PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the appropriations chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Sherwood, I agree that the demand for funding for retrofitting diesel vehicles has exceeded the funding made available to date. However, it is important to note that in fiscal year 2006, funding for programs under the National Clean Diesel Initiative was less than $12 million, and the $26 million recommended by the committee for fiscal 2007 represents an increase in funding of nearly 120 percent.

I have been personally involved in programs to promote the use of diesel retrofits back in my district, and I believe the generous amount provided by the committee will make significant strides in addressing the clean diesel program's objectives. Having said that,

I would be happy to work with my colleagues to see if we might be able to increase the funding for this program should additional funds be made available when we go to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

I say to my friend and colleague that I share his concern and will work with him in the conference to do what we can.

We accept this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has made a huge contribution on this matter to the committee. We did increase the amount up 12 percent from where we were. But I agree with the gentlewoman, if we can do more in conference, we will try to do it because the great need is there.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

The money that you want is in control of the State, and if you could withdraw, we will sit down between now and the conference and try to work with you.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Illinois. I recognize the importance of the Great Lakes as a natural resource and an issue of national importance. I commend those involved in the Regional Collaboration for their work, which will provide research managers and policymakers with a helpful guide in setting priorities and implementing critical resource and protection programs.

The committee allocation did not allow us to provide a sizable increase in the funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act. Indeed, many programs in the bill are funded substantially below the 2006 level while the Great Lakes program received an increase, albeit a small one.

I would be happy to work with my colleagues to see if we might increase funding for this program should additional funds be available when we go to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the gentleman's concern. The Statue of Liberty was reopened to the public on August 3, 2004, but the crown was not opened at that time, and let me tell you why the crown was not opened to the public: safety and security.

The statue has long been recognized by the intelligence community as one of the highest profile targets for terrorists. After the events of 9/11, the Department of the Interior made the decision to close the statue to assess its vulnerability to attack.

The Interior Department asked the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and other recognized experts to conduct bomb blast and other security analyses on the statue. Based on the results, the Park Service spent nearly $20 million on numerous safety and security improvements.

They did open the statue, except for the crown. The decision was made that the visitors could not be properly protected on the narrow spiral staircase in the crown, the thinnest part of the statue, and the Department of the Interior made the decision not to open that section. So I would urge defeat of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I am not qualified to speak on why the intelligence service says this, but I would yield to a gentleman to make a comment about who is qualified to make statements on that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I am aware of this situation. I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency should soon be releasing the results of the March audit for the Catawba area.

I thank you, Congressman McHenry. I appreciate your leadership on this important issue and assure you that I will look forward to working with you on this issue. The committee will be in contact with EPA on the monitoring of PM 2.5 emissions in the Catawba area of North Carolina. Thank you for your effort.

I, too, am aware of this increasingly difficult situation, not just in the national parks, but along other public lands funded in this bill. They comprise 43 percent of the border, the southern border. We need to work together. I would like to travel to that area. Perhaps we could hold a hearing in that area to draw the attention necessary. We need to work with our friend and former colleague, Rob Portman, once he is confirmed as the new director of OMB to ensure that adequate funds are provided to protect these lands.

We have very little money for park rangers for 43 percent of the border. However, I believe that this is primarily the responsibility of Homeland Security. This subcommittee has expressed its concern to the administration over the past 4 years about additional Homeland Security duties imposed on agencies like the Park Service without providing additional funds. We also find in many other tribal lands that we are having some of the same problems.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen. I do recognize and appreciate you drawing it to our attention, the significance of the history of this matter, and we will take a look at it and see what we can do to work with the gentlemen.

If the gentleman will yield, I realize the threat of the forest fires in Arizona, and I appreciate the hard work this gentleman has done on this issue. I will be happy to work with you to encourage the Forest Service to work on the fire breaks and the hazardous fuel projects in the vicinity of the Payson and other areas such as the gentleman represents in these important needs.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to discuss the matter with the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee.

I want to ensure my colleague from California that our water research program should be targeted and focused to solving real water supply problems. I am aware that the Resources Committee is advancing Mr. Doolittle's bill and that reauthorization is needed. I look forward to working with my colleague on this important issue and thank him for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept this amendment and work with the gentlewoman and the Interior Department to increase State and tribal auditing funds. Thank you very much for bringing it to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that accurate science, local input, and the establishment of a clear plan is the best approach to solve the problems in the Klamath Basin, and the committee has tried to be helpful in this regard.

I agree with the gentleman that plans that identify locally supported and on-the-ground recovery projects are an important part of helping to solve the problems. I would be pleased to support the gentleman by directing the Fish and Wildlife Service work with NOAA fisheries and the local stakeholders. Further, the Committee would be glad to facilitate a meeting as soon as possible with the Fish and Wildlife Service on this important issue. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention.

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, the opponent.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dicks and I in our original markup, which was a $34 million cut, reinstated $18 million in that first appropriation. Later, we added another $12 million in for that and brought it within $4 million of last year's effort.

Now, when the gentleman takes $18 million out of the funding for the Department, we do considerable damage, and the Department oversees one in every five acres of national land, including vital tributaries and recreation areas, and produces over $14 billion in royalty revenue for the U.S. Treasury, and it must have the funds in the operations account.

Frankly, if we were doing more harvest in our national forests we would not need this much PILT because that was really where it was to come from when the forests and other public lands were started, but we will try to do what we can.

I will yield to the gentleman's amendment, and we will accept his amendment, knowing that in conference we may not be able to hold this third increase.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

This amendment would provide an increase of $1.8 million, and while I do not approve of the proposed offset, I am prepared to accept the amendment and we will do that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, and I would ask the gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

I would say to the gentleman that I am concerned about high energy prices, and I would agree with him that it would be better to increase the production of oil and gas from our Federal waters, but this year I think the oil moratorium should be addressed with comprehensive authorizing legislation which would guide the appropriate leasing.

So I would say to him that we would commit to working with him on this issue and ask that he withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, with the understanding with the gentleman that he will agree with a unanimous consent request that I will make to limit debate on the amendment to 10 minutes, with 5 minutes divided on each side. Does the gentleman share that understanding?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Washington.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants account by $2 million for the National Clean Diesel Initiative. This is an important initiative that was authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These funds will be used to retrofit school buses and heavy duty trucks and contribute significantly to reducing harmful emissions into the air.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The amendment would block the EPA from changing the reporting requirements for toxic releases. I appreciate the proponent's concerns that the information on toxic releases should be reported in a timely manner and that this information should be publicly available. These concerns are shared by many State and local officials.

On the other hand, I believe that some accommodation should be made by EPA for small businesses that have no toxic releases or have only trace amounts of toxic releases.

I am prepared to accept the amendment today with the understanding that we will work with EPA to determine how we can accomplish the amendment's goals without placing unnecessary reporting burdens on businesses that release no toxics or have only trace amounts.

I commend the amendment's authors for pursuing this and look forward to working with EPA on that matter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I was going to offer and then withdraw it. So I think all I am going to do today is place my statement in the Record and speak briefly in a colloquy with the chairman about this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention a very important site called Fort King, which is in Florida. It is in my hometown of Ocala. It is a very prominent place in American history. Fort King is a site where Chief Osceola fought against the United States in the chapter of American history, the Second Seminole War. This is from 1835 to 1842.

This site in Ocala, Florida is represented by my good friend, Congressman Keller, who also supports the idea of making Fort King part of a National Historic Landmark, because it played such a distinct role in the founding of our wonderful State of Florida.

Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton designated Fort King a National Historic Landmark on February 24, 2004, and we were greatly pleased. Then in November, 2005, Fort King entered a draft special resource study and environmental impact statement public comment period.

This continued, Mr. Chairman, and we look forward to moving Fort King along in the process, and so now I am working toward preserving Fort King in perpetuity as a National Park.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this to your attention. We have put in a request to fund it, and I think my only purpose today is to bring it to the chairman and his staff's attention how important it is to the history of Florida and its founding, and then if you in the future would consider it, that would be utmost appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield to Chairman Taylor.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about an important site called Fort King, Florida, a site prominent in American history. Specifically, Fort King is the site where Chief Osceola fought against the United States, in a chapter of American history, the Second Seminole War from 1835-1842.

My home (and Representative Ric Keller's), Ocala, Florida, is home to Fort King. This Fort played a direct role in the founding of Florida as a State.

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton designated Fort King a National Historic Landmark on February 24, 2004, to our great delight. Then, in November 2005, Fort King entered a Draft Special Resource Study and Environmental Impact Statement public comment period. This continues, and we look forward to moving Fort King along in the process of preservation. And now, I am working towards preserving Fort King in perpetuity as a National Park. My good friend and colleague in the neighboring District, the Honorable Ric Keller, who also represents Ocala, has collaborated with me on this effort.

Historic sites are a vital link between current and future generations of Americans and those who came before us. These landmarks give context to the national experience and help us understand our past so that we can envision our future.

What happened at Fort King? It is a very long story, about which I will elaborate longer on another occasion. The abbreviated story is that on December 28, 1835, Fort King was the site of an outbreak of hostilities between the United States Government and the Seminole Indians. The Seminoles were led in this attack by Chief Osceola. This attack began the Second Seminole War, which lasted longer than any other United States armed conflict, except for the Vietnam War.

Chief Osceola's first appearance to the world was at Fort King in October 1834. The defiant young war chief rejected the U.S. orders to leave Florida and threatened war unless the Seminoles were left alone. There was no trust left between the U.S. Army and the Seminoles. Then came the fateful day of December 28, 1835. That morning 40 miles to the south along the Fort King Road, the Seminoles ambushed and annihilated two companies of U.S. Army regulars in route to Fort King. That afternoon, Osceola shot and killed the Indian Agent Wiley Thompson outside the walls of Fort King. The Second Seminole War had begun.

During the 7 year guerrilla war that followed, every major general and every regiment of the U.S. Army was stationed at or passed through Fort King: men who would gain fame in the Mexican and Civil Wars. And here stood the enlisted men: Bemrose, Clarke, and hundreds of others who served in the Florida War.

Following the initial series of engagements, most of which the Seminoles won, U.S. forces withdrew from the interior of Florida abandoning Fort King in May 1836. The Seminoles stood victorious, and. burned the hated Fort King to the ground. But it would be a short lived victory, when the Army returned a year later and rebuilt Fort King.

When it finally ended in 1842, most of the Seminoles had been killed or captured and relocated to Indian Territory in Oklahoma. These native Americans constitute the Seminole Nation of today. An unconquered and defiant few

withdrew to the vastness of the Florida Everglades and survived to the present as the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

In March 1843, Fort King was abandoned by the U.S. Army for the last time and transferred to the people of Marion County. The Fort was used as the County's first courthouse and public building. In 1846, it was dismantled by the citizens of Marion County for its lumber. The great pines had done their job.

Fort King and the surrounding area contain artifacts used in the attack and in the life of the Seminole Indians. Preserving our past for our children and grandchildren is imperative. Fort King is a historical gem that should be accessible to all. This site is significant, not only in Florida's history, but to the history of the Nation. I have been working on advancing Fort King through National Historic Landmark status towards hopeful, eventual National Park Service status, for the past several years, and am looking forward to see this project come to fruition. Representative Keller and I hope that I can count on the Chairman's support to preserve this unique historic site for future generations.

Fort King History

Fort King was originally constructed in 1827 to implement

the conditions of the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, which

restricted Florida Indians to specified reservation

boundaries and prohibited all but authorized persons from

entering the reservation. The fort, which was located at the

edge of the Seminole Reservation, provided protection and

security to the inhabitants of Florida.

On December 28, 1835 a band or Seminoles led by Osceola

attacked and killed the Seminole Indian Agent Wiley Thompson

and several others at Fort King. Simultaneously, a force of

Seminole and Black Seminoles attacked 100 federal troops

making their way to Fort King from Fort Brooke. Only one

soldier survived the attack. Most scholars consider these two

events as the beginning of the Second Seminole War.

Fort King played an important military role throughout the

Second Seminole War by serving as a council site for

negotiations between Seminole and the U.S. Government and as

headquarters for the U.S. Army of the South.

Chronology of Endeavors to Save the Fort King Site

The Ocala Chapter of the Daughters of the American

Revolution purchased one acre of land that was thought to

have the Fort King cemetery located on it in the 1930s.

Hurricane Gladys blew over a pine tree in 1968, exposing a

cellar from a building associated with Fort King.

1988--1991: Ocala received matching grants from the Florida

Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, for

archaeological auger surveys to find the location of Fort

King. The grants totaled $56,000. Ground penetrating radar

was used and foundations from structures were recorded on the

high ground.

In August 1991, the Marion County Board of County

Commissioners voted to proceed with the attempt to purchase

the Fort King site, using funds from the ``Pennies for

Parks'' program.

The Marion County Commission with the help of the McCall

family, City of Ocala, Bureau of Historic Preservation and

Trust for Public Lands pursued the acquisition of the site

from 1988 to 2001.

In 2001 the County, City, and State purchased the entire

Fort King site with the City agreeing to maintain and protect

the site.

On June 12, 2003 the National Park System Advisory Board

unanimously recommended Fort King for National Landmark

status.

On February 24, 2004 Fort King was designated as a National

Landmark.

Why a National Park?

Since the early 1900s local citizens recognized the

historical value of this site not only to our community but

to the nation,

On a national level, Fort King played a key role in the

Second Seminole War and is strongly associated with the

broader national themes of Indian Removal and Jacksonian

Democracy, Manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion. The fort

also had strong ties to persons, such as the famous Seminole

Indian leader Osceola and General Wiley Thompson, who are

significant in the history of our country. Most of the West

Point graduates during this time period served at Fort King.

Compared to other Second Seminole War sites, Fort King

contains the greatest wealth of intact subsurface features

and artifacts presently documented. Archaeologists have also

found that the site contains several pre-contact American

Indian components, which with further research could answer

important questions as to the transition between the Archaic

(circa 2300-500BC) and Cades Pond (circa AD100-600) periods.

Archaeological studies have already identified structural and

artifactual features that relate to the early post-military

use of Fort King. This site has the potential to provide

important information about the establishment, early

settlement and expansion of the Florida peninsula.

The City of Ocala and Marion County were politically and

geographically established because of Fort King. This

nationally significant historical resource fundamentally

defines our sense of place, who we are as citizens and our

role in our Nation's history.

Significance of a National Park

The designation of Fort King as a National Park will

provide citizens the opportunity to experience the

interpretive and educational benefits that the site has to

offer. It will also create a new recreational opportunity,

which is currently unavailable within the region, A National

Park will attract visitors not only to this region but to the

State of Florida.

Most importantly, the citizens of Ocala/Marion County are

very proud of their heritage and have gone to great lengths

to continually try to preserve it for future generations. The

City of Ocala, Marion County, the Historic Ocala Preservation

Society, the Marion County Black Archives, the Marion Country

Historical Commission, the Marion County Museum of History,

the Seminole War Foundation and many individuals have worked

tirelessly to save buildings, sites and historic information

as well as to create local preservation laws. These

preservation efforts would not have been possible were it not

for the continuous help and support from the State of

Florida.

Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear what is going on here. This is an election year. Everybody in this House is up for election.

The Governor of California and the President of the United States, who is the former Governor of Texas, have not supported the idea that we ought to open up oil and gas drilling under the guise of just doing gas drilling off the coast. Why? Because they represent States and a Nation that knows that one of the biggest industries in this Nation is tourism, and tourism is jobs. I can assure you, the people do not go visit the coasts of Florida, the coasts of California to watch oil wells. That is not what draws tourism to the coast. It is not what makes those coastlines the biggest economic engines in the United States.

This is not about trying to respond to the high gas prices. This is a giveaway. The oil companies tell you they are not interested in offshore drilling because there is a lot of expense that goes into it and it takes years and years. So just be mindful, what is this? This is a play to the oil companies.

Let me just tell you what the Governor of California says, the biggest gas guzzling State in the Nation, ``The current movement to lift the ban is nothing more than a weak attempt to cater to oil interests in the face of high gasoline prices. I encourage you to move your focus instead to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and supporting the development of alternative fuels such as ethanol in order to diversify our energy portfolio.''

Let us be creative about how we diversify the energy portfolio. Let us not use the dinosaur effect that we are just going to go after oil and gas wherever it was. These same people will tell you if there is oil right under this Capitol, drill for it. My God, can we not in the leadership of the United States Congress respect the fact that it is just not about oil and gas, it is about a lot of other values in this country?

The provision in the bill is a bad one, and I strongly support the amendment to take it out.

State Capitol,

Sacramento, CA, May 10, 2006.

California Congressional Delegation,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear California Congressional Delegation: I strongly oppose

any efforts to end or weaken the federal moratorium on oil

and gas leasing off the coast of California and I will fight

any effort to expand offshore drilling as long as I am

Governor. This current movement to lift the ban is nothing

more than a weak attempt to cater to oil interests in the

face of high gasoline prices. I encourage you to move your

focus instead to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and

supporting development of alternative fuels such as ethanol

in order to diversify our energy portfolio.

The moratorium has been in place for twenty-five years and

enjoys widespread support from the people of California,

including bipartisan support from elected leaders. It has

been widely recognized by an overwhelming majority of

Californians that there are better ways to address our energy

needs without populating our waters with oil platforms and

adding additional scars to our beautiful coastline.

The actions taken today by the House Appropriations

Committee is extremely disappointing. As a result, the

federal FY07 Interior Appropriations bill that you will be

asked to vote on as early as next week ends the twenty-five

year bipartisan Congressional moratorium and the protection

it guarantees California's coast. Moreover, the bill's

provisions would allow drilling to begin just three miles

from our coast. Rather than watching the sun set on the

western horizon each day, millions of Californians and

visitors will now see grotesque oil platforms in plain sight.

I urge the Delegation to oppose these provisions and work to

defeat them during the House debate. California's beautiful

coastline is an integral part of our culture, our heritage

and our economy. Putting it at risk would be an absolute

travesty.

The price of gasoline has risen dramatically in California,

but reducing our use of fossil fuels and diversifying our

energy supply would have a much greater and more direct

impact on prices than drilling off shore. California has gone

to great lengths to do just this. We have dedicated $6.5

million to the Hydrogen Highway initiative to build hydrogen

fueling stations and expand research for cleaner, reliable

fuels; we have implemented new car standards that will reduce

emissions by thirty percent in the next ten years, cutting

ozone-forming pollutions by five tons per day by 2020; we

have invested $165 million to get gross polluters off of

California's streets; and finally, we have created incentives

to reduce gasoline consumption by making more people eligible

to receive $1,000 when they turn in gross-polluting,

inefficient vehicles. California leads the nation on these

initiatives.

Ending or weakening the current moratorium on offshore oil

and gas leasing will not result in reduced prices for

consumers nor is it the foundation for a sustainable energy

policy. I urge your support for renewing the OCS moratorium

and your continued support for California's economy and

coastal environment.

Sincerely,

Arnold Shwarzenegger,

Governor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Shays Amendment to the FY07 Interior Appropriations Bill that would add $5 million each to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Many of us do not recognize the role the arts play in our lives. But without the arts, our lives would be black and white. Arts add the color. Arts add the diversity and aid the understanding. Arts allow for expression and facilitate the acceptance. These experiences are truly immeasurable.

Cultures that have the ability to create, preserve and appreciate the arts are truly unique. I know you can think of times when a certain peal of a trumpet, or glimpse of a color triggers something--a memory, an awareness, or an idea. Though art can trigger strong emotions, the value of these has not historically been measured. But they are no less important than our experiences that are quantifiable.

NEA and NEH ensure that Americans across the country can discover and share the treasure of artful expression while instilling a sense of historical and cultural heritage throughout the generations.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the benefits of preserving the arts and humanities by supporting this amendment's funding to NEA and NEH.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot vote for this appropriations bill.

Colorado has a special stake in the bill because it provides funds for Federal agencies that are particularly important for our State, including most of the Interior Department, the Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

And of course the bill is important for the entire country, because it provides much of the funding necessary for the Federal Government to meet its responsibilities regarding protection of the environment and the conservation of our natural, historic, and cultural resources.

If the bill dealt adequately with those matters, I would gladly support it. Unfortunately, however, it falls so far short of the mark that I do not think it should be approved.

Responsibility for the bill's shortcomings lies with the Republican leadership and the misguided budget resolution that they forced through the House in the very early hours of this morning. Their budget plan provides $9.4 billion less for domestic programs than the amount necessary just to maintain current service levels.

That is why the funds available for this bill are $145 million below this year's level and about $800 million below what would be required to maintain current services. That is why the bill includes only about 70 percent of increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other fixed costs for the Federal agencies covered by the bill. And that is why despite maintenance backlogs of some $12 billion in our parks, refuges and forests, funding for construction projects throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and there is no funding at all for new schools on Indian reservations.

And that is why there are similar cuts in the Clean Water Revolving Fund, wildlife grants, and the North American Wetlands program while funding for Federal land acquisitions--already reduced by more than 80 percent over the last 4 years--is cut by $98 million.

These cuts are particularly bad for Colorado because our growing population puts increasing pressure on our open spaces and wildlife as well as the water-related infrastructure of our rural communities.

If the bill now before the House were to be enacted as it stands, the result would be dirtier water and air, reduced care for our natural landscapes and historic structures, and declining levels of services for the visitors to the national parks, wildlife refuges, and national forests in Colorado and across the country. I cannot support such results and cannot support the bill.

Of course, today's vote is not the end of the story for this legislation. Once the Senate has acted on the bill, differences between its version and the House-passed bill will have to be resolved and a final version considered. I hope that the result of that process will be a version that deserves to be supported and enacted into law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen makes a compelling point that we would be following the recommendations of a number of groups. Primarily the Bush administration has pointed out that this is a sound business decision that is fair to the taxpayers.

I believe the gentlemen's amendment should be supported today, but we will support whatever decision he decides is appropriate.

The amendment would remove language from the bill requiring the USGS to have a ``full service mapping organization'' at a specific location.

The Interior Department says that this would require them to continue to use outdated technology and would block them from their plans to consolidate mapping operations.

The Bush Administration objects to the language now in the bill because they say it is not fiscally responsible and would reduce their ability to provide needed geospatial information.

In a letter to the appropriations committee, the Interior Department describes their plans as being ``a sound business decision'' that is ``fair to the taxpayers.''

I think that description is accurate, showing that even this Administration sometimes gets things right.

So, I think that on this matter we should do what they suggest.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the so-called PILT program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, by $16 million. It would bring the total in the bill to about 81 percent of the authorized amount. In my opinion, that is still not enough, but it is an important down payment and a definite improvement for all of our rural counties.

As you can see here on the map, those of us in the West, in particular, are affected by payment in lieu of taxes payments because we have the great majority of public lands in the West. Uncle Sam is everybody's neighbor in the West, and we look to our neighbors for help. PILT is one of the best ways that Uncle Sam can help Colorado and other States. So this is an important amendment and one that deserves to be adopted by the House.

If I could, I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about how we can do more.

We should act to make it unnecessary to continue debating PILT as a part of the appropriations process every year, and this is why I have introduced along with my colleague the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) H.R. 788, which would provide permanent and automatic funding at the full authorization level and outside the appropriations process for PILT.

Under our bill, PILT would no longer be held hostage every year to the appropriations and budget processes so local counties could count on receiving full and timely payments based on the formulas set by law.

This legislation is similar to a bill proposed by our former colleague Congressman McInnis before he retired from the Congress, and like his bill, our legislation has bipartisan support.

In addition, my neighbor, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), has introduced a bill that would phase in PILT funding over a 3-year period, and this, too, would be an improvement over the current situation.

So I know, along with all of my Western colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, I stand here hoping that the Resources Committee will take up our legislation soon, but in the meantime we should do the next best thing and adopt this important bipartisan amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, in 1991, the Texas legislature authorized the establishment of the Texas Institute of Applied Environmental Research (TIAER) at Tarleton State University. Congress quickly recognized the merits of the effort and since 1992 has provided an average of $500,000 a year and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has added $4.5 million dollars. These dollars have been effectively leveraged, and when added to state and private funds, total funding has exceeded $45 million. This project is an excellent example of how critical federal support can effectively trigger matching funds to help meet the needs of this country.

The mandate for the organization has been to:

Conduct applied research on environmental issues that have public policy implications

Provide a setting for environmental studies that focuses on the interface between government and the private sector

Provide national leadership on emerging environmental policy

Establish programs and partnerships with public and private institutions of higher education, governmental agencies, or private entities to develop and implement new policies, technology, strategies, relationships and sources of funding.

The organization's mission statement is: ``TlAER conducts scientific research, economic inquiry, and institutional, statutory and regulatory analyses to address pressing environmental issues facing the state and nation and assists public entities in developing and implementing policies that promote environmental quality.''

strong economy, healthy earth

TIAER continues to fulfill its mission by assembling and supporting a multidisciplinary research staff. TIAER houses economists, engineers, attorneys, agricultural scientists, mathematical modelers, communication specialists, water quality scientists, graphic artists, computer scientists, and water quality monitoring specialists to address the next generation of Clean Water Act initiatives.

TIAER was among the first to recognize that emerging environmental issues in agriculture required new policy. TIAER developed the Planned Intervention Microwatershed Approach (PIMA) to address landscape-based, polluted runoff issues. PIMA uniquely links USDA voluntary programs with EPA programs in a manner that is tailored to the needs of production agriculture. PIMA protects privately-held lands from government intrusion.

TIAER operates a one-million-acre outdoor laboratory, the Bosque River watershed, which consists of cropland, ranch land and, in the upper reaches of the North Bosque, a 250,000-acre watershed that is home to one of the largest concentrations of dairy farms in the Nation. The Bosque River watershed provides TIAER with a cross-section of agricultural lands and enables TIAER to address many of the environmental issues that production agriculture will face over the next quarter-century.

industry-led solutions (ILS)--leadership toward environmental solutions

A major focus of TIAER's work began with the conception of ``Industry-Led Solutions'' (ILS) in 1999. TIAER has hosted four national workshops and two regional Gulf of Mexico workshops with leaders of animal agriculture, the row crop industry, environmental groups, and government to explore ways that agriculture can proactively address environmental initiatives that will enable agricultural producers to be good stewards of the land while maintaining the economic viability of the industry. The intent is for ILS to serve as a ``think-tank'' for agricultural environmental issues.

The Nation is at a strategic point in determining how agriculture can meet Clean Water Act objectives. ILS is TIAER's response to the need for agriculture to become proactively involved in both policy initiatives and developing science-based programs that will lead to sustainable agricultural practices that provide for a strong economy and a healthy Earth.

Agricultural producers and TIAER work together in a unique manner. Agricultural producers lead all ILS initiatives. TIAER provides staffing for ILS programs. The multidisciplinary staff of TIAER enables ILS to address all issues related to resolving environmental issues in agriculture. TIAER is unique in other ways:

TIAER recognizes that the U.S. economy must remain strong in order to have a healthy Earth--``Strong economy, healthy Earth.''

TIAER has the capacity to move quickly to address new initiatives. The TIAER Director reports directly to the Tarleton State University President. In addition, TIAER staff work full-time, further enabling TIAER to move quickly.

The institute operates in an entrepreneurial manner. TIAER has no permanent funding. Therefore, the institute must address issues that are seen by TIAER clientele as pertinent and useful in addressing problems and issues they face.

As a proponent of ILS, TIAER brings together the distinct concerns of entrepreneurs and environmentalists to develop effective public policies and cooperative, science-based solutions.

In the past 30 years, efforts to improve the Nation's waters focused on cleaning up point source discharges--with great success. Now, however, water quality efforts will increasingly address nonpoint sources for the next increments in water quality improvements. The Clean Water Act of 1972 provided little insight into how agriculture would address polluted runoff from crop and ranch lands. It has become evident over the past decade that agricultural lands are in the crosshairs of the EPA and environmental groups. The challenge lies in developing programs that are specifically tailored to the needs of agriculture. At this fifteen-year anniversary, TIAER looks toward facilitating future successes in improving our Nation's air and water quality. That is a laudable goal, and it is made possible by congressional appropriations support that triggers valuable matching dollars. I hope my colleagues will continue to support successful efforts like this--responsible federal funding triggering additional financial support. That is a partnership that makes sense.