To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 5-Methyl-2-(methylethyl)cyclohexyl-2-hydroxypropanoate.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to stop a program that has been a failure. Let the record be clear. After more than 10 years of failed attempts to reintroduce Mexican wolves, it is now time to call an end to this program.

I am speaking of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program operated by the Fish and Wildlife Service in New Mexico and Arizona. Since the 1998 release of these captive bred wolves into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery area, this program has attempted to restore a population of wolves into the area, all while providing no compensation to ranchers for their livestock losses and all in the face of nearly unified local public opinion against the program.

Promises were made that the wolves would be restricted to the wilderness area of the Gila Mountains, but instead we have seen wolves as far away as Tularosa, New Mexico, almost 200 miles away.

To date this program has spent nearly $14 million and as of today has only 58 wolves in the wild; $14 million, 10 years, and 58 wolves in the wild.

Of these 58 wolves in the wild, we now are on a pace to remove 12 this year because they're problems.

Chart number 1 that I brought up today highlights the increasing rate of removal of the wolves from the wild because they're killing too much livestock and they're endangering people and pets in the district that I represent.

In 2005, the Service removed four problem wolves. In 2006, it removed eight. In 2007, we're on a pace to remove 12 wolves, 12 out of 58. If the Service has to remove 12 wolves this year, 20 percent of the wolves in the recovery area, how can anyone classify as a success a program where this many of the wolves are being a danger to ranchers and livestock?

I would add that the wolves that are released into New Mexico are the wolves that have killed too many animals over in Arizona. So New Mexico gets the benefit of having the most dangerous wolves released into the Second District.

Secondly, I would like to go to a chart that shows the horse, Six. In this shot, on the left side, Stacy Miller, 8 years old, is riding her horse, Six. This picture was taken 2 weeks before this picture. This picture on the right indicates her horse, Six, after the wolves finished with it. You see the ribs have been stripped completely clean. The hide is laying out here. That's 2 weeks after the picture was made. This is in the Second District of New Mexico.

And for those of you who want the feel-good feeling of releasing the wolves into the wild, let us release them into your daggone area instead of the area of southern New Mexico, where they represent a danger to the people of the Second District. If you aren't willing to take them into your district, then why are you going to spend money to put them in our district and endanger our people?

I would like to draw your attention to another tremendous concern, the Durango pack, particularly the female, AF924, which we speak about, is stalking the home of a young woman named Micha. Micha Miller, not the same, is pictured here. Micha Miller is about 100 yards from her front door pointing to a wolf print that is there in the dirt. What is startling about this picture is the gun which Micha is wearing while she goes about her chores. The Durango pack of wolves have been in and around Micha's house for so long that her parents insist that she carry this gun with her while she does her chores, works or plays in the yard.

I am submitting for the Record a letter from Micha asking Congress to end

this program that has put wolves in her front yard.

Dear Congressman Pearce: I am Micha Noel Miller the 13 year

old that has to carry a firearm when I go outside. My parents

and I have had the Durango Pack (AF924 & AM 973) in our yard

5 times in the last 6 weeks. I hate the wolves in our yard

because I feel that I am trapped in my house! I love to ride

my horse, bike and walk around outside. Since the

reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf I can no longer due any of

these things without being afraid.

When we get home after dark my mom has to go feed our dogs

and cats because I'm scared to go outside even though I know

the wolves are 6 miles down the road and it doesn't make a

difference, I'm still afraid they are coming up behind me.

I'm tired of looking over my shoulder and being scared all

the time. I have even resorted to carrying a firearm, I'm

still frightened of the wolves when they come in my yard.

I have gone hunting with my dad alot. We have called in

coyotes and even a bear and I wasn't as scared as I was every

time the wolves were in our yard. The coyotes and bears are

more scared of you and will run away, but the wolves will

just keep coming closer to you. They are not scared of

humans!! I have had a wolf within 40 yards of me and I was so

scared I couldn't move. My older sister, A.J., came out and

scared the wolf off finally.

I have nightmares about the wolves attacking my family &

our pets. The Wolf Program says you cannot shoot a wolf if it

is attacking your pet on private property. I don't understand

how the wolf program expects people to stand by and let the

wolves kill their pets and not do anything to stop them. They

think the wolves are more important than anything else,

including human life!

Congressman Pearce, I wish there was some way you could get

the wolf program to remove the wolves. I just want to have a

normal childhood where I can go outside and play anytime I

want without being armed and worrying about wolves being in

my yard.

Thank you for your help,

Micha Miller.

Mr. Chairman, we will hear folks that will follow me talk about how healthy wolves have never attacked humans; I would say that they're simply wrong. I will submit for the Record a list of recorded attacks by wolves on humans. These include healthy captive wolves, domestically bred wolves and wolf-dog hybrids.

Wolf Attacks on Humans

(By T. R. Mader, Research Division)

It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf

has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many

say such attacks have never occurred in North America.

History states otherwise. Although attacks on humans are

uncommon, they have occurred on this continent, both in the

early years of settlement and more recently. Here is one

report:

New Rockford, DAK, March 7.--The news has just reached here

that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this

city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate

men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to

shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by

wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother

was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a

spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but

was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh

from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest

attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time.

Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and

son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and

dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota. (Saint

Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 1888)

Here an account is reported which included an eyewitness

and the family name. Some have reasoned the wolves were

rabid. That is unlikely as these animals were functioning as

a pack. A rabid wolf is a loner. Our research has never found

a single historical account of packs of rabid wolves on this

continent. Individual animals are the norm. Further, accounts

of rabid (hydrophobic) animals were common in that day and

were reported as such.

The winters of 1886-1888 were very harsh. Many western

ranchers went broke during these years. The harsh winter

could have been a factor in the attack.

Noted naturalists documented wolf attacks on humans. John

James Audubon, of whom the Audubon Society is named, reported

an attack involving 2 Negroes. He records that the men were

traveling through a part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in

winter. Due to the wild animals in the area the men carried

axes on their shoulders as a precaution. While traveling

through a heavily forested area, they were attacked by a pack

of wolves. Using their axes, they attempted to fight off the

wolves. Both men were knocked to the ground and severely

wounded. One man was killed. The other dropped his axe and

escaped up a tree. There he spent the night. The next morning

the man climbed down from the tree. The bones of his friend

lay scattered on the snow. Three wolves lay dead. He gathered

up the axes and returned home with the news of the event.

This incident occurred about 1830. (Audubon, J.J., and

Bachman, J.; The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes. New

York, 1851-1854)

George Bird Grinnell investigated several reported wolf

attacks on humans. He dismissed many reports for lack of

evidence. Grinnell did verify one attack.

This occurrence was in northwestern Colorado. An eighteen-

year-old girl went out at dusk to bring in some milk cows.

She saw a gray wolf on a hill as she went out for the cows.

She shouted at the wolf to scare it away and it did not move.

She then threw a stone at it to frighten it away. The animal

snarled at her shouting and attacked her when she threw the

stone at it. The wolf grabbed the girl by the shoulder, threw

her to the ground and bit her severely on the arms and legs.

She screamed and her brother, who was nearby and armed with a

gun, responded to the scene of the attack and killed the

wolf. The wolf was a healthy young animal, barely full grown.

Grinnell met this girl and examined her. She carried several

scars from the attack. This attack occurred in summer about

1881. (Grinnell, G.B.; Trail and Campfire--Wolves and Wolf

Nature, New York, 1897)

In 1942, Michael Dusiak, section foreman for the Canadian

Pacific Railway, was attacked by a wolf while patrolling a

section of track on a speeder (small 4-wheeled open railroad

car). Dusiak relates, ``It happened so fast and as it was

still very dark, I thought an engine had hit me first. After

getting up from out of the snow very quickly, I saw the wolf

which was about fifty feet away from me and it was coming

towards me, I grabbed the two axes (tools on the speeder),

one in each hand and hit the wolf as he jumped at me right in

the belly and in doing so lost one axe. Then the wolf started

to circle me and got so close to me at times that I hit him

with the head of the axe and it was only the wielding of the

axe that kept him from me. All this time he was growling and

gnashing his teeth. Then he would stop circling me and jump

at me and I would hit him with the head of the axe. This

happened five times and he kept edging me closer to the woods

which was about 70 feet away. We fought this way for about

fifteen minutes and I fought to stay out in the open close to

the track. I hit him quite often as he came at me very fast

and quick and I was trying to hit him a solid blow in the

head for I knew if once he got me down it would be my finish.

Then in the course of the fight he got me over onto the north

side of the track and we fought there for about another ten

minutes. Then a west bound train came along travelling about

thirty miles an hour and stopped about half a train length

west of us and backed up to where we were fighting. The

engineer, fireman and brakeman came off the engine armed with

picks and other tools, and killed the wolf.''

It should be noted that this wolf was skinned and inspected

by an Investigator Crichton, a Conservation Officer. His

assessment was that the animal was a young healthy wolf in

good condition although it appeared lean. (``A Record of

Timber Wolf Attacking a Man,'' JOURNAL OF MAMMOLOGY, Vol. 28,

No. 3, August 1947)

Common Man Institute, in cooperation with Abundant Wildlife

Society of North America, has done extensive research on

wolves and their history for several years. We have gathered

evidence on wolf attacks which occurred in North America.

A forester employed by the Province of British Colombia was

checking some timber for possible harvest in the 1980s. He

was met by a small pack of three wolves. The forester yelled

at the wolves to frighten them away. Instead, the wolves came

towards him in a threatening manner and he was forced to

retreat and climb a nearby tree for safety. The wolves

remained at the base of the tree. The forester had a

portable radio, but was unable to contact his base, due to

distance, until evening. When the call for help came in,

two Conservation Officers with the Ministry of Environment

were flown to the area by floatplane to rescue the treed

forester.

When the Conservation Officers arrived, the forester was

still in the tree and one wolf, the apparent leader of the

pack, was still at the base of the tree. The officers, armed

with shotguns, shot at the wolf and missed. The wolf ran for

cover and then started circling and howling near the two

officers. After a couple missed shots, the wolf was finally

shot and killed.

The wolf tested negative for rabies. It appeared healthy in

every respect, but was very lean. The Conservation Officers

felt the attack was caused by hunger. (Taped Interviews and a

photo of the wolf on file at Abundant Wildlife Society of

North America.)

This is but one example from British Colombia. Wolves

overran Vancouver Island in the 1980s. Attacks became so

common that articles were published in Canadian magazines

documenting such attacks. (Copies available upon request.)

Wolf attacks on humans have occurred in national parks,

too. In August 1987, a sixteen-year-old girl was bitten by a

wild wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. The girl

was camping in the park with a youth group and shined a

flashlight at the wolf. The wolf reacted to the light by

biting the girl on the arm. That bite was not hard and due to

the thick sweater and sweatshirt the girl was wearing, she

sustained two scratch marks on her arm. The wolf was shot by

Natural Resources personnel and tested negative for rabies.

(Interview with Ron Tozer, Park Naturalist for Algonquin

Provincial Park, 7/25/88.)

Well-known wolf biologist Dr. David Mech took issue with

this attack stating it couldn't really be considered an

authentic attack since the girl wasn't injured more severely.

It was exactly nine years when such an attack would take

place.

Algonquin Provincial Park is one of several areas where

people are encouraged to ``howl'' at the wolves in hopes of a

response from the wild wolves in the area. In August, 1996,

the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were

spending a nine-day family vacation in Algonquin and joined a

group of Scouts in ``howling'' at the wolves. They were

answered by the howl of a solitary wolf.

That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the

stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt

excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the

face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach

screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and

picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from

Zach's wounds.

The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy

yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag

and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at

Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the

wolfleft. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and

gasped ``Oh, my God!'' ``The boy's face had been ripped open.

His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were

torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below

his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing.''

Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic

surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach

received more than 80 stitches in his face.

Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and

captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further

attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; ``Night of the

Wolf'' READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.)

Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late

David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on

him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn

of the century in interior Alaska. David was playing in his

village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and

bit David in the face and started to carry him off. Other

Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started

yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was

shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with

Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.)

Paul Tritt, an Athabascan Indian, was attacked by a lone

wolf while working a trap line. Paul was setting a snare,

looked up and saw a wolf lunging at him. He threw his arm up

in front of his face and it was bitten severely by the wolf.

A struggle ensued. Tritt was able to get to his sled, grab a

gun and kill the wolf. Nathaniel Frank, a companion, helped

Tritt wash the wound with warm water. Frank took Tritt, via

dog sled, to Fort Yukon to see a doctor. The arm healed, but

Tritt never regained full use of it. Several years later, the

arm developed problems and had to be amputated. (Interview

with Paul Tritt, Venetie, Alaska, November, 1988)

Two wolf attacks on humans occurred in 2000.

Icy Bay, Alaska.--Six-year-old John Stenglein and a nine-

year-old friend were playing outside his family's trailer at

a logging camp when a wild wolf came out of the woods towards

the boys. The boys ran and the wolf attacked young Stenglein

from the back, biting him on the back and buttocks. Adults,

hearing the boy's screams, came and chased the wolf away. The

wolf returned a few moments later and was shot. According to

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) officials, the

wolf was a healthy wild wolf that apparently attacked without

provocation. The boy was flown to Yakutat and recieved

stitches there for his wounds. Later, however, the bites

became infected and the boy had to be hospitalized. (Reports

and Interviews on file and available upon request.)

Vargas Island, British Colombia.--University student, Scott

Langevin, 23, was on a kayak trip with friends. They camped

out on a beach and, about 1 AM, Langevin awoke with something

pulling on his sleeping bag. He looked out and came face to

face with a wild wolf. Langevin yelled at the wolf and it

attacked, biting him on the hand. Langevin attempted to force

the wolf toward a nearby campfire, but as he turned, the wolf

jumped on his back and started biting him on the back of his

head. Friends, hearing his yells, came to his aid and scared

the wolf away. Fifty (50) stitches were required to close the

wound on Langevin's head. British Colombia Ministry of

Environment officials speculate the reason for the attack was

due to the wolves occasionally being fed by humans although

there was no evidence that Langevin or any of his party fed

these animals. (Reports and Interviews on file and available

upon request.)

This is but a brief summary of a few verifiable accounts of

attacks on humans by healthy wild wolves in North American

history.

Biologists tell us that the wolves of Asia and North

America are one and the same species. Wolf attacks are common

in many parts of Asia.

The government of India reported more than 100 deaths

attributable to wolves in one year during the eighties.

(Associated Press, 1985) This author recalls a news report in

1990 in which Iran reported deaths from attacks by wolves.

Rashid Jamsheed, a U.S. trained biologist, was the game

director for Iran. He wrote a book entitled ``Big Game

Animals of Iran (Persia).'' In it he made several references

to wolf attacks on humans. Jamsheed says that for a millennia

people have reported wolves attacking and killing humans. In

winter, when starving wolves grow bold, they have been known

to enter towns and kill people in daylight on the streets.

Apparently, in Iran, there are many cases of wolves running

off with small children. There is also a story of a mounted

and armed policeman (gendarme) being followed by 3 wolves. In

time he had to get off his horse to attend to nature's call,

leaving his rifle in the scabbard. A later reconstruction at

the scene of the gnawed bones and wolf tracks indicated that

the horse had bolted and left the man defenseless, whereupon

he was killed and eaten.

A Russian Linguist, Will Graves, provided our organization

with reports of wolves killing Russian people in many areas

of that country. Reports indicate some of the wolves were

diseased while others appeared healthy. (Reports on file and

available upon request.)

Reports have also come from rural China. The official

Zinhua News Agency reported that a peasant woman, Wu Jing,

snatched her two daughters from the jaws of a wolf and

wrestled with the animal until rescuers arrived. Wu slashed

at the wolf with a sickle and it dropped one daughter, but

grabbed her sister. It was then Wu wrestled with the animal

until herdsmen came and drove the beast away. This incident

occurred near Shenyang City, about 380 miles northeast of

Beijing. (Chronicle Features, 1992)

The question arises: ``Why so many attacks in Asia and so

few in North America?'' Two factors must be considered:

1. The Philosophy of Conservation--Our forefathers always

believed that they had the right and obligation to protect

their livelihoods. Considerable distance was necessary

between man and wolf for the wolf to survive.

2. Firearms--Inexpensive, efficient weapons gave man the

upper hand in the protection of his livelihood and for the

taking of wolves.

Milton P. Skinner in his book, ``The Yellowstone Nature

Book'' (published 1924) wrote, ``Most of the stories we hear

of the ferocity of these animals . . . come from Europe.

There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since

they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In

America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to

their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries

a rifle . . .''

Skinner was correct. The areas of Asia where wolf attacks

occur on humans are the same areas where the people have no

firearms or other effective means of predator control.

But . . . ``Biologists claim there are no documented cases

of healthy wild wolves attacking humans.''

What they really mean is there are no ``documented'' cases

by their criteria which excludes historical accounts. Here's

an example.

Rabid wolves were a frightening experience in the early

years due to their size and the seriousness of being bit,

especially before a vaccine was developed. The bitten subject

usually died a slow, miserable death. There are numerous

accounts of rabid wolves and their activities. Early Army

forts have medical records of rabid wolves coming into the

posts and biting several people before being killed. Most of

the people bitten died slow, horrible deaths. Additionally,

early historical writings relate personal accounts. This

author recalls one historical account telling of a man being

tied to a tree and left to die because of his violent

behavior with rabies after being bitten by a wolf. Such

deaths left profound impressions on eyewitnesses of those

events.

Dr. David Mech, USFWS wolf biologist, states there are no

``documented'' cases of rabid wolves below the fifty seventh

latitude north (near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory). When asked

what ``documented'' meant, he stated, ``The head of the wolf

must be removed, sent to a lab for testing and found to be

rabid.''

Those requirements for documentation negate all historical

records!

As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, ``There are no

`documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans.''

In order to be ``documented'' these unreasonable criteria

must be met:

1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be

healthy.

2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in

captivity in its entire life.

3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.

4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are

generally not considered attacks according to the

biologists).

That is a ``documented'' attack.

Such criteria make it very difficult to document any

historical account of a wolf attack on a human!

Biologists assume when a wolf attacks a human, that there

must be something wrong with the wolf. It's either been in

captivity or it's sick or whatever. They don't examine the

evidence in an unbiased manner or use historical tests.

Historically, there are four reasons for wolf attacks on

humans:

1. Disease such as rabies.

2. Extreme hunger.

3. Familiarity/Disposition--This is an either/or situation.

Familiarity is the zoo setting, captive wolves, etc.

Disposition is a

particularly aggressive wolf which may not fear man as most

wolves do.

4. In the heat of the chase and kill--This is where a

hiker, trapper or whoever disturbs a fresh chase and kill by

wolves. The person walks into the scene only to be attacked

by the wolves.

It is our belief that a predator's fear of man is both

instinctive and learned behavior. For example, wolves raised

as pets or in zoos are well documented to attack and kill

humans.

Alyshia Berzyck, of Minnesota, was attacked and killed by a

wolf on a chain on June 3, 1989. The wolf tore up her kidney,

liver and bit a hole through her aorta. One month later, on

July 1, 1989, Peter Lemke, 5, lost 12 inches of his intestine

and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms

and back in another wolf attack in Kenyon, Minnesota.

(Reports on file and available upon request.)

Zoos carry abundant records of wolf attacks on people,

particularly children. The child climbs the enclosure fence

to pet the ``dog'' and is attacked.

Zoos and domestic settings are unnatural in that they place

man and wolf in close proximity and they become accustomed to

each other. Consequently attacks occur.

Today predator control is very restricted in scope, and as

a result, attacks on humans by predators are becoming more

common. In recent years, healthy coyotes in Yellowstone Park

have attacked humans. Similar attacks have occurred in the

National Parks of Canada.

On January 14, 1991, a healthy mountain lion attacked and

killed an eighteen-year-old high school senior, Scott

Lancaster, in Idaho Springs, Colorado. The boy was jogging on

a jogging path within the city limits of the town when the

lion attacked and killed him. (Report on file at Abundant

Wildlife Society of North America)

Madam Speaker, the following material are letters I have received from my constituents and other concerned citizens of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona regarding the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf.

Since the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf in 1998, the residents of my Congressional District have been plagued by problems associated with the release. Not only do ranchers suffer economic hardship due to wolves preying on their livestock, but countless family pets have been lost including dogs and horses. As the wolves become less afraid of man every year, I fear they will eventually prey upon humans.

To date, the program has yielded 58 wolves, 20 percent of which will be removed as problem animals, at a $14 million cost to the taxpayers. That is $242,000 spent per wolf.

These are some of our wolf experiences in the past 7.5

years. I don't think we have had a decent nights sleep since

this program began.

2003--Wolf notes Monday May 19 to Tuesday May 28.

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:42 p.m.

Subject: wolves are back

No sooner that I griped to the Game Commission's about the

release of our old friend from the Campbell Blue pack, F 592

into the wilderness again that she shows up here again. John

Oakleaf called last May 19 about 9 p.m. with the happy news

that they were with our cows and calves.

We were missing 2 calves since Friday and wolf tracks are

everywhere but everything was OK when I checked this morning

and this afternoon nothing but tracks. Life gets just a whole

lot more complicated with them around. How many times can you

say I told you so to the FWS, they can't stop believing that

releasing heavily pregnant wolves into the Wilderness will

keep them there, it doesn't and it hasn't and it never will.

Changing the name just buffalo's the public into thinking

there are new wolves out there. The new name for F 592 and

her new mate was the Sycamore pack. The only good news is she

should have had her puppies last week or maybe two weeks ago

and she probably killed them if she traveled this far.

Ivy, my 14 year old daughter rode her paint mare up to the

top of the hill by the house this morning like she always

does and met up with both wolves. She said they wouldn't

leave her alone and squared off with her at about 30 feet

away. She didn't want to turn her back on them so she shot

and reloaded and shot her single shot 22 off in the air a

couple times and they finally scuttled down the hill into

Turkey Run in front of her.

She was pretty excited and not a little scared when she

came in. I on the other hand am livid and a lot scared. My

kids shouldn't have to be held up by a pair of wolves on a

ride \1/4\ mile from the house.

Laura.

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:17 p.m.

Subject: wolf update Rafter Spear 5-20&21

We caught them on the cows and calves last evening May 20,

2003 around 7 p.m. and they had them bunched up trying to get

a calf out the calves were either crying or sucking, we were

just in time. We ran them off all of 50 feet and started

driving the cows down the canyon on foot.

I left Matt with the cows and the 30-30 and went up the

other canyon to check the other cows. On the way, I met Dan

the wolf guy and told him to hurry up, the wolves were

following Matt and he might just have to shoot one since they

are following him so close. I stopped at the house to get a

blanket for Miles since it was getting cold and he was asleep

in the jeep, thank goodness. I also told the girls to saddle

up and go help dad move those cows. Which they did.

Over the ridge I found a bagged up cow with wolf tracks

nearby and all the other cows were far enough up the other

canyon and still all right with no sign of wolf activity

around them. I went on to 74 and check the other cattle

thankfully the wolves hadn't been there yet.

By the time I got back to the turnoff to the house, where

Matt and the girls left the cows, Matt was way off ahead on

the road home and Dan was parked in the flat near the turnoff

to our house with our cows. I picked up Matt and he said to

go back and let him talk to Dan. He didn't apologize for

yelling at him earlier but let it be known he didn't totally

blame Dan for the situation. Dan said he was going to stay in

the cows all night and we told him to come to the house and

eat first. He said OK.

He called an hour later {satellite phone} and said the

wolves were in the calves again and he wasn't coming in to

eat. By then it was 10 p.m. so I made him supper and coffee

and we took it out to him. He said they were all over the

cows and calves and howling at him because they were

frustrated and he was firing rubber bullets at them. He only

had enough light to set one trap though. Since he was OK we

went home to sleep because after learning they were in the

cattle the night before we pretty much stayed awake all

night.

Woke up at 4 a.m. finally got up at 4:30 and Dan showed up

at 5:15 with some good news, he caught the male about 20

minutes before in the single trap he had managed to set the

evening before. Apparently Dan has been improving as a

trapper since our Dec. 99 experience with Campbell Blue pack

which included F 592.

Melissa, Ted Turners wolf biologist, was 3 hours away with

a cage so we called our neighbor Jack Diamond and he sent his

wife Kaye over with a kennel to put the trapped wolf in.

We went back out and the female was still there with the

male but not very close, it was breaking daylight by then.

Dan gave the wolf a light sedative type drug so he would

relax and not hurt himself in the trap. Matt went to check

the cows in 74 where I had gone that night and I waited with

Dan in case Kaye got there and Dan needed help loading the

wolf. She did and Matt and Dan loaded him into the kennel

right about the time Melissa showed up, so we sent that wolf

home to Sevilletta. I made Dan keep Melissa's kennel in case

592 was caught.

The female 592 ran off but I am sure she stayed somewhere

nearby, Dan looked around for her and then tried to sleep a

few hours during the day they aren't very active, thank

goodness. The wolves had run him from calf to calf and canyon

to canyon last night and he didn't get much rest I am just

grateful it wasn't me but I may get a turn tonight. These

livestock killers and problem wolves should not be turned out

at all. 592 is the major stock killer of the pair and they

were determined to get a calf. Dan didn't let them and they

actually howled at him about it. But they did manage to bite

at least two calves before he could hit them with rubber

bullets which seemed to have little effect.

We are missing two calves one since about last Friday and

one since Monday but haven't found any wolf poop yet to see

what is up with that. Probably won't be confirmed though. One

was about a week old and one was born Saturday to a cow that

has never lost a calf, Matt saw it Sunday evening and it was

fine then.

Mad as we are about all this at least we had competent help

and we are grateful for that. Why the hell they are re-

releasing stock killers is beyond me. It is plain dumb and

only makes the program look bad.

Laura.

Update: wolves at the rafter spear 5-21-5-23

The last few days the wolf story has slowed down a lot but

the aftermath is still ongoing. After trapping the male, the

female took off and is about 6 miles to the SW at last flight

on Thursday. There are traps everywhere in preparation for

her return. I understand they are trapping for her because of

the incident with Ivy not the calf killing. I don't care why

but glad to hear there is a limit to how badly they can

accost our kids. Nick Smith and Dan Stark also have a permit

to shoot her if they have to.

My problem is, this animal has a history here and has

absolutely no fear it has menaced my daughter and followed my

husband, who is not menaceable, or at least he thought he

wasn't until he was followed by wolves he was not allowed to

shoot. Together they killed and ate two calves before we knew

they were here and two bitten calves, they are swelled up and

crippled we have shaved measured and taken pictures.

One has more bites, on the flanks, side and head but they

are superficial, the calf is in quite a bit of distress from

bruising but hopefully will be fine. I imagine the times when

Dan heard the cows get up and shined the spotlight on them

and saw the wolf, he stopped the attacks. The next day there

was a calf with a swollen front knee in the same bunch, after

shaving we found wolf bites on the front and back legs. The

knee is hot and three times bigger than the other, the wound

on it is superficial but the trauma caused the swelling is

severe and this calf may be ruined. Both calves were in the

bunch Dan guarded Tuesday night. If he hadn't been there

would probably be 4 missing calves and four tight bagged

cows. I am glad he got to experience the mayhem one pair of

wolves can attempt to wreck in just 12 hours.

On a side note there is another injury from a calf caught

in a trap this morning, nobody is to blame for that, We are

grateful to have the traps out, but still, another injury.

There was a small bunch of 11 cows and calves that were

harassed by the pair, not including the two that lost the

calves.

It has been some week. I have a dramatic picture for every

day of the week. Yesterday the FS backburned from behind my

house and it was pretty scary kind of like a volcano going

off on your back door. The results

should be good though. We had good representation from our

government yesterday though. FWS, FS RITF and APHIS all on

the porch at once. If we can find a piece of the space

shuttle maybe NASA will come pay us a visit.

It is hard to know where to begin since our emotions have

run the gamut the past few days. Traps were set Tuesday after

the male was caught and the female left for several days, she

ended up on the Diamond Bar where Nick Smith tracked her for

several days. He found one bitten calf probably from the trip

over here a week prior. The calf was a month or two old so

that is probably why they were still shy about killing it and

staying there.

The weekend was pretty good though, I went to town, 74

miles away on Saturday and bought groceries so the guys could

be fed halfway decently while they worked and believe me they

worked. Matt took Miles, he is 5 and clipped cages below the

house and Dan checked his traps and made a 20 mile circle

hiking into diamond creek on foot trying to get a signal. He

was unsuccessful but Nick Smith found her signal later that

night west of the Links camp on the Diamond Bar. On Sunday,

Matt and Dan rode into Round Mountain and packed salt. That

afternoon everyone rested a bit between checking traps and

gardening, painting, watching Kristie and her boyfriend and

various other normal pursuits.

She was back here Monday morning. Dan woke up checked his

equipment, got a signal and took off. When I checked cows

that day I got a signal that seemed pretty strong right in

the cows up 74 draw and Dan's truck was nearby. She pretty

much stayed there all day with Dan tracking her along with

Nick Smith who came in to help him. Dan came in that evening

to make some phone calls and get something to eat. While he

was on the phone, Matt and I went out and looked after the

cows, one of us on either end of the bunch. She was there the

whole time but we didn't have a directional antenna and felt

our job was to look after the cows not the wolf.

Monday night and Tuesday, yesterday. Dan was up all night

with her, most of the cattle were west about a mile he felt

OK about leaving her alone until light, really there wasn't

much choice since she didn't seem to be doing anything but

hanging out in that area and it was pretty thick. Near

morning he could hear coyotes making a heck of a ruckus in

the draw she was up and thought that it was weird since he

has been taught all his life that such wolf/coyote

fraternizing behavior was abnormal.

He hadn't remembered or taken us seriously when we had told

him the coyotes saved her life in the winter of 1999/2000

when she was here last. She had nearly starved to death until

she started hanging around with the coyotes. Kristie who was

15 at the time had ridden up on her and the wolf followed her

part way back to the house. Kristie was really mad because

she could see the wolf was half dead from hunger and going

bald. It was so cold that winter she would cry on the

mountain behind the house and we would hear her at night. She

was there for 5 months until she moved to the neighbors on

Canyon Creek and killed her first calf. Later that summer she

moved to the Adobe which is north of us met with her old mate

and really went to killing cattle. Those coyotes saved her

life though and she was used to being around them.

Anyway, Dan hiked into the draw to see what was up as soon

as there was enough light and a cow with a full bag of milk

met him on his way in. The bad news is 592 was on a cow that

had calved a day or two before and she had killed the calf.

The coyotes had found her and were trying to steal the

carcass from her. He ran both the wolf and the coyotes, off

the calf, found two pieces and packed them to the truck and

brought them in to the house put them in the barn and called

Wildlife Services. As Dan has found out, sometimes there is

just nothing you can do about the killing even when you are

watching just as close as you can and not sleeping or eating

to do it. The wolf has every advantage even if you do have

the technology. We were very lucky he found any remains of

this calf.

The calf was killed by the wolf, Wildlife Services verified

it the hemorrhaging was way too bad to be coyote and the bite

marks measured out. At least the few that weren't eaten away.

The calf was in two pieces it was a new heifer and had walked

on it's feet quite a bit before it was killed. The cow was

one we were concerned about because she had taken off to have

the calf as they all do. Apparently she didn't hide well

enough to fool the wolf. But as Dan can attest to, she was

hidden from all human eyes pretty darned well.

I had to go to Winston and get gas, so I took Dan and Nick

some Orange juice that afternoon, Dan looked like crap and

they were still tracking her. Dan was waiting for Nick to

radio him and was trying to catch a catnap under the truck

when I pulled up, so much for that nap. Johnny Anglin with

Wildlife Services arrived the same time I did. We left them

to their business about 30 min later. On my way home I found

a brand new calf in the same bunch of cows that the wolf had

been living with the past couple days. I took pictures of it

in case the calf showed up on a milk carton in the next day

or two. The cow was eating her afterbirth in the pictures so

she was doing her best to keep baby safe instinct is an

amazing thing. It was a big old baby too.

The wolf was shot this evening, the poor little old thing

was laid out on the tailgate. She had big feet, a big head

and big teeth and an extremely full belly. She did have a

really ugly unhealthy looking coat in my opinion for

something that had only come out of captivity a few weeks

earlier. It had done nothing but follow her own survival

instinct as successfully as possible. This was a dumb mistake

and a bad situation that didn't have to happen.

We all spent a week living and breathing this tragedy that

resulted in three dead calves, 3 wolf injured calves a bunch

of stressed out people one trapped wolf and one pathetic shot

wolf. It cost us a full week away from earning any income

milling and we are way behind, broke and extremely tired. It

cost Dan his peace of mind and taught him the hard way what

we have to deal with. Thankfully he retained his integrity in

spite of the mess and stress going on all around him.

Thank goodness it is over for now. However I know the

Francisco Pack will be re-released soon and am sure the same

set of problems on a larger scale will be imminent as soon as

that release takes place. Rereleasing habitual stock killers

is poor management and is only asking for trouble.

Unfortunately so many of the employees agree with the

environmentalists that the wolves should be out on the ground

no matter how many of our cows they kill so they just keep

using problem and habituated wolves in the program. When the

wolf kills too many cattle they just re-write their policy to

allow them to leave it out longer and hurt us ranchers more.

Update: June 5, Sherry Laney found a calf with a big bite

in it's behind the bite is 1 and \1/2\ inches, wolf width. It

is healing but mildly infected. I guess she wasn't so shy

over there after all.

June 2004.

A single wolf has been moving around 74 draw all month.

Matt found a small calf with his hind end totally mauled. We

already had his mother here at the house, that cow never ever

loses a calf so Matt had been looking for the calf, the calf

found him actually ran to him bawling for help. We cut away

the dead and infected flesh and found bites in all the same

places as last years calves, WS came out but they didn't do a

thorough job examining it. I was gone so nobody insisted on a

thorough job like I would have. I did it myself later. This

is a wolf attack the bites measure out and the injuries are

in the same place and there were wolf tracks.

People don't realize wolves are not efficient killers and

they aren't at all humane about what they do. They simply get

something down and start eating and the prey dies of shock

and blood loss. It is very difficult for someone who raises

livestock to see their hard work tortured to death in this

manner, especially the pregnant cows and the baby calves.

This wolf was inexperienced and the calf got away. He nearly

died of the infection though and weighed about 150 pounds

less than the other calves. I guess when he finally went to

the market he was considered a wolf friendly beef.

Summer 2005 wolf tracks up and down 74 draw again. Watching

all the cattle all the time no time for school or anything

else. Kristie got married in July so we are glad the wolves

didn't show up until after the wedding anyway. No kills that

we know of except to a bear which we were allowed to take

care of so that ended that problem.

October 2006.

At least two separate wolves moving in and out of the area.

These wolves do not have tracking collars. FWS will not

investigate. WS showed up and documented tracks so we can do

something if there is a kill. Nothing so far that we were

able to find just a lot of lost time and a huge amount of

fuel again. Bought two Pyreneese pups in September, we can't

afford to feed them but we have to do something progressive.

We have also purchased water rights and are going to the

huge expense of putting an irrigation system into the old

fields on this place so we can bring cows into the deeded

land if necessary and wolves get into them again. We have to

be able to defend our cattle and the rules only allow us to

do so if they are on deeded land.

We have also built kennels at a 4000 dollar cost that we

also cannot afford but we can't allow wolves to come into the

deeded land and kill our valuable cow dogs. We can't operate

in this rough country without them.

December 26, 2006.

Pyraneese puppies who are 5 months old now gone. The other

one is hiding under the porch and there are wolf tracks

everywhere. We had them penned up in the yard but they found

a way out. The kids are devastated. We looked everywhere but

the puppy is gone. The wolf just carried him off. All that

dog food we have in him wasted all those kid hugs and effort

just eaten up like it was nothing.

We will have to replace him, his brother can't be alone

with these animals around. I guess we just have to get used

to living with death and destruction and still we are

supposed to be happy people and living under the requirements

of the law. It is sickening.

2007.

June 11 on our way home from town we saw three wolves, one

had a collar but two did not. They were in Brian Carters cows

on the side of the road just about two miles from the Poverty

creek subdivision. They were just laying in the tall grass

with the cattle waiting for it to get a little darker. Matt

and I ran them off the cows and called

our neighbors to tell them the wolves were in the cows. It

didn't help, the next day we went over with our monitor and

there was no signal for the collared animal so he is probably

has a non functioning collar. This is a whole other pack FWS

do not believe exist.

Found wolf poop two different piles of it. One had calf

teeth in it. FWS never even bothered to come out or do

anything at all and there is no telling where these animals

are now.

Our closest neighbor Jack Diamond has the horse killing

aspen pack on him in his roughest pasture they are having

pups there and are now feeding his yearlings to the pups. I

went over and gave moral support while they confirmed the

first kill that the Diamonds were able to find. They are out

there every day but like I said it is rough country and they

won't know how many they lost until it is time to ship the

yearlings.

Nearly 2 year old heifer eaten alive at water tank on

Diamond's place. All three wolves involved only the male has

a strike towards removal. The rule doesn't say only one wolf

gets the strike. FWS are cheating the people out here of

proper and fair management to leave killer wolves out on the

ground.

May/June 07.

I once again have two sets of wolf tracks and no signal in

our cow pasture. I am watching the cattle like a hawk.

The Boy Scout camp has moved in and that seemed to have

driven the animals out for now. Now I am just worried sick

about the kids so I warned, mentioned is a better word the

wolves to the scoutmasters. How do you tell them that wolves

that attacked a dog in front of an 8 year old girl are here

within a half days walk of your camp. I didn't tell them all

that, didn't want them to feel uncomfortable out here. I want

them out here while it is still possible, within a year or

two, nobody will be comfortable camping out here with kids.

So I told them to come and use my phone for anything they

needed and I am checking in on them every day or two. It is

nerve wracking but they are making quite a bit of noise so

things should be ok.

We are exhausted and financially strapped from all the re-

vamping of our operation and we are demoralized by all the

un-collared wolves we are seeing and finding tracks for.

Mostly it is so disheartening that nobody even cares about

our neighbors and ourselves. That we are all going broke

supporting this program and those kids running it are getting

huge salaries and don't end up losing anything, ever. Why us

why is it our responsibility to shoulder this program's

foolishness? Why are we being allowed to go bankrupt? Why

can't I finish my college education? Why can't my youngest

daughter go off to school too? She feels like she needs to be

here to help us keep our home and help us keep our family

ranch in business.

My son never got to be raised at the creek playing with

minnows and frogs like his sisters did before wolves. He

hasn't gotten to ride with his dad hardly at all either, he

just turned 9 and his whole life has been affected by wolves.

At least our girls were able to be raised out here the way we

intended. Our son is locked into a yard and has to be watched

constantly.

I have to attend every single meeting I can scrape together

gas money for, and we can't afford to any more. But if we

don't go, FWS and the groups that support this program and

who get paychecks to go to these meetings will come up with

another plan to harm us further.

I pray every night that this program will go away, before

it is too late for us before it is too late for the game and

the whole country is too dangerous to live in the way it used

to be.

Sincerely

Laura.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman, who has no wolves in his district.

I would thank the gentleman for yielding.

Recently, in Catron County, the local county commissioner started posting signs like this, ``Dangerous Wolf Area.'' It just is a continuation of the theme that we're trying to accomplish something in the Second District of New Mexico that you're not willing to accomplish in your own districts.

I will tell you that we heard testimony in the Resources Committee that described the most provocative sound to a wolf is a crying baby or a laughing baby. It's a matter of time until these wolves, which will stalk for weeks and weeks and weeks at a time around local homes, it's a matter of time until a wolf catches one of these children. Their blood will be on your hands, my friend, because we've had the testimony in committee.

I would say that this has nothing to do with endangered species but instead has to do with protecting the lives of the people and the livestock of the Second District.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We again have the issue of depredation. There is no fund that pays ranchers when their livestock is killed. So we have the livestock, which in these days of ranching, ranching is a very hard business, and we have the livestock which is killed by these predators that continue to eliminate more and more livestock each year, with no payments being made from Fish and Wildlife Service.

I would simply point out, and I would thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding, that this program is restricted to only two very rural parts of America. It is wrong; it is wrongheaded.

I would thank the gentleman from Washington for his suggestion to withdraw the amendment but would instead ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to commend the gentleman from Washington and Chairman Dicks and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for their good work on this underlying bill.

The amendment I offered today stems directly from concerns I have over a recently proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency that could radically alter the current interpretation of the Clean Air Act and adversely impact public health.

On December 21 last year, 4 days before Christmas, EPA introduced a cleverly timed proposal that would essentially weaken hazardous air pollutant emission standards for major sources of pollution as defined by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. My amendment would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2008 funds by EPA to promulgate this ill-advised and environmentally dangerous proposal.

Currently, major sources, major source polluters, facilities that emit 10 tons per year of a single air toxin or 25 tons per year of any combination of toxic pollutants are required to comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, called MACT, permanently, a policy adopted in 1995 known as Once In, Always In.''

MACT standards are technology-based area emission standards established under title 3 of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment. Compliance with MACT standards can require facility owners and operators to meet emission limits, install emission control technologies, monitor emissions and/or operating parameters and use specified work practices.

These public safeguard standards have proven most effective in reducing

toxic, harmful, cancer-causing eye pollutants such as mercury, chlorine, benzene, methanol and asbestos. If EPA's proposed rule were to take effect, industrial facilities could emit hazardous air pollutants at levels just below 10/25 major source thresholds and not be subject to the MACT standards.

This move has been criticized by the State clean air agencies, our regional officers, our major metropolitan leaders, as well as the county leaders and environmental groups. A majority of EPA's own regional offices initially excluded from viewing and providing input on the proposed policy have been highly critical of the proposed rule citing health and emission concerns.

EPA has done very little to justify such a dramatic shift in congressional intent or the agency's own long-standing interpretation. Moreover, the Agency has performed very little, if any, substantive emissions analysis, and they have performed no public health analysis for any industrial sector. In my view the Agency's proposed rule represents another installment of regulatory attacks designed to gut the Clean Air Act.

The public health of this Nation should not be forced to take the back seat to the interest of big polluters. The congressional authorities captured in section 112 of Clean Air Act are intended to ensure that major source emitters of hazardous air pollutants are required to comply with MACT standards permanently to ensure that the elimination of air toxics are achieved and maintained in the interest of public health.

In 1995, upon adoption of the ``once in, always in'' policy, EPA stated the following:

``EPA believes that this once in, always in policy follows most naturally from the language and structure of the [Clean Air Act] statute. In many cases, application of MACT will reduce a major emitter's emissions to levels substantially below the major thresholds.

``Without a once in, always in policy, these facilities could 'backslide' from MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit limits, escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing emissions to the major source threshold.

``Thus, the maximum achievable emission reductions that Congress mandated from major sources would not be achieved.

``A once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emission reductions are permanent, and that the health and environment protection provided by MACT standards is not undermined.''

In the Federal Register, the Agency raged on and on about how great the proposed rule is for major source polluters, because it will create incentives for industry to reduce emissions.

When it comes to quantifying the implications of this proposal on the environment and public health of this Nation, the Agency is silent.

The burden of proof regarding soundness of this proposed rule rests squarely on the shoulders of EPA. Thus far, the Agency has failed, at best, to make even a lackluster case.

My constituents in Dallas and the surrounding area are already burdened by the scarlet letter of nonattainment. I refuse to let their public health be subject to another further deterioration from a proposal laced with tortured assumptions. This is an unsound policy that should be stopped.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting clean air, a healthy environment, and a strong Clean Air Act. Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson amendment and the Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill.

While I appreciate the vigor of the opposing side's view on this matter, it is my respectful view that they are simply wrong on this matter.

I would like to amplify an area of concern raised by EPA's own regional offices regarding enforcement should the once in, always in policy be negated.

In a 2005 Regional Memorandum to EPA Headquarters, the regions assert the following:

A related concern with regard to the draft changes as

written is that a facility, by changing from a major source

to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid

regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against

them.

Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT

standard, and has 3 years from the date the rule is

promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and

just before the end of that time period, the facility

announces its area source status.

If an area source regulation exists, there may also be some

equivalent waiting period before the facility is required to

comply with the area source requirements.

If the facility later announces that it is after all, a

major source, then it may again enter a grace period,

possibly up to another 3 years, before it is subject to the

MACT standard requirements.

Thus, by continually going back and forth between major and

area source status, a facility could be a major source

[polluter] for most of its operating life and never have to

comply with the MACT standard requirements.

Again Mr. Chairman, these are not my words but those of EPA's own regional offices.

Mr. Chairman, my congressional district lies within the heart of EPA Region 6. Throughout Region 6 there are approximately 3,000 major source polluters according to EPA data.

If EPA's rule were to take effect, based on the guidance of EPA's own regional offices I just referenced, 3,000 major source polluters could continually backslide on a public health safeguard meant to minimize my constituent's exposure to toxic, cancer causing air pollutants.

Clearly, this was not the intent of Congress as reflected in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a memorandum dated December 13, 2005, from Michael S. Bandrowski, Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and Indoor Air Office, Region IX, of the Environmental Protection Agency.

United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX.

San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2005.

Regional Comments on Draft OIAI Policy Revisions

David Cozzie,

Group Leader, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Thank you for allowing the Regional Offices the opportunity

to comment on the draft proposed changes to the General

Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, intended to replace EPA's Once-

in-Always-In (OIAI) policy established in a May 16, 1995,

memorandum entitled, ``Potential to Emit for MACT standards--

Guidance on Timing Issues,'' from John S. Seitz to the

Regional Air Directors. A draft copy of the proposed changes,

dated November 16, 2005, was received by Region IX on

November 30, 2005, and we shared this copy with the Regional

Offices. As sub-lead Region for air toxics, we have

summarized and consolidated the feedback received from the

Regional Offices, and are forwarding these Regional comments

and concerns through this memo. Eight Regions provided

comments. For your convenience, the original comments from

each Regional Office are included as attachments to this

memo.

Over the years, many questions and implementation issues

have arisen that have initiated the reconsideration of the

OIAI policy. The new revisions being planned by OAQPS would

essentially negate the original policy, and this change would

be codified in the 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions. This

change in policy would have major implications for

implementation and enforcement of the maximum achievable

control technology (MACT) standards. The Regional Offices,

therefore, appreciate the opportunity to review and comment

on HQ drafts before the revisions are proposed in the Federal

Register for public comment. However, we are disappointed

that OAQPS formulated revisions to the OIAI policy without

seeking Regional input and was reluctant to share the draft

policy with the Regional Offices. This trend of excluding the

Regional Offices from involvement in rule and policy

development efforts is disturbing. We are requesting that

OAQPS establish a means for Regional input during the

development of future policies and rules.

With regard to the OIAI policy, all the Regional Offices

that submitted comments acknowledged the need for a change

from the 1995 guidance in limited circumstances. For example,

if EPA finalizes the delisting of methyl ethyl ketone as a

hazardous air pollutant (HAP), it would be logical for EPA to

allow existing major sources of HAPs to reevaluate their PTE,

excluding emissions of methyl ethyl ketone. Likewise, if a

source eliminates, or significantly reduces their use of

HAPs, then it would be reasonable for EPA to allow such a

source to reevaluate MACT standard applicability. In

addition, certain pollution prevention benefits may follow in

circumstances where a source has an incentive to obtain

actual reductions in emissions of HAPs equivalent to or

greater than the level required by the MACT standard with

less burden and cost. Overall, the Regions support the intent

behind the draft proposed amendments to provide incentive to

companies for engaging in emission-reducing activities.

Several Regions also explicitly stated their support of

revising the policy through a public rulemaking process and

encouraging sources to explore different control technologies

and pollution prevention

options to reduce emissions and potential to emit (PTE). One

Region was supportive of the change in policy as drafted.

However, all other Regional Offices expressed varying degrees

of concern about allowing any source to take synthetic minor

limits at any time, for any reason. The concerns are

described below, followed by suggestions for addressing these

concerns while still encouraging existing MACT sources to

take actions towards pollution prevention. Our comments are

organized as follows:

Health and Emissions Concerns

1. Reversal of Position with Inadequate Justification

The May 16, 1995, Seitz memo regarding potential to emit

for MACT standards states: EPA believes that this once in,

always in policy follows most naturally from the language and

structure of the statute. In many cases, application of MACT

will reduce a major emitter's emissions to levels

substantially below the major thresholds. Without a once in,

always in policy, these facilities could ``backslide'' from

MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit limits,

escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing

emissions to the major-source threshold (10/25 tons per

year).

Thus, the maximum achievable emissions reductions that

Congress mandated for major sources would not be achieved. A

once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emissions

reductions are permanent, and that the health and

environmental protection provided by MACT standards is not

undermined. (See page 9)

Elsewhere, the Seitz memo states: In the absence of a

rulemaking record supporting a different result, EPA believes

that once a source is required to install controls or take

other measures to comply with a MACT standard, it should not

be able to substitute different controls of measures that

happen to bring the source below major source levels. (See

page 5)

While it is true that policy is not set in stone, and that

policy decisions may be reversed, the preamble, as currently

drafted, does not set forth an adequate rulemaking record to

justify this drastic change in interpretation. In 1995, EPA

believed that the OIAI policy follows ``most naturally'' from

the language and structure of the statute, and that allowing

facilities to backslide would undermine the maximum

achievable emissions reductions mandated by Congress. Now, in

2005, EPA is claiming that ``there is nothing in the statute

which compels the conclusion that a source cannot attain area

source status after the first compliance date of a MACT

standard'' (see page 15 of the draft proposed changes). In

order to provide an adequate rulemaking record, the preamble

should more clearly articulate why EPA no longer believes

that the OIAI policy flows naturally from the statute.

2. Increased HAP Emissions Resulting from Abandoning MACT

Control Levels

The Clean Air Act requires the maximum degree of reduction

in emissions of HAPs from sources subject to the MACT

standards. The reductions anticipated through the MACT

program will not be achieved through the strategy described

in the draft rule proposal. A key concern is that the draft

proposal allows facilities to obtain synthetic minor permits

after the MACT standard compliance date by taking potentially

less protective requirements than the MACT standard would

otherwise require them to install. The proposal, as written,

would be detrimental to the environment and undermine the

intent of the MACT program.

Many MACT standards require affected facilities to reduce

their HAP levels at a control efficiency of 95% and higher.

In many instances, the MACT requirements could lead to

greater reductions when compared to sources accepting

synthetic minor limits of 24 tons per year (tpy) for a

combination of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. Clearly, the

intent in promulgating MACT standards was to reduce emissions

to the extent feasible, not just to the minor source level.

However, under the current draft proposal, the reductions

that were intended to be achieved through the MACT standards

would be offset by synthetic minor limits that allow sources

to emit HAPs at levels higher than those allowed by the MACT

standard. The cost of the increased HAP emissions would be

borne by the communities surrounding the sources. On pages 15

and 16 of the draft preamble, EPA states:

``A concern has been raised that sources that are currently

well below the major source threshold will increase emissions

to a point just below the threshold. We believe these

concerns are unfounded. While this may occur in some

instances, it is more likely that sources will adopt PTE

limitations at or near their current levels to avoid negative

publicity and to maintain their appearance as responsible

businesses.''

This statement is unfounded and overly optimistic. Regional

experience indicates that sources requesting synthetic minor

limits to avoid a MACT standard typicaI1y request, and are

frequently given, limits of at least 24 tpy for a combination

of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. The Regional Offices

anticipate that many sources would take limits less stringent

than MACT requirements, if allowed. Thus, the cumulative

impact of many ``area'' sources whose status is derived after

the MACT compliance date could be significant. This change in

policy would offset the intended environmental benefits of

the MACT standards. Although the draft changes could serve to

alleviate some possible inequity under the current OIAI

policy, or encourage some sources to further reduce emissions

to achieve area source status, EPA should look closely at

this issue to determine whether the likely benefits would be

greater than the potential environmental costs. This analysis

should occur before the proposal is put forth for public

comment. One Region suggested that EPA should not enact a

policy allowing facilities to qualify out of the MACT

standards until a strong area source toxics program is in

place, or until state, local and tribal air quality agencies

have programs that can provide an equivalent level of

protection.

A related concern with regard to the draft changes as

written is that a facility, by changing from a major source

to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid

regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against

them. Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT

standard, and has three years from the date that the rule is

promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and

just before the end of that time period, the facility

announces its area source status. If an area source

regulation exists, there may also be some equivalent waiting

period before the facility is required to comply with the

area source requirements. If the facility later announces

that it is, after all, a major source, then it may again

enter a grace period, possibly up to another 3 years, before

it is subject to the MACT standard requirements. Thus, by

continually going back and forth between major and area

source status, a facility could be a major source for most of

its operating life and never have to comply with the MACT

standard requirements. The 1995 OIAI policy recognizes this

and states, ``The EPA believes the structure of section 112

strongly suggests certain outer limits for when a source may

avoid a standard through a limit on its potential to emit.''

This type of problem must be addressed if the OIAI policy is

changed.

Michael S. Bandrowski,

Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and Indoor Air Office, Region

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I want to thank the chairman of the committee. I especially want to thank the ranking member, my friend from Kansas, for all their good work on this bill. I know a lot of good work went into this.

For one, I am still concerned that our overall spending levels in growing this bill are roughly twice the rate of inflation, I think 7.6 percent over the President's request. But I know a lot of good work has gone into this.

My amendment specifically would ensure that none of the funds in the bill would go to fund the Clover Bend Historic Site in Clover Bend, Arkansas, which, again, is one of the earmarks that is place in the bill. I don't mind admitting before this House that I am not a huge fan of earmarks. I am certainly not here to say they are all bad. Many are worthy. Many do good things.

But too often, as I look at the earmarking process, too often we see a triumph of the special interest over the public interest. Too often we see a triumph of seniority over merit. Mr. Chairman, up until recently, too often we saw a triumph of secrecy over transparency.

I will be the first to admit that this particular amendment and earmarks, in general, are a very small portion of the Federal budget. But, Mr. Chairman, I fear they are a very large portion of the culture of spending in this institution.

Mr. Chairman, I've been a veteran of several of these earmark debates. They tend to follow several different lines of argument. Typically a Member will come to the floor to defend his earmark and say he knows his district better than anybody else. That is true. They typically come to the floor. They will say, well, good things can be done with this money.

I am prepared to concede both of these points. I know the Member who offered this project knows his district better than I do. I know good things could be done with this money.

But let's put this expenditure in context, Mr. Chairman. We still have a deficit. It is declining, but we still have a deficit, which means that until we balance the budget, we are raiding the Social Security trust fund. In addition, spending is exploding. Look at what is happening in entitlement spending, which threatens to bankrupt future generations. Right now, we are on a fiscal path to either double taxes on the next generation or to have little Federal Government besides Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Yet, as I look around, almost every single State in the Union is running a surplus.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask myself a simple question. There are a number of earmarks submitted in this bill. Again, I am sure good things can be done with this money. But can we continue, given this context, to fund earmarks of this type simply because, one, we have done it before, simply because we are creative and we can think of these things, simply because it is a good project?

I am not here to necessarily say it is a bad project. But given the entitlement crisis, given the fact that our Democratic colleagues in their budget resolution voted for the single largest

tax increase in American history, I just ask myself this question, is it truly a priority? Not is it bad, not is it wasteful, but is it truly a priority? Because every time we plus up some Federal budget, we are having to lower some family budget.

Again, I know the gentleman from Arkansas knows his district better than I do, but I know my district better than he does. Taxpayers from the Fifth District of Texas are going to have to help fund this particular earmark.

Mr. Chairman, I just fear that if we end up saying yes to everyone's program today, it is just a matter of time before we end up saying no to our children's future tomorrow. It is a small step. It is a small earmark. I understand this. But if you are going to lead, you need to lead by example. This is one small step we can take for fiscal sanity.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restrict funding for the St. Joseph's College theater

renovation located in Indiana. Again, I want to follow up on some of my earlier comments and address comments that the chairman made. If he was listening to my earlier comments, I started out complimenting much of what I see in the bill, and to the extent I see a reduction in the number of earmarks, I take that to be a very good thing.

But I was elected by the people of the Fifth District of Texas, and with all due respect to all of my colleagues, I yield my voting card to no one or my judgment to no one. So I am not here to impugn the judgment of the chairman, but I may have different concerns, and the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas may have different concerns as well.

I believe that historical preservation is a very good thing, but I know that much of the funding that has come from the Save America's Treasure program, what started out ostensibly geared toward Betsy Ross and the Declaration of Independence, has ended up funding so many other different projects.

Do you know what? I have got a lot of worthy historical and cultural projects in my own district, in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I am just not sure, at a time when Members, many who have come to this floor and said they would not raid the Social Security trust fund; as long as we are running a deficit, and we are doing that; recently the Democrat majority in their budget resolution voted to increase the debt ceiling; in their budget resolution, they voted for the single largest tax increase in history; all I question is, given all that background, government will be paid for. Sooner or later, government will be paid for, either by this generation or the next.

So I am not saying these are necessarily bad projects, but I do question whether or not, given the context, particularly the entitlement spending crisis that is looming, if they are truly a priority. Clearly they are a priority in the mind of the chairman, and I sincerely respect his opinion, but they are not necessarily a priority to me or the people of the Fifth District of Texas.

In my district, I have the Grand Saline Salt Palace. It sits on top of one of the largest salt mines in the entire United States of America. It is a very unique museum, actually made of salt. They give away free salt samples so people won't go and lick the walls. This is something that is unique in America, but is it truly a priority that we should have Federal funding for? I don't necessarily think so.

Now, there has been a debate in this body before about the history of the hamburger. Well, in the State of Texas, they say the birth of the hamburger was in Athens, Texas, which happens to be in the Fifth Congressional District that I have the honor of representing. It was invented in the 1880s by Mr. Fletcher Davis at 115 Tyler Street in Athens. Maybe that is something that is worthy of Federal expenditure to preserve this.

The Texas State Railroad that takes people on an old steam locomotive throughout beautiful Piney Woods of east Texas has been in existence since the 1800s. It has some funding challenges. It is something that I think is worthy of preservation. But, again, given the context of the largest tax increase in American history, given that people are still raiding the Social Security trust fund, it is not something I personally feel comfortable coming to this body and requesting that we use Federal funds for these purposes.

These are great historical and cultural locations within my district, but I am not sure they rise to the occasion to meet the National Treasures Act language, particularly when, again, all this spending has to be paid for.

So, I understand that people are experts on their district, that they want to defend their projects. But, again, it is taxpayers from, among other places, the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, that are having to pay for all this. Therefore, they start to lose their American treasures, their ability to buy a home, their ability to send their children to college, their ability to start a new business. I am still working to preserve those American treasures, and that is why I submitted this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for Maverick Concert Hall preservation located in Woodstock, New York. I think the committee report provides $150,000 for this particular local project.

Again, the debate that I want to present now is similar to one I presented on some of the other earmark funds. I do want to address some of what I have heard earlier in the debate.

I would like to make it very clear to the chairman of the committee and to all my colleagues, I do not question the right to spend this money. I don't question the right of this body to expend these funds. I simply question the wisdom of expending these funds given that the Nation continues to run a deficit, given that we have a looming entitlement spending crisis. The Comptroller General of America has stated we are on the verge of being the first generation in American history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

I question the wisdom of the expenditure, given the fact that we just had a budget resolution passed, against my vote, passed against, contrary to the debate I offered on the floor, that would present the largest tax increase in American history, an average of roughly $3,000 per American family.

Now, I heard one gentleman early on, in defending his particular earmark, say it was a small amount of money. Relative to the Federal budget, I am sure it is a small amount of money. But for those of us who have consistently throughout our careers come to this floor to debate protecting the family budget from the Federal budget, to come to this floor and debate more freedom and less government, you got to start somewhere.

I don't understand the argument. It is either, well, this is such a small amount of money, why are we bothering, or I hear the argument sometimes, it is such a huge sum, we can't do that. That would be Draconian.

I kind of feel like, well, especially since I have small children and I read them bedtime stories, it is kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Either the porridge is too cold or it is too hot. When is the amount just right?

I heard one of the earlier speakers talk about responsibility to future generations. I agree. I spend a lot of time thinking about future generations. Again, I am the father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, and I know everybody in this body loves their children and loves their grandchildren. But I think a lot about the debt and the tax burden that is going to be passed on to future generations. And, again, I fear that although earmarks represent a small portion of the Federal budget, they represent a large portion of the culture of spending that has now led to over $50 trillion of unfunded obligations in the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs alone.

So, where do the steps, the baby steps towards fiscal responsibility, start?

I just believe again that with this looming entitlement crisis, that we need to do more. We need to set even a higher standard. We need to set even a higher bar for the expenditure of these funds. And I am sure these are interesting and worthy sites, although I haven't visited them. I am not sure if they are worthier or are more interesting than many of the sites in my own district.

Again, I start to think about the people who will have to pay this. I think about their American treasure. I think about a guy named Bruce in Garland, Texas, in my district. And when I asked him what is this tax increase going to do, and it is going to be a tax increase or debt that is going to pay for these earmarks, he said, ``Congressman, in my particular case, an additional $2,200 in taxes would cut into the finances I use to pay for my son's college education. I really believe that given more money, Congress will spend more money, so that is not the answer. A control and reduction of spending is what is needed.''

And so I think about Bruce in Garland and about all of the Bruces in Garland. You are talking about $100,000 here and $100,000 there, and to paraphrase the late Everett Dirkson, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

When we are helping each other out, let's think about future generations who are going to end up paying for all of these earmarks.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Bremerton Public Library Restoration Project in Bremerton, Washington. The supplement to the committee report provides $150,000 for this project.

According to a 2001 article in the Kitsap Business Journal, restoration of the building previously received a $100,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. An equal amount was provided by the local government. The building is described in the same article as being a unique art deco style building. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has an endowment apparently of over $30 billion, and as of April 2007, the State of Washington was projected to have the eighth largest surplus in the country at $1.23 billion.

So, again, I question not that good things can't be done with these Federal funds, not that this is not a project worthy of preservation and restoration, I simply question the wisdom again of using Federal taxpayer funds on such a project given the background. And I will respectfully disagree with the gentleman who spoke before me, the gentleman from New York, given the largest tax increase in history. He may not believe it is the largest tax increase in history, but The Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative journalism wrote: ``And while House Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all of these cuts expire on schedule in 2010.''

It may be an expiration to the gentleman from New York, but to the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, it smacks of a big tax increase.

And as I look at all of the different projects that have been brought forth tonight, I just ask myself a question: Is there any good project back home that apparently is not worth a Federal subsidy? If we say ``yes'' to all of these projects today, I fear we will be saying ``no'' to our children's future tomorrow.

Again, where is this money coming from? Government will be paid for. Either you are increasing taxes on the American people through the largest tax increase in American history, or you are going to pass on taxes even further by not doing anything to reform entitlement spending. That is the real fiscal tragedy. That is where the real scandal is. It is in the $50 trillion of unfunded obligations and not one word, not one word, Mr. Chairman, in the Democrat budget about what to do in entitlement spending.

Instead we have, again, local project after local project after local project. Maybe we have fewer than we had last year, and I assume the chairman is accurate when he says that and I salute him for that. But still, given the fact that the Federal Government is spending roughly $23,000 per American family, the largest level since World War II, given that the Democrat majority, over the course of 5 years, is about to impose a $3,000 increase in taxes on those same families, and given that we still have a Federal deficit that I have fought against since I have been here, often battling with my own party leadership, something I wish some of the people on the other side of the aisle who espouse a similar philosophy, I wish they would raise their voices occasionally.

Again, I would like to say that as worthy as many of these projects are, America's true treasures are the treasures to be found in the family, those dreams that are discussed around the kitchen table. That dream of launching that first small business, that dream of being able to finally send the first child to college. That dream of actually being able to afford the health care premiums to make sure that the family

is well. Those are America's true treasures, and those are the treasures that I am trying to preserve.

We have to go further in changing the culture of spending and not expending funds for any purpose simply because we think of it or because we say good things can be done. Better things can be done when the taxpayers keep their own money.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me again offer my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee for the courtesies of both of their staff.

This amendment was offered last year. It is a continued commitment I have to the Smithsonian and the value of its programs and outreaching across America.

My amendment is simple, and it simply has the Congress on record to encourage and not limit outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian Institution, as I indicated, an identical amendment that was offered last year.

What are these outreach programs? These outreach programs involve reaching out to communities, African American communities, Asian American communities, Latino communities, Native American communities, and yes, New Americana. It is a program dealing with Kindergarten through college age museum education outreach opportunities. It enhances the K-12 science education programs and facilitates the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with students and scholars at universities. Some would say that it brings the scholars of America out of the attics of America.

In addition, it has a program called the Mobile Museum, an exhibit that can visit up to three venues per week in the course of only 1 year, at no cost to the host institution or community. The net result is an increase by 150 the number of outreach locations to which SITES shows can travel annually. And in addition, through its flexibility in making short-term stops in cities and towns from coast to coast, a mobile museum has the advantage of being able to frequent the very locations where people live and work.

I believe America is a great country. We have a very rich history, and that history sometimes is lost because of the lack of technical assistance and education of our community. For example, may I share with my colleagues, the community in Houston called Freedmen's Town? It is a community that was settled by freed slaves. It now has a few remaining structures after urban revitalization. Part of the complexity of it is a lack of education, understanding of the value. Artifacts, museums, preservation, all of that is part of the work of the Smithsonian outreach that educates the community about the precious jewels that they have. Cobblestone streets that were laid by slaves, churches that were built by slaves, and a variety of other facilities, like an old school that was attended by freed slaves.

The Smithsonian's outreach program educates us about our history, provides mobile museums, connects America, connects us to this fabulous and extensive museum's holdings of the Nation's history by visual scenes. And so I would ask my colleagues to consider the importance of reaffirming, if you will, the value of the outreach program of the Smithsonian.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to H.R. 2643 the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act of 2008 and to commend Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for their leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. Among other agencies, this legislation funds the Smithsonian Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and Space Museum; the Museum of African Art; the Museum of the American Indian; and the National Portrait Gallery. The Smithsonian also operates another national treasure: the National Zoo.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important message from the Congress of the United States. My amendment provides that none of the funds made available in this act be used to limit outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian Institution. An identical amendment was offered to last year's appropriations bill, H.R. 5386, and was adopted by voice vote.

Mr. Chairman, the Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian scholars in art, history, and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and into their own backyard. Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in Washington, DC. But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, ``the increase and diffusion of knowledge,'' the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history offered by the Smithsonian.

The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans, thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 States, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, training programs, and websites. Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate institutions and others across the Nation.

The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based cultural and educational organizations around the country; ensure a vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence in all 50 States through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a network of affiliations; increase connections between the Institution and targeted audiences (African American, Asian American, Latino, and native American, and all of America); provide kindergarten through college- aged museum education and outreach opportunities; enhance K-12 science education programs; facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with students and scholars at universities, museums, and other research institutions; and publish and disseminate results related to the research and collections strengths of the Institution.

The programs that provide the critical mass of Smithsonian outreach activity are: the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES), the Smithsonian Affiliations, the Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies (SCEMS), National Science Resources Center (NSRC), the Smithsonian Institution Press (SIP), the Office of Fellowships (OF) and the Smithsonian Associates (TSA), which receives no federal funding.

To achieve the goal of increasing public engagement, SITES directs some of its federal resources to develop Smithsonian Across America: A Celebration of National Pride. This ``mobile museum,'' which will feature Smithsonian artifacts from the most iconic (Presidential portraits, historic American flags, Civil War records, astronaut uniforms, etc.) to the simplest items of everyday life (family quilts, prairie schoolhouse furnishings, historic lunch boxes, multilingual store front and street signs, etc.), has been a long-standing organizational priority of the Smithsonian.

SITES ``mobile museum'' is the only traveling exhibit format able to guarantee audience growth and expanded geographic distribution during sustained periods of economic retrenchment, but also because it is imperative for the many exhibitors nationwide who are struggling financially yet eager to participate in Smithsonian outreach. As economic downturn and uncertainty continue to erode the ability of museums to present temporary exhibitions, the ``mobile museum'' promises to answer an ever-growing demand for Smithsonian shows in the field. A single, conventional SITES exhibit can reach a maximum of 12 locations over a 2- to 3-year period.

In contrast, a ``mobile museum'' exhibit can visit up to three venues per week in the course of only 1 year, at no cost to the host institution or community. The net result is an increase by 150 in the number of outreach locations to which SITES shows can travel annually. And in addition to its flexibility in making short-term stops in cities and towns from coast-to-coast, a ``mobile museum'' has the advantage of being able to frequent the very locations where people live, work, and take part in leisure time activities. By establishing an exhibit presence in settings like these, SITES will not only increase its annual visitor participation by 1 million, but also advance a key Smithsonian performance objective: to develop exhibit approaches that address diverse audiences, including population groups not always affiliated with mainstream cultural institutions.

SITES also will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Mrican American History and Culture, as the planning for that new Museum gets under way. Providing national access to projects that will introduce the American public to the Museum's mission, SITES in FY 2008 will tour such stirring exhibitions as NASA ART: 50 Years of Exploration; 381 Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story; Beyond: Visions of Planetary Landscapes; The Way We Worked: Photographs from the National Archives; and More Than Words: Illustrated Letters from the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art.

To meet the growing demand among smaller community and ethnic museums for an exhibition celebrating the Latino experience, SITES will issue a scaled-down version of the National Museum of American History's 4,000- square-foot exhibition about legendary entertainer Celia Cruz. Two 1,500-square-foot exhibitions, one about Crow Indian history and the other on basket traditions, will give Smithsonian visitors beyond Washington a taste of the Institution's critically acclaimed National Museum of the American Indian. Two more exhibits, In Plane View and Earth from Space, will provide visitors in the field with a taste of the Smithsonian's recently opened, expansive National Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy Center.

Several exhibit tours will be extended by popular demand. The most important of them are The American Presidency and Our Journeys, Our Stories, the original itineraries of which could not accommodate multiple exhibitor requests.

For almost 30 years, The Smithsonian Associates--the highly regarded educational arm of the Smithsonian Institution--has arranged Scholars in the Schools programs. Through this tremendously successful and well- received educational outreach program, the Smithsonian shares its staff--hundreds of experts in art, history and science--with the national community at a local level.

The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the country. There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Panama. By working with museums of diverse subject areas and scholarly disciplines, both emerging and well- established, Smithsonian Affiliations is building partnerships through which audiences and visitors everywhere will be able to share in the great wealth of the Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise in local communities.

The National Science Resources Center (NSRC) will strive to increase the number of ethnically diverse students participating in effective science programs based on NSRC products and services. The Center will develop and implement a national outreach strategy that will increase the number of school districts (currently more than 800) that are implementing NSRC K-8 programs. The NSRC is striving to further enhance its program activity with a newly developed scientific outreach program introducing communities and school districts to science through literacy initiatives. Some of NSRC's goals are:

Double the number of school districts implementing NSRC K-8 programs, growing from an estimated 15 percent of the school population to 30 percent

Significantly expand national outreach programs to ethnically and culturally diverse school districts through the work of the NSRC's three centers of excellence

Engage 125 school districts--representing an additional 5 percent of the United States K-8 student population--bringing the impact of the NSRC's work from 20 percent to 25 percent of the nation's youth

Continue to develop and bring first-class educational resources to the nation by forging partnerships with school systems, educators, education and museum professional associations, and others to expand opportunities for development and dissemination of Smithsonian-based education resources

Through a collaborative effort with other Smithsonian education units, expand the educational opportunities available throughout the country, particularly in the area of science education reform

Expand the number of science materials currently available to school districts for grades K-3 and continue pursuing newly-published children's books, which will enhance science education programs throughout the country

Continue to develop and bring first-class educational resources to the nation by forging partnerships with school systems, educators, education and museum professional associations and others to expand opportunities for development and dissemination of Smithsonian-based education resources.

In addition, through the building of the multicultural Alliance Initiative, the Smithsonian's outreach programs seek to develop new approaches to enable the public to gain access to Smithsonian collections, research, education, and public programs that reflect the diversity of the American people, including underserved audiences of ethnic populations and persons with disabilities.

For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment and thank Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together this excellent legislation.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking both the chairman and the ranking member, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

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

The restoration of wolves in the United States is a conservation success story. Wolves in the Great Plains and the Northern Rockies have made a dramatic comeback.

I will not yield. The gentleman had his 5 minutes. I am going to take my 5 minutes.

And we need to let the Mexican wolf population have the same chance.

There is no doubt that there have been problems with the reintroduction, but we cannot cancel the entire program because of these isolated problems. There are programs in place that compensate livestock operators when wolves prey upon their stock. I am in favor of working to streamline and expand these programs. I am also in favor of pushing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work more closely with the affected livestock operators.

Finally, I believe we cannot interfere with the Endangered Species Act, and that's what the gentleman is attempting to do here. His amendment would overturn the Endangered Species Act, something that we have never done on this House floor that I can remember, and I don't think we should start today.

I have experience with the Red Wolf Program at Point Defiance Zoo in the State of Washington where we regenerated the population, and then we introduced them into North Carolina. That program has worked very successfully. We have wolves in Alaska. We have wolves in Canada. There were wolves in New Mexico. And this is part of nature.

I think the gentleman is completely overreacting to this. I urge him to withdraw his amendment and not to try to overturn the Endangered Species Act here on the floor of the House.

I urge all my colleagues to vote strongly against this ill-considered amendment.

I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a ruling from the Chair whether the gentleman's comments about blood on my hands is a violation of the House Rules.

Yes, I do.

If the gentlewoman would yield, we are prepared to accept the gentlelady's amendment. We accepted it last year. We think it's a positive amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for the amount of money in this bill to address problems in Member districts or the process through which projects were selected. I just want to tell the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Tiahrt and I did this on a bipartisan basis. We worked this out. Our staffs worked together. We went through these projects very carefully. We only approved one out of every ten projects that were requested by the Members.

Now, I would remind the gentleman that in the Constitution of the United States, the most fundamental power of the United States Congress is the power of the purse, the power of the Congress to redress grievances of the American people, to help on projects that are important to the Members' districts.

Now, in this budget, we also laid out all the projects that are requested by the President. I would just, as one example, point out to the gentleman that in 2004 in terms of STAG grants, there were $533 million; in 2005, $513 million. These are all earmarks.

In 2006, $282 million. In 2007, zero. In 2008, $140 million. This is responsible. The administration even says we met their test on earmarks. We went through these projects carefully, we looked at them closely, and we did it in a professional way.

So I would urge the gentleman to consider these facts. We are not going to be doing this the way it was done in the past, but we have the right to do it. And even the gentleman from Texas can't give away the power of the purse, because it is in the Constitution of the United States, and the Founding Fathers of this country stated that this was one of the most important powers that the Congress possessed. Throughout history, the British Parliament worked feverishly over the years to gain the power to be able to decide and limit the executive, the king in this case, of Britain. That was one of the most important powers that the Parliament developed over many hundreds of years.

So I am here tonight to defend our right to take care of our constituents, and I defend the process by which we did this. We did it in a professional way. We did it with both parties sitting in the same room looking at all these projects, helping each other, so we didn't make any mistakes.

I just want the gentleman to know how strongly I feel personally about this. We did a good job, and we cut it way back, and I thought the gentleman from Texas would be here applauding what we did, not attacking it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from Indiana, who has been a valued member of our committee for many years, that I strongly support his project. Our committee evaluated it. We looked at all the details. We think it is a worthy project that should be supported.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment.

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

I want to commend the gentleman from New York for his participation on our subcommittee and for all of his good work during the year.

I must say, a performing arts facility in a town can be such a fantastic thing. One thing I hope my colleague from Texas remembers is that the local community has to match the money. I think in this case this is a grant of $150,000 to Save America's Treasures which clearly this is one of. And then the local community has to raise $150,000, and out of that there are improvements to the facility and the structure that are done over a period of time.

Again, as we analyzed all of these projects, this is exactly what we had in mind. This legislation was authorized by Congress. And I would mention also that Mrs. Bush has her program, the Preserve America Program, which our committee has supported. Mr. Tiahrt has been a strong supporter of that program. I saw Mrs. Bush the other night and I told her we were working hard together up here to try and preserve this program, which does exactly the same things as Save America's Treasures. There may be a nuance or two, but basically it is the same thing.

So again, I support the Hinchey project and oppose the gentleman from Texas's amendment. I appreciate the good work of my colleague from New York over all of the years we have been on this committee together.

This is an amendment that affects a project in my hometown of Bremerton, Washington.

The downtown Bremerton library building opened in August 1938. Now, that may sound recent, but, remember, Washington has only been a State since 1889. The building was funded under the Works Progress Administration. The WPA was one of Franklin Roosevelt's principal public works programs that helped America recover from the Great Depression. The building is constructed in an art deco style which was a signature style during the twenties and thirties and a favorite today of preservationists across the country. The building has a large rotunda with skylights. Because of its distinctive style, the library remains one of the most attractive buildings in downtown Bremerton. Like many art deco buildings, the library has a very bright color, in this case a vibrant yellow.

The downtown Bremerton library was constructed on land that has housed a library for nearly a hundred years. When this library opened in 1938, it served as the main library. The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County combined their library system in 1955. In 1978, a new headquarters library was built for the regional system and the downtown library became a branch library.

The library in downtown Bremerton has been undergoing rehabilitation for the last 1\1/2\ years. The city invested $100,000 last year in general fund money and $100,000 from its community development block grant funds. These were matched with $100,000 from Kitsap County and $100,000 from the Gates Foundation. The moneys were spent replacing windows and doors, remodeling bathrooms, rebuilding the roof and other structural improvements which brought the building, to a reasonable degree at least, up to current building codes and took care of pressing life/safety concerns. This year, the city is spending an additional $200,000 in general fund money to replace the existing heating, cooling and air ventilation system, to remove asbestos from the heating plant and associated piping, replace much of the building's plumbing, and to rewire the entire building for additional electrical capacity and other modern communication equipment.

When I was a kid growing up in Bremerton, Washington, this was the library that I used to go to with my mother and father and my younger brother, Les. Bremerton is a city where we have the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, probably the most effective and productive shipyard in the United States. We have about 10,000 workers working there, and we have thousands of sailors who are home-ported in Bremerton and at the Trident submarine base at Bangor. I would like to think that this facility would be available to those men and women serving us in the military and for all of those thousands of government employees who work in the Kitsap County area. This is a good project. The money that we are providing, $150,000, will be matched by the city of Bremerton. They've already put in a lot of additional money. And this is a partnership. This is one of those good projects where there's a partnership.

I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment and to support this worthy project.

I would also say, again, to the gentleman, this is such a dramatic reversal, what we have done on this side of the aisle on earmarks from the comparison when the other side took power. In 1994, there were about a thousand earmarks. In 2006, there were 13,000 earmarks.

The other thing I would suggest, too, it's one thing to go after the projects of your colleagues, but the President has what we would call earmarks, executive branch earmarks in this budget. If the gentleman was evenhanded in his approach, and I think he has been very fair in how he has selected these projects, but if he was evenhanded, he would go after some of the things that the President requests. As I said, the Preserve America Program is almost identical to Save America's Treasures, but I don't notice the gentleman offering an amendment on that particular project. No, I don't want to incentivize him, but I guess we can't because there is a unanimous consent agreement.

But, again, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and it is important. Dealing with the entitlements where two-thirds of our spending is has got to be done, and I hope that we can approach those problems just the same way as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I have approached this problem, with approving only one in ten of the projects that were requested from our colleagues.

Again, it is our power. Don't give up Congress's power of the Constitution, which is the power of the purse. That would be a tragic mistake that would haunt this House for many years.

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