Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2643) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have waited 30 years for the honor of presenting an Interior and Environment bill to the House of Representatives as subcommittee chairman. I am very proud to present H.R. 2643 to the committee as my first Interior appropriations bill.

The bill includes $27.6 billion for the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health Service and Related Agencies under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction. This is an increase of $1.193 billion over the 2007 enacted level, or about a 4.3 percent increase.

Mr. Chairman, the recommendations reflected in the 2008 Interior bill are the product of a very deliberate and bipartisan process. Our Interior and Environment Subcommittee held 38 separate hearings over 3 months with more than 250 witnesses. The printed record of these hearings is included in eight volumes, totaling over 10,000 pages.

During these hearings, we heard from agency officials, Members of Congress and more than 100 Tribal leaders and other public witnesses. This testimony made it clear that substantial increases in environmental and conservation programs were badly needed. These sessions also highlighted the critical health and education needs in Indian country.

While the Office of Management and Budget and other Members of the House may criticize the overall size of the bill, I do not know of one increase in this package which can't be fully justified based on need or on the ability to spend the money wisely. Frankly, I don't think I have to remind Members that this bill started in a deep hole created more than a decade ago.

As Members have heard me say many times, and as this chart clearly demonstrates, in our hearings and other statements on the floor, between 2000 and 2007, based on OMB's own tables, funding for the Interior Department fell 16 percent in real terms. EPA has been reduced by 29 percent, and the Forest Service nonfire budget by 35 percent when adjusted for inflation. Given that history, I believe the 4.3 percent increase in this bill is well justified.

I might just mention that one of the most important powers that Congress possesses is the power of the purse. This is in the Constitution. This is one of Congress' major authorities and one way we can check the actions of the executive branch.

Now, while I do not go into all the details, a few of the increases and decreases deserve special mention this morning.

The bill provides a $223 million increase for our national parks, as proposed by the President, for the 10-year, $3 billion Centennial Challenge effort to restore the parks for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Park Service in 2016. The additional funds will support 3,000 badly needed new seasonal employees and 590 year-round staff. We also provide $50 million of discretionary funds for Centennial Challenge projects to be matched by private funds. These funds will support enhancements at our parks beyond the funding necessary for core operations.

We provide a $56 million increase for our national wildlife refuges, a 14-percent increase above the fiscal year 2007

enacted level. This will reverse the current staffing shortfall problem on our refuges, which have lost almost 600 staff members since 2004.

The bill provides a total of $5.7 billion for programs serving Native Americans. This is $235 million over the President's request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. To address one of the biggest issues facing Indian country, Mr. Tiahrt and I have added $35 million above the request for a methamphetamine prevention initiative that spans both the BIA and the Indian Health Service.

The bill provides $2.8 billion for wildfire programs, an increase of $200 million over the current level. The President's budget had proposed more than $100 million in reductions in critical fire preparedness activities, which I believe both sides of the aisle considered completely irresponsible. The bill restores those cuts and provides an increase of $163 million over FY 2007 for wildfire suppression. As we see on television every day, and particularly out in the Lake Tahoe area, this year's fire season is shaping up to be one of our worst. The funds in the bill are the minimum necessary for the wildfire program.

We have also restored basic funding for the Forest Service, providing a total of $2.6 billion for the non-fire programs, which is $92 million above 2007 and $355 million above the President's request. This maintains important science, cooperative forestry programs, and land management, and also includes $65 million for a new Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program to repair damaged roads and decommission those that receive little use, particularly in areas where we have many endangered species.

We have provided over $8 billion for the EPA, roughly a $900 million increase over the President's completely inadequate request. As Members know, the President had proposed more than half a billion dollars of cuts for the agency. We restore most of the cuts and provide a number of critical increases. Those include a $437 million increase above the request for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, $52 million above the request to clean up toxic and hazardous waste sites, $220 million for Clean Air State grants, $140 million for sewer and water grants in local communities, and $50 million for the new diesel emission reduction program.

This bill recognizes the importance of protecting and restoring a number of our Nation's most important water bodies by providing an increase of $65 million above the President's request for the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, and 28 estuaries funded through the National Estuary Program and other grants for other targeted watersheds.

The bill provides an increase of $50 million for our cultural agencies to get them partially back to where they were in 1994. The National Endowment for the Arts will get a $35 million increase to $160 million and the National Endowment for Humanities would get an increase of $19 million for a total of $160 million.

One of our witnesses this spring, actress Kerry Washington, described the role of the arts in offering her a world beyond her inner-city neighborhood and giving her ``something to reach for and something to reach with.'' Hopefully, the money in the bill for the NEA and the NEH will give other young people the same kind of inspiration and opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw special attention to our recommendations with regard to climate change. It is now clear that global warming is occurring and that its effects will likely alter how we live in very serious ways. This reality was confirmed at hearings held by the Interior Subcommittee in April where witnesses from the Interior Department, Forest Service and other agencies described climate-related changes already occurring on the Nation's public lands. These impacts include increased wildfires, changing precipitation and water availability patterns, increasing presence of invasive species, changing migratory patterns for many animals and birds and significant loss of habitat for many species.

In response to this challenge, the subcommittee has made a series of recommendations.

First, we included in the bill the same Sense of Congress resolution on climate change which I offered last year and which was accepted by the Appropriations Committee during the 109th Congress. This appears as title V of this bill. It recognizes in statute that climate change is a reality, that human activity contributes to it in significant ways, and that this country must take action to address this very serious problem.

Second, the bill provides $264 million for various climate change activities throughout the bill, an increase of $94 million over the 2007 level; $199 million is provided for EPA climate programs; $67 million for the Department of the Interior, principally for the U.S. Geological Survey; and $22 million for the Forest Service.

Third, we set aside $2 million for the EPA to begin to develop the framework for regulation of greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court ruled in April that the agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This bill does not mandate the form of these regulations or set a specific deadline for producing the final regulation, but in law it says the process must begin in earnest during 2008.

Lastly, we establish a new temporary 2-year Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation and appropriate $50 million for its work. This commission will be chaired by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ralph Cicerone, a world-renowned authority on climate change, and will focus on the science issues related to how the world adapts to the reality of climate change. Its role is essentially that of a public-private advisory committee to identify the highest priorities for climate science investment for 2008 across the government. $5 million is provided to cover the cost of the commission for 2 years, with the remaining $45 million to be distributed to jump- start climate science at the various Federal agencies.

In summary, the message of this bill with respect to climate change is it is time to quit talking about the problem and start doing something about it.

Members should understand that this bill is not all increases. The subcommittee bill includes reductions below the 2007 level totaling over $400 million. This includes $135 million cut from construction programs throughout the bill and termination of a number of programs, including the Land Owner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Program at the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. Chairman, as Members know, consideration of this bill was delayed for a while as the committee complied with the agreement to include Member projects in committee reports prior to bills being considered on the floor of the House. House Report 110-187, part 2, filed on June 22, fulfills this requirement. This report lists 228 projects requested by the Members of the House with a total cost of approximately $114 million. The financial disclosure certifications for these projects have been made available to the public, and we believe the filing of the report meets all requirements under clause 9 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that the $114 million in this bill for projects constitutes only four-tenths of one percent of the roughly $28 billion in this bill. When Senate projects are counted later, the total allocated to such projects will be less than 1 percent, or roughly eight-tenths of one percent.

As I said during the consideration in the full committee last week, many Members will, unfortunately, be disappointed by the project list included in this report. Based on the agreement reached earlier this year with House leadership, funding for Member projects has been reduced by 50 percent compared to funding for similar projects in 2006.

Because of this requirement to reduce funding for projects, Mr. Tiahrt and I agreed to concentrate limited funding, with a few exceptions, on critically needed water and sewer infrastructure grants and historic preservation grants. These are the two areas where we get the most requests. Projects requested in these areas were individually reviewed on a nonpartisan basis by our joint staffs working together to ensure that each project was fully justified based on both the quality of the proposal and the needs of the

communities. In the end, however, due to the limited amount of funding, hundreds of worthwhile projects could not be accommodated. I wish we could have done more, but this is the hand we were dealt.

I would just add to that, when Christine Todd Whitman was the head of the EPA, she said the backlog on these sewer infrastructure projects was $388 billion. So we are spending $140 million. It is just a little dent in this huge requirement that we have out there.

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to other Members for remarks, I want to say how much I have enjoyed working with Mr. Tiahrt as the Interior and Environment Subcommittee's new ranking member. We sat together for over 100 hours of hearings over 3 months, and we have met together privately with many of the agencies. It has been very hard work, but I think because of these efforts, we have a very good bill which should be supported by every Member of the House. I look forward to many years as chairman working with Mr. Tiahrt as my ranking member, or vice versa.

I also want to recognize the hard work of our exceptional staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked together as a bipartisan team throughout this process. I want to mention the staff: Mike Stephens, Chris Topik, Greg Knadle, Delia Scott, Beth Houser and Martin Brockman on the majority; Deb Weatherly, Dave LesStrang and Steve Crane for the minority; Pete Modaff and Kelli Shillito on my personal staff; and Amy Claire Brusch on Mr. Tiahrt's staff.

Before I finish here, I just wanted to say that I am very proud of this bill. I think it is a good bill; and as, Mr. Natcher said, it is a good bill and everybody ought to vote for it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) who is a valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor for me to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who has been one of the strongest environmentalists in this House.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to commend the gentleman for his leadership on the National Parks Caucus. This issue should never be partisan. I'm glad we can work together with Mr. Tiahrt to strengthen our parks and to enact the Centennial Challenge.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a fellow member of the class of 1976 and also a person who had to wait 30 years to be chairman, my good friend from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is there on both sides?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), who is also a valued member of our subcommittee and a very good friend, and a great tennis player.

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

I am prepared to yield to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee.

Will the gentleman yield.

I appreciate your concerns and want to assure the gentleman and his committee that we are very open to making changes to ensure the funds are spent in a manner which reflects the legislation coming from the Science Committee.

I look forward to working with you and your staff over the next few months to coordinate our joint efforts in climate science. I want to congratulate the gentleman on working on a consensus basis. We tried to do that in the interior bill, and the chairman knows that he has my word on this issue, and we will work this out.

Would the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman for his leadership, particularly on the wildlife refuges. We have had a cut over the last few years of over 600 employees. I couldn't believe the testimony this year of the people saying these refuges are in dire need, you have got to do something.

That's why we are trying to put money back into these important areas. It's only a small amount, the work is absolutely essential. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and his work in presenting our committee with information on the wildlife refuge.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order.

Madam Chairman, the amendment filed by the gentleman may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI. The rule states in part that amendments may only be considered en bloc if they do not increase either budget authority or outlays in the bill.

While the amendments proposed by the gentleman are offset fully in budget authority, the combined effect of the changes would increase outlays by $8 million, in violation of paragraph 2(f). The amendments are, therefore, not in order to be considered en bloc.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Madam Chair, I withdraw my point of order on this amendment, but I would like to be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.

Madam Chairman, this amendment, if it were adopted, would eliminate nearly all land acquisitions that are high-priority projects that need to be done. It would leave only $1.6 million in the acquisition account, not even enough to continue to staff the program.

These are not new projects. These are inholdings. These are inholdings within lands that are owned by the Bureau of Land Management, and these are very important from both an environmental perspective and to lock up land. That's why the BLM favors the acquisition of these inholdings.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut for his leadership on the land trust. This is close to my heart. My youngest son, Ryan Dicks, works for the Cascade Land Conservancy in the State of Washington, and I'm very familiar with the work that these important agencies do.

And I want you to know that in our bill we have $62 million in the Forest Legacy account, and we also have $268 million for land and water conservation grants, of which 50 million is for the Stateside program. And though I can't accept your amendment this year, I want the gentleman to know that I want to work with you and see if there's some way that we can help these important entities do the job that is so important in preserving lands that are important to the American people.

I appreciate your yielding.

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for bringing this important project to my attention. I will be pleased to consider this funding need should additional funds become available in conference. And I also want to congratulate the gentleman for his outstanding leadership on many important issues dealing with conservation and the environment. And I particularly appreciated his cosponsorship of our bill that has just been reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in protecting our wildlife.

The gentleman is certainly an important leader from New Jersey, and we want to work with him.

That is correct.

The gentleman is correct. It is the intent of the committee to continue the operation of the three museums, and I appreciate the gentleman's interest in artwork on this important issue.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield?

Madam Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

I want to commend the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Delaware for their outstanding leadership. This is a very important issue. And as we understand it, this would come out of existing funds within the park service?

With that understanding, Madam Chairman, we accept the amendment.

If the gentleman will yield, I want to commend the gentlemen from New York and New Jersey for their leadership, and I urge that the committee adopt this amendment.

And by the way, we have a new director of the National Parks Service. I think it may be good to give her an opportunity to review this, too. So I think we ought to give her another chance to look at this.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

First of all I want to say that I am a strong supporter of our national parks. And our committee takes a back seat to no one. My problem with this amendment is the source of the offset.

The bill provides a $223 million increase for our national parks, for the 10-year $3 billion Centennial Challenge effort to restore the parks for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Park Service.

The bill also includes $50 million in discretionary funds for the Centennial Challenge projects. These funds will support enhancements in our parks beyond the funding necessary for core operations. This is the best bill for the parks in decades, but I cannot support

a wholesale gutting of the important work done by the Environmental Protection Agency. The gentleman's amendment would severely cut two of EPA's most important programs. He proposes to reduce by $160 million the Superfund program that cleans up toxic waste sites across our country.

Currently, there are over 1,400 Superfund sites. More than 6 million people live within 1 mile of a Superfund site and 76 million live within 4 miles of these sites.

Our bill increases Superfund above the request. Why? Because as the Superfund program matures, the remaining sites are more complex, take longer to clean up, and require more funding. How do we explain the proposed reduction to those 76 million Americans? Do you ask them to wait even longer to remove the hazardous substances in their neighborhoods?

The amendment would also cut EPA's core environmental programs, those funded through the environmental programs and management account.

The account funds the activities which are the backbone of the Nation's environmental programs. EPA sets pollutant abatement standards. It issues permits to control these standards. It enforces those permits to ensure compliance with environmental standards. This account funds programs that control toxic air pollutants which threaten to poison our cities.

This account funds the Energy Star program, a program that most Americans know by name and trust, a program that has saved Americans $12 billion in energy costs in 2005 alone. This account funds the programs which license pesticides that control harmful exposures. This account funds programs which protect children, our most precious resource, from indoor air pollutants. With the geographic programs funded through this account, EPA helps to protect the great, and unfortunately threatened, waterways of our Nation

Madam Chairwoman, I am certainly a great supporter of the parks. I believe the underlying bill is proof of that. But I cannot support an effort to reduce the programs that are the fundamental basis for our Nation's environmental protection.

I urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, yes, I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, first of all, I appreciate the gentleman's support for our overall bill, but I want to acknowledge his leadership on the Great Lakes. We have some incredible programs in the Great Lakes. The gentleman has come to us and offered a very positive amendment. We are concerned in my part of the world about Puget Sound. Our vice chairman, Mr. Moran, is concerned about the Chesapeake Bay. We are concerned about all of our National estuaries. But the Great Lakes are particularly important, and I appreciate the gentleman's input on this issue.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman has raised an important issue here, and we are prepared to accept his amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and a number of distinguished Members from the Border Caucus. The committee has supported EPA's Mexican Border Program since its inception in 1995. Since that time, we have provided over $800 million for infrastructure projects along the border. I am proud of that and believe this program is an important one.

The bill as reported by the committee included $10 million for water and waste water infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexican border. This is the amount requested by the President, but $40 million below the level provided last year. Our committee took this action because of concerns about a slow spending rate in the program. Since that time, a number of Members, including a distinguished member of the committee, Mr. Rodriguez of Texas, have provided new information on this program.

Specifically, the reforms recently made to the design, approval, and construction process will ensure the funds are spent more quickly. Because of that information, I am pleased to offer this amendment on their behalf, which provides an additional $15 million for this program, for a total program of $25 million in fiscal year 2008.

It is never easy to find offsets for these types of amendments. That said, my amendment includes three programs in order to provide the necessary increases for the border program. The reductions are as follows:

Within the Department of Interior Salaries and Expense Account, $5 million from the Financial and Business Management System, which has been delayed by the Department.

Within EPA's Science and Technology Account, $5 million from the new Water Technologies Breakthrough Fund.

Within EPA's Environmental Programs and Management Account, $5 million from Operations and Administration.

With this additional funding, I hope we will see many new water and waste water infrastructure projects along the border. This committee has been and will continue to be very supportive of this important program.

Again, I thank the Members from the border States, especially Mr. Rodriguez, a member of the full committee, for bringing this issue to my attention. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I rise to say that we will be willing to accept this amendment.

I do want to point out to the gentleman, though, this bill already funds PILT $43 million above the level requested by the President. We have heard over and over again from various speakers on your side of the aisle that we have to get this bill down, not up.

But this is a very important program in the West, and therefore I am willing to accept it. But I want the gentleman to think about this in that context.

Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

I appreciate the gentleman's interest in improving Indian education. This is an issue that both Mr. Tiahrt and I have great interest in, and we have made a special effort to increase funding for education programs in this bill.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman on the issue that he has raised here today, and thank him for his dedication to Indian country and better education for young students.

Yes, the gentleman is correct, I share his concern.

Yes, the gentleman is correct.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who is the vice chairman of our committee and very valued and esteemed member and someone whom I have enjoyed working with for many years, going back to our staff days in the other body.

I thank the gentleman for highlighting the issue and for his concern for improving Indian health care. We agree this is an important issue, and we will work with you to address it.

I might mention that one of the programs over the years that I have been a big supporter of is the National Health Service Corps, which allows people to be trained and work in rural areas. I think there is a multitude of ways to attack this problem, and I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue and guarantee him that we will work hard to do as much as we can because we agree with you that the need for dental care is a very high priority in Indian country.

I want to thank the gentleman for his extremely kind words. I just want to say to him that I have appreciated working with him over the years; and we in the Pacific northwest appreciate his great efforts on behalf of the salmon recovery initiatives and our Northwest Power Act and all of the other major environmental legislation that the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, has enacted during his long and illustrious career. I am proud to work with him and with anyone else who wants to make the environment of the United States better for all of our citizens. I thank him for his great leadership.

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

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Dicks is to be commended for the reasonable manner in which he has conducted the business of the Interior Appropriations Committee and the personal consideration he has given me in my role as ranking member. It is a reflection of the experience he received while waiting 30 years to become chairman. We should all recognize the patience and expertise that Mr. Dicks brings to the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's work this year has been a bipartisan collaborative effort. But in spite of the comity reflected in much of the subcommittee's work, the minority does have genuine policy differences with the Democratic majority and a divergence of views over the level of funding necessary to address the critical needs of this bill.

Our 38 subcommittee hearings revealed many unmet needs and urgent priorities. Still, while we have an obligation to be good stewards of our Nation's environment and public lands for future generations, we also have an obligation to be good stewards of our tax dollars. In that respect, I believe this legislation falls short.

The 302(b) allocation for this bill is $27.6 billion, a $1.9 billion increase over the President's budget increase and a $1.2 billion increase over the enacted fiscal year 2007 Interior bill. The enacted fiscal year 2007 Interior bill itself was $400 million over what the House passed last fall.

The initial subcommittee allocation, which was $858 million above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, though very generous, would have resulted, I believe, in a better, more balanced bill. The additional $335 million added to the subcommittee's already charitable allocation is simply unnecessary, and, more importantly, unsustainable. No matter how well-intentioned, this overly generous allocation will cause many of the same problems down the road that this subcommittee has been trying to resolve in recent years, namely, huge backlogs in operations and maintenance.

The circumstance is, in many respects, similar to the homeowner who receives a big bonus and uses these extra funds to buy a bigger house for his family. The bigger bonus is welcome and unexpected. Buying a bigger house seems like a great idea at the time. But down the road he realizes he can't depend on getting a bonus every year, and he finds himself unable to afford living in this new house. He, like this subcommittee, risks becoming overextended and unable to pay the bills. The difference is the homeowner goes bankrupt and a new owner takes over. The government fails to keep up with the new property, and the property soon becomes listed on a maintenance backlog.

It is human nature that we want to create new programs to build new structures, to buy new land. Yet it seems no one worries about the future cost of maintaining them. Over the years, this subcommittee has learned through good oversight that too little money can do real harm. The same is true for too much money.

We believe that the subcommittee should strive for a balance, and that is precisely what the original subcommittee allocation achieved. We ought to provide enough money to allow the agencies to carry out their primary mission. We should focus on taking care of what we presently have in the public trust. We have to give careful, thoughtful consideration before purchasing something new. Again, we must strive for balance. As this bill goes on to conference with the Senate, I am hopeful that the majority will be sensitive and responsive to this challenge.

In many areas this legislation has achieved balance. I applaud Chairman Dicks for his focus on the operating accounts within this bill. There has clearly been an erosion in this area, due in part to the absorption of the pay and fixed costs over the years. However, I believe the subcommittee should move more cautiously in providing funds for new land acquisition and construction. While there are high priority needs in these areas, it is important that we focus on the core mission of these agencies and not become overextended.

The subcommittee risks creating a larger problem down the road by hastily expanding current areas that we cannot oversee or creating new ones that we cannot maintain. Many will recall that when Congress provided these agencies with too much funding too quickly in the early to mid-nineties, they lost focus. The result was a huge backlog, redundant programs and large unobligated balances, many of which still remain, and numerous operational shortfalls. Our job is to provide for core needs, be vigilant about oversight, and avoid the mistakes of the past.

I recognize that Chairman Dicks and Chairman Obey have a special place in their heart for the great open spaces of this country, and I know that they appreciate the grandeur of our national parks; and I join both chairmen in support of the $198 million increase in the operations budget for the National Park Service.

I am also very pleased with the needed attention in this bill that it provides to the Native Americans. There are many unmet needs in Indian country, in education, healthcare, law enforcement, methamphetamine treatment and other areas; and this bill does a great deal to address those priorities. I also believe it is critically important to restore full funding for Urban Indian Health Clinics, and this bill does exactly that.

While this bill is positive in many respects, I would be remiss if I didn't outline several specific areas where I would have written the bill differently. The fire season is upon us once again and catastrophic fires out west are again commanding national headlines, like the South Lake Tahoe fire just yesterday. It is appropriate that this bill provides additional funding for wildfire preparedness at the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Subcommittee hearings this year demonstrated that there is a great interest and great concern over the ongoing wildfire suppression challenge which is presently burning up about 45 percent of the Forest Service budget. In light of the large subcommittee allocation and the tremendous anticipated need during this fire season, I think the subcommittee could have done even more to address fire preparedness and fire suppression problems, because being prepared can avoid the need for fire suppression.

Mr. Chairman, while reasonable people may disagree over the cause, there is clearly a need for more focused science on climate change. I believe

Chairman Dicks would agree that our response to climate change must look at long-term solutions rather than simply trying to provide for a quick fix.

The USGS is the science agency for the Department of the Interior, and I believe they should manage any additional funds directed to address this issue for the department. While I have the greatest respect for Chairman Dicks, I am concerned about the inclusion of the global climate change sense of Congress resolution in this bill. My concern is based on the simple fact that it does not reflect a consensus opinion of many climate change experts who testified before the subcommittee this year. It proposes conclusions and solutions to a problem that is not yet fully understood. Historically, mandatory market-based limits suggested in the language simply have not worked.

I believe we need to make wise, science-based decisions rather than merely respond to the heated rhetoric of political dialogue of the day.

As one agency scientist testified this year, our greatest need is to focus on the gaps in credible scientific information. Without understanding the complete scientific data, we will be unable to solve the problems created by climate change, and it will create a false hope presenting bad solutions to the wrong problems.

America needs to secure its own sources of energy, be it from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, renewable or other sources. A strong and vibrant economy and the well-paying jobs that go along with it are closely linked to reliable and preferably inexpensive energy sources.

If we want to help American working families to continue to build and strengthen our economy, we must provide them with the tools they need to pursue reliable sources of energy. I believe responsible use of our resources is precisely the right course. The approximately 43 million outer continental shelf acres under lease generally account for 20 percent of America's domestic natural gas. To address the growing demand for domestic sources of natural gas, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) last year offered a commonsense amendment in full committee which was supported on a bipartisan basis.

Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that the United States needed to lessen its dependence on foreign sources of natural gas. Mr. Peterson will soon be offering the same amendment on the House floor, and I urge its adoption.

Many heard me say over the past few months how fortunate I have been to be selected as the ranking member of the Interior, Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. Not only do I have the privilege of working with Chairman Dicks, but I have had the pleasure of working with a fine appropriations committee staff.

First, I would like to thank Debbie Weatherly and Dave LesStrang here beside me on the Republican staff for all of their hard work and dedication not only to crafting this bill, but also preparing me for this new subcommittee in this inaugural role as ranking member. This spring would have been a very difficult learning process but for their guidance.

Many of you know Debbie and her impeccable stewardship of this appropriations bill during the Republican majority. She is also one of the most beloved and respected committee staffers I have ever come across. The fact that Members across the aisle continue to consult her is a testament to her depth of knowledge. I have appreciated all of the time she has spent with me over the past few months. I know that her husband, Glenn, has missed her, and I am glad he will soon get to see her more often.

I am also extremely grateful to Dave LesStrang who has taken on Interior Appropriations as part of his portfolio for Mr. Lewis. Like Debbie, Dave is one of the most respected and well-liked staffers on the Capitol campus. I thank Mr. Lewis, and especially Dave's wife, Elaine, and his sons Matthew and Michael for their patience in allowing him to spend so much time on the important work of this subcommittee.

Let me also commend Steve Crane of the minority staff for his guidance on issues related to offshore oil and gas drilling. Steve's expertise on these issues is exceeded only by his knowledge of anything related to the Boston Red Sox.

I am also grateful to the majority staff led by Mike Stephens. They have been cooperative and effective in not only crafting this bill, but also in helping me and my staff become acquainted with the Interior, Environment appropriations process. The entire Interior staff is to be commended for fostering a spirit of teamwork in crafting this legislation. Chris Topik, Delia Scott, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, and Martin Brockman are bright, friendly, dedicated and among the most knowledgeable staffers on the Hill. I am pleased that once this bill is passed, they will finally have a weekend to themselves.

I would be remiss if I did not also point out the many contributions of Pete Modaff and Kelli Shilito of Chairman Dicks' staff, as well as Jeff Kahrs, AmyClaire Brusch, and Melissa James of my own staff.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, while I have real policy differences and spending concerns related to this legislation, it is our hope that between now and the conference negotiations with the Senate later this year, we can address those issues of disagreement and seek a bipartisan consensus on a reasonable, sustainable subcommittee allocation. Our sincere desire is to work with Chairman Dicks to fashion a responsible, balanced conference report worthy of broad bipartisan support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the cochairman of the Parks Caucus, who has a great passion for our national park system, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing up this very important issue.

We have heard in testimony in the Interior Committee that not being able

to maintain the security of our borders has had an impact on our park service and Interior lands. We need to do a better job of maintaining our borders. I thank the gentleman for his efforts in trying to make this country more safe by maintaining our borders.

Announcement by the Chairman

Madam Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

I think that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) has made a good point and reinforced what I was saying in my opening statement that we can get overextended in the Park Service and acquire more than we can take care of.

The beautiful building that he used in his example provides a wonderful purpose is now closed because we have not been able to maintain it. My concern, in getting overextended, is that we build new buildings and acquire new land that we are unable to maintain and we get into the same problem that we're trying to correct today.

So I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, and I think it makes a valid point.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida and commend him on his leadership on this issue and also the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

I think this is a very important time in American history that we need to capture and preserve for future generations. So congratulations. We have no objection to this amendment.

I would like to say I have no objection to this, and I appreciate the gentlemen from New York and New Jersey for attempting to open up the steps of Liberty once again.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for his persistence in pursuing environmental issues in the Illinois area as well as across the United States. It is very important that we have clean air and clean water for our children and grandchildren.

The gentleman's leadership has been excellent. Also I want to acknowledge his special recognition of the Great Lakes and taking care of them. He has been worried about the fish life as well as the quality of the water. I congratulate the gentleman in these efforts there.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for working with the committee on this very important issue. Truly they have a backlog. Without your looking into this issue, we never would have made the kind of progress that is going to be made because of your efforts. So I want to congratulate the gentleman, and I have no objection to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not have any objection to this amendment, and I would commend the chairman on his leadership in this area.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah and also the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, the chairman of this subcommittee, for understanding the depth of this problem. We do need to put additional funds into PILT, because the Payment in Lieu of Taxes has created shortfalls for school systems, for local municipalities and for counties.

I want to commend the gentleman from Utah for his effort. We have no objections to his amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Virginia's concern about Northern Virginia being overrun by horses, but there are those of us in Kansas who do enjoy seeing those flowing manes and hearing those pounding hooves across the plains. So in your attempt to move towards horse contraception, I hope you are not going to be horsing around too much with the population so that we can still have those beautiful animals running across the plains of Kansas.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am looking forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia in satisfying the needs of controlling our wild horse population.

I want to thank the gentleman from Idaho for hitting on a topic that was very important in our hearing process because we heard from not only dentists, but also the medical community that we have a shortage in many other parts of the medical industry including nurses, anesthesiologists, et cetera. But dentistry is one area where they had an acute shortage. And so your leadership is very important in this area. We want to work with you in support of these efforts to make sure that we have enough medical providers in Indian country.

I would like to thank the grand gentleman from Michigan for coming down here and talking about the importance of this bill; and also acknowledge what a leader you have been on environmental issues over the years and we appreciate your service to the country and your leadership here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 514 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my namesake and good friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 514.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 514 provides for consideration of H.R. 2643, the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2008. It is an open rule, and allows all Members the opportunity to amend the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the funding levels in the underlying bill make clear the change in priorities of this new Democratic Congress. This bill refocuses our Nation's priorities to ensure that all Americans have access to clean water and air as well as appropriately addressing climate change and conservation, all of which have not been seen since Democrats last controlled this body in 1994. Democrats are restoring our obligation to the American people to protect and preserve the land and shores and all creatures who inhabit this Earth.

I commend Chairman Dicks and Representative Tiahrt for their hard and, perhaps most importantly, bipartisan work on this legislation. I do believe that they did a tremendous job in crafting this bill.

This bill restores our promise to America's underserved minority communities and to our children to ensure that our cherished land, water, and air will be preserved for generations to come. I commend the committee for including funding for important environmental justice programs I have long advocated for such as $1.1 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This is $437 million above the administration's request and will help over 150 communities with drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects.

The bill also includes $140 million for sewer and water grants, which received zero funding in 2007 and was not in the President's budget request this year. Further, this legislation provides $16 million for rural water technical assistance that was also zeroed out in the President's budget request. We are ensuring that all communities have clean and safe drinking water.

The underlying legislation also includes limitation language that I authored in the 109th Congress, ensuring that EPA respects the needs of environmental justice communities. It appropriate $7 million for environmental justice programs, the amount that Congresswoman Hilda Solis, I, and others requested. This is $3 million over the administration's budget request and $2 million over fiscal 2007 levels.

This bill provides much-needed funding for our national parks and wildlife protection. The legislation includes $2.5 billion for our national parks, $223 million above the 2007 levels.

Democrats are appropriating $1.4 billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $86 million above 2007 levels and $130 million above the President's budget request.

Ladies and gentlemen, our national parks have been shortchanged for too long. This funding will be used for critical maintenance and repair, conservation, and recreation, and for the preservation of our natural heritage.

Importantly, the underlying legislation maintains the longstanding Presidential and congressional moratoria on drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The committee rightly rejected attempts to permit drilling to occur off the shores of coastal States, including my home State of Florida, and I am sure my colleague from Tampa (Ms. Castor) will speak more specifically to that issue during her time on the rule. In doing this, we continue to protect and preserve the health of Florida's beaches and tourism industry, the largest industry in our State.

Amendments may be offered today on the floor that will seek to strip Florida and other coastal States of their protections. I urge all of my colleagues to do what is right for our Nation and reject such amendments. Drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf will have zero impact at the gas pumps. It will not under any circumstances reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

This legislation offers a more forward thinking approach to our Nation's energy needs. Instead of looking for short-term, short-sighted solutions, Democrats have a smarter, long-term energy strategy. For starters, Democrats have increased funding for programs such as the global climate change research, providing $10 million above the President's request for new research on global climate change and its impact on rivers, groundwaters, and on organisms.

The bill also increases our investment in energy conservation and alternative fuels and research capabilities by nearly 60 percent. What a difference a change in Congress does make for our Nation.

Critically important to my district and to the entire State of Florida is restoration of America's Everglades, one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world and a unique and world-renowned eco-region. The Everglades is one of the Nation's most fragile ecosystems and remains an area of national and international significance. Increased funding to advance this restoration initiative ensures that the Federal Government keeps its commitment to the River of Grass, the largest environmental rescue in the world. Chairman Dicks and Representative Taylor, in my judgment, should both be applauded for their continued effort to restore and preserve this pristine ecosystem.

Democrats also take significant steps to finally work to fulfill our promise to our neglected Native American communities. In all, the bill provides almost $250 million more in funding for Native American health care and education opportunities than last year.

This legislation truly provides for each and every one of us. By investing in the health of America's natural resources, we are investing in the future of this majestic country.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, later today I intend to offer an amendment that would designate $1 million for grants for the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation, and dissemination of underground railroad history. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

I am pleased to support this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 6 minutes to my good friend

and member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend on the Rules Committee, let me clear up something for the American public.

Mr. Dicks and Mr. Tiahrt, in a very responsible manner bringing this appropriations measure to the floor, had to work assiduously to ensure that this is a bipartisan effort and that we are being proper stewards of the environment. There is no question, I don't believe, that anybody can say about that.

But I've listened now for a considerable number of days about the hammering of earmarks. Now, I'm not here as an apologist for anybody, but I think something needs to be understood that is not clear in the minds of many, particularly in the American public because of the confusion that has been put forward by my colleagues on the other side. Let me use as a ``for example'' in this particular measure some of the so-called earmarks that I say are needed in these communities. And I go specifically to Florida and specifically to Republicans who work on this floor with me.

I support the city of Sarasota's water system placement that Congressman Buchanan asks for. I support Congressman Crenshaw's town of Callahan for the wastewater treatment plant. I support the fourth- ranking member of the Republican Party's request for the city of Brooksville Southwest Florida Water Management District for the Peace and Myakka Rivers. I have fished in those rivers. I have seen them be damaged. They are nowhere near the district that I am privileged to serve, but I support that particular effort of Congressman Putnam.

I support the city of Clearwater for wastewater and reclaimed water infrastructure. I have been in Clearwater when it was flooding and the people had problems in that area. That's offered by Mr. Young, the former appropriations Chair, and Mr. Bilirakis. Enough already, colleagues. These people need this environmental protection. They need these water treatment facilities. They need the things that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Tiahrt have worked out. And it's wrong for folks to come down here and to try to give the American public the impression that because somebody that is sent here for the purpose of trying to use the budget for the purposes of protecting the environment and the American people, that they have done something wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, my good friend who is on the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation moves our country in a better direction, providing improvements long overdue to our entire Nation. Our investments today will ensure that our children and grandchildren will have water and air that is cleaner, natural landscapes and historic structures that are protected, and arts and humanity centers that are bolstered.

This bill fulfills past due obligations to our underserved communities and to our entire planet. Republicans in the last Congress and in the current administration have continued to fail to effectively fund the environmental and conservation needs of the American people and its natural resources.

Today, under the Democratic leadership, we are reversing this trend and restoring funding to vital programs and agencies, fulfilling our promise to this Nation and to this Earth. The investments this bill makes are of vital importance today, and their benefits will be felt for years to come.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

One of the issues that we are dealing with this in this particular budget deals with the question that we have that deals with both immigration as well as the processes of that immigration. We are talking this time about immigration, and the devastating impact that it has.

One of the things we missed is the impact on land of immigration. Our land managers have documented, pleaded their efforts before and in the past on some of the problems that we seem to be facing with immigration. We have illegal trails that are going across the desert that are leading to erosion. Literally our resources are being washed away.

Where that is not happening, trash is being left behind by illegal border crossers. We are talking about plastic bottles, shoes, cars, even vehicles at some times. That is not necessarily the habitat of endangered species. We seem to be having devastating fires taking place started by abandoned camps.

Even last week, 1,900 acres in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge was burned, and it is believed that its was started by illegal immigration cooking fire. The Coronado National Forest, in testimony last year before the Appropriations Committee, has 60 miles of contiguous border with the Mexican border. In this national forest, there are 12 separate rangers, eight wilderness areas, 203 threatened and endangered sensitive species, and the staff said that the resources are suffering significant adverse impacts due to illegal border traffic. Even livestock and closure fences, meant to try to separate livestock from endangered species, are being torn down.

Probably the most specific and egregious of all those examples is given by the National Park Service. The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, one-third of that monument is closed to visitors because of the threats of assault by AK-47-packing drug runners is too great. Land managers and biologists responsible for the park must be escorted by armed personnel to do their work in the park.

If we had machine-gun toting bandits or terrorists walking through Yellowstone or Yosemite, we would not tolerate that. But that is the reality that we have today, and the land managers are asking for tools to do their job.

That, indeed, is an issue of significance that needed to be addressed in this particular bill. Perhaps at some point in the future we can actually address that particular issue and that difficult problem and see if we can move forward to a resolution of that and establish priorities that we want to have border security and the impact, the negative impact it's having on public lands, we need to make sure that we move forward as a government to stop that and suppress that.

I will be happy to yield to the ranking member.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, we just mentioned a few things that are significant to this particular issue and tried to mention some of the important points that we are making. We need greater control on the Park Service and BLM land on our border areas that is being devastated by illegal border crossing.

The amendment that I am proposing goes directly to that goal and that purpose by committing $30 million towards law enforcement activities. Actually, it's $31.5 million toward law enforcement activities by agencies who are on our southern border.

We, as a government, have a responsibility to prevent illegal border crossings. We also have a responsibility for land managers to be managing the land in that particular area.

Now, this amendment that I have does move money around. I feel sorry for that. The particular area in which I am transferring the money is something that bothers me personally.

I met my wife during a community theater. When I was in the legislature in Utah, I was the one that instituted a percent for the art programs so that 1 percent of all our construction monies went for arts to be considered. I have been a supporter of the Utah Arts Council.

I also think it's appropriate that local dollars fund art programs so that local control can be there on the process level.

With this particular amendment, it still leaves a $4 million, $4.5 million, roughly $4 million increase in the National Endowment for the Arts over last year's funding base, so there still is an increase. But in addition to that increase, there is $30 million that will go to enforcement of our borders, enforcement of our borders that is necessary to protect the land that is there. It is a matter of priority.

Now, CBO has scored this one. I'm convinced there is probably no PAYGO efforts, but that may be one of the issues we want to talk about. But the bottom line is still this: We need to prioritize what we're doing with this budget. And this is a tremendous area that has been de- emphasized and needs to be re-emphasized. And I contend that this is the appropriate way to put that emphasis there.

Point of Order

One of the issues with which we struggle in this legislature deals with simply the concept of prioritization. And what I'm talking about in this particular issue is money put into the budget above and beyond what the President recommended, but money put into this budget for new acquisitions, not taking care of what we already have, but new acquisitions.

Now, I'm going to contend here that what we need to do is prioritize so that what we do is put our money in what we already have and make sure that we are doing the best we have with our parks and public lands.

I have a picture right here of a facility that's not in my district, but it is in my State. Dinosaur National Monument is actually in the Second District of Utah. This particular facility is a beautiful facility. I was there before it was condemned. I was there. So you could go in there with all my kids and look at the dinosaur bones that are still in place in the mountainside as it has been scraped away so you can see the prehistoric history of this country. It's a wonderful place. It is a wonderful exhibit. It's a great learning experience, all of which has been closed because this building has been condemned and we don't have enough money to fix the facility.

This facility should be fixed before we put 17 million new dollars into new programs somewhere else. This facility should be fixed before we expand what we are trying to do. We need to take care of what we have already identified as important and significant and make sure it takes place.

And that, my fellow Members of this House, is the reason I'm proposing this amendment, that we simply reprioritize to do what's most important, and we fix what we have first and make

sure that is functioning before we put any new additional money into acquisition of new land, new properties and new proposals.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of just saying a word on this particular amendment. I am also very grateful to both the ranking member as well as the chairman of the subcommittee for understanding the significance of this important amendment.

Let me say that this is another map that is similar to the one that was already done, except this time I chose the blue color. Everything that is in blue is the amount of land owned and controlled by the Federal Government in each State. You will notice that there is a proclivity of this kind of blue color in the West.

Some of those that don't live in the West don't really understand what the significance or the problem is in dealing with the Federal Government on so much particular land.

I also want you to know that this was not necessarily the way it was supposed to be. When every one of these Western States entered the Union, their enabling act said the land would go to the Federal Government until such time as it shall be disposed and each State was supposed to get a cut of the amount of money gotten by the Federal Government. So this is not the way it was supposed to be.

But it was changed in the 1970s when the Federal Land Management Policy Act was produced. The trade-off in that was for Payment in Lieu of Taxes. So this land would be compensated, in exchange for the Federal Government keeping those lands, without having to go back through the States to deal with it.

Now, we would actually be more happy if we had all the lands. If indeed these Western States that have their lands controlled by the Federal Government could tax them at even the cheapest open value space, this is the amount of money that we would be able to accommodate for ourselves and solve our own problems.

This bill has $232 million for PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes right now. So you look at it. If Idaho was simply able to put a tax on the Federal land in their State, they would create more than that money by themselves. Utah could get $116 million every year by ourselves, Nevada $118 million every year by themselves; and that is only for public education. It would be even more for general taxes. So the States could actually handle it themselves.

What I am trying to say is I appreciate everyone finally realizing that PILT money is not free, it is not loans, it is simply not welfare for the West. It is money that was really owed to these particular States and that our goal should not be simply the $22 million more in this particular amendment, but to fully fund PILT, which should be $375 million in the first place, or allow the States to have the flexibility to actually go after the true value of these types of lands that happen to be there.

So I appreciate everyone recognizing the significance of this, and I appreciate everyone realizing that this is money that is owed to the States so they can control and they can actually pay for the services they have to provide, even though they don't have the land resources to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee heard testimony nearly 2 weeks ago from my good friend and colleague from Washington, Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks and the Ranking Member Todd Tiahrt of Kansas. When they appeared before the Rules Committee, concerns were raised that the bill at that time did not include a list of earmarks or earmark sponsors and that no Member could challenge, discuss, and call for a vote on earmarks on the House floor.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republicans succeeded in forcing the Democrat majority to restore the earmark transparency and enforceability rules that they had changed at the beginning of this Congress, and now spending bills are being brought to the floor with earmarks where they can be discussed, debated, and voted upon, as they should be.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the fiscal year 2008 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill that we will consider today contains a list of earmarks and the names of the sponsors of those earmarks. This means that Members will have the opportunity to review them before casting their vote on the House floor and not just see them added months from now, as was previously tried.

Mr. Speaker, the Central Washington area that I represent covers more than 19,000 square miles, much of which is controlled and managed by the Federal Government. The Federal agencies funded in this bill directly impact those that I represent on a number of levels. When storms and mudslides wipe out trails and roads, it affects not only my constituents that enjoy camping, hiking, and hunting on public roads, but also visitors to the area and the local businesses that rely on tourism. When invasive species, plant pests, and wildfire threats are not adequately controlled on Federal land, the problems do not stop at the property line.

I think I speak for many Western Members of the House when I talk about the huge stake we have in the general direction of the agencies funded under this bill. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that at a time when Federal land agencies struggle to manage the land they now have, this Congress would provide tens of millions of dollars for the Federal Government to buy up more land. This takes private property off the tax rolls and leaves county governments with a heavier burden to pay for emergency services, roads, and schools.

I have stood on this floor before to discuss the importance of another program, the Secure Rural Schools program, which compensates local governments that are negatively affected by Federal forest land policy and ownership and the virtual shutdown of the Federal timber program over the last 15 years. We need to get the Secure Rural Schools program reauthorized and we need to get the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program fully funded for the long term before we start spending millions of dollars adding more and more land to the Federal estate.

Finally, I want to express my concern about the overall increase in spending that this bill represents. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member worked very hard to try to manage the many demands for funding under this bill. However, this bill represents a $680 million increase over last year. As I have said previously with respect to other appropriation bills this year, we simply must rein in spending in order to prevent the massive tax increases that the Democrat majority is poised to impose, as reflected in their budget.

Congress must work for balancing the Federal budget in 5 years. There are two ways to balance the budget, whether it is your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either, one, reduce the amount of money being spent or, two, increase the amount coming in. This bill highlights the Democrat majority's allegiance to option number two: spending more money each and every year and at a rate faster than inflation, while relying on tax increases to balance the budget down the road.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need a bigger Federal Government. We need a balanced approach that holds the line on spending; provides for our Nation's most fundamental priorities; and allows taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend, save, and invest as they see fit.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee.

As the chairman is aware, I have been concerned for some time with the issue of Federal land acquisition due to its effect on local tax rolls. Many of the counties that I represent are heavily federally owned. Some of them have strong reservations about Federal land acquisition.

I would like to say a word or two specifically about the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. As the chairman knows, I represent the northeastern part of the scenic area. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic River Act, passed by Congress in 1986, authorized $40 million for land acquisition, $10 million for economic development grants, and $10 million for recreation grants for the scenic area. I am concerned that even though it has been 20 years since the Act was passed, the economic development and recreation accounts have yet to be fully funded. Meanwhile, the Forest Service has spent more than $55 million on land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. I believe we should make it a priority to fund the economic development and recreation accounts as envisioned under the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to Chairman Dicks for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I also

noted that the committee report includes $1 million for land acquisition in the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area requested by our colleagues, Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon and Mr. Baird of Washington. I would like to clarify with the chairman that it is not his intent that these funds would be spent on land acquisition in the part of the scenic area that I represent.

Again, I would be happy to yield to the chairman on this question.

I thank the chairman. I appreciate very much your comments. I look forward to working with you on issues related to the implementation of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee, by a voice vote, approved an open rule for the consideration of the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. I am pleased that this rule keeps with the longstanding tradition of allowing an open debate on spending bills. I support House Resolution 514.

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