Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 5386, the Interior Appropriations Act for 2007. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for certain legislative provisions which are specified under the text of the rule.

For purposes of the amendment, the rule provides for priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to stand and introduce this rule as well as the underlying legislation. I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that have been done by the subcommittee members, specifically Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks, as well as the full committee under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and many others who have played a essential role in putting this budget together, which actually comes in at $145 million less than last year's enacted levels.

This important measure provides funding for the entire Department of Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, for the U.S. Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, for the Indian Health Service within the Health and Human Services Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other programs.

At the same time, this measure provides for a moderate increase over the President's proposed budget for the Forest Service, for the National Park Service, EPA, Environmental programs and management.

This budget provides for $5.9 billion to programs for Native Americans, including three new health centers in underfunded and depressed areas. It provides for a fully-funded National Fire Plan, eliminating duplications, which will result in the stopping of wildfires from getting out of control and becoming more expensive and damaging to both people, as well as wildlife and the environment.

There is land acquisition, which has been reduced to $60 million for in-holding, which is significant and important to do, but it is significant that it does not add inventory to our public land policies that are above and beyond what we can already afford.

There is one particular note of significance to me I wish to address, that this bill provides $228 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program at the Department of Interior. This figure is $30 million above what the President requested, and I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Taylor, ranking member Dicks and the entire committee in providing the restoration of funds. However, it is still below the $332 million that was provided for in last year's budget, and significantly below the authorized level of $350 million, which would be there today.

If one were to draw a line from Montana through New Mexico on the map, everything west of that line has 57 percent ownership by the Federal Government. Everything east of the line is 4 percent ownership by the Federal Government.

When the western States, which I live in one, entered this country under their enabling acts, there were legal commitments that were made, that in the 1950s the Federal Government unilaterally changed and since that time have been repeatedly changing. In fact, there are several amendments that have been threatened to be only the floor today which would increase that change in commitment.

No one who does not live in that area understands the significance of Federal ownership of that particular land. Chairman Taylor though, having a significant amount of Forest Service land in his district, is one of those that is empathetic to this situation, and we are appreciative of all his efforts in this particular area. I wish the administration were the same. In dealing at one time with an administrative official, he asked me why I was so concerned about all this Federal land; it was simply useless land and no one lived there anyway.

It has to be realized that half of the West is essentially tied up in Federal lands and is controlled by it. Payment in lieu of taxes is not charity, it is simply rent on land that is due to compensate for economic problems created by the Federal Government, created by Federal Government actions, and in contradiction to the deals that were made when these States originally came into the Union.

The Department of Interior took the concept of payment in lieu of taxes from the BLM as an effort, in their words, ``to ensure appropriate emphasis,'' and that it would be a benefit accrued to both Congress, the Department, BLM and to the counties of the West as well.

Since that time, that has not been the case. In fact, in each of the last 2 years, the administration and the OMB have actually cut this particular program, only to have it restored by Congress, which once again I thank Chairman Taylor, his committee and his staff for their efforts in that area.

In like contrast though, it is unusual that even though the overall funding for the Interior Department has been

around 7 percent over the past 5 years, if my math is correct, the Department of Interior's administrative budget has increased 100 percent in that same time, from $64 million to $118 million today.

While I may disagree with this portion of the bill, we will be joining with other western Congressmen later on today to try to present an amendment through regular order that will address this one particular issue.

I am appreciative once again to Chairman Taylor and the ranking member from the State of Washington who have been understanding of this situation, empathetic of this situation, and very helpful to us, as we move forward to try and find some kind of redress with this particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, while I have a few disagreements obviously that I have just stated, overall that is only one aspect of this important underlying bill that will be presented by this rule. We will be trying to address that agreement at some other time.

Still, the overwhelming majority of this bill is very positive and it does move us forward, and it was a responsible result of a lot of bipartisan work done on the part of this particular subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve one more time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to try to correct an inaccuracy that was stated a little bit earlier.

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

I find these opportunities exhilarating to say the least. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out.

We have spent a great deal of time talking about one of the provisions that is in this bill that deals with the drilling of natural gas, which is far different than the drilling of oil would be. It seems in Congress sometimes that we talk so much about the problem of heating in winter. We appropriate billions of dollars for the LIHEAP program so that Federal money can go directly through an individual over to the utility companies, when it would seem logical or at least rational to try to explore in some way a way of increasing the availability so that all people have to pay less for heat for their homes in the winter, and that instead of trying to subsidize the poor, we try to solve the problem at its root.

It is difficult to sometimes be here and have people criticize the lack of natural energy, wanting to consume more without producing more, at the same time being critical of any efforts to actually increase that consumption possibility. Not only is this an issue that hits individuals in trying to heat their homes, but it also hits businesses, much of which runs on natural gas.

I have farmers in my constituency that cannot fertilize this year because there is not enough fertilizer being produced and because natural gas becomes a critical element in its production and its distribution form. Industries are not being able to operate because of that.

I do, though, want to thank Mr. Hastings for the very end talking about increasing fund because this is, after all, a funding bill. I do want to also talk about two issues that were raised in defense of the bill and defense of the position of the Rules Committee.

Section 2 of the resolution says that it is essential to allow the House to have the so-called deeming resolution, which means we deemed the budget resolution which was passed by the House last night as having force and effect until we can get a conference report. It is essential to move that forward if there is to be any kind of parameters and discussion over the debate. If we do reject this rule and subsequent rules on appropriations items which do that, we simply have the net effect of this body of postponing any rational discussion in a logical and determined way of any of the appropriations items.

We might as well just dust off the old omnibus bill, because that will be the end result of not moving forward in a rational and logical approach on each and every one of these budget areas. I don't think that is the appropriate tact that we as a body wish to take.

Secondly, I want to talk also about a couple of other provisions that have been criticized. In section 2 clause b it says: ``A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriations bill.'' Over in rule 4 it says, ``A bill or joint resolution carrying an appropriations may not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report the appropriations.''

What it basically means is that appropriation bills are supposed to be appropriating, authorizing bills should be for authorizing, and the function of the Rules Committee is to try and make sure those distinctions are clear. To be honest, we sometimes will fudge on that and put authorization language in an appropriation bill if the authorizing committee agrees and does not object. In this particular situation, the Rules Committee did what it was supposed to do and simply said, where an authorizer objects to a provision in an appropriation bill they will have the opportunity to come forward and do just that.

One of the speakers said we pulled out certain amendments, or that we did not allow certain amendments to be in the bill. No, they are still in the bill. We did allow an authorizer to come in and exercise his right under the rules to protest that authorization language in an appropriation bill, and then we will deal with that issue when the time comes.

I am telling you that what I think the Rules Committee has done here with this open rule, so that any amendment that actually deals with the appropriation side is legitimate, is to protect the process as written in our rules. And if appropriators wish to be authorizers and authorizers wish to be appropriators, maybe they should look at trying to rearrange their committee schedules to accommodate that process.

This rule is a good rule because it follows the rules, it defends the process that we have, and it moves us forward in the debate. I feel comfortable with that. I feel comfortable with much of the actual appropriations in this particular bill.

I did have times when I was given a kind of start. As an old teacher, every time they said the word education my ears perked up, because I was wondering where education fits into this bill. And then I realized we are debating a whole lot of other issues not necessarily related to this appropriations process.

I do want to say something that is extremely personal to me as it deals with potential taxes. The last time my party did not control the House and the Senate and the Presidency, the solution to our budget situation was the largest tax increase in the history of this country, and it started out with the concept of taxing the rich. I was a school teacher. My taxes increased at a greater percentage and with a greater dollar amount than ever in my lifetime. My wife had just taken a part- time job that year. Everything she made in that part-time job went to pay for the tax increase, supposedly on the rich.

I guess I should be grateful to the Congress that at that time, as a schoolteacher, I was labeled as one of the rich in this country. But that was the reality. And if indeed we never go back to those days again, I will be grateful and I will be happy.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. This is a good bill. It will be talked about at length today, and I am sure will be amended in appropriate ways as time goes on, but it is still a good bill and I urge the adoption of the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 818--Rule for H.R. 5386 the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2007

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order and before

any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of

Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to

amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for

a division of the question in the committee of the whole or

in the House.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and, with gratitude that we are done at this point, I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend Mr. Bishop, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, not because of what it allows, but rather because of what it blocks. I am also inclined to oppose the underlying legislation, not because of the process, but rather because of the lack of progress which we have made in the last year in our efforts to protect and improve our environment.

Nearly 1 year ago to the day, I stood on this floor also with the gentleman from Utah when the House considered the fiscal year 2006 Interior, Environment and related agencies appropriations bill. Under that bill, $240 million had been cut from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Conservation funding was approximately $750 million below, or less than half of what was promised when Congress passed the Conservation and Restoration Act of 2000, and, overall, EPA's budget had been cut by $300 million.

Today, the House is being asked to consider an Interior appropriations bill that is even worse. Indeed, this is not by any fault of the Appropriations Committee, but it is the fault of the majority in this body, which has tied our hands in a knot of fiscal irresponsibility.

If this rule passes, the House will be forced to consider an Interior appropriations bill that not only includes the massive cuts from last year, but actually cuts these programs even more, so that my friends in the majority can pay for their massive tax cuts to the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

The underlying legislation cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by another $199 million, to a level that is more than $660 million less than it was in 2001. The bill cuts funding for the Land Water Conservation Fund by $28 million, to a level that is $90 million less than it was in 2001. Overall funding for Federal land acquisition aimed at helping States preserve open spaces is cut in this bill by $98 million, a level that is more than $400 million less than 2001. This is an 86 percent cut in funding, Mr. Speaker; 86 percent.

Certainly it just can't be true that only Democrats care about preserving our lands so that future generations will enjoy them. Yet where is the outrage from the majority Members of the other side of the aisle?

Yesterday evening, the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that restored $800 million in funding cuts to these and other critically needed environmental programs. Mr. Obey's amendment, most importantly, was revenue neutral and would have required not one penny of additional cuts in this or any other bill. During the hearing, however, Rules Committee Republicans, along a straight party line vote, blocked Representative Obey from offering his amendment.

I am also troubled by language in the bill which overrules longstanding Presidential and Congressional moratoria for drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. This provision will permit drilling to occur as close as 3 miles to the shores of coastal States, including my home State of Florida. In doing so, the health of Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our State, will be in direct danger.

Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: Drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf will have zero impact at the gas pumps. It will not under any circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

I say if supporters of lifting those moratoria are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies then they should join me and others in calling for increased fuel conservation and investment in mass transit and alternative energy sources.

Mr. Speaker, while I cannot speak on behalf of every Member of Florida's delegation, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of us in Florida and our citizens and our Governor do not want offshore oil drilling in Florida, and we intend to do whatever is necessary to strip this provision from the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I am extremely grateful that under this bill Congress furthers its commitment to restoring Florida's Everglades. This is a project that is absolutely crucial to the environment and to the potable fresh water supply of many south Florida and Treasure Coast communities in my district.

My constituents and I deeply appreciate Chairman Taylor and Representative Dicks' continued efforts in this area. Equally. I was also very pleased to learn that the committee has restored the President's proposed budget cut for the Office of Environmental Justice at EPA and included the limitation language that I offered last year ensuring that EPA respects the needs of the environmental justice community.

Yet despite these positive provisions, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an overall disappointment. I firmly believe that the appropriators did the best they could do with what we gave them to work with.

Nevertheless, I find it offensive that the majority of this body is more concerned today about protecting $114,000 tax cuts for people making more than $1 million than fully funding programs which ensure that all Americans have access to clean air and drinking water.

Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Everyone in America shares in the responsibility of contributing her or his own share. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that everyone in America has clean air to breathe and safe water to drink? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool her resources with others in her neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child will be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins?

If the budget is about priorities, Mr. Speaker, then appropriations bills are about fiscal reality. The fiscal reality of this bill and the appropriations bill that will soon follow are that America is in trouble with the majority at the helm. Their fiscal mismanagement has placed the wishes of wealthy individuals, and I question that. I do not know whether wealthy people have made these requests. Most wealthy people I know are willing to share their resources for the collective needs of their respective communities.

Is there something in the DNA here in the majority that allows them to decide that wealthy people ought be prioritized over the collective needs of a community? The underlying legislation is, unfortunately, only the first of 11 installments this year of the grim reality of which Democrats have warned for the last 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to understand that before we finish this appropriations process all of us will understand those grim realities, for the chickens are coming home to roost.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and fellow member on the Rules Committee, the gentlemen from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my good friend, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, my very good friend, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield to my good friend from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota, my classmate and friend, Mr. Pomeroy.

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

I would urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to understand that tourism is the major industry in Florida, and offshore gas drilling is nothing but the nose under the tent. There is no such thing as just gas drilling, and I do not have enough time, if you could get some time from Mr. Bishop, I would be happy to engage you ad nauseam on this subject, but when Mr. Peterson says that it is not going to be environmentally harmful, offshore gas drilling routinely dumps into the ocean spent drilling muds containing vast quantities of mercury and other toxins, contaminated produced waters that often contain radium and other dangerous substances, and additional harmful marine discharges that include benzene, toluene, lead, cadmium, and zinc.

Maybe Pennsylvania does not have the tourist industry that we do because that is right, you do not have an offshore. We do in Florida, and we are going to protect it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider Mr. Obey's amendment to restore vital funding to the Interior appropriations bill, the amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is currently funded at $145 million below the fiscal year 2006 level and $800 million below the level that is needed just to maintain current services. These shortfalls will negatively impact our national parks and forests, critical environment and conservation programs, clean water programs, and services for Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would restore $800 million to the bill to ensure that these vital programs and services are able to continue at current levels, and that amendment is fully paid for by reducing the tax break given to those fortunate individuals among us with incomes more than $1 million annually. Their generous tax savings, which average $114,000, would be reduced by $2,000, certainly a small sacrifice to maintain these essential programs and services.

I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Interior appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on Representative Obey's amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this amendment to restore severe funding shortfalls in this bill.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Maryland who just spoke that I agree with almost everything he just said, except when he said that he was going to vote for the underlying rule, because the rule specifically does not protect the global warming language.

So I do not know how the gentlemen can feel on the one hand very passionately about doing something about global warming and having us look into the issue, and on the other hand go ahead and vote for a rule that will allow anybody on this floor to strike it.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a year since we considered the Interior appropriation, the last Interior appropriations bill. One year ago I joined with my colleagues in voicing my outrage at the inadequate funding levels for critical environmental and conservation programs, and last year, like this year, we were told that because of the budget allocation this was the best that we could do, we will try to do better next year.

So here we are today in the wake of having the Republican leadership ram through a martial law rule in order to take up a budget resolution that just like last year's version slashes programs in areas of education, job training, conservation, public health and medical research and social services.

Another year has gone by, but it is still the same old story. And so I rise today, sadly, in opposition to the fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill. This bill is an assault against our environment and it should be defeated.

Once again, it significantly cuts funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and completely eliminates the Stateside Grant Program. That is right, zero dollars for the Stateside Land and Water Conservation Program. I am simply not interested in hearing the same old argument that this is simply the best we can do given the budget allocation.

The budget allocation does not just fall from the sky, this Congress voted on the budget yesterday. The Republican majority chose to slash environmental programs. The Republican majority chose to eliminate the State grants for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Republican majority chose to pass a budget that requires a completely inadequate allocation for the Department of Interior and environmental programs.

Mr. Speaker, we have the results of those choices before us today. We could have done better. We could have chosen to move away from the deliberate policy of putting the privileges of millionaires ahead of the needs of our communities and families.

Since 1964, LWCF funding has been used to support the acquisition and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and public domain lands, and the stateside program has helped to preserve open space, slow urban sprawl and given our children safe places to play.

This program has broad bipartisan support, and success stories can be found in every single State and every single community throughout this country. In fact, this year I joined with my colleagues from New York (Mr. King) and New Jersey (Mr. Holt) in urging the committee to restore funding to the Stateside Grant Program. One hundred fifty Members shared this concern and signed on to a bipartisan letter.

Mr. Speaker, it is all about priorities: Tax breaks for the wealthy few or open space and environmental protections for the majority of Americans. I commend Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dicks for the good in this bill, but the good is not enough to outweigh the bad.

The Republican majority in this House have made their choices. It is the wrong choice. I urge my colleagues to hold true to their promise to the American people and reject this bill. We must do better.

Congress of the United States.

Washington, DC, March 14, 2006.

Hon. Charles Taylor.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, RHOB,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Norm Dicks,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations,

LHOB, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge the Subcommittee

to restore funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF) state and local grant program to $100 million for FY

2007.

The LWCF state assistance program provides matching federal

grants to states and local communities to develop outdoor

recreation facilities and resources. This competitive grant

program provides funds to the states that choose local

projects based on need and quality of the project.

Unfortunately, the FY 2007 budget eliminates funding for the

state assistance program. An inadequate funding level for

this program has had detrimental effects on communities

across America, a number of which have been unable to begin

certain new projects or to complete recreational projects

already begun. This lack of funding would also mean that

youth sports teams trying to access more facilities to

relieve the stress of over-crowded fields and resources won't

be able to find such fields, or community service

organizations needing public recreation resources won't have

them.

The recently revised USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines call for

30 minutes of regular physical activity to promote health,

psychological well-being, and a healthy body weight. Every

American needs to take this call to heart, and for most

Americans, local public parks and recreation areas are the

place they would most like to do their daily physical

activity. Our communities need funding for this program,

which will increase opportunities for adults and children to

have better access to close to home health promotion and

disease prevention resources.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance

program has aided local recreation projects in over 98% of

all U.S. counties, and the federal investment has been

matched many times over with local funds in 40,000 sports

fields, community recreation facilities, and natural parks.

We believe that this program is vital to assisting

communities that are trying to provide close to home places

for all Americans to get active and stay healthy.

The LWCF matching grants especially help those communities

that are facing the problems associated with exploding growth

such as a critical lack of sports fields and lack of

necessary community planning. These grants also assist many

small communities to build possibly their only public

recreation facility, a facility or park that would not exist

with out the federal funds that match their local funds and

make the investment possible.

Given the national obesity crisis and the need for all

Americans to have access to public places and spaces to have

a place to get active and stay healthy, we strongly urge you

to support an appropriation of $100 million in FY 2007 for

the LWCF state assistance program.

Sincerely,

James McGovern, Peter King, Rush Holt, Neil Abercrombie,

Gary Ackerman, Thomas Allen, Robert Andrews, Brian Baird,

Tammy Baldwin, Melissa Bean, Xavier Becerra, Shelley Berkley,

Timothy Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Sherwood Boehlert, Leonard

Boswell, Rick Boucher, Jeb Bradly, Henry Brown, Sherrod

Brown, Dave Camp, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Benjamin

Cardin, Dennis Cardoza, Russ Carnahan, Julia Carson, Ed Case,

Ben Chandler, Donna Christensen.

Wm. Lacy Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, John

Conyers, Jerry Costello, Joseph Crowley, Henry Cuellar,

Elijah Cummings, Jo Ann Davis, Susan Davis, Tom Davis, Peter

DeFazio, Diana DeGette, William Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, John

Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Michael Doyle, Rahm Emanuel, Eliot

Engel, Anna Eshoo, Lane Evans, Mike Ferguson, Michael

Fitzpatrick, Harold Ford, Jeff Fortenberry, Vito Fossella,

Barney Frank, Wayne Gilchrest, Charles Gonzalez.

Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Raul Grijalva, Luis Guitierrez,

Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings, Brian Higgins, Tim Holden,

Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, William Jefferson,

Tim Johnson, Sue Kelly, Dale Kildee, Ron Kind, Dennis

Kucinich, John Kuhl, James Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick Larsen,

John Larson, Barbara Lee, Sander Levin, John Lewis, Daniel

Lipinski, Frank LoBiondo, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn McCarthy,

Betty McCollum.

Thaddeus McCotter, Jim McDermott, Mike McIntyre, Cynthia

McKinney, Michael McNulty, Carolyn Malone, Ed Markey, Jim

Marshall, Jim Matheson, Doris Matsui, Mike Michaud,

Juanita Millender-McDonald, George Miller, Dennis Moore,

Jerrold Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal, James

Oberstar, Solomon Ortiz, Tom Osborne, Frank Pallone Jr.,

Donald Payne, David Price, Nick Rahall II, Silvestre

Reyes, Tom Reynolds, Mike Ross, Tim Ryan, John Salazar,

Bernie Sanders.

Jim Saxton, Janice Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Allyson

Schwartz, John J. H. Schwarz, David Scott, Robert Scott,

Christopher Shays, Brad Sherman, Rob Simmons, Ike Skelton,

Louise Slaughter, Adam Smith, Vic Snyder, Mark Souder, John

Spratt, Pete Stark, Ted Strickland, Bart Stupak, Ellen

Tauscher, Lee Terry, John Tierney, Edolphus Towns, Stephanie

Tubbs-Jones, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Chris Van Hollen, James

Walsh, Diane Watson, Melvin Watt, Henry Waxman, Jerry Weller,

Lynn Woolsey.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I want to thank Interior Subcommittee Chairman Charles Taylor and his staff for the fairness with which the minority has been treated in the development of this bill. We have been consulted throughout the process. As a result, the bill reflects our input in a number of places.

From a process point of view, this bill is a model for how the majority and minority should work together to produce legislation. Unfortunately, as Chairman Taylor and I have discussed throughout the year, a fair process cannot produce a good bill when the Interior Subcommittee is given an inadequate allocation. What we were given to work with for 2007 is, once again, inadequate.

The $25.9 billion allowed by the full Appropriations Committee for Interior and environment programs is essentially a hard freeze at the FY 2006 enacted level. This is roughly $800 million below the level necessary to maintain current services for the programs funded by the Interior Subcommittee.

The result is a bill in which our parks, refuges and forests are again to be squeezed to cover fixed costs. It means funding for clean water and clean air programs at the EPA are going to be substantially reduced. It means critical new investments requested by the President in areas like homeland security and diesel emissions reductions are dramatically reduced or in some cases not funded at all. Assistance to our States with their environmental and conservation programs is dramatically reduced.

It means the very real problem of global warming will not be adequately addressed. And I assume that when consideration of the bill is completed, the provision approved by the Appropriations Committee acknowledging the existence of global climate change and the human involvement in that change will no longer be part of it. I will talk about my disappointment over that later.

I won't go through all the numbers today, but I think it is important that Members are aware of some of the most troubling recommendations. Despite facility maintenance backlogs of at least $15 billion in our parks, refuges and national forests, funding for construction projects throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and more than $400 million below the level in 2001. There is no funding at all for new schools on Indian reservations. Park Service construction is cut by $100 million.

In most cases, this bill has only been able to fund 70 percent of the increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other fixed costs. As our recent GAO report on the parks made clear, this inevitably will mean cutbacks in staff and cutbacks in visitor services for people who visit our parks, refuges and other Federal facilities. Staffing in our wildlife refuges has been cut by more than 700 FTEs over the past 5 years.

Funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund is cut by another $200 million below the 2006 level. Over the last 3 years, the Clean Water Program, which EPA cites as one of its most effective, has been reduced by $662 million, or nearly 50 percent. This means either that essential infrastructure repairs for this country's aging water infrastructure won't occur, or that local water and sewer rates will increase as communities pick up the Federal share of these costs.

Other State grant programs broadly supported in the House are cut below the current rate. This includes a $14 million cut in PILT, as well as a significant reduction in State Wildlife grants and the North American Wetlands programs. Stateside Conservation grants are completely eliminated. Over the past 5 years, assistance to States for these environmental or conservation programs have been reduced by more than $750 million.

Funding for Federal land acquisition and to help States preserve open spaces is cut by $98 million in this bill and by more than $400 million since 2001. Funding in this area has been cut by more than 80 percent in the last 4 years. These are not vast stretches of new land for the Federal Government to manage. Unfunded acquisitions include smaller parcels in icon parks such as Valley Forge, Grand Teton, and Acadia. These purchases are the highest priorities of the Bush administration and are ready to go in 2007 if we had funding.

I want to express my strong support for the cuts totaling $20 million to the Smithsonian contained in this bill, which Chairman Taylor and I believe is the best way for the Interior Subcommittee to express our extreme displeasure with recent actions taken by the Smithsonian. This situation involves the recently negotiated commercial venture with Showtime, the details of which have been kept from Congress by the Smithsonian.

On a more positive note, and one our constituents who visits D.C. certainly will appreciate, the bill makes an important down payment towards the much needed improvement of the infrastructure at the National Zoo. This will be a multiyear task to upgrade the zoo's facilities to a level where they should be. In a smart move, tackling the most important tasks first, this bill has placed significant emphasis on replacing and upgrading the fire protection and suppression systems.

As I mentioned earlier, Chairman Taylor and I have discussed previously the problems with the Interior subcommittee repeatedly being given inadequate allocations to meet the needs of this country in terms of taking care of our Federal lands and protecting the environment. This is not a pretty picture.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can improve the bill as it moves forward, but this is not a bill in my opinion which adequately addresses our country's needs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that this restriction, which has been in the law since 1981, was also in the President's budget. This was part of the President's budget.

So we are not only overturning this congressional restriction, but we are also doing it in the face of the Bush administration's budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlemen from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I want to commend the gentleman on his statement. This is not an issue that should be partisan in any way. We have had six former EPA administrators in both parties say that this is the issue of our time. A former Member, former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, has made a national issue out of this. I would like the gentleman to repeat what he said about Greenland. I thought that was very dramatic. I would appreciate it. I think we have more Members now. If you would repeat that, I think that would be important to the debate.

I want that to be repeated: 23 feet. I want my colleagues from Florida who are sitting here on the floor to think about what that would mean in Florida, what that would mean in the coast of California, the coast of Washington.

This could be a catastrophic event. Yet we are not even willing to have a sense of the Congress resolution that says that human activity may be part of the problem. I mean, we have got to wake up on this. It is time to wake up.

The former Vice President has been out making speeches all over the country. There was a movie which opened last night on this issue. This could be the issue of all time. If we don't get busy and start realizing we have got a role and a responsibility to play here, it may be too late. For every one of us who either has grandchildren, or may have grandchildren, we have got to think about this. What legacy are we leaving if we don't face up to this reality?

The authorizers simply haven't done it. That is why the chairman, I thought, was very kind to accept this amendment. But now I understand they are going to knock it out on a point of order. This is like putting your head in the sand. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is one of the more enlightened Members of this body, for all the facts that he has brought to this debate today. I hope somehow working together we can resurrect this at some future point. I would hope even that maybe the chairman of the Commerce Committee might rethink his opposition to this sense of the Congress resolution.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for her question.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in response to the gentlewoman's question, as Mr. Murtha suggested, we look for every way that we can to enhance the quality of life for the members of our military, to get as many pay increases and as many benefits as we can, because we recognize how important that these heroes are, these warriors are, to the security of our Nation.

I thank the gentlewoman for bringing up this issue, but I would say Mr. Murtha and I have looked for every opportunity we can to make things better for those who serve in our military.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that, as he knows, this is something we had intended to do in the committee, and it is important that we do it at this point; so we accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, reluctantly, I might say, against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The

amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 73, line 5 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. Chairman, the original language I thought was extremely important at the time that it was adopted by the House. It was adopted as an amendment by Mr. Obey in 1997. But I believe that probably it has outlived its necessity.

I would say to the gentlewoman that we will agree to this amendment. However, I would like to advise her and the House that as we move to the conference on this bill, we are going to be extremely involved in determining that the protection of our technology will be very, very positive. This aircraft, this weapons system, has a lot of great technology that we have to protect. So we have to work out the proper language, and we will do that as we go through the conference.

We are willing to accept the amendment with that understanding.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that protecting this technology is extremely important to this chairman. This is a super aircraft. It is just an unbelievable weapons system. Mr. Murtha and I have both seen it fly, we have talked with the pilots who fly it, we have seen the systems that they use, and this gives us technology superiority in the air. Anyone that goes into

any kind of a battle will tell you that they want to make sure that those aircraft overhead belong to us and not to the other guys.

So we are going to be extremely careful before we allow this to happen, that the technology will be protected and that it will be available, the aircraft, the sales would only be available to those who are unquestionable supporters, and allies, of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman makes a very good point, and it has not fallen on deaf ears.

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

Mr. Chairman, all of us think that things that we say in this House are extremely important and to all of the Members in the House. But on occasion there are things that are said in this House that are heard by a lot of people not only in the House, not only in our districts, but in other parts of the world.

I understand Mr. King's amendment, and I understand how serious he considers this to be; but what I am worried about is this: if we strike this prohibition from this bill that was well thought out, what we are saying to the Iraqi people and what I am satisfied the propaganda machine of al Qaeda in Iraq are going to do is use this and say:

see there, we told you so. The Americans plan to occupy us for the rest of our lives.

We don't have any plan to do that, and we don't want the Iraqi people to think that we are going to do that, and we don't want the American people to think that we are going to be constantly occupying Iraq. I understand Mr. King's interest, and most of the time I agree with him, but in this case I can't agree with him because I just think it sends the wrong message not only to the people of Iraq, not only to the people of America, but to the people of other Muslim nations who might say, hey, are we next? Are we going to be occupied? Are we going to have American troops in our streets? We don't want that to happen. We don't want that message delivered across the oceans. I think that we have to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee is well aware of the issue that the Castle amendment addresses. In fact, the subcommittee had scheduled a hearing to look into not only this issue, but a number of other acquisition issues where we believe that there can be some performance changes. Unfortunately, because of a heavy voting day on the floor, we had to postpone that hearing, which will be held sometime in July now.

In view of that, I want to say that I agree with what Mr. Castle is offering, and I am certainly prepared to accept his amendment. I think it is a good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for yielding, and I would say to the gentleman, as you and I have discussed this many times, the importance of this capability cannot be overstressed. It is extremely important.

The gentleman has reminded me, and I remember very well, in Kosovo and Bosnia we had to bring the EA-6Bs from all over the world to concentrate on their mission there. So the additional capability, I think, is well-intended. I will be glad to work with the gentleman as we go to conference.

As you are well aware, our 302(b) allocation was $4 billion less than the President's request, and so we had to do some cutting. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that we would have liked to have done that we just could not do. The money was not there, but the gentleman makes a very important point that this capability is extremely important, I think more so than most people realize, but as an officer who flew in those aircraft, you know an awful lot about this.

So I am with you. I want to do the best we can to enhance our capability. Thank you for bringing this issue to the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar all funds in this act for development, deployment, or operations

for the Defense Travel System. This would put us back to millions of individual transactions that would be almost totally unaccountable and which would have no proper oversight.

I admire the gentleman's goal in trying to come up with a system that is better than DTS, but I don't think he has done that. He has just done away with the DTS. We are attempting to get some integrated financial management at the Pentagon, and DTS is just one of the many programs that is trying to accomplish this integration. The program has some problems, but I don't think we ought to kill the effort and go back to ground zero and start all over again.

The prohibition on spending any money to develop, deploy or operate would bar the Department from even operating the current system and would also bar the Department from continuing any improvements to DTS. This would ultimately leave the Department's 3.5 million active duty military, reserve, and civilian employees without any travel system. DTS is currently the only system that can meet the full spectrum of cost, capability, security, and savings requirements, as well as the protection of personal information so important to the Defense Department and its global travelers.

Interrupting development of this important program would cause an enormous disruption, adversely affecting and, in some cases, seriously jeopardizing Defense Department mission requirements. I believe this amendment is well intended, but I believe that barring all funding would be a serious mistake, so I oppose the amendment.