Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2361.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 392, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we bring before the House the conference agreement on H.R. 2361, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. I would like to thank all of the members of the Subcommittee for their support and guidance this year. I want to extend special thanks to the subcommittee vice chairman, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member and my good friend, for their assistance in shaping the bill. We are under last year, and we are under the allocation.

The conference report balances many competitive and diverse needs. It provides funding for programs in the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health Agency, the Smithsonian Institution, and several other environmental and cultural agencies and commissions.

With the ongoing war on terrorism and a sizable Federal debt, the American taxpayer demands fiscal prudence, yet entrusts us to continue the conservation and care of our Nation's natural resources, the protection of the environment, and critical programs for native Americans and other programs. The needs far outweigh the funds available, but I believe this bill addresses the most critical needs.

The conference report is the product of a balanced, bipartisan, bicameral effort that resolves over 2,000 differences between the House and the Senate bills. Moreover, it addresses many of the key issues raised on the House floor in May and stays true to the fundamental issues that helped the bill pass overwhelmingly in the House. Here are a few of the highlights:

Payments in Lieu of Taxes are $9 million over the enacted level. The arts and humanities are $5 million each over the enacted level. Funding for operations of the national parks has increased by $61 million. Restrictions remain in the bill for pesticide testing on human subjects. Funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Act is $900 million, which is $50 million above the House level and $170 million above the budget request.

The Forest Health Program, which is critical to reducing this Nation's risk of catastrophic wildfires, is restored to the enacted level.

Finally, I am proud to say that this conference agreement contains $1.5 billion in critically needed funds for veterans medical care.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the priorities of the American people are reflected in the conference agreement, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle because, without their hard work, we would not be able to bring this bill forward at this time.

At this time, I will include a table detailing the various accounts in the bill for insertion in the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.005

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, staffers do not often receive proper recognition for the hard work they do in government for either Congress or the agencies. Many of us would like to thank one of those deserving of such recognition. That person is Peter Derby, the Managing Executive for Operations and Management at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Derby has announced that he will leave the SEC at the end of July. He will be leaving a legacy of hard work and accomplishment at that agency. Chairman William Donaldson praised Mr. Derby thusly: ``Peter has played a critical role as a trusted Member of our senior management team during a critical period at the Commission. He was instrumental in increasing the operational efficiency and effectiveness at the Commission and served with distinction and integrity. Peter will leave a strong and lasting legacy at the Commission.''

Prior to joining the SEC, Mr. Derby was involved in a wide array of business and public service ventures which left him well prepared to take over a position of such importance. Peter served as an elected member of the

Board of Trustees of the Village of Irvington-on-Hudson, NY. Derby spent a decade in Russia, where at the forefront of democratizing that nation's markets and banking infrastructure. He participated in the founding of DialogBank in 1990, the first private Russian bank to receive an international banking license. He moved rapidly through the ranks and was named Chairman of the Board of this institution in 1997. In addition, Derby founded the first Russian investment firm, Troika Dialog. Prior to Derby's time in Russia, he was a Corporate Finance Officer at National Westminster Bank from 1985-1990 and an Auditor at Chase-Manhattan Bank.

Mr. Derby worked seamlessly with Chairman Donaldson to repair the damaged image of our Nation's corporations and financial markets. In addition to improving the overall efficiency of SEC operations, Derby oversaw the creation of the Risk Management Program to create a more proactive posture. He also produced the first-ever audited financial statements of the SEC as well as leading the development of an implementation program for aligning facilities, technology and organizational systems with the agency's strategic themes.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues will join me in giving thanks to Peter Derby for his service to our Nation in a time of challenge. It is reassuring to the United States to know that there are people who will give time from their lives to help our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will soon, I think, hear from our chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, who will be speaking on this. I know that the error that was made is being taken care of in this legislation, in 2005 with $1.5 billion, and in 2006 with another $1.5 billion to make the entire $3 billion.

Every year, Mr. Speaker, we have raised benefits for American veterans, and rightly so. Some 68 percent of our veterans are from World War II and Korea, and we know when we go out on the plaza and see the monument to the World War II veterans the sacrifices paid. We all have relatives who served in World War II, and we know they saved this world with their dedication. We know also how much our other veterans give to this country, those who fought in subsequent wars right up through the current time with our own children fighting in Iraq.

So all of us want to provide the materials and the health care benefits for our veterans, and this amendment will be one of the steps in providing that.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, a member of the party which, as we all know, has supported our veterans with increases every year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 415 and 416, I was detained in a conference with the Senate. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 415 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 416.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the accomplishments of outgoing Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William H. Donaldson. Chairman Donaldson has announced his retirement, but he leaves behind a legacy of hard work, integrity, and achievement.

Mr. Donaldson was certainly well prepared to lead the SEC. He is a veteran of the Marine Corps and a graduate of Yale University. The Chairman has more than 45 years of high-level business and government experience. He is the founder and former CEO of the investment banking firm Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette and is the former Chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. Chairman Donaldson has over five decades of government experience, including service as Under Secretary of State to Henry Kissinger.

When Mr. Donaldson took the helm of the SEC on February 18, 2003, our faith in corporations and financial markets was severely strained. The Chairman immediately set out to remedy these ills by advocating internal reform of the Commission and external reform of securities markets. Chairman Donaldson has accomplished his primary goals of improving disclosure and transparency, protecting investors by helping to eliminate conflicts of interest and self-dealing by brokers, detecting and punishing securities fraud, and making the SEC more effective, efficient and cooperative. In addition, Chairman Donaldson has taken the agency from a re-active to pro-active posture. Donaldson once said ``look over hills and around corners'' and introduced a risk- based approach to actions.

Through the principle and diligence of William Donaldson, the agency completed the Sarbanes-Oxley rulemaking process, strengthened mutual fund oversight to alleviate potential fraud and abuse in the future, and reinforced the SEC's enforcement and examination programs. During his tenure the SEC hired 1,200 new employees and also promoted teleworking and a virtual workforce. Perhaps most impressively, under Mr. Donaldson's leadership the agency prosecuted more than 1,700 enforcement actions, the two highest annual totals in the SEC's history. During this time the SEC authorized more than $7 billion in penalties to companies which have not played by the rules.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's financial institutions are stronger and more secure because of the due diligence of William H. Donaldson. I know that my colleagues in the House of Representatives wish him well in his future endeavors. But at this moment and at this time in our country's history he and his staff have made a great contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2361.

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

Madam Chairman, today we present for consideration by the House the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bill as approved by the House Committee on Appropriations.

The bill provides a total of $26.2 billion in funding for programs for the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Forest Service, Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and several other environmental and cultural agencies and commissions.

The bill is $823 million below the fiscal year 2005 level, and $435 million above the administration budget request.

This is a balanced, bipartisan bill. It provides significant increases for our national parks, Indian schools, hospitals and clinics, wildfire programs; forest health is a high priority, and the Healthy Forest Initiative is fully funded.

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program has a healthy increase of $30 million above the budget request, and more than $3 million above the 2005 level. Despite our very tight allocation, the Committee believes it is important to provide this increased funding for PILT.

There is an increase of $64 million for operations of our National Park System, including a $30 million increase specifically designed for individual units of the National Park Service. This targeted park base increase will benefit all of our parks.

The bill also restores critical funding for science programs, historic preservation programs, National Forest Systems programs, and Save America's Treasures grants. Finally, we have restored critical environmental education, research and rural water programs in the Environmental Protection Agency, and provided some limited increases for initiatives proposed in the budget request, including Superfund, homeland security, school bus retrofits, the Clean Diesel Program, Methane to Markets Initiative, and the Brownfields Program.

The budget request for EPA, while substantially below last year's level and proposed increases in that budget request, were funded by elimination of many critical mission essential programs.

We heard from nearly every Member of the House asking that we provide funding for EPA programs that were eliminated or reduced in the budget. The program restoration and increases for the various programs and agencies in this bill are offset by the decreases in land acquisition, construction, and State grant programs, and by lowering the amount provided for the increases proposed in the budget request.

This is a balanced bill. It is within the 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. It provides the needed funding to keep the agencies in the bill operating at a reasonable level.

It does not provide a lot of funding for new initiatives. The choices made by the Committee were tough and fair and responsible. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

At this point, I would like to ask that a table detailing the accounts in the bill be inserted in the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY05.024

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the staff of both the minority and majority staff, and Mr. Dicks, and all of those who have worked with the Committee in producing this. We have had outstanding participation, and I thank all of them for their participation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

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

Before I recognize the next speaker, I want to point out that it is not, as I am hearing, that we are obliterating the clean water State revolving fund or the arts funds. We are funding the arts and humanities $259 million, the same as the 2005 year. We are funding the State revolving fund $850 million, the same as we did in 2005.

Unfortunately, with the costs and the deficit we have now, we cannot continue to put more and more in. We are trying to do the best we can by consistently funding our needs in this area.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam 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.

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

Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman is obviously speaking seriously about the arts and humanities. Certainly we support both and have done so generously in this bill. The American public supports arts now by over $9 billion. The government's support is a very minimal part of that $9 billion. In fact, this increase would be an even smaller part of that $9 billion, and so it would be hardly noticeable inside the total support of the arts.

What we are having to sacrifice, though, is to reduce funding for the administration of the Department of the Interior by $8 million and administration of the Forest Service by $7 million. This will cost some 200 staff positions in the Department of the Interior and Forest Service. They are responsible for 634 acres in the United States. This is a primary obligation we have. It is not supported by $9 billion of public support. It is primarily supported with the funding that this Committee has the duty to appropriate.

That is why we are trying to do our primary job by maintaining the levels that we did and to find a balance to show our support for the arts and do the mandated portion that we must do for the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service.

Members can count on us to continue to support the arts, to watch the oversight of our Committees, and this bill strikes a fair balance between the needs of the arts and our responsibility to land management and Indian programs. I ask Members to join me in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for yielding.

I certainly agree that PILT is a necessary funding item. We have added $30 million to it. I agree with the gentleman that we will make every effort to do so as we move to conference with the Senate. As the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a moment ago, when you go to the Senate, you cannot always control what happens. We will certainly stand by our statements to decrease the spending on land if we can manage that, and we will count on the House to support us in that area.

But I do thank the gentleman for calling this to our attention, and we certainly support what he is thinking about.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is correct. In no way should this study delay or disrupt either phase I or II of the planned cleanup of the Hudson River or any other ongoing Superfund project. I will work with the gentleman to consider modifications to clarify this in the conference agreement.

I thank the gentleman from New York for his good work on the Hudson River program and for bringing the need for clarification of the intent of the study to my attention.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I agree with the gentleman that invasive species pose a threat to the marine environment, and we do provide funds in the bill reported by the Committee to address the Invasive Species Act. We have also provided other invasive species funds to stop that in areas of timber and things coming in from imports. For instance, the hemlock wooly adelgid is one of the invasive species that are threatening one of our species and may wipe it out in plant area.

But the gentleman is right, and I will work with him to see if we can increase funding in this area in the conference report. I note there are some small increases included in the bill for invasive species efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service also. So we will try to work with him to increase his request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly sympathize with the gentlewoman and other Members who have already spoken. I support PILT. In fact, we increased it some $30 million in our bill. And as we indicated with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) a few minutes ago, we will certainly do more and we appreciate their bringing it to our attention.

But the Department of Interior is responsible for one-fifth of the land in the United States and manages programs that affect over 4 million Native Americans. This amendment would eliminate 110 staff positions and drastically impact the management of numerous important programs, including the management of PILT, the very program that this amendment is intended to help. The PILT program is managed using staff from the Department Management account.

The Interior bill is a balanced bill. In developing this bill, The Committee made a number of difficult choices. If we had additional resources, I believe PILT would be a deserving program and I certainly would try to increase it. But I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

The amendment increases payments in lieu of taxes $4.8 million and reduces the National Endowment for the Arts by $15 million. This Interior bill is a balanced bill. In developing this bill, the committee made a number of difficult choices. If we had additional resources, I believe PILT would be a deserving program, as we have said over and over again here today. But to unbalance this bill at this time, I must rise in opposition. I encourage my colleagues to do the same thing.

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

The gentleman is correct. In no way should this study delay or disrupt either phase 1 or 2 of the planned cleanup of the Hudson River, any other ongoing Superfund site, And I know of no party involved that wishes that delay.

I will work with the gentleman to consider whether modifications to the language are needed to further clarify this point.

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his good work on the Hudson River cleanup and for bringing the need for clarification of the intent of the study to my attention. I like forward to working with the gentleman and learning more about Port Edwards' needs.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to discuss this matter with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I understand the gentleman's concern over this issue, and appreciate his desire to see the facility built. I would be pleased to assist in a meeting with the gentleman and agency officials on this matter.

I thank the gentleman for his commitment to this issue.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for raising the budget issues. The committee recognizes the uniqueness and development needs of the War in the Pacific National Historical Park in Guam.

We will work with the National Park Service to remedy this situation. I thank the gentlelady for her efforts and look forward to continuing to work with her on this matter in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes to the proponent and 10 minutes to an opponent, myself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield my 10 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ask unanimous consent that he control the 10 minutes of time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 2361 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution

287, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

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

Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 17;

Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1, 4, 5, and 14, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) regarding environmental justice, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding a $500 million increase in Clean Water State Revolving Fund and tax matters;

An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding a $100 million increase in Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) regarding State and Tribal Assistance Grants;

An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) or the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) regarding the Tongass National Forest, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) regarding making spending on certain accounts subject to authorization;

An amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) regarding intentional dosing;

An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to amendment No. 5;

An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) regarding concession sales;

An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) regarding Lower Klamath and Tule Lake; and

An amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) regarding funding levels.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or 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 as specified, and 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 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.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, and we certainly would not want that. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law . . . ''

The amendment poses additional duties.

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

For the purpose of engaging in a colloquy, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to discuss this matter with the gentlewoman from South Dakota.

I yield to the gentlewoman from South Dakota.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the devastating fire that occurred on the Crow Creek Reservation. I agree with the gentlewoman that it is vital that the BIA begin construction of temporary facilities immediately so that they can be ready for the beginning of the school year this fall. Reprogramming requests for Crow Creek Tribal education facilities that come before this committee will be reviewed and approved as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentlewoman that this fire was unexpected and devastating to the school, and that that is precisely the type of event that would trigger the emergency authority of the BIA to reprogram funds, and I join the gentlewoman in urging the OMB to review these requests as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment would increase funding for the Superfund program at the expense of EPA's research program funded under the Science and Technology Account.

I note that the Superfund program received an $8 million increase over the 2005 level under the committee's recommendations, while the total amount for EPA is $348 million below the 2005 level, so the Superfund site received much better treatment than most of our programs. The bill as a whole is more than $800 million below the 2005 level.

Now, we have received many requests from Members of Congress asking that we fund programs for EPA's research, and we are able to do so only to a limited extent, and many people want the science and technology area just as well. A cut of the $130 million in science and technology would decimate the program's restorations. These research programs provide critical support to all other EPA programs, including the Superfund program.

The Superfund program was treated the same as the Science and Technology Account in that limited increases were provided for proposed initiatives associated with homeland security. The committee bill balances the many competing needs of the EPA within a constrained allocation. And while I understand the gentleman's concern, given the funding we have already done and the limited funding we have totally, I cannot accept the gentleman's amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if there are other speakers?

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve a point of order.

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

The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order in changing existing law, the amendment modifies existing powers and duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

The amendment would increase the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by $100 million and cut special project grants under the State and Tribal Assistance programs by $100 million.

The committee's recommendation for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is identical to the level in the House bill for this program in fiscal year 2005.

Almost every Member of Congress wrote to the subcommittee requesting one or more STAG projects. These projects are often the only recourse for rural communities that, for whatever reason, are unable to qualify for a loan under the Clean Water or Drinking Water revolving funds.

I admire the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) willingness to sacrifice special STAG projects to increase the Clean Water Fund. The Committee has a very difficult time in making these decisions. I do not believe it is an appropriate approach, given that these projects address critical infrastructure needs that otherwise might never be addressed, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

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

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

I would repeat, the special grants program under STAG would be cut by $100 million under this amendment. As I mentioned, these projects are often the only recourse for rural communities that, for whatever reason, are unable to qualify for a loan under the Clean Water or Drinking Water state revolving funds.

It is a difficult decision in our bill in allocating money. The STAG grants are one way that we can answer the needs made by their representatives who are elected to this Congress. To oppose this, I think, is taking away the right of the membership to look in their districts for those needs which maybe go beyond the official needs, and I oppose this amendment and hope everyone else will also.

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

Again, I say this is a very difficult choice to make, and the committee has tried to be as bipartisan as possible.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to work with the authorizing committee chairman.

I want to assure the chairman that I will work to remove or modify objectionable provisions under his jurisdiction as we move the bill into conference.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I have reviewed the gentleman's amendment and am willing to accept it. I have already notified the Senate of the changes we agreed upon with respect to the ``special projects'' correction authority, and I look forward to working with the gentleman as the bill moves forward this year and on future appropriation bills.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to say that with such persuasive statements from the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Tennessee, I have no objection to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $1 million for the National Forest System, and I believe we have agreement on both sides.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I share the gentleman's concern for forests. The Department of the Interior bill has focused on forest health and wildlife management. We have large increases for the most important parts of the national fire plan. The bill has substantially increased due to the administration's Healthy Forest and National Fire Plan Initiatives. The bill has a $33 million increase in funding over the last year for hazardous fuel management. This is a serious increase. We have increased hazardous fuel funding dramatically in the last 4 years. It is not clear that the proposed increase could be used efficiently.

I share the gentleman's interest in caring for public lands. A large part of my district is national forests and national parks, so I understand we need to take care of this important land.

The Department of the Interior bill also increases funding for other wildlife programs and forest health management. This is a tight allocation, and I think we have done a careful balancing act. As I opposed the amendment to increase funding in the arts earlier, trying to balance our concerns, I must also reluctantly oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

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

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concerns and the unfortunate turn of events which caused this project to be delayed, and I will give the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) every possible consideration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 128 line 12 be

considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this issue is about the proper management of wildlife and public lands, and the Committee on Appropriations is in charge of trying to adequately fund the United States agencies. If we want to get into the question of whether or not the six cents is being paid for grazing land or anything else, you need to go to the authorizing committees and have a debate there and get it changed and so forth.

We in the Committee on Appropriations have a situation where wild horses and burros cost the taxpayers $40 million annually. Now, this is more than BLM spends on all wildlife management activities on public lands. There are currently 24,000 wild horses and burros that are kept in short-term, or long-term, either way, holding facilities. They are not roaming free. They are being housed in these short-term facilities, and that is costing $20 million, and they are living there until they die.

BLM has the authority to sell the older or unadoptable animals. Now, if they are 10 years or older, or if they have been offered three times for sale and been turned down, then this would give BLM the authority to sell these older, unadoptable animals and conserve the $40 million that we are talking about. That is what we are asking, and we think that is a prudent measure, so we urge our colleagues to defeat this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of Committee on Agriculture.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention, and we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires EPA to comply with the executive order by the first President Bush dealing with environmental justice. We have no objection to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman makes good points, and if he and I were the only two Members of Congress, we could probably sit down and come up with a tighter bill. There are 435 Members in the House, and we have 100 over in the Senate. We have tried to put together a balanced bill. Because of that, we have cut many things and had a very difficult time in doing it. I would have to strongly object to the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

First I all I would like to read a letter from the Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency:

``Dear Chairman Taylor:

``This is regarding the November 2003 Draft Blending Policy which addresses the management of peak wet weather flows at municipal wastewater treatment facilities. The draft policy received extensive public comment and has been the subject of considerable ongoing discussion and debate, including being the focus of a recent hearing before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

``Based on our review of all of the information received, we have no intention of finalizing the blending policy as proposed in November 2003. We continue to review policy and regulatory options to manage this issue.''

I think this letter is self-explanatory.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

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

Does the gentleman intend his amendment to have any impact on the policies of the EPA regions and States that allow blending today and have issued permits allowing blending?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would accept the gentleman's amendment under that representation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) who supports the amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding, but I would like to talk with the gentleman. This is a new area, a new part of the committee, and I would like to work with him as we go on with the bill toward conference. But that is my understanding.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's activity. We will work with him.

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

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. We have an agreement. I do not think we can strike the last word when we have a time agreement.

Would the chairman rule on that and inform me?

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, if we withdraw any objection to this amendment, is the gentlewoman envisioning a rollcall vote or just a simple voice vote?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any objection to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his concern about the excessive foreign travel. This subcommittee has conducted extensive oversight using the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on the use of foreign travel on large conferences. I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection at this time to this amendment.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I wish we did not have to have a rollcall vote.

This motion to recommit kills the bill by adding $352 million, and I oppose this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the poetic talents of one of my constituents--Mrs. Bertie Battle Wilde of Canton, North Carolina. Mrs. Wilde has lived 96 years with deep and tremendous faith. Her belief certainly is evident in her art and I am pleased to share one of her poems, titled House Calls, with my colleagues.

House Calls

Jesus makes house calls 24 hours each day

All you have to do is bow your head and pray.

Remember, we are not promised tomorrow, only today.

He's standing at your heart's door knocking,

Will you let Him in?

He will dissolve your troubles,

And take away your sins.

If you have problems, give Jesus a call.

The number is H-E-A-V-E-N.

He'll show you what to do,

Because He loves you.

He'll talk to you anytime,

Because He's always on the line,

And it won't cost you a dime.

He don't want your money,

But His love to you He will impart.

He cares for you my child.

All He wants is your heart.

Please give your heart to Jesus without delay.

You will be glad you did,

On that final judgment day.

Your name will be written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

No more heartaches, no more dark nights.

Our heavenly Father will be your shining light.

Yes, Jesus makes house calls, night and day.

All you have to do is bow your head and pray.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening, July 3, 2004, Peter J. Hanlon died at the age of 98. A resident of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, Hanlon was supervisor of North Carolina's national forests for 10 years before retiring from the U.S. Forest Service in 1970 after 36 years of distinguished service.

Hanlon's career with the Forest Service began in the 1930s on the Allegheny National Forest. His career was then briefly interrupted by service in the region's CCC camps. Prior to dissolution of these camps Hanlon was superintendent of CCC Camp Thornwood in Pocahontas County, WV. As World War II began,

Hanlon rejoined the Forest Service in the capacity of forest ranger for the Greenbrier Ranger District on West Virginia's Monongahela National Forest, as well as staff officer for Virginia's George Washington National Forest and the regional forester in Upper Darby.

As Supervisor of North Carolina's national forests, Hanlon frequently advocated for sustainable land use practices that accommodated recreational activities, wildlife habitats, timber harvests and general preservation. His belief that the land could and should be used in a responsible manner, balancing these practices, allowed him to ensure that no single interest outweighed or endangered another. Even as he believed in preservation, he understood the benefits of well-managed clear cutting and neither interest was ever allowed to jeopardize equal land use. Throughout his 35 year retirement, Hanlon continued to echo these noble principles.

Not only did Hanlon manage land use with exceptional expertise, he also secured the expansion of North Carolina's national forests by acquiring new lands. The most notable acquisition was that of the Nantahala River Gorge. Hanlon's role in creating the Cradle of Forestry, a museum located off U.S. 276, just south of the Blue Ridge Parkway, was pivotal and earned him an honorary doctorate degree from the Biltmore School of Forestry. In 1970, then Governor Terry Sanford designated Hanlon as North Carolina's Conservationist of the Year. This recognition only enhances his legacy as a celebrated figure of North Carolina's rich history.

Mr. Speaker, on July 6, 2004 on Rollcall Vote 327, I inadvertently cast a ``nay'' vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on the resolution. I would ask that the record reflect my intention to vote ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 257, expressing the sense of Congress that the President should posthumously award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harry W. Colmery.