwise applicable attainment date.

Background

The Act may be interpreted to allow a later attainment date

than generally applicable to a particular ozone nonattainment

area if transport of ozone or its precursors (nitrogen oxides

(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs))

prevents timely attainment. This principle has already been

advanced in EPA's Overwhelming Transport Policy, which

allowed a downwind area to assume the later attainment date

if it could meet certain criteria, including a demonstration

that it would have attained ``but for'' transport from an

upwind nonattainment area with a later attainment date. See

Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation, entitled, ``Ozone Attainment Dates for

Areas Affected by Overwhelming Transport,'' September 1,

1994. In the four years since the issuance of that

memorandum, the history of the efforts to analyze and control

ozone transport has led EPA to believe that it should expand

the policy's reach to ensure that downwind areas are not

unjustly penalized as a result of transport.

In March 1995, EPA called for a collaborative, Federal-

State process for assessing the regional ozone transport

problem and developing solutions, and the Ozone Transport

Assessment Group (OTAG) was subsequently formed. See

Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation, entitled ``Ozone Attainment

Demonstrations,'' March 2, 1995. The OTAG was an informal

advisory committee with representatives from EPA, thirty-

seven states in the Midwestern and eastern portions of the

country, and industry and environmental groups. OTAG's major

functions included developing computerized modeling analyses

of the impact of various control measures on air quality

levels throughout the region and making recommendations as to

the appropriate ozone control strategy. Based on OTAG's

modeling analyses, it developed recommendations concerning

control strategies. These recommendations, issued in mid-

1997, called upon EPA to calculate the specific reductions

needed from upwind areas.

In November 1997, using OTAG's technical work, EPA issued a

proposed NOX State implementation plan (SIP) call,

directing certain States to revise their SIPs in order to

satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D) by reducing emissions of

NOX to specified levels, which in turn will reduce

the amounts of ozone being transported into nonattainment

areas from upwind areas. 62 FR 60318 (November 7, 1997). In

July 1997, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). That promulgation included

regulations providing that the 1-hour NAAQS would be phased

out, and would not longer apply to an area once EPA

determined that the area had air quality meeting the 1-hour

standard. 40 CFR section 50.9(b). Until the 1-hour standard

is revoked for a particular area, the area must continue to

implement the requirements aimed at attaining that standard.

The Current Problem

The Act called on areas classified as moderate ozone

nonattainment areas to submit SIPs that demonstrate

attainment by 1996 (unless they receive an extension), and

called on serious nonattainment areas to demonstrate

attainment by November 1999 (unless they receive an

extension). Section 181 and 182(b) and (c). For many of these

areas, EPA has preliminary determined in the proposed SIP

call that transport from upwind areas is contributing to

their nonattainment problems. Such transport also appears to

be interfering with their ability to demonstrate attainment

by the statutory attainment dates.

The graduated control scheme in sections 181 and 182 of the

Act expressed Congress's intent that areas be assigned

varying attainment dates, depending upon the severity of the

air quality problem they confront. Sections 181 and 182

provide for attainment ``as expeditiously as practicable,''

but establish later deadlines for attainment in more polluted

areas, and additional control measures that the more polluted

areas must accomplish over the longer time frame. Thus, many

of the upwind areas have later attainment dates than the

downwind areas which are affected by emissions from the

upwind States. On the other hand, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

of the Act requires SIPs to prohibit ``consistent with the

other provisions of [title I],'' emissions which will

``contribute significantly to nonattainment in . . . any

other State.'' The EPA interprets section 110(a)(2)(A) to

incorporate the same requirement in the case of intrastate

transport. Sections 176A and 184 provide for regional ozone

transport commissions that may recommend that EPA mandate

additional regional control measures to allow

areas to reach timely attainment in accordance with section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

These provisions demonstrate Congressional intent that

upwind areas be responsible for preventing interference with

timely downwind attainment. They must be reconciled with

express Congressional intent that more polluted areas be

allotted additional time to attain. As EPA pointed out in its

overwhelming transport policy, Congress does not explicitly

address how these provisions are to be read together to

resolve the circumstances where more polluted upwind areas

interfere with timely attainment downwind, during the time

provided for those upwind areas to reduce their own

emissions.

In the 1994 overwhelming transport policy, EPA stated that

it would harmonize these provisions to avoid arguably absurd

or odd results and to give effect to as much of Congress'

manifest intent as possible. The EPA struck a balance in the

overwhelming transport policy by requiring that the upwind

and downwind areas reduce their contribution to the

nonattainment problem while avoiding penalizing the downwind

areas for failure to do the impossible.

In the 1994 policy, EPA reasoned that Congress did not

intend the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation to supersede

the practicable attainment deadlines and graduated control

scheme in sections 181 and 182, especially since section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically applies only ``to the extent

consistent with the provisions of (title I).'' The same

rationale applies in the intrastate context under section

110(a)(2)(A).

Developments since the issuance of the overwhelming

transport policy in 1994 have prompted EPA once again to

interpret these provisions so that they can be reconciled in

light of existing circumstances. Since the issuance of that

policy, EPA and the States, through OTAG, have made

significant progress in addressing interstate transport in

the eastern United States, and have worked to analyze the

flow of transport and to allocate among the States their

respective responsibilities for control. During the period

required for this effort, which took longer than was

anticipated, the resolution of the regional transport issue

was held in abeyance. The effort to address regional

transport recently resulted in EPA's proposed NOX

SIP call, expected to be finalized in the next few months.

For areas in the OTAG region affected by transport, the

conclusion of the OTAG and SIP call processes in September

1998 will result in assignments of responsibility that will

assist in the design of SIPs and the formation and

implementation of attainment demonstrations.

Because EPA had not previously determined how much to

require upwind States in the OTAG region to reduce transport,

downwind areas were handicapped in their ability to determine

the amounts of emissions reductions needed to bring about

attainment. While operating in this environment of

uncertainty, many of these downwind areas confronted near-

term attainment dates. Moreover, as described in the

NOX SIP call proposal, the reductions from the

proposed NOX SIP call will not likely be achieved

until at least 2002, well after the attainment dates for many

of the downwind nonattainment areas that depend on those

reductions to help reach attainment.

The Solution

The EPA believes that a fair reading of the Act would allow

it to take these circumstances into account to harmonize the

attainment demonstration and attainment date requirements for

downwind areas affected by transport both with the graduated

attainment date scheme and the schedule for achieving

reductions in emissions from upwind areas. Thus, EPA will

consider extending the attainment date for an area that:

(1) has been identified as a downwind area affected by

transport from either an upwind area in the same State with a

later attainment date or an upwind area in another State that

significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment. (By

``affected by transport,'' EPA means an area whose air

quality is affected by transport from an upwind area to a

degree that affects the area's ability to attain);

(2) has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration

with any necessary, adopted local measures and with an

attainment date that shows that it will attain the 1-hour

standard no later than the date that the reductions are

expected from upwind areas under the final NOX SIP

call and/or the statutory attainment date for upwind

nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the boundary conditions

reflecting those upwind reductions;

(3) has adopted all applicable local measures required

under the area's current classification and any additional

measures necessary to demonstrate attainment, assuming the

reductions occur as required in the upwind areas. (To meet

section 182(c)(2)(B), serious areas would only need to

achieve progress requirements until their original attainment

date of November 15, 1999);

(4) has provided that it will implement all adopted

measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than

the date by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment

will be achieved.

EPA contemplates that when it acts to approve such an

area's attainment demonstration, it will, as necessary,

extend that area's attainment date to a date appropriate for

that area in light of the schedule for achieving the

necessary upwind reductions. The area would no longer be

subject to reclassification or ``bump-up'' for failure to

attain by its original attainment date under section

181(b)(2).

Legal Rationale

The legal basis for EPA's interpretation of the attainment

date requirements employs and updates the rationale invoked

in the Agency's overwhelming transport policy. By filling a

gap in the statutory framework, EPA's interpretation

harmonizes the requirements of sections 181 and 182 with the

Act's requirements (sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),

110(a)(2)(A), 176A and 184) on inter-area transport. It

reconciles the principle that upwind areas are responsible

for preventing interference with downwind attainment with the

Congressional intent to provide longer attainment periods for

areas with more intractable air pollution problems. It also

takes into account the amount of time it will take to achieve

emission reductions in upwind areas under the NOX

SIP call, which EPA expects to finalize in September 1998.

The EPA's resolution respects the intent of sections 181

and 182 to provide longer attainment dates for areas burdened

with more onerous air pollution problems, while allowing

reductions from upwind areas to benefit the downwind areas.

Under EPA's interpretation, upwind areas will be required to

reduce emissions to control transport, but should not find

that the requirements imposed upon them amount to an

acceleration of the time frames Congress envisioned for

these areas in sections 181 and 182. Downwind areas will

be provided additional time to accommodate the delayed

control contributions from upwind areas, while at the same

time being held accountable for all measures required to

control local sources of pollution.

The EPA's interpretation of the Act allows it to extend

attainment dates only for those areas which are prevented

from achieving timely attainment due to a demonstrated

transport problem from upwind areas, and which submit

attainment demonstrations and adopt local measures to address

the pollution that is within local control. The EPA believes

that Congress, had it addressed this issue, would not have

intended downwind areas to be penalized by being forced to

compensate for transported pollution by adopting measures

that are more costly and onerous and/or which will become

superfluous once upwind areas reduce their contribution to

the pollution problem.

This interpretation also recognizes that downwind areas in

the OTAG region have been operating in a climate of

uncertainty as to the allocation of responsibility for

controlling transported pollution. Section 110(a)(2)(D) is

not self-executing and, until the NOX SIP call

rulemaking, downwind areas in the OTAG region could not

determine what boundary conditions they should assume in

preparing attainment demonstrations and determining the

sufficiency of local controls to bring about attainment. By

allowing these areas to assume the boundary conditions

reflecting reductions set forth in the NOX SIP

call and/or reductions from the requirements prescribed for

upwind nonattainment areas under the Act, EPA will hold

upwind areas responsible for reducing emissions of

transported pollution, and downwind areas will be obligated

to adopt and implement local controls that would bring about

attainment but for the transported pollution.

The EPA's interpretation harmonizes the disparate

provisions of the Act. It avoids accelerating the obligations

of the upwind States so that downwind States can meet earlier

attainment dates, which would subvert Congressional intent to

allow upwind areas with more severe pollution longer

attainment time frames to attain the ozone standards. In

addition, EPA's interpretation of the Act takes into account

the fact that, under the SIP call, upwind area reductions

will not be achieved until after the attainment dates for

moderate and serious ozone nonattainment areas. To refuse to

interpret the Act to accomplish this would unduly penalize

downwind areas by requiring them to compensate for the

transported pollution that will be dealt with by controls

adopted in response to the requirements of the NOX

SIP call or to achieve attainment in an upwind area. The EPA

is thus interpreting the requirements to allow the Agency to

grant an attainment date extension to areas that submit their

attainment demonstrations and all adopted measures necessary

locally to show attainment. This solution preserves the

responsibility of these downwind areas to prepare attainment

demonstrations and adopt measures, but does not penalize them

for failing to achieve timely attainment by reclassifying

them upwards, since such attainment was foreclosed by

transport beyond their control.

Under this policy, once EPA has acted to approve the

attainment demonstration and extend the area's attainment

date, the area would no longer be subject to reclassification

or ``bump-up'' for failure to attain by its original

attainment date under section 181(b)(2).

The EPA requests comment on the interpretation in the

guidance memorandum reprinted above.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation.

Mr. Speaker, this policy built upon the 1994 statutory interpretation memorandum that we have just put into the Record. And it indicated that the EPA considered its bump-up policy to be a fair reading of the act.

Now, what happened after this 1994 memorandum and the 1998 Federal Register, no Member of Congress complained about that. There was no group of citizens that came to the Congress and complained about the Clinton administration proposal. But what did happen was that in 2002, the Sierra Club filed three different lawsuits in three different regions, one of them here in the D.C. Circuit, one in the 5th Circuit, and one in the 7th Circuit, and they really did not argue against the policy of flexibility. They simply said the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA that authority. It was a very technical argument. And, to their credit, the Sierra Club's argument was upheld by the courts. The courts said, ``We have read the Clean Air Act and it is ambiguous. And since it is ambiguous, we have to say no to flexibility because it does not explicitly state there can be flexibility.'' That was in 2002. Those were lawsuits filed by the Sierra Club that went to court.

So we now fast forward to 2003. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, all worked with me and other members of the committee on a bipartisan basis. We passed the most comprehensive energy legislation this Congress has seen back in April, April 11, I believe, on the floor of the House.

We, at that time, had not had time to study the effect of the court ruling. We had not had time to put together a hearing on this issue. But we did in July. In July we had a hearing in my subcommittee. We had a number of witnesses testify, and, with one or two exceptions, everybody who testified said this policy of flexibility is a good idea. We should allow it.

Democrats, my good friend from Houston, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my friend from Beaumont, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), my friend from Crockett, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), they all came and brought some of their constituents who testify or put testimony into the Record that said flexibility is good.

So as we went to conference with the other body, after consultation with the minority leadership of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we put this in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and I will continue to yield to her because I think we should have a dialogue, but what I am trying to point out is this is a commonsense policy that we have put in or are attempting to put into the energy conference with the other body. Because there is a lot of support for it and it gives the flexibility, if the local region needs it. Everything in it is based on a transport issue, and if the EPA says that it will help. That is all it does.

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time to respond briefly. This is not about changing the goal post at all. The same standard is in effect. We are not changing the standard. We are simply saying if they are trying to comply, and one of the reasons they are not in technical compliance is because of an ozone transport issue outside of their control area, they have the flexibility to ask for an extension. And the EPA has the right to grant that extension. But if the EPA does, it cannot grant an extension that is any longer than in the noncompliant area that is causing the transport issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time on each side right now?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas, (Mr. Green), a member of the committee and the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

If we had a finalized version of the text, I would certainly share it with the gentleman. We do not yet have a finalized version. I can tell the gentleman the substance of it and would be happy to do that; but I myself do not have a hard copy of it because we have not finalized the negotiations with the other body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to answer my good friend's question. Before I do that, I want to put into the Record the witness list for the subcommittee hearing on July 22, 2003, that I believe the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) attended, if I am not mistaken. My recollection is that he was there.

We had 10 witnesses headed by the Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, who is the assistant administrator for the air and radiation office of the Environmental Protection Agency.

We had nine witnesses that were State and local witnesses. We had a fair panel. Of the nine State and local witnesses, my recollection is that five or six supported this proposal and that three did not. There may be one of the six that I count as a supporter that was kind of 50/ 50 on it.

What the pending proposal with the other body would do is simply and very narrowly in the States that are part of the agreement with the EPA on NOx, and there are 17 States, most of them east of the Mississippi, if those States have a State implementation plan approved or in the process of being approved and they can show that one of the reasons they may not be in compliance is because of ozone transport, they can ask for an extension. The EPA has the discretion to grant the extension; but if the EPA does grant the extension, it can only grant it forward to the compliant date where the ozone transport is originating from, if that makes sense. It is purely discretionary on asking for the extension. It is purely discretionary on granting the extension.

The extension can only be granted for ozone transport. It is an attempt to codify the Clinton administration's proposal that was put in the Federal Register in 1998.

I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Let me call a time out if that is possible.

It does not require additional implementation control measures, but it would require that they could file an addendum to the SIP that would do that.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on what might happen if a region is not granted an extension.

The courts have ruled in these court cases that if the EPA is not allowed to give some discretion in terms of meeting the timeline and if that region does not look like it is going to be in compliance, it is automatically bumped up to the next highest attainment, nonattainment category.

There are five nonattainment categories in the Clean Air Act. The least nonattainment is called marginal. Their design parameter is between 121 parts per billion for ozone and 138 parts per billion. You go to moderate which is 138 parts per billion to 160. You go to serious .160 to .180. And you go to severe which is 180 parts per billion to 190 parts per billion, and anything above that is extreme. And if you do not have the flexibility to give an extension, and if the region cannot show that it will be in compliance by that specific deadline, EPA has to bump them up in the next higher nonattainment area.

And we might ask ourselves, well, so what? So we are bumped up from serious to severe, from moderate to serious. No big deal. Well, it actually is a big deal because as we go into the more severe nonattainment criteria, the things that have to be done, there is no discretion on that. For example, if you apply for a permit to perhaps build a new factory to provide new jobs, you have to show that there is a two to one offset.

In other words, you have to shut down two tons of pollution for each new ton that the new factory would provide. You almost bring to a halt any highway funding in the area. And in the DFW area that the gentlewoman and I share representation with, those

highway funds on an annual basis or order of magnitude are around $600 million just in Dallas and Tarrant County.

Any new source that is over 25 tons per year has to get a special permit, and 25 tons per year is not a large amount of emissions. And it is possible that the Federal Government can come in and just take over the entire State implementation.

Now, there are some that may think that those are all well and good; but most of this body I would postulate would say, would it not be better to give the region some flexibility to ask for an extension and would it not be better to give the EPA the authority if they felt it was in order to give the extension. That is the question. And again, we are not changing the standards; we are not changing the 125 part per billion standard for ozone. We are not maintaining that at all. We are not changing the criteria for being classified from marginal to extreme. We are not changing that at all. We are not changing the general attainment dates that go back in the statute to 1990. We are simply saying flexibility and discretion are a good thing, not a bad thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, if she is about to close, I have some more comments, and she does have the right to close. Would she allow me to speak and then she could close the debate?

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

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

I do not want to belabor the debate. Let me just in summary, before the gentlewoman closes, point out that while the gentlewoman is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and I am also, this is not a local Dallas- Fort Worth issue. These court cases were brought in three different circuit courts, one of which is the District of Columbia here in Washington, D.C., the 5th circuit and the 7th circuit. So this is a national issue.

Regions that are affected immediately by these court cases do include the Beaumont-Port Arthur area, Dallas-Fort Worth area. So there are two areas in Texas but we also have St. Louis, Missouri; Atlanta, Georgia; Washington, D.C.; greater Connecticut; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Those are the cases that we know of, the State implementation plans that were pending that have been stayed by these are affected by these court rulings. So this is not just a Texas issue or just a Dallas-Fort Worth issue. This is a national issue.

The second thing that I would point out is that we are not affecting the standard, the national standard of 120 parts per billion, but let me say on that, when the gentlewoman from Dallas indicates that she has constituents that are affected by ozone and, as she called it, by the dirty area, so do I.

I am slightly asthmatic. My son is, I would say, moderately to severely asthmatic. I have done a lot on the floor of this body to try to help asthmatics. I am the cofounder, along with Senator Kennedy in the other body and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), of Asthma Awareness Day. Back before it was politically correct to be talking about asthma, in some earlier Congresses, I was one of the handful of sponsors of the Asthma Act back in the 105th Congress. I was one of only three sponsors of H.R. 4654. In the 106th Congress, I was one of only four sponsors of H.R. 1965. I am still a leader of the Asthma Awareness Day that we have had every year in the Congress for the last 8 years I think.

So we are not trying to say it is not a problem, but there are some people in our society, when they set these standards for ozone, that we could take ozone to background levels, five parts per billion, six parts per billion like we have in Atlanta, Georgia, and there would still be some asthmatics that were negatively affected.

The other pollutants that are regulated under the Clean Air Act, in every case there was some sort of a bright line test, and again, it is not the different categories. It is yes or no. For lead, yes or no. For SO2, yes or no. For NOx, yes or no. But for ozone, it is not a yes or no, and there is wide scientific debate about where to set the standard.

Having said that, we could set the standard at a level that only the Supreme Being of the universe could meet, and we would still have some people that would be negatively affected. So when we get into the debate about parts per billion and number of days they are out of compliance, 3 days in a 3-year period is okay, but 4 days in a 3-year period is not if they exceed it by one part per billion, then I think discretion is advisable, and I think flexibility is advisable. And I think the pending House position with the other body on the energy conference report is a very defensible, not only defensible, it is a very useful provision, and I would hope, if the gentlewoman insists on a record vote, that we would vote against her motion to instruct, not because it is not well-intentioned, not because she is not well- meaning, but because it actually would, in many ways, I think, hurt the effort to clean the air because of the arbitrariness of the way the courts have ruled under the current Clean Air Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I know she has the right to close, but she made a characterization about my district, and at the appropriate time, I would like to respond to that. I do not mean to interrupt her, but if she would yield to me some time.

Mr. Speaker, I will put into the Record data by the Texas Environmental Air Quality Commission that shows the monitoring in Ellis County has not exceeded one time the standard, not one time. Now, there are monitors in Arlington, Texas, that have, and that is also in my district, but if a reference is to Ellis County, the data shows that there have not been any exceedences. I do not know which part of my district she was referring to, but if it is Ellis County, we are okay in Ellis County. If it is part of Arlington that I represent, then we have had an exceedence.

The data is for ozone exceedences in Dallas/Fort Worth area in 2002 and 2003 (through 10/28/2003).

Measured values for Midlothian Tower C94/C158/C160 show 91 ppb on 15 May 2002, 86 ppb on 22 June 2002, 90 ppb on 23 June

2002, 85 ppb on 24 June 2002, 87 ppb on 8 July 2002, 88 ppb on 7 August 2002, 87 ppb on 8 August 2002, 99 ppb on 9 August 2002, 94 ppb on 11 September 2002, 86 ppb on 13 September 2002, 89 ppb on 28 May 2003, 86 ppb on 9 June 2003, and 89 ppb on 6 August 2003.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

My motion to instruct the energy conferees is very, very simple. There is no provision in the House or Senate energy bills that allow ozone nonattainment areas to extend, or ``bump up,'' deadlines to comply with the Clean Air Act.

Now, House GOP energy conferees, including my respected colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), want to include a rider in the energy conference report to overturn four Federal court rulings and amend the Clean Air Act to allow polluted areas to have more time to clean up, but without having to implement air pollution controls. Every time one looks up, it is another extension. This would delay the adoption of urgently needed antipollution measures in communities throughout the country.

Industry officials, environmentalists, local elected officials, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency have been working hard in recent months to find a way of complying with the ozone standards in north Texas. The Barton provision destroys that process.

This special interest rider also shows reckless disregard for the health consequences that dirty air has on my constituents and others that live in smoggy cities across the country.

To further delay necessary emissions reductions in ozone nonattainment areas is unacceptable and a betrayal of the public's trust. It is unacceptable, most of all, because it is based on false information that ozone transport jeopardizes attainment for smoggy cities.

An article in my hometown newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, states today that documents and interviews from the Bush administration's EPA show little or no evidence to support claims that Houston's smog is harming the Dallas-Fort Worth attainment of clean air goals.

This is not about jobs versus clean air; this is about a small set of areas seeking to avoid their responsibility under the Clean Air Act, thereby gaining a competitive advantage over other industries in other areas that have complied. The disadvantaged area is quite likely to be in your district.

This provision is blatantly unfair to my constituents and the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Barton) constituents who write me all the time and live down wind from the smokestacks in my colleague's district. Under this provision, dirty, unhealthy air will continue to blow downward on to my constituents, possibly until the year 2012.

I am a nurse by profession. The health effects of air pollution imperil human lives. Ozone pollution burns cell walls in the lungs and air passages, causing tissues to swell, chest pain, coughing, irritation, and congestion. Ozone pollution decreases the ability of lungs to function properly. Air pollution aggravates asthma and increases susceptibility to bacterial infection. Long-term exposure to ozone in otherwise healthy individuals could set the stage for more serious illnesses. The cost for asthma, estimated at $11 billion annually, is only part of the total cost of the health care necessitated by exposure to harmful levels of ozone.

The American Lung Association reports that exposure to high levels of ozone air pollution appears to be responsible for up to 50,000 emergency room visits and up to 15,000 hospitalizations for respiratory problems each year. I had a dear friend lose her life this year from this very ailment, a 51-year-old M.D. who had never smoked a cigarette.

In my district, the effects of air pollution are especially compelling. The American Lung Association reports that nearly a half million people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area live with diseases that are aggravated by air pollution. EPA's own consultants found that each year almost 370 residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth area died just because of pollution from the oldest and dirtiest unregulated power plants, and 10,500 asthma attacks are triggered.

To further delay compliance and cleanup will increase health care costs for my constituents at a time when the health care system is broken. Clean air is crucial to the health of north Texans and the future economic well-being of our region.

The Barton ``bump-up'' provision has no business in the energy bill.

I suggest that if my colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton) and my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), gentlemen I respect, wish to amend the Clean Air Act, they should do so by showing respect for our legislative process and by using a more appropriate legislative vehicle. But instead, they have language they are not even sharing with people to do it.

Enough is enough. Hard deadlines are necessary to get the job done and clean up our air. This time has been lengthened and lengthened and lengthened and, each time, what is the answer? Another lengthened time.

Our Republican colleagues cannot continue to delay and stall. We have a greater obligation to protect public health than polluters' profits and campaign contributions.

I am disappointed that many Republicans will frame this debate as a trade-off between jobs and the environment. They are dead wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against giving a clean air holiday to a few areas with the right political connections. I ask my colleagues to put the public health ahead of polluters' profits. Please vote for the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, this really is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of clean air that people breathe. I am certain there are people on that side of the aisle that will stand with the gentlemen, who I consider both my good friends. But there will be some probably who will not because they want to breathe some clean air. That is all this is about. It has nothing to do with partisanship. It has nothing to do with the Clinton administration. They have been given time. That is all this indicates. They have already had time to clean the air.

Mr. Speaker, what I need to ask is that at what point will these polluters be responsible for cleaning up? If we stand here and change the goal post one time after another, the time never comes.

The Clinton administration, which you love to refer to on this, gave leeway, but it is time now to clean the air. People are dying from this dirty air.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I believe I have the right to close.

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

There are lots of areas in the country that have already implemented the controls that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) speaks about and had worse transport problems and are not seeking extensions. It is a matter of whether these companies want to do it and have the encouragement to come into compliance rather than to help to stay out of compliance.

I would also like to note that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) was here speaking, and I do not know about his application for an extension, but all the areas in Michigan have attained the 1-hour standard. So I do not know why the EPA policy would even apply to Michigan.

The only transport occurring in my area is from the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) district to mine. It is not from Houston to Dallas, and in today's article that was well-researched in the Dallas Morning News, it states that the region missed Federal deadlines in 1996 and 1999 to clean up its air. The last missed date made the region, now classified as a serious ozone violator, eligible to move to the next worse category, as severe. That would impose the new deadline set by a Federal law for 2005 and new orders for pollution cuts.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Wherever we are dirtying this air, it is dangerous to the lungs, and it is dangerous to the health.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 127 million Americans breathe air that violates Federal standards for smog and soot pollutions. EPA's own consultants found that each year almost 370 residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth area died just because of pollution from the oldest and dirtiest unregulated power plants in the country, and 10,500 asthma attacks are triggered.

During the past several years, EPA gave several metropolitan areas a free pass, extending air deadlines for dirty areas without bumping them up to the higher pollution categories that would require more protective standards. Four separate Federal appellate courts all ruled that EPA's extension policy violated the language and purpose of the Clean Air Act. Appropriately, that led the agency to abandon the policy.

With so many Americans breathing in dirty air, it should be obvious that air quality standards are already not being enforced enough. Why would we make them weaker? But rather than accepting the judgment of the EPA and the courts, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and his allies are seeking to amend the Clean Air Act. His changes would turn the clock back, extend the air time frames once again, without raising the bar for air quality. What this means in real terms for real people is simple: Dirtier air for longer.

In their desire to pass any comprehensive energy bill, some of my colleagues may be willing to overlook the massive damage this bill would do to our existing clean air policies. Including the Barton dirty air rider, which I do not even know what it says because he will not let us see it, but it means ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence on the serious health effects of ozone pollution. It will mean that pollution in these areas will go unchecked for longer and longer in the future.

Asthma attacks, respiratory problems and pulmonary disease will go up, while the amount of time children can spend playing outside will go down. Developing lungs process 50 percent more air, pound for pound, than those of adults.

Children suffer most from the current air quality shortfalls. Letting the situation worsen for years and even decades does nothing for a child unable to go outside today.

It is true that we must secure our energy future, and this is why a comprehensive energy bill is attempting to move forward, but we must not roll back critical safeguards. We must not pass a bill with great shortfalls simply because we need to pass a bill. We must instead work toward a fair bill that protects us all and does not endanger ourselves and our children.

This is not an attack upon my colleague and nor is it Democrats versus Republicans. We see Democrats sitting over here that are for this, too. He is for dirty air, but while we agree that emissions from vehicles are significant contributors to ozone formation in north Texas, we also want to highlight the fact that the volume of the emissions coming from sources in Ellis County equals that of 2.5 million vehicles annually. These emission figures do not account for the two power plants that have sited their plants in Ellis County. Many of them have moved from Dallas County to Ellis County to avoid compliance with better emission controls because they knew they would find the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) there to protect them, which is not a part of this quote, with better pollution controls nor do these emission figures account for the three permit amendments that are pending at the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality to increase emissions.

Are we going to forget about the people and the health of the people altogether and not care what happens to the people's lungs, including those of us who are here, or are we going to say to the companies, get serious, comply with the standards?

Mr. Speaker, I also have testimony from that hearing from four witnesses in July, as well as other material that I have referred to, to place in the Record at this point.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Oct. 28, 2003]

Houston Link to D-FW Smog Doubted

(By Randy Lee Loftis)

Internal reviews at the Environmental Protection Agency

found little or no evidence to support Texas' contention that

Houston's smog was harming Dallas-Fort Worth's attainment of

clean-air goals, documents and interviews show.

Nonetheless, EPA officials publicly used much different

language--asserting that Houston's smog ``jeopardized''

Dallas' attainment--and proposed giving urban North Texas two

more years to clean up its smog than federal law allowed. The

move postponed a tougher smog crackdown.

Current and former EPA officials this week defended their

decisions and said there was no attempt to alter scientific

findings to justify their January 2001 proposal to extend

North Texas' smog deadline.

``I don't recollect anybody trying to hide a shell game on

Dallas-Forth Worth,'' said Tom Diggs, the EPA's chief air

planner for Texas. He said the agency's actions were in line

with national policy.

But a scientist at a major environmental group called the

discrepancy between the EPA's internal reviews and its public

statements ``damning'' evidence of collusion to avoid

statutory deadlines, at a cost to public health.

``It is shameful that the EPA was more worried about

appearing inflexible than upholding the law,'' said Dr. Ramon

Alvarez of Environmental Defense's Texas office.

time to clean up

North Urban Texas is under pressure to resolve one of the

nation's most stubborn smog problems. Emissions from vehicles

and industries combine to create hazy skies and health risks,

especially for children, the elderly and people with lung

ailments.

The region missed federal deadlines in 1996 and 1999 to

clean up its air. The last missed date made the region, now

classified as a serious ozone violator, eligible to move to

the next-worse category, severe. That would have imposed a

new deadline, set by federal law for 2005, and new orders for

pollution cuts.

When the EPA proposed postponing the deadline to 2007, it

also put off the area's designation as severe. That decision

two years ago has surged back into the headlines in recent

days as part of a bitter fight in Congress.

The agency gave such extensions to several metropolitan

areas, in each case saying scientific evidence supported

them. Federal courts have struck down the extensions as

illegal.

An effort by U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Enis, to legalize them

has helped to stall a major energy bill.

Some Senate Republican leaders and Democrats in both

chambers oppose Mr. Barton's attempt. ``We did some research

on the issue,'' Mr. Barton said Tuesday in Washington. ``We

had a hearing in the committee. And all but some of the more

radical environmentalists said we ought to give the EPA this

discretion.''

The EPA's policy on ``transport'' of smog, or ozone,

between cities was supposedly meant to keep a downwind area

from paying a price for an upwind area's pollution.

Starting with the Clinton administration, the EPA offered

to extend deadlines for any urban area that could demonstrate

that another area's smog was significantly affecting its

clean-air attainment.

Atlanta, Washington, D.C., St. Louis and Beaumont-Port

Arthur were among the takers.

So was Dallas-Fort Worth. The Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission, now the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality, submitted technical findings in

September 1999 that it said showed Houston's effect on

Dallas-Fort Worth.

The EPA's Dallas office formally accepted the state's

evidence Jan. 4, 2001. The EPA cited the evidence in

proposing to postpone Dallas-Fort Worth's deadline to 2007

from 2005, the date set by law.

``We are proposing that this transported pollution affects

DFW's ability to attain by the current attainment date,'' the

EPA announced in the Federal Register.

``Thus, the DFW and HGA [Houston-Galveston] areas are

inextricably linked,'' the agency wrote. ``Without controls

in the HGA, the DFW area's ability to attain is

jeopardized.''

Environmentalists questioned that assertion at the time,

saying the EPA was using transport as an excuse to give

states more time for cleanups. The federal court rulings kept

the EPA from finalizing the North Texas extension. Future

smog plans are being negotiated.

Mr. Diggs, the EPA's chief regional planner, said Tuesday

that the state's submittal met the EPA national policy for

such claims. He acknowledged, however, that the EPA set the

scientific hurdle so low that it was easy for states to get

the deadlines extended.

``Whether [making the extensions easy] was a good decision

or not, it was out there for every state,'' he said.

``significant'' impact

Elsewhere in that Federal Register document, Mr. Diggs

noted, the EPA said Houston's impact on North Texas was small

and limited to some days, but met the agency's definition of

``significant.'' However, EPA technical reviews in 1999 had

found that Texas' scientific case was ``weak'' and that

Houston actually had ``minimal, if any'' effect on Dallas-

Fort Worth's attainment, documents and interviews show.

One former EPA staff expert who reviewed the evidence

concluded then: ``Thus, there is not much of an impact of HG

[Houston-Galveston] on the DFW [area] that would interfere

with DFW's ability to achieve attainment.''

Dick Karp said in an interview that he was given no new

information later that would change that conclusion.

too rigorous review

The problem, he said, was that supervisors told him his

review was ``more rigorous'' than the agency wanted.

``There was a lot of passing back and forth,'' Mr. Karp

said. ``I know in the beginning I was probably a bit more of

a stickler for them being able to prove it--show me that

there's a real impact from Houston.

``And I kind of got taken aside and told, `Well, that's not

exactly what this policy is about.' ''

EPA executives wanted to grant the extensions, but making

the states prove their claims would go against that goal, Mr.

Karp said.

So he was told that the burden was on the EPA to disprove

the states' claims, not on the states to prove them, he said.

``I wasn't real comfortable with that, but I don't get to

make the rules,'' said Mr. Karp, who has left the EPA.

Former EPA regional administrator Gregg Cooke, who made the

decision to delay Dallas-Fort Worth's deadline, said he was

never told that there were questions about the state's

evidence.

``The staff document that was sent to me [said that] we

think we should give the extension, ``he said. ``And I

approved that based upon whatever was given to me at the

time. . . . I thought the analysis from staff was that the

technical argument was well-taken.''

Asked whether knowing of lower-level staff concerns about

the state's case might have changed his decision, Mr. Cooke

said, ``It might have been germane.''

Mr. Cooke, who has since left the EPA, is an attorney

representing the governments of Dallas-Fort Worth-area

counties on clean-air planning.

Mr. Diggs said the EPA's final technical documents,

published along with the proposal to extend North Texas'

deadline, laid out the agency's policy requirements and

showed that Texas had met them. The documents did not claim,

he said, that Houston's smog was keeping Dallas-Fort Worth

out of clean-air attainment. That was clear in an Oct. 22,

1999, letter to Texas officials, he said.

``We would never say that Houston is the reason for Dallas-

Fort Worth's nonattainment,'' Mr. Diggs said, ``Houston

coming into attainment does not solve Dallas-Fort Worth.''

Even the Texas officials who assembled the state's evidence

knew that they couldn't prove that Houston was a big factor

for North Texas, said Brian Foster, an air planner with the

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

`minimal impact'

``We did show that there was a minimal impact. We admit

that it wasn't the greatest amount there was,'' Mr. Foster

said.

But the state agency, hoping that new federal and state

measures would help ease Texas smog, readily took advantage

of the delays that the transport policy offered, he said.

``We felt that we needed more time,'' Mr. Foster said. The

key to getting it was EPA's low standard for showing

``significant'' impacts. ``Once again, it goes back to the

EPA policy,'' Mr. Foster said.

Dr. Alvarez, the Environmental Defense scientist, said the

EPA oversold Houston's impact to the public to justify the

extension. Added together, he said, such seemingly small

steps backward help explain why decades of efforts have

failed to clean up North Texas' air.

``It seems like sophomoric high school decision-making,''

he said. ``Unfortunately, the stakes are much higher: It is

the asthmatic children in the metroplex that pay the price of

yet another delay in the fight for clean air.''

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, October 27, 2003.

Hon. Pete Domenici,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Clean Air Act has reduced pollution

from many different sources, but there is still much more

work to be done. Nearly 150 million Americans are living in

areas that currently do not meet the nation's air quality

standards. As you know, in the Senate, the Environment and

Public Works Committee has the responsibility for reviewing

and revising that Act in a manner that will help us achieve

the unanimous goal of improved air quality for all our

citizens.

We understand that members of the energy bill Conference

Committee from the House of Representatives have proposed an

amendment to Title I of the Clean Air Act. That amendment, to

codify a policy with respect to ozone nonattainment

designations, is not relevant to energy issues, has been

overturned by the courts, and has not been the subject of

consultation with or legislative action by the Environment

and Public Works Committee or the Senate. Therefore, we

believe it is inappropriate to include such provisions as

part of the energy bill.

The effect of the proposed amendment would be to disregard

the compelling scientific evidence on the serious health

effects of ozone pollution and delay necessary emissions

reductions. This will increase pollution in those areas and

in downwind areas, increasing asthma attacks, the number of

hospital admissions for respiratory and pulmonary problems,

and reducing the number of days that children can play

outside safely. This would be contrary to the system

established by the Clean Air Act and unsound policy.

In addition, the precedent of bypassing the Committee on

Environment and Public Works would be unfortunate. Disregard

for the views of the committee of jurisdiction would be

compounded by incorporating a new matter such as the proposed

amendment, which is not in either Houses' version of H.R. 6,

into the conference report. Inclusion of the amendment in the

conference report on H.R. 6 will delay Senate consideration

and any final action on H.R. 6.

Finally, we clearly understand that this proposal is not

emanating from the Senate conferees and urge you to oppose

it. Energy Committee majority staff has indicated publicly

that you do not think that the energy bill is the appropriate

vehicle for amending the Clean Air Act.

We hope that you will maintain that position with respect

to this proposed amendment and any such proposals outside the

scope of what has already passed the Senate when the

conferees meet again.

Sincerely,

Jim Jeffords, Jack Reed, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer,

Joe Biden, Ron Wyden, Dianne Feinstein, John F. Kerry,

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this motion to instruct.

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

I am pleased to present to the House today the funding recommendations of the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs. The bill provides important funding for programs designed to support the global war on terrorism, the battle against HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and to support the national interests of the United States. In the wake of September 11, 2001, such funding for our critical friends and allies is more important than ever.

The committee recommends a total of $19,385,645,000 in new discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005. This represents a reduction of $1.932 billion from the President's budget request. On the other hand, the bill before us is $1.905 billion above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level when we exclude the supplemental appropriations. If supplemental appropriations are included, the recommendation represents a decrease of $19.287 billion over the 2004 level.

Having gotten those numbers out of the way, let me just say it is important that we know that this bill was developed in a bipartisan way, and I want to pay special tribute and give credit to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my ranking minority member, for the fine work that she has done on this bill and for engaging in a process that resulted in basic agreement on the components of this package, even if funding compromises happen to be found on both sides. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the way the House of Representatives ought to work, and I think the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have worked in a bipartisan fashion.

In preparing this legislation, we have three overriding priorities: first, supporting our allies on the war on terrorism; second, responding to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic; and, third, supporting innovative approaches to foreign assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Let me summarize how this recommendation responds to those challenges. First, the President's budget request included important military assistance and counternarcotics increases for our allies in the global war on terrorism. That includes an increase of $350 million to equip the new Afghan National Army; an increase of $90 million for law enforcement and counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan; a new base program of $300 million for military assistance for Pakistan as they assist us in hunting terrorists along the Afghan border; an increase of $46 million for a total of $66 million for Poland, a major ally in Operation Iraqi Freedom; and an increase of $73 million, for a total of $2.22 billion for the State of Israel, which is our closest ally in the Middle East.

The committee recommendation includes full funding for these increases both through new budget authority and, in the case of Pakistan, use of $150 million of transfer authority.

The second priority in the President's budget request is one that we also met with an increase of $593 million to combat HIV/AIDS and related diseases, for a total of $2.2 billion. The committee recommendation fully meets that funding level. It includes a grant of $400 million for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, subject to conditions that improve the fund's accountability and efficiency. Together with the money that we expect that the House Labor Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee will include, that will mean over $2.8 billion will be available for HIV/AIDS programs around the world in fiscal year 2005.

The Global AIDS Initiative is making treatment and care available to a record number of people affected by the disease. In 2003, only 50,000 people in the developing world had access to the drugs that dramatically reduced the impact of AIDS and extend life for years. By next summer, 200,000 people will have access to these drugs; and over the next several years, millions of infected people will be treated through the use of the Nevirapine for pregnant women.

The third priority, of course, in the President's budget was a request for a $1.5 billion increase for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, for a total of $2.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, given our allocation, we could not recommend full funding for this initiative, important though it is and though I am very personally committed to it. However, to demonstrate our commitment to this important foreign assistance reform effort and to respond positively to

the President's proposal, the recommendation does include $1.250 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. That is an increase of $256 million over last year.

As chairman, I have made the MCC a priority in this bill. I believe in the President's vision of a new form of development assistance where a country's commitment to fighting corruption, its commitment to reform, and its commitment to investing in its people is complemented by an assistance package from the United States, negotiated by the country in the form of a signed compact. We included the authorization that created the MCC in last year's appropriation bill, and the President can continue to count on me as a strong supporter.

In preparing this bill, we were also faced with decreases in some areas of the budget, including some key non-HIV/AIDS health programs, and in the development assistance account. We have restored those reductions and, in the case of development assistance, added funds for basic education. I believe our development assistance program is a key component of our national security strategy, and it is critical to a positive U.S. image in foreign countries.

Including funding for HIV/AIDS, this bill makes available $3.079 billion for health programs overall, and that is an increase of $600 million over last year's House-passed bill. Of this total, over $332 million will be made available to fight TB and malaria. These funds help to continue the global fight against malaria, which kills one person every 30 seconds, most of them African children. USAID implements a comprehensive approach against this disease supporting the purchase and distribution of malaria medicines, a search for a vaccine, and strong prevention efforts.

Basic education has become a signature issue for the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey); so I will let her describe the details of our recommendation in that regard. Suffice it to say that I fully support her efforts to provide more educational opportunities to the impoverished youth of the world, especially women and children. This bill recommends $400 million for basic education activities. That is an increase from $326 million in fiscal year 2004. Report language accompanying the bill requires the Secretary of State to articulate an interagency strategy on the use of those funds so that we have a coherent, coordinated effort that can produce meaningful results in reducing illiteracy.

The bill also supports USAID's work to support microenterprise lending. Report language accompanying the bill references the fiscal year 2004 authorization ceiling of $200 million as the program level the committee expects in fiscal year 2005. It is also important that USAID continue to use the traditional providers of microenterprise lending and not rely excessively on contractors for implementing this program.

We continue an emphasis in our bill on helping developing countries build their capacity to participate in the international trading system. We have $517 million in the bill for trade capacity building, and that is the same amount as the House passed version last year.

Fiscal year 2005 is the final year of the President's Water for the Poor Initiative, announced in August, 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. In all likelihood, we will exceed the 3-year goal of spending $970 million on water projects. Report language urges the President to direct $50 million to water programs in Africa with $9 million targeted to programs in East Africa.

The committee continues its strong support for women's programs, provides that not less than $15 million in development assistance shall be made available to improve women's leadership capacity in recipient countries. This is an increase from the $11 million that we provided last year. In addition, from our Afghanistan assistance program, we set a goal of $60 million in fiscal year 2005 for programs for women and girls.

The committee recommendation also responds to emerging needs, such as the provision of an additional $50 million for assistance for Haiti. Following up on my amendment to the Defense appropriation bill that included $95 million in supplemental assistance for the victims of the violence in the Darfur region of Sudan, we recommend $311 million in this bill for humanitarian assistance for Sudan and for the refugees affected by that conflict.

Although there are no funds for Iraq in this bill, we continue our oversight responsibilities by mandating the continuation of an independent inspector general to audit the Iraq Reconstruction program. Without new authority, the inspector general will go out of business on December 28 of this year, 6 months after the Coalition Provisional Authority was disbanded. Section 573 of the bill provides for continued operations of the CPA Inspector General's Office operating under the supervision of the Secretary of State and providing that the $75 million previously appropriated for the IG is to be made available only to the IG for his continued audit and investigative work in Iraq.

We also provide the administration the authority they need to reduce Iraq's debt to our government so that the United States can negotiate an international debt reduction for Iraq. The sooner Iraq has financial stability, the sooner the government of Iraq can fund its own security and reconstruction needs. No new funds are provided for this purpose. Any funding for debt relief will come from previously appropriated funds.

The bill fully funds the President's request for export finance agencies to promote U.S. investment overseas and create jobs in United States export sectors. The bill provides $317 million for those agencies, which include the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency. About $311 million of that $317 million is offset by collections.

Mr. Chairman, the United States leads the international fight against coca and poppy cultivation overseas. The narcotics industry has become a source of funding for terrorists, as well as, of course, a source of drugs worldwide. As part of the war on terror, the committee fully funds the President's request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative at a level of $731 million for antinarcotics, interdiction, for development programs, and rule-of-law and institution-building programs in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador.

Under the general anti-narcotics account, the bill fully funds anti- narcotics and law enforcement programs in Afghanistan at a level of $90 million, in Mexico at $40 million, and supports an existing program in Pakistan at $32 million.

To support continuing United States leadership in the world for humanitarian responses to refugee crises, we include $776 million for refugee programs, and that is $26 million more than the President requested.

We have $19 million, $1.5 million more than the request, for the Department of Treasury, to provide technical advisors to developing countries throughout the world.

The committee includes full funding of $20 million for the President's request for debt relief for countries who qualify under the Tropical Forestry Conservation Act and $75 million for multilateral debt relief for the poorest nations that receive assistance from the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or the HIPC, trust fund.

The committee supports contributions to the Multilateral Development Bank and includes $1.3 billion for such contributions. While the committee was not able to fund the World Bank incentive fund or all the arrears requested by the budget because of the budgetary restraints I mentioned earlier, we have provided full funding of the regularly scheduled contributions to these banks.

Finally, the committee has provided $323 million for voluntary contributions to international organizations and programs, a level $19 million more than the request. It includes $125 million to the United Nations Childrens Fund, or UNICEF, an increase of $5 million for this important organization.

We also have $107 million for the United Nations Development Program, or UNDP, and $7 million for the Fund for Victims of Torture. A total of $25 million is available through the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, under the same ``Kemp-Kasten'' restrictions as exist in current law.

We have had to reduce this bill by $1.9 billion from the President's request, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman.

Therefore, we did not or could not provide funding for a number of new and expanded initiatives requested by the President or brought to the committee's attention by committee members, other Members of Congress and outside groups.

The major reductions to the President's budget include, as I have already mentioned, a cut of $1.25 billion to the request for the Millennium Challenge Corporation; a reduction of $224 million for the World Bank Group, including the International Development Association; and a cut of $95 million in debt relief. There are other reductions to the President's request, but we tried to retain the base funding for most of the programs.

I believe this balanced bill provides important support for our most critical national security needs, while substantially increasing funding to respond to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. It enhances our support for overseas development assistance and humanitarian assistance. It meets the high priorities of the President in these areas and accommodates congressional concerns as well.

As I have said, this bill was developed in a very bipartisan manner and should have broad support in the House. I urge a yes vote on this bill.

Before I yield the floor, I want to call the attention of the House to two matters that were inadvertently left out of the committee report. One matter involves the Surgical Implant Generation Network, based in Richland, Washington, which is the only organization in the world that provides, free of charge, an ongoing supply of training and orthopedic materials to surgeons in developing countries who repair fractures of the very poor.

The second matter involves the Vishnevskaya Rostropovich Foundation, a charitable organization based in Washington, D.C., that conducts a mass children's vaccination initiative in the Russian Federation.

I would urge the United States Agency for International Development to give strong consideration to funding proposals for these funding organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following charts for the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.007

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), one of the very distinguished members of the subcommittee who has

made some very significant contributions to this bill and has been one of our most valuable members through the years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), who has also been a great member of this committee. I have had the opportunity to travel with him on a number of occasions and he has contributed greatly to the drafting of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), another distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for her attention to this important issue. Children that are affected by HIV/AIDS are a group that tugs at the heart strings of all people. I have worked closely with USAID and the Global AIDS coordinator to develop an integrated, comprehensive approach to fighting this disease, and pediatric AIDS is a core component of that approach.

While I applaud the gentlewoman's intentions, I believe that in some circumstances, integrated treatment and care centers where both adults and children can receive attention would be more appropriate. However, I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman, the Global AIDS coordinator, USAID, and other concerned parties to ensure that orphans and vulnerable children receive proper treatment, care and support, as part of a comprehensive approach to fighting this disease.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I am the only other speaker I have, if the gentleman is prepared to yield back the balance of his time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Sherman amendment is really not about Iran. It is about depriving the poorest countries in the world of development assistance for basic education, for health care, for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and for environmental protection programs. It is about blocking the path towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I do not think this Congress wants to be remembered for this.

I know that Iran is a politically sensitive issue, and none of us believe that the World Bank should be making loans in Iran, but the funding contained in the foreign operations bill is for IDA, the concessional lending program of the World Bank which is designed to help the poorest countries of the world, with per capita incomes of $1 to $2 per day.

Mr. Chairman, Iran is not eligible to use the resources of IDA. The projects approved for Iran were funded by the IBRD, which is the market rate lending program of the bank. IBRD does not receive appropriated funds. There is no fungibility between IDA and IBRD resources.

So, Mr. Chairman, restricting the appropriations of funds to IDA will not affect Iran in any way. However, it will cut funding that supports development and health programs in sub-Saharan Africa and the poorest countries of Asia and Latin America. Over half of IDA resources are programmed for sub-Saharan Africa, and many of the programs would be supported on a grant basis, no longer just loans.

Diverting these funds into bilateral programs would deny six times, that is, again, six times, as much funding as the gentleman's cut. For every $1 of U.S. taxpayer money that goes into IDA, other donors and resources provide $6 of support. So if we cut this, we cut out six times as much of the money that goes to sub-Saharan Africa and other of the poorest countries of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I have already made what I think is a difficult decision to cut World Bank funding by $211 million below the request. Another $359 million cut would probably put U.S. leadership at risk at the bank, in addition to putting at risk billions of dollars of assistance for poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

To reiterate, Mr. Chairman, Iran is not eligible for IDA finances. IDA funding, which is the subject of this bill, the only source of funding that is in this bill for the World Bank, Iran is not eligible for any of those sources, and Iran would not be affected by a cut in funding to the IDA.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this must be the most popular appropriations subcommittee, because so many of us have come to the chairman and the ranking member on many of our issues. Really, it deals with world harmony and world peace and the United States largesse or generosity to the world.

It also has its criticisms; and I might say that, along with my appreciation for the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), I do want to acknowledge some concerns as I give applause.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the strong statement that was made as it regards to Sudan. So many of us have lent our voices to this issue. I

know many have traveled, and many will travel, to Sudan to look at the heinous and horrific acts occurring in Darfur, where Muslim is killing Muslim, where Arab Muslim is killing black Muslim, where women are being pillaged and killed. And we know for sure that there needs to be definitive peacekeeping.

We also know that the governor of Khartoum needs to act, and I would hope when we finish this bill we will have strong, pointed language that the killing must stop and that we will not allow this to be another Rwanda.

I also hope that we will strengthen the peace effort in Haiti, recognize that some of us are still concerned about the deposing of a democratically elected leader, but we want most of all for Haiti to be able to rebuild itself, and we look for those resources in this legislation.

I add my voice to the concern of the Dominican Republic and Haiti in terms of dollars to help reconstruct.

I also support amendments that are adding to the HIV/AIDS killer. As we know, the efforts in Thailand suggest that HIV/AIDS is still killing around the world, but I offer an amendment as well to recognize that it is important to provide U.S. aid to the starving countries around the world.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to add, if you will, something to sustainable development, to provide resources so that farmers can be shown how to work in droughts in Arab communities so that they can provide for themselves around the world. This is an important step.

And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will not underfund Pakistan when they are helping us in the war on terror. We should not vote against any amendment that cuts the resources for Pakistan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that was to be offered by Congressman Ron Paul, which seeks to strip Pakistan of necessary resources.

H.R. 4818, without the Paul amendment, allocates up to $200,000,000 to Pakistan in the form of direct loans and guarantees; enables unused funds (up to $150,000,000) appropriated under the ``Economic Support Fund'' and ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' to provide assistance for Pakistan; makes funds appropriated in title I and II of this bill available to Pakistan, as well as victims of war, displaced children and victims of trafficking; and finally, it allows funds allocated to Department of Defense to be expanded for crafting, packing, handling and transportation of excess defense articles to various countries, including Pakistan.

The funding provided in the bill, without the Paul amendment, will act as a tool in the global war against terrorism, as Pakistan has been

our partner in this effort. This assistance will create programs combating the spread of disease such as HIV/AIDS, and will continue to foster a much needed trusted relationship in that region of the world. Finally, our assistance will help educate the children of Pakistan, who will be the leaders of tomorrow. As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have witnessed how often we forget to provide for our children, who lose international attention and priority during times of active military engagement.

With our assistance, we have been able to witness Pakistan's economic trade and investment improvements, health care improvement, the promotion of democracy and human rights, increased education provision, and the further development of science and technology in Pakistan. By continuing to assist this nation, we will continue a true partnership that promotes world peace and security, and uncaps Pakistan's vast untapped economic potential to the benefit of both Pakistan and the United States.

The United States has enjoyed a strong relationship with the government and people of Pakistan since the founding of the modern state in 1947, and Pakistan has proven to be an indispensable ally during both the Cold War and the War on Terror.

Pakistan's strategically important location and unwavering support have played a decisive role helping to remove the Taliban regime from Afghanistan and the capture of hundreds of wanted al-Qaeda terrorists. Pakistan has suffered thousands of casualties and has been a victim of numerous terrorist acts on their own soil because of their steadfastness with our nation in the War on Terror.

Stripping assistance from Pakistan sends out the wrong message; such an act is disrespectful and most importantly it is dangerous. By choosing to single out and exclude Pakistan from access to our financial assistance, we show them how unappreciative we are for their efforts to aid us in the War against terrorism. Pakistan has been committed to assisting us in the effort to stomp out terrorism, and has proven this commitment by capturing hundreds of terrorists found in Afghanistan and all over the world.

Congressman Paul asserts that, ample evidence exists proving that Osama bin Laden is a current free resident of Pakistan, and highlights the ineffectiveness of their aid thus far. I ask you to question the validity of this intelligence. Is this the same intelligence used, which caused our nation to believe that Sadam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction? I ask that you also reflect upon our own nation as to how effective we have been in capturing Osama bin Laden ourselves. Playing the blame game has no place here, and only acts to alienate and ostracize a valued ally in the War on Terrorism. Congressman Paul's amendment suggests that because Osama bin Laden may be currently at-large in Pakistan, we should strip our funding from a nation that has provided us with enormous amounts of aid in our effort to stomp out terrorism.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues to remember the fact that we called upon the help of Pakistan during both the Cold War and the War on Terrorism, and in both instances they helped us. Without the knowledge of the future, it would be very unwise to cut off a country that we may need yet another time in the future. There is absolutely no reason to strain our ties with Pakistan by denying them the assistance needed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the current bill and to applaud Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey for their hard work and leadership in crafting an effective piece of legislation. However, in making appropriations for the entire nation, it is virtually impossible to have a complete assessment or to profess a complete breadth of knowledge of the regions that need the most assistance--because this is an ever-changing issue.

Thus, I have offered an amendment. I support H.R. 4818, but I also urge that not less than $5 million be appropriated for agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa. This money would not only provide assistance to needy farmers and villages, but it would also strengthen infrastructure and encourage sustainable agriculture growth.

Providing small farmers and villages within the assistance and the resources necessary to plant, harvest, and distribute food crops is an essential component of development in Africa. In my amendment I propose doing much more than just giving small farmers money to buy farming products such as shovels, seeds, and livestock. I propose that we also improve infrastructure such as roads, irrigation canals, wells, and storage facilities. From this small investment, rural farmers will be able to reap profits for seasons and years to come. This is essence of sustainable development.

Mr. Chairman, without such measures toward systemic change, populations all over the world will continue to be faced food shortages. It is estimated that there are already 842 million undernourished people in the world, 798 million of which lived in developing countries and 34 million of which live in developing countries. It is clear that this is an issue that affects both poor and rich countries.

The African continent, however, is undeniably the hardest hit. The continent claims 24 of the 34 countries experiencing food emergencies. The sub-Saharan African region is feeling the brunt of this crisis with some 207 million people in 1999-2001 facing and experiencing food shortages. That amounts to nearly 26 percent of the sub-Saharan population facing inadequate access to nutritious food supplies.

Such widespread hunger plays a crucial role in sub-Saharan African societies. There are implications for education. When a child does not have the proper nourishment in his breakfast, it is impossible to expect him to perform well in school. There are implications for public health. When a mother's body is ravaged by the effects of HIV/AIDS, it is impossible to expect that anti-retroviral drugs will ameliorate her situation when food is a requirement for taking such powerful drugs. There are implications for peace and security. When a young man's meager wages are not enough to help provide for his family, it is implausible to expect that he will not go to whatever lengths necessary to secure some sort of food for his family. Mr. Chairman, the United States is invested in improving the state of education, health, and peace in sub-Saharan countries. This will not be possible without providing for improvements in rural agriculture by providing assistance to small farmers.

Those living in poor, rural areas are the most vulnerable. They comprise 70 percent of the continent's population and are the most in need of agricultural development because their livelihoods are dependent on agriculture.

Small farmers produce the food that feeds the men, women, babies, and the elders living in the small villages scattered across the arid landscape of Africa. If we neglect Africa's rural population, we neglect Africa's backbone. If we provide these farmers with the necessary resources to shore up inefficient and antiquated infrastructure we open the door to alleviating a host of other problems that plague almost 70 percent of Africa's rural population that depend on agriculture.

My proposal would allow for the development of small-scale irrigation, water and drainage, post-harvest storage, crop intensification, crop and livestock diversification, and rural infrastructure. Such improvements to infrastructure would encourage sustainable development and lead to a decrease in food shortage in the short and long run.

The Special Programme for Food Security of the Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO) along with other international NGOs is already making headway in Africa and other continents to reduce the food shortage crisis. We must acknowledge the benefits of agricultural improvement and its subsequent benefits for other areas of life for those living in rural communities and villages.

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons stated above, I support H.R. 4818 with the principles set forth in the amendment that I offer.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who is chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the Committee on International Relations. I want to thank her for her good work in the committee, and particularly her help with regard to this legislation and her willingness to be one of the original cosponsors and to help to promote this.

I also want to thank my colleague from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum). I thought that statement was eloquent, and I think she well stated what we are trying to do with this reauthorization, which is to continue a good program and also to expand it so that more countries can be eligible.

I rise today in very strong support of this legislation. It was introduced, along with my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), of the Committee on International Relations, by 32 of our colleagues to reauthorize this Tropical Forest Conservation Act through fiscal year 2007. This is a bipartisan and market-based conservation incentive program which helps to protect the world's most valuable tropical forests using the so-called debt-for- nature mechanisms.

H.R. 4654 was developed with the Bush administration, with the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, and the Wildlife Conservation Society. The administration and these highly respected environmental organizations are to be commended for their good work on the Tropical Forest Conservation Act and on this legislation before us today.

This legislation comes out of a couple of Congresses ago, the 105th Congress, when I, along with my colleagues Lee Hamilton, mentioned earlier, and John Kasich, introduced legislation that established the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, or TFCA. It was overwhelmingly approved by the House, the Senate, and enacted in 1998. It was then reauthorized in 2001, until the end of this current year.

The TFCA is based on the previous Bush administration's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, also known as EAI. That initiative allowed the President to restructure debt in exchange for certain conservation efforts in Latin America. We took that basic philosophy, broadened it, we expanded on it, and we now allow protection of threatened tropical forests worldwide.

A conservative estimate is that, because of the agreements that have been signed to date, 41 million acres of tropical forests are being protected. The United States has a significant national interest in this. Tropical forests provide a wide range of benefits. They harbor 50 to 90 percent of the Earth's terrestrial biodiversity. They act as ``carbon sinks,'' absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby reducing so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore, the quality of the air we breathe here in this country is affected by the health of these dense forests.

They also regulate rainfall on which agriculture and coastal resources depend, and they are of great importance to regional and global climate. Furthermore, tropical forests are breeding grounds for new medicines. Twenty-five percent of prescription drugs come from tropical forests. The United States National Cancer Institute has identified over 3,000 plants that they believe are active against cancer. Seventy percent of them can be found in these tropical rain forests.

Regrettably, tropical forests are rapidly disappearing. It is now estimated that 30 million acres, an area larger than the State of Pennsylvania, or my State of Ohio, are now being lost each year. The heavy debt burden of many of these countries in the tropics is a contributing factor because they have to resort to exploitation of their natural resources, particularly the extraction of timber, oil, and precious metals, to be able to generate revenue to service their external debt. At the same time, these poorer governments tend to have fewer resources available to set aside and protect tropical forests.

The TFCA, which is part of the current Bush administration's global climate change policy, addresses these economic pressures by authorizing the President to allow eligible countries to engage in debt swaps, in buybacks, and in reduction and restructuring of debt in exchange for protecting threatened tropical forests on a sustained basis. So the program gets at some of the underlying causes for the disappearing tropical forests because it gets at some of the economic reasons some of the countries must exploit this resource.

The debt-for-nature mechanism in the TFCA has proven to be an effective market-oriented means to leverage scarce funds available for international

conservation. The host country places local currency in its tropical forest fund that typically exceeds the cost to the U.S. Government of the debt reduction agreement. So we are leveraging funds.

Furthermore, because these tropical forest funds have integrity, are broadly supported within the host country, we have found that conservation organizations are interested in placing their own money in these tropical forest funds, which of course produce additional leverage of the Federal conservation dollars that we are providing.

There have been eight TFCA agreements included to date: Bangladesh, El Salvador, Belize, Peru, the Philippines, Colombia, and actually two now with Panama. $49.3 million in Federal contributions have gone into these agreements and $6.3 million in private contributions from these conservation NGOs under these eight agreements. Through this we have generated $81.4 million in long-term income commitments for tropical forest conservation, so the leverage is out there and is working.

The second Panama deal actually was just signed last month. Under this agreement, the U.S. Government contributed $6.5 million to reduce debt, and the Nature Conservancy contributed $1.3 million in a second round of agreements now that will generate nearly $11 million for tropical conservation over the next 12 years.

This agreement with Panama, along with the previous one, now provides over $21 million in total funds available for conservation purposes. This is a great agreement that helps protect the biologically rich forest of Darien National Park.

Active deals are also being negotiated with Jamaica and Sri Lanka. Other countries that have expressed interest in the program and who have eligible debt include Guatemala, Ecuador, Paraguay, St. Vincent, Botswana, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Kenya.

H.R. 4654 will improve and refine the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, as was discussed earlier, by better funding audits to ensure the program is operating as expected and as intended and by broadening the governments that can participate by allowing principal, not just interest, to be reduced and to be redirected into these conservation funds.

The bill does have an authorization here of $20 million in fiscal year 2005, which is included in the President's budget request.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment, if I could, to just thank all those who have gotten us to this point and worked so hard on this reauthorization bill. I want to thank those people like Bill Millan and Steve McCormick of the Nature Conservancy; Randy Snodgrass, Melissa Moye and Estrelitta Fitzhugh of the World Wildlife Fund; Kelly Keenan Aylward with the Wildlife Conservation Society; and Nicholas Lapham with Conservation International.

From the administration, I want to thank the Council on Environmental Quality; also Joel Kaplan and Robin Cleveland of OMB; Bill Schuerch and Katie Berg of the Treasury Department; Claudia McMurray, Stephanie Caswell and Teresa Hobgood of the State Department; Jim Hester with USAID; Scott Lampman and others.

In Congress, I want to be sure and thank Kristen Gilley and David Killon of the Committee on International Relations, minority and majority staff; and Mark Synnes of the House Legislative Counsel for helping us to draft the bill; and at CRS we got some great help from Pervaze Sheikh. For his excellent analysis of the program, I want to thank him. And, finally, I want to thank Tim Miller of my staff and Justin Louchheim, who have taken a personal interest in this and their commitment to it over the years.

Again, this is a good program, it is working well, and worthy of reauthorization. I urge all Members to support strongly this market- based approach that is working to conserve the world's most threatened tropical forest.