Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the World War II veterans group, ``HonorAir'' of Western North Carolina, who recently visited Washington, DC. I want to commend the residents of Henderson County, who made this trip possible and showed the rest of the Nation how to honor the heroes of the greatest generation.

The residents of Henderson County, with a population of 98,000, raised more than $100,000 to send 220 World War II veterans on two chartered aircrafts to Washington, DC to see the World War II memorial for the first time.

The World War II Memorial honors the 16 million who served in the Armed Forces of the U.S., the more than 400,000 who died, and all who supported the war effort from home. Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th century, the memorial is a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people.

The idea for HonorAir started when Jeff Miller, a resident of Western North Carolina whose father served in the Navy in the Pacific Theater, read an article about a man who flew World War II veterans in a small plane to Washington, DC to see the memorial.

A fundraising campaign began in Western North Carolina on Memorial Day and ran

through July 4, 2006. This effort was lead by Jeff Miller, Frank Schell, David Reeves, David Adams, Senator Tom Apodaca, Mike Murdock, Henry Johnson, George Erwin, Meridith Elliott, Marybeth Burns, Kim McKibbin and Sarah Smith. Within 6 months, residents young and old rallied to raise more than $100,000 for the trip. I would like to commend these individuals for their hard work in making this awe- inspiring idea into reality. Also, I want to commend Mr. Frank Schell and the ``guardians,'' a group of over 50 volunteers, who flew up from North Carolina to assist with the operation of the event.

From the celebrated departure at the Asheville Regional Airport, to the water-arched greeting at Reagan National Airport, to the wreath ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns, the World War II veterans of Henderson County received a day of honor that was long deserved. It is apparent that the people in Henderson County truly love the Nation, and they honor the heroes who have protected it.

Again, it was truly an honor to take part in HonorAir 2006 and I and the rest of the United States Congress hope to see more events like this around the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Trinity Baptist Church of Asheville, North Carolina. On October 1, 2006 Trinity Baptist will celebrate 40 years of service to the people of Western North Carolina, and I commend them for the leadership and tireless work they have contributed to the Asheville community.

With 60 members under the direction of Rev. Ralph Sexton, Sr. as the Pastor and Dr. James A. Stewart as the Honorary Pastor, a building for Trinity Baptist Church founded upon the scripture from Psalm 127:1, ``Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.''

For 13 years, Dr. Ralph Sexton, Jr. served as staff evangelist and youth pastor under his father. On the first Sunday of April 1988, upon his father's resignation as senior pastor, Dr. Ralph Sexton, Jr. became the senior pastor of Trinity Baptist Church. As the church continued to grow, mission outreach was increased both at home and abroad.

To meet the needs of the growing congregation, several buildings have been erected. The Family Life Center was built in 1984 housing office space, a kitchen, fellowship room and gymnasium, to provide a space for fun, food and fellowship for the whole family. In 1992 a Baby Palace was added to meet the need of the growing families of the church.

A Bible Institute program was started in 1989 for those who wish to devote their lives to the ministry of learning to serve; this became a 4-year Bible College in 1993. Most recently the church built a 1,500- seat sanctuary which has been named the ``Tabernacle of the Mountains'' in honor of the life and ministry of Dr. Ralph Sexton, Sr., who served the congregation for 22 years.

In 1991, Trinity Baptist Church opened their doors to Russian immigrants many of whom came to this country because of religious persecution. Trinity Baptist Church accommodated the immigrants by providing services in their native languages, in addition to sponsoring many of the immigrants.

In 1994, the EEOC threatened religious freedom by prohibiting any expression of religious faith in the workplace. Trinity Baptist Church worked with me and other area churches to preclude these improper regulations. Pastor Sexton and members of Trinity

Baptist Church met with me in acknowledgement of our success in fighting for first amendment rights.

One of the many outreach programs of Trinity Baptist Church is Hearts with Hands. Hearts with Hands is a disaster relief organization that provides humanitarian aide to worldwide victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis. To this day, this organization is still working with many of the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Again, it is my privilege to recognize the great accomplishments and leadership of Trinity Baptist Church over the past 40 years, and I, along with the rest of the United States Congress, wish for their good work to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the brave soldiers who have sacrificed so much to ensure our Nation's freedom.

I am extremely proud of all of Western North Carolina's brave men and women, including the 210th and 211th Military Police Units, who have fought courageously to establish a united, free, and sovereign Iraq.

The sacrifices these men and women make are unimaginable, whether it's spending time away from their families, enduring financial hardships, or laying their very lives on the line for freedom. And while these sacrifices are great, we must not forget that they are fighting to protect the world from the grip of terrorism. By risking their lives in Iraq and abroad, these brave men and women, including my son, are protecting the lives of American families and making our country safer.

Four men from Western North Carolina have given their lives in the Iraq conflict. Attending the funeral of one of those men--CW03 Mitchell Carver--served as a stark reminder that freedom is not free. It is not the press who protect a Nation's right to free speech; instead, it is men like Mitch Carver who choose the responsibility to do so. And Mitch Carver is not alone. In the eight years I have been privileged to serve as a representative on the Board of Visitors of our Nation's military academy at West Point, I have seen thousands of young men and women take the oath to protect us. Theirs is a simple pledge: ``Duty, Honor, Country.''

To me the great and central question in our debate is this: Are the Iraqi people capable of and deserving of democracy? The answer is quite simple. Any man or woman, nation, or civilization that thirsts to live free from tyranny, desires to speak freely, and wishes to freely and fairly elect their leaders is worthy of the great gift of democracy. We have seen the images of Iraqi men and women with tears in their eyes as they cast their first votes in the parliamentary elections. Iraq has embraced democracy with a contagious enthusiasm. Democracy is never easy, but in due time Iraq will be a beacon of hope for the Middle East. To turn our backs on the Iraqi people as they are making such great strides would be arrogant and foolish. In short, it is abandonment not only of the Iraqi people, but also of the principles which we have preached and practiced as a nation for more than two hundred years.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to our brave troops and our Iraqi allies. We owe the men and women in our Armed Forces a debt of gratitude--their courage should inspire us all. I encourage all Americans to join me in continuing to keep our troops and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5386, and that I may include tabular and extraneous materials.

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

Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the House floor the 2007 budget for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies. This bill provides $25.9 billion, which is $418 million above the budget request and $145 million below the 2006 enacted level.

It has been a challenging year and difficult choices were made to stay within our allocation for the bill. In keeping with long-standing tradition, this bill has been developed as a bipartisan effort and focuses funding increases on the operations of our national parks and other public lands; Indian programs, including health and education; forest health; and preservation of our national cultural treasures.

In order to provide these increases, there are decreases to many grants programs and there are limited new construction and land acquisition projects. In most cases, these choices are not a reflection on the effectiveness of the programs being reduced, but rather reflect the committee's belief that mission-essential Federal programs like the national parks, National Forest and Native American programs must be the number one priority.

While we appreciate input from the administration each year, we have made some significant changes to the request, including restoring funds for Johnson O'Malley Education Grants in the Bureau of Indian Affairs; restoring funds for the operations of 32 urban Indian health clinics; restoring funds for PILT; restoring funds for Superfund remediation and environmental education, and research in EPA; restoring funds for forest health and forest road maintenance; and restoring funds for National Heritage Areas and for U.S. Geological Survey mineral assessments.

We have provided significant increases to support the operations of our national parks and the Indian Health Service, and we fully fund the National Fire Plan.

One area that deserves particular mention, in which we have supported the administration's budget proposal, is the energy area. In the Bureau of Land Management, there are significant increases that will enable us to expedite the permitting of on-shore oil and gas exploration and development on Federal lands. In EPA, we were unable to provide all the requested increases that were associated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but we have provided significant increases, including $26 million for the National Clean Diesel Initiative.

This committee, and this member in particular, soundly rejects the administration's proposal to sell National Forest lands throughout the country, and we think this will not be happening.

We have eliminated Stateside Land and Water Grants, the Forest Service Economic Action Program, the BLM Rural Fire Program, and the Asia Pacific Partnership in EPA.

This is a responsible bill that is focused on protecting Federal lands, Indian programs, environmental programs, cultural programs, and other programs under the committee's jurisdiction. I urge you to support this bill.

The Ways and Means Committee has recommended that we make a technical change in the appropriations language for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program in EPA, and we will do that in the final conference agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing the various accounts in the bill. I want to thank our staff, and my colleague, Mr. Dicks, and his staff for the fine work that they have done in preparing the bill and the cooperation they have shown.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.006

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We accept this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5386 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 818, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendments to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1 and 7;

The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 6, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Putnam regarding a moratorium on drilling in the OCS, which shall be debatable for 60 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Chabot regarding a limitation on funds for roads in the Tongass National Forest, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Oberstar regarding a limitation on funds for activities under the Clean Water Act, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Hinchey regarding a limitation on funds for suspension of royalty relief, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Obey or Mr. Dicks addressing global climate change by modifying the amount provided for EPA Environmental Programs and Management, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding funding increases for various accounts with a tax offset;

An amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding business competitiveness;

An amendment by Mr. Gary Miller of California regarding the San Gabriel Watershed;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding EPA drinking water regulations for arsenic;

An amendment by Mr. Gordon regarding Federal building energy use;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding a limitation on funds for urban reforestation;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding a limitation on funds on Smithsonian outreach programs;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding Federal employee travel to conferences;

An amendment by Mr. Dent regarding a limitation on funds to enforce the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;

An amendment by Mr. Andrews regarding Forest Service salaries and expenses;

An amendment by Mr. Meehan regarding EPA national emissions standards;

An amendment by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina regarding funding for various accounts;

An amendment by Mr. Beauprez regarding funding for wildland fire management;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding any Iowa State University project on mitigating emissions from egg farms;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding for ivory-billed woodpecker research;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding for Neosha National Fish Hatchery;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding for the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding Santa Ana River Wash program;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding staffing for the National Zoological Park;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding NFS recreation sites in North Carolina;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding citrus studies in Florida;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding the Florida National Scenic Trail;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding the Continental Divide National Trail.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

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

Mr. Chairman, no one is a stronger supporter of the National Forests health and wildfire management. But this amendment goes too far. The amendment cuts the NEA funding drastically, and this is much too much of a cut.

The President's budget in the committee bill is a fair amount, is level funding with the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. We did raise it slightly and agreed to that.

But that remains to be seen. We should support the NEA. The reforms which this committee put in place are working. The new chairman of the NEA is doing an excellent job of ensuring that important works are supported and that funding is well distributed.

The bill makes a very strong contribution to the National Fire Plan. It is something that Members can be proud of. The bill increases overall wildfire funding $80 million over last year. That includes a large $70 million increase for Forest Service fuel reduction, and this is $34 million above the 2005 level.

I agree with the gentleman that this work is essential, but the agencies can only ramp up so fast. So extra funding is not necessarily needed this year.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is incorrect when he says that the fire funding is down 14 percent from 2005. His calculations may have included the $500 million in emergency funding provided that year. Not counting the emergency fire suppression funds, this bill is $145 million above the 2005 funding level, and this is enough for these fiscally tight times.

I also want to point out that this bill has increased funding for forest health management, an important key for preventing forest fires by $31 million above the President's request, and I want to point out that the Forest Service was able to carry over extra wildfire suppression funds from 2005 to this year.

So they have or should have plenty of funds for the fire season absent a catastrophic season. Despite the good intentions behind this amendment, we do not need this additional increase for the fund's work at this time. We should not gut the administration's effort in the NEA.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

Mr. Chairman, I like a good demagoging just like anybody else, but this is not terribly relevant to everything we have said here to this bill or what has actually happened.

Mr. Miller a little while ago made an analogy to a loan that could be changed from time to time. The problem is if you have got a 4 percent rate for 10 years fixed and the bank comes along and says, it has been 5 years and I want to take that up to 8 percent, you are going to say forget you, I have got a contract that keeps me at 4 percent for 10 years, not 5. And then the courts are going to uphold what you are saying. Also if you say, well, I have got a way here where I can blackmail you and you will come across, the court is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Now, we could do that that the gentleman suggests, but the problem is we are going to spend lots of money, the courts are going to uphold the law because the Constitution and the law are still in place in this country.

Now, a lot of people might not want it to be. I cannot remember and do not know why the Clinton-Gore administration overlooked this and did not put a rate after the rates rose a certain number and royalties were beginning to flow, but they did not. Now, that was caught and after that any drilling in that area is going to pay a royalty.

We have got a small period of time. We cannot do anything about it. If I sell my car for $200 and then later find out it is worth $600 and I have signed a contract, we have a law that says I have got to sell that car for $200. And if I try to get around that, I will pay twice because I will pay all my legal fees, I will pay any sort of penalties, any blackmail money, and I will still lose my car for $200.

So that is pretty much where we are now, and I would say we need to vote against this. We do not want to waste any more money from the mistake that was made in 1998 and 1999.

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

Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of an Executive Order that deals with instituting energy efficiency improvements in Federal buildings and reporting on progress in that regard.

We have no objection to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about roads. The roads are used for many things, recreation, all those sorts of things. Over 90 percent of the Tongass is unroaded, won't be roaded and so forth.

It ought to be that forests in America, managed the best in the world, should be providing the resources for all over the world. For instance, if we don't have wood, we will have to rely on steel or plastic. Steel takes lots more energy, about eight times as much to make a steel 2 by 4 versus a wooden 2 by 4, and plastic, we know what that comes from.

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.

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

If the gentleman will yield.

The gentleman from New York is right, the National Park Service has notified the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that due to its inability to complete an open bid before the expiration of the current extension in April 2007, the Park Service will have to temporarily

extend Circle Line's contract once again to prevent the disruption of service to Liberty Island.

If the gentleman will yield.

I agree with the gentleman from New York that the Circle Line contract set to expire March 2007 should not be extended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the authorizing committee and the ranking member of this subcommittee to ensure that the new contract is in place as soon as possible and those responsible for the current delay are held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I understand there is opposition being included in the Special Resource Study currently being conducted by the National Park Service.

Would the gentleman agree to work with the ranking member and myself to see if we can resolve that?

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of point of order and claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

I would like to oppose this amendment strongly. On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that there must be a significant and important connection between traditional navigable waterways and the wetlands or waters to be regulated by Federal agencies.

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers issued guidance to their field staff in 2003 clarifying that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction did not extend to isolated waters that are both intrastate and non-navigable. This guidance also clarifies that field staff should continue to assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands and their tributaries systems and adjacent wetlands. Field staff was directed to make jurisdictional and permitting decisions on a case-by- case basis.

The plain text of the Clean Water Act emphasizes that Congress constructed the statute in a manner that intended, as the Supreme Court has articulated, to ``recognize, preserve, and protect the States' primary authority and responsibility over local land and water resources.'' Misguided efforts to expand the geographical scope of the Clean Water Act will create and exacerbate local land and water resource decisions with burdensome and costly Federal controls.

I will give you an example. Right now the Clean Water Act is being used in farms, with livestock, cattle primarily, to try to clean the streams where cattle are grazing.

If we allow the situation we have here for navigable waters to be translated to ditches, small tributaries with an ounce of water, the soil conservation today, and we are providing grants for soil conservation to take those streams, provide drinking water for cattle, and then enable them to go back into a stream which is fenced off, if we rule according to what has been asked here, we will find that the soil conservation will be barred from doing any sort of work in cleaning water. We will actually get dirtier water. We could have up to six agencies get involved in trying to clean up water on a farm. Not only will the cost be prohibitive, but the bureaucracy, because many of those agencies do not agree in this thing.

Eliminating this guidance will create confusion and could lead to the classification of ditches, drains, curbs, roads, gutters and erosion features as ``navigable water of the United States.'' Clearly, this goes beyond common sense, but it won't be the first time that the Federal Government has tried to force something like this.

Such an expansive regulatory reach would have the Federal Government interfering and frustrating local decisions regarding construction, operation, maintenance, management, transportation, flood control, and agricultural production.

For instance, soil water conservation, which would be working with the farmer, has an elected delegation inside the county, as well as the State delegations elected, and they are trying to do the right thing, and we are spending Federal money to help it. This could be stopped by the Corps of Engineers simply for bureaucratic action.

Eliminating this guidance would require Federal oversight of ditches, storm drains and sewers. These are local structures that are constructed and managed and maintained at the local level. We don't want the Corps of Engineers and all the bureaucracy that would be entailed to get down to a small storm drain or a small ounce of water on a farm. The cost would be prohibitive, and it would go against what the Clean Water Act is trying to do, and that is clean water for a special agriculture problem.

One critical consideration is the Supreme Court is expected to rule in two new Clean Water Act cases prior to the expiration of the current term in June. The decisions in these cases will provide important clarification of the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction. We should not act at this time on issues that are being actively deliberated by the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. Chairman, we have one more.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman ought to go talk to his farmers more, because if this passes the farmer will soon find out, Mr. Chairman, that he no longer can drain even a few drops of water out of his ditch and try to collect it or put it in a way that he can responsibly manage his farm, even if that has been done for years and years.

The Soil and Water Conservation has tried working with the EPA in this Clean Water Act to put common sense into these measures, to try to see that reality happens, that you can farm in a responsible way. In fact, they are doing more to clean up the water, especially in farms, by putting in systems that are drained into a central watering spot that is covered by fabric and stone, and then the cow will not contaminate the water that goes in it, rather than going into the streams themselves.

Now, there is much government money going into this. But the Corps right now will stop that any time, any time that they get a chance. And I know that in my home. And that is why the Farm Bureau is against this group, the Home Builders, the American Forest and Paper, the National Association of Realtors, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives, and the Edison Electric Institute, the National Grange, the National Association of Counties, the National Cattlemen, and the National Corn Growers, because it goes beyond common sense.

We have been successful. I worked with the EPA, and we have tried to fund the EPA for clean water. But what we find often is if we have a rule, some people think that if we double or triple that rule it will be better. Actually, after you start and get a certain distance with that rule, it becomes corrupting in the sense that it disrupts the whole purpose of the original rule.

And that is what we are about to have here. The individuals landowners and the taxpayers certainly know what they can do inside small watershed areas. And the Soil and Water Conservation would be directly against this type of program, because they cannot have six agencies trying to manage the farms of the American people.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would only point out that the gentleman's recommendation is entirely contrary to what is happening in a sense. The Soil and Water Conservation is trying to put small tributaries underground, put into a pond, a clean water pond, with fabric around it, and so forth, to cow's activities getting involved in the water.

Now that is what they are trying to do. The Corps is trying to oppose them in my own State, time after time. And we may have to get back and take money away that the Federal Government put forth for the Soil and Water Conservation, because the Corps bureaucratically says that one drop of water is in their control and the Corps has no authority.

Now, if you want to pollute streams, enact this bill and you will see on farms more and more activities that will be ignored. No farmer would get involved in this, and we will have to have a police state to go by every cow and every animal to see that there is any compliance.

Right now the farmer knows best and is the best steward of his lands. He is working with the Soil and Water Conservation, with elected members from that community, and they are doing a good job. Put more bureaucracy in it, we will bring it to a halt and create more pollution.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the clean water amendment offered by my colleagues Mr. Leach, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. Dingell.

This is an important amendment for public health and safe drinking water, for hunting, boating, and swimming, for protecting homes and businesses from floods, and for our economy, much of which depends on a clean environment, especially clean water.

That is why the 1972 Clean Water Act is one of the nation's most fundamental and popular environmental protection laws. Clean water is vital to almost every aspect of quality of life in our nation.

The policy adopted by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 undermines the Clean Water Act's promise of clean water for all Americans and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. It threatens to reverse decades of progress in cleaning up the nation's waters.

This policy is leaving many wetlands as well as headwater and seasonal streams without federal limits on water pollution. The policy tells the agencies' field staff they must get permission before applying Clean Water Act protections to certain so-called isolated waters, although that term is not used in the Clean Water Act to exclude waters from the law, nor is the term even defined in the policy, leaving it unclear at best what is and is not protected. No permission is needed before the EPA or Corps staff can deny protections for waters, and leave them open to pollution from sewage and industrial wastes, or even destruction.

The total number of streams at risk across the country--and consequences for drinking water health and safety--are significant and potentially severe.

Maintaining safe drinking water requires protecting the sources of drinking water--both surface water and groundwater supplies--from pollution. The EPA recently concluded that the majority of public drinking water systems that rely on surface waters get their water from ``source water protection'' areas that contain headwater streams or seasonal and intermittent streams.

Again, these are the very types of streams both I and my colleagues offering this amendment believe are most at risk of losing federal Clean Water Act protections under the agencies' policy.

According to the EPA's letter:

In total, over 90 percent of surface water protection areas

contain start reaches or intermittent/ephemeral streams.

Public drinking water systems which use these intakes (as

well as other sources) are estimated to provide drinking

water to over 110 million people.

If this policy continues, some or all of these source waters could lose federal Clean Water Act restrictions against water pollution, and the people who rely on these waters will either pay the price: either with dirtier water or higher costs for safe drinking water.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me today in voting to reaffirm protections from all of the nation's waters, including streams and wetlands, as the Clean Water At has always done. Vote for the Oberstar- Leach-Dingell clean water amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman that the Federal regulations should be based on sound science, that rural communities should not be unfairly asked to pay additional, unnecessary costs for their drinking water.

I commend the gentleman for his efforts on the part of his constituents and for all the rural water users who are facing similar problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see what can be done to fix this problem. The committee will be glad to facilitate a meeting with the EPA to address this important issue and see what can be done as we move this bill through conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept it, if the gentlewoman would explain it briefly.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will be happy to accept this amendment also.

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

Mr. Chairman, I love the gentleman from Colorado like a brother, but I am going to have to oppose his amendment. First of all, the bill has already been reduced $145 million below the $206 million level. The nine largest agencies in this bill have absorbed more than $2 billion in pay and other fixed costs over the past few years, and this bill assumes that several hundred millions of dollars more in costs will have to be absorbed.

The committee has done a responsible job, and one might say we gave at the office. We have already cut this bill about as much as we can. I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleagues on the Committee on International Relations for their work on House Resolution 703, which recognizes the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. I strongly support this resolution, which serves as an important reminder of the work yet to be done to ensure a better future for people living in parts of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, and other areas, who have been affected by the disaster.

As the resolution makes clear, the United States must continue its work with other countries and international organizations to provide assistance to mitigate the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. At the same time, as the resolution points out, it is also imperative that we support research into the public health consequences of the disaster so that the international community might benefit from the findings of such research.

It is in this spirit that I would like to recognize the Chernobyl Research and Service

Project, an initiative underway by a coalition including the U.S. Department of Energy, the Ukrainian government, Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Asheville, and RTI International. By studying the effects of human exposure to radiation, this project has a number of critical objectives. In addition to protecting the health and welfare of workers involved in the Chernobyl clean-up effort, the Chernobyl Research and Service Project aims to provide information that will lead to the development of more sensitive tests to detect and measure radiation exposure and its effects in the human population, as well as the development of more powerful treatment for victims of radiation exposure, among other things.

Today, as we remember the Chernobyl disaster, it is my sincere hope that programs such as the Chernobyl Research and Service Project continue in an effort not only to improve the lives of those affected by the catastrophic event that took place 20 years ago this month, but also to ensure that we are better prepared in the future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this significant resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the fine work and achievements of one of my constituents in Western North Carolina, Mr. Tim Chesley. Mr. Chesley serves as an engineer for the National Forests in North Carolina and recently earned the U.S. Forest Service's National Managerial Engineer of the Year award.

A Forest Service employee for 30 years, Tim Chesley garnered this prestigious award for his outstanding management of programs, projects and employees. ``His extraordinary response to the massive destruction, that resulted from the remnants of three hurricanes in September of 2004, plus his long-standing leadership as the assistant forest engineer for the past 22 years merits this award,'' wrote Forest engineer Lynn Hicks in the nomination letter.

Mr. Chesley was selected as the deputy planning chief and engineering liaison, when an incident command team was formed, after flooding from the hurricanes wrecked havoc on Forest Service lands over a two-week period sixteen months ago. Working six days a week, he coordinated the planning, design, reconstruction, and contract administration for the repair of hundreds of miles of National Forest roads and trails and for nearly 50 bridges as well as for campgrounds, fisheries, offices and other Forest Service facilities.

Mr. Chesley continues to coordinate the administration of contracts that will exceed $35 million, and in July he helped secure another $5.5 million in Emergency Relief of Federally Owned Roads funding. He was also responsible for the recruitment, training and supervision of more than 150 engineering employees who have come to North Carolina, from across the country on temporary assignment, to assist with the storm recovery effort. As a manager for most of his career, he has supervised more than 30 people, including trainees, technicians and professionals. He is currently supervising seven engineering trainees, who were sent to North Carolina for one year in support of the hurricane damage recovery work.

A native of Conway, New Hampshire, Mr. Chesley received his bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from the University of New Hampshire, and his Master's Degree in Civil Engineering and Transportation Planning from the University of California at Berkeley. In addition to his professional responsibilities, he has taken the lead on several major community projects, including raising funds and constructing playgrounds for Asheville's Kenilworth community and for Glenn C. Marlow Elementary School in Hendersonville. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Asheville Kiwanis Club where he has been a member for more than ten years.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues in the House will be most appreciative of Mr. Chesley's devotion and hard work at the United States Forest Service. I am proud to announce that he will be presented the U.S. Forest Service's National Managerial Engineer of the Year award at a formal ceremony in Washington, DC on April 3, 2006.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment for three reasons. First of all, some $9.5 billion of the $35 billion that has been appropriated will go to food, housing and other critical needs. So we have met those criteria as much as possible.

Secondly, as the gentleman said, this is required by section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act. We don't want to get into amending and trying to put that in the middle of this supplemental. I would suggest if the gentleman wants to take that up at a later time, we could do that.

Thirdly, it is needed because an $18 billion tourist industry is involved here, and getting the assessment of these national historical preserved sites is going to be the first step in trying to get back that $18 billion.

Those are three reasons I would oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, many young men and women have been killed and wounded in the Iraqi conflict--more than 2,000 killed and 17,000 wounded. I'd like today to reprint my eulogy given at the funeral of CWO3 Mitchell ``Mitch'' Carver as a tribute not only to him and his parents, but as a reminder to all citizens of our country that ``freedom is not free.''

In Flanders' fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row

That mark our place, and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead! Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders' fields.

John McCrae wrote those words before his own death on the

battlefield nearly 90 years ago. We have learned to protect

the lives of our soldiers better. In the war to end all wars,

more died in single battles than America has lost in all wars

since. America has learned to protect our soldiers better--

but not well enough for we are here to pay homage to the life

of Mitch Carver. We take pride in reducing our casualties,

but the sacrifice of the family is not a small percent, it is

not a small loss, it is not a small number. Their sacrifice

is enormous, it is total, it is all.

Mitch Carver took up ``The Torch'' for the country he

loved. He knew who he was fighting. He was fighting the evil

that plants a bomb that kills innocent women and children and

families who harm no one. Murderers who kill, kidnap

defenseless women and children for no reason but to show

evil. He chose to do it. For it is not the press who protect

our right to free speech, it is men like Mitch Carver who

choose to do it. It is riot the Congress, not the government

bureaucrats, who protect us from those who would enslave us.

It is men like Mitch Carver who choose to do it. For another

time Mitch Carver rejoined his comrades in Iraq because he

knew they needed him and he believed he could, with his

advanced skill, keep them safer, and perhaps lessen their

danger. And that he did. We may never know how many he saved

by his advanced skill.

In the 8 years I have been privileged to serve as

representative on the board of our country's military academy

at West Point, I have seen thousands of young men and women

take the oath to protect us. Theirs is a simple pledge:

``Duty, Honor, Country.'' In this world of being told there

is no black nor white, there is only gray political

correctness and ``is'' has to be defined, I thank God we have

young men and women who have no trouble defining ``Duty,

Honor, Country.''

The late T.B. Macaulay in his poem Horatius at the Bridge

says, ``To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or

late. And now how can man die better than facing fearful

odds, for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his

gods.'' Mitch Carver believed in and loved God. He knew the

Bible. He could quote this verse better than I, ``For God so

loved the Earth that he gave his only begotten Son, that

whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have

everlasting life.'' Mitch Carver risked and gave his life to

perform his duty, but as God promised, he did not perish but

will remain in our hearts and memories until he meets his

family in another life.

Mr. Speaker, I voted ``no'' on the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA, in the vote last night. I informed the majority leader and the Appropriations chairman I was voting ``no'', as I had informed my constituents I was voting ``no.'' Representative Howard Coble and I voted ``no'' together. Due to an error, my ``no'' vote did not record on the voting machine. The clerks computer logs verified that I had attempted to vote, but it did not show my ``nay''. I am re-inserting my ``no'' vote in the record. But even with my ``no'' vote re-inserted, the bill still passed.