Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 4568) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and other extraneous material.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

None of us are comfortable with this issue, but let me attempt to provide Members with some facts.

The record of decision was signed in December 2000 by then-Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and the Governor of Montana. This document was a long-term plan for bison management in the region. The main objectives were to maintain a free-ranging bison population and manage the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. Both the State and the Park Service have specific responsibilities under this agreement. The plan is effective, and the bison population there has continued to grow to over 4,000 from 2,000 a decade ago.

The real issue arises when bison go outside the park boundary into Montana, a brucellosis-free State. When this occurs, bison are captured, tested and some are shipped to slaughter. On occasion, bison that resist repeated hazing and capture are removed. This spring, there was a dangerous situation of this kind involving one aggressive bull bison. The animal could not be hazed back into the park from private property and had to be lethally removed under the direction of the State officials.

The Park Service had opened the Stevens Creek Capture Facility within park boundaries. This facility was required under the original Babbitt management plan. Captured animals are tested and released if negative and removed if positive. This is a very difficult situation. However, there has been no change to the original record of decision, and the State and the National Park Service are abiding by this agreement.

We have recommendations from the National Wildlife Federation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) saying, ``We positively applaud your commitment and desire to curtail the unnecessary killing of Buffalo. We respectfully submit that your amendment would neither achieve this goal nor advance the cause of Yellowstone buffalo conservation in any meaningful way. In fact, your amendment, if enacted, would lead to slaughter of more animals.'' Let me read that again. ``It will lead to slaughter of more animals than under the current management plan.'' This is the National Wildlife Federation writing to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

We also have a similar letter from the InterTribal Bison Cooperative.

Madam Chairman, I certainly agree with the general concept of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) but this will not do it, and I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Even if the gentleman was correct, it would have to be opposed. We have 661 million barrels as of yesterday. The gentleman wants to cap us at 647 million. We cannot by law sell it; therefore, I assume we will pour it out on the ground and that will be 15 million barrels of a large oil spill.

We are not buying any oil now. We have 700 million barrels as our goal, and that is capacity. As I say, we need only 39 million barrels to fill the Strategic Oil Reserve. Oil will come in in kind; where companies are drilling for oil on government lands, our share will come in the form of oil, but we are not buying any oil, and we do not have any intentions right now.

The management of the program right now is to, in tight markets is to not buy any petroleum, and the 39 million barrels that we have to go for our capacity will come in, as I say, through our royalties.

So we cannot sell it, we cannot honor the gentleman's amendment to hold 647 million with the amendment he has. So I recommend we oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt such a fine speech with any logic.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of hysterical comments on the floor, and I share the gentleman's concern about high gas prices. The unfortunate thing is we are not spending any money now to buy gas. No funds are being expended here. We expect the next 39 million barrels will come in as royalties. We cannot sell the oil with this amendment. This merely says no funds in this act shall be used to maintain more than 647 billion barrels of crude oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Now, if it ever gets back down to 647, and that would take a complicated movement to get it back down there, then the gentleman's amendment might apply. But I do not see that it does what he is intending it to do, and certainly it is not going to lower the price of gas.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's statement, and I will work with him, and we will try to get the Interior Department's efforts to allocate construction funds based on financial performance, and I will be glad to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam for raising this issue. The committee encourages the Office of Insular Affairs to take into account financial accountability performance. The committee also wants the OIA to consider the capital infrastructure needs mandated by Federal court orders in the Territories. This is important to Guam and to other Territories and to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) is correct in his assessment that a permit tracking system is needed, and we will work with the gentleman on this issue in the future and hope we can succeed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Holt

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

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, this is a complicated issue. With two Federal courts dueling, one ruling that the National Park Service's 2003 plan was invalid and the other that enjoined the plan of the Clinton administration. Caught in the middle are the local business people that rely on winter use and the visitors who 90 percent prefer the use of snowmobiles to access during the winter in Yellowstone.

Together the courts have found that the environmental studies in place are flawed and must be redone. This will take 2 to 3 years. In the meantime, to ensure snowmobile use this winter, the National Park Service has initiated a temporary winter use plan to allow for their use while the long-term study is being completed. Now there is a whole plethora of rules and regulations, but the committee supports the National Park's efforts to ensure continued winter use that balances visitors in the park and resource protection until the courts can get back to it again.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman and the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that what ultimately is done is something that will be productive and useful and not further fuel the controversies surrounding the Klamath program. I commend the gentleman for suggesting that and we certainly will work with him.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman on exploring promising solutions to the Klamath situation and with the California delegation and the Oregon delegation, also; and I commend the gentleman for his work.

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

The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has reserved a point of order.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, while I may be sufficiently galled and while I appreciate the gentleman's welcome to New York, I must make a point of order against the

amendment because it imposes 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: No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his point of personal privilege and his comments on the commitment to the restoration of the Everglades. He and I have spoken about the importance of ensuring that all communities affected by this restoration project be involved in the decision-making process and understand how the project affects their lives.

I am committed to working with him and with this bill as it goes forward to conference to encourage the Department of Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers to be sensitive to the restoration outreach and assistance in minority and other disadvantaged communities. I thank the gentleman for bringing it to our attention.

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. 4568, 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 fiscal year 2005 budget recommendations for the Department of Interior and related agencies. This bill includes $19.5 billion, which is $156 million below the budget request and $257 million below the enacted level.

Given our allocations, this is a balanced bipartisan bill. It provides significant operation increases for our national parks. It increases funding above the level requested for Indian schools and hospitals and clinics. It provides increased wildland fire programs and continues to make forest health a high priority. We have fully funded the healthy forests initiative.

There is an additional appropriation, in title IV of the bill, for urgent fire suppression. It includes $500 million for fiscal year 2004 and $500 million for fiscal year 2005. These funds will be made available to the extent they are needed to fight fires in those fiscal years. Given our past problems with insufficient fire fighting funds, the budget resolution includes a special allocation adjustment for this purpose.

The bill reported out of committee maintains funding for proven, mission-essential grant programs that are strongly supported by Congress and restores funding to ensure that core programs in the bill are continued.

We have partially restored critical energy research programs to protect the investment the Congress and the taxpayer have made to ensure that energy is used more efficiently and cleanly. It just does not make sense to terminate arbitrarily successful research programs before they reach a logical conclusion, and that is why we have taken this measure.

The committee transferred jurisdiction for the Weatherization Assistance Program from the Interior bill to the Labor, Health, and Human Services bill, which has the responsibility for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. LIHEAP already includes a set-aside for weatherization, and it is, logical to keep these two programs together in the same bill.

We have made difficult but sensible decisions in the energy area. Overall, energy research funding is reduced by 7 percent, after adjustments for jurisdictional change for weatherization. We hope to be able to increase this as we move forward with the bill in conference.

In order to restore funding for mission essential programs, we have reduced new construction, land acquisition and grant programs.

This is a challenging year, but this is a bill that is balanced and fair, and I urge all Members to support it.

I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the minority ranking member, for the hard work that he has done in producing this bill, as well as the entire committee, and both the majority and minority staff for their work on this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, relating to the operation funds, we hope maybe in the conference we will be able to provide more money, after we work with the Senate, for the Interior bill. But we have a letter from the parks director, and this is the second letter that they have sent; and also in public testimony they pointed out that there is not going to be any reductions in visitors' services or access to the park facilities this year. Let me repeat that. Her instructions to the National Park Service field management was clear that the parks facilities are to be available at the same level as they were in the last year, with some amounts for changes for operating hours where individual work might be going on.

So we do not expect parks to be closed. We do not expect any different changes in visitation for our people who will be vacationing at national parks.

We put $1 billion into parks operation. That was a $55 million increase; and while we all want to look for more money for our entire public lands, we think this is adequate, and we have the Parks Service's guarantee that we will not be closing parks under any circumstances this year.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, year after year we try to massage our conscience for the failure in education to address a lot of the problems of the arts and humanities. We spend billions of dollars there and we never mention this in the education budget or any of the related budgets, so we think a few million dollars in the humanities or the arts will solve all the problems. It will, as one gentlewoman said, or gentleman, where the arts are disappearing from the community, it will solve that problem. The bureaucracy that is funded here and the limited programs that are funded here will not even begin to do that.

We find that there is a need to raise the cultural level in the United States, both in the arts and the humanities. There is a need for us to see that young people recognize the documents vital in our Nation's history. I take tours through the Capitol with young people. Most of the teachers and the young people have not a clue about the paintings and the things that are going on in the Capitol. But it will not be solved by increasing the amount of money for the arts and the humanities.

Our committee has a tough job. We have to increase the funding, natural funding for the forests and parks and various others, Indian health, the environment. We were cut $257 million enacted and we kept the NEA at last year's level and we increased NEH $3.5 million. There is a demand now that we increase it $13.5 million more. Based on the cuts that were in the overall bill, it was important to note that we increased both NEA and NEH. In fiscal year 2002, we increased some $15 million to the NEH and the NEA $13 million in 2003. We have grown the fund more than the rate of inflation, but it will not solve the problems of the men and women who spoke here and the dream that they are going to solve all these problems in the arts and the humanities. But it can do this. The amendment reduces administrative funds. The gentleman from Washington and I realize that we are short in that area, anyway. We know that they are going to be called on for funds and we know that that is going to be a problem. When we get to the conference, we hope we can increase that.

It is not clear that the vehicle offset that the gentlewoman from New York discussed will be sufficient. And so we risk the chance that the amendment will impair the on-grounds operation of environment protection, Indian programs, it could reduce the department's funding, including hearings and appeals and support for Indian trust reform. The committee is watchful certainly, the gentleman from Washington and I both, in areas of administrative abuse in trying to rein in excessive spending and travel in other areas and Members can count on our oversight to try to look in any other areas. But moving the money around as suggested could be very dangerous for the balance we have in this bill.

I ask Members to join me in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman. The San Marcos National Monument in St. Augustine, Florida, is one of the outstanding examples of parks for the east coast, and his effort is commendable.

As the gentleman can appreciate, we cannot make commitments on future appropriations, but we will certainly consider the gentleman's request once the project is authorized.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding to me and greatly appreciate her continued leadership on this issue. I look to continue work with her during the conference on this very important issue.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that the subcommittee continues to support this very important effort. Allocation constrained us from increasing funding for the program in our fiscal year 2005 recommendations, but we have included a general increase of $2 million for invasive species research, and I think that this program may qualify for some of those funds.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. Chairman, I share the gentlewoman's concern for forests, as our entire committee did. We restored much of the money in the healthy forest initiative. It has $500 million for fighting fire in 2004 and $500 million for fighting fires in 2005, and we hope we can get through conference so we can get that 2004 money as quickly as possible for this year.

We also have a $58 million increase for hazardous fuel reduction. This is a large increase, and we think it will be ample, especially given the tight situation we have this year, the tight allocation.

On the other hand, we are 7 percent below in our energy programs, and we have restored a number of those above what the administration wanted at the time, and we hope we can restore more and maybe during the conference.

I would oppose this, not because I am against the gentlewoman's enthusiasm for preventing fires, but we have adequate money, I think, for this coming year to give that prevention, as well as fighting fires in this tight budget year.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I certainly share the gentleman's concern, and we will work with the gentleman. It is outrageous, and we appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention; and we will work toward that.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is correct.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia to find a way to appropriately implement the E- Government Act as we move towards conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman makes a positive argument, but the State's energy program grants have been increased above the level that we have had and the State energy programs will be making a decision on this. We have tried to stay away from earmarks. In fact, many, many people have asked for earmarks which would take the bill in a different direction and we have tried to avoid any earmarks. The State energy program grant may well take care of what the gentleman has asked for, but I oppose the amendment to have earmarked $1 million in this program.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman knows, this committee has been extremely generous to the national parks. Over the last 10 years, we have provided an additional $515 million specifically for park-based increases. This bill includes another $55 million. That amounts to a total of $1 billion for 388 park units in fiscal year 2005.

The committee has been concerned over the last several years that OMB has required the parks to absorb pay costs, antiterrorism requirements and costs associated with catastrophic storm damage. These absorbed costs total $171 million. However, there is another side to the story. As the gentleman may be aware, the Park Service is not managing the funds we have provided. The gentleman from Washington and I have raised issues with the Service related to excessive travel, too many large conferences and meetings, and the Park Service's inability to control major new initiatives, including the 100 partnership construction

projects with a price tag of $300 million. These are projects that the Park Service has committed to without this committee or the United States Congress' knowledge or approval. Even if only a fraction of these projects went forward, they would have a devastating impact on both the backlog maintenance projects and park operations.

I will be pleased to work with the gentleman and my friend and ranking minority member the gentleman from Washington on securing additional funds to address the absorption issue as we head into conference. This will require securing funds above the current allocation and not having more amendments like the Slaughter amendment to take money out of this program, and I hope we will be able to increase that.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

I commend the gentleman for his work on this difficult situation. I will commit to working with him and the Fish and Wildlife Service to see what can be done to address his concerns.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his consideration of this issue. I would be happy to work with my friend to look into this issue with the BIA.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman, and I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I can sympathize, I feel, with what I hope is the intent of this motion. However, the motion is so broad. If we could sit down prior to conference and work on this, we might be able to do something. But I would have to reluctantly oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I have the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians in my district. I work with them many times on burial sites, which are both outside the Reservation and in, to try to preserve those sites and do everything we can to honor those sites.

In the Smokey Mountain area now, the parks, a portion of parkland that was deeded to the park in 1946 encompasses a number of cemeteries. The government promised to put a road to those cemeteries. The government has not honored its commitment because there are many people bringing numerous complaints, environmental complaints, about building a road that will allow people to come to those cemeteries, and I am working with them to try to get the respect due for those sites.

But the Clinton executive order which addresses this issue and is tied to it in this amendment is so broad, it is almost impossible to identify what is a sacred site.

Now, we have a 1988 report submitted by the Legacy Resource Management Program to the Department of Defense, for instance, and edited by Professor Vine DeLoria of the University of Colorado. For those that are not familiar with Mr. DeLoria, he is a radical Native American historian whose books include ``Custer Died For Your Sins'' and ``Red Earth, White Lies.'' We can hardly say that he is accused of being anti-Indian.

In the report, he identifies several kinds of potential sacred sites that could have impact, for instance, on the Department of Defense, which would come under this bill also with the Federal wildlife management. Burials and ruins would be understandable. The mourning and condolence areas is vague. Ceremonial areas; linkage to ceremonial areas; creation story locations and boundaries; sacred portals recalling star migrations; universal center locations; historical migration destiny locations; places of prehistoric revelations; traditional vision quest sites; plant and animal relationship locations; historical past occupying sites; spiritual sites; recent historical event locations; plant, animal and mineral gathering sites; and sanctified ground.

As you can see, with all these categories, every acre of Federal lands could almost come under this definition, as well as military bases.

Now, if the gentleman is trying to protect those areas that he and I, I hope, would agree are sacred sites, we can sit down and try to work something out, because we certainly want to protect those sites. But we cannot pass a bill that is so broad that it may disrupt all activity in our national parks.

For instance, what does this amendment do to recreation activities on public lands? What does the amendment do to the oil and gas drilling on any Federal land? What does the amendment do to the Fish and Wildlife Service's activities on military lands? How does this amendment affect existing rights on Federal lands?

I believe that this could be a lawsuit heaven, and it should not be, because the gentleman's argument, what he would like to do and what I would like to do, is to define it in some way that we could have vital protection of sites.

So I have to disagree and oppose this amendment.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's argument. I am also a fiscal conservative, but this amendment is wrong- headed. First of all, the amendment would prevent the Forest Service from doing road maintenance on a large area of southeastern Alaska. Most of these communities have no road access to the outside world, but they need their Forest Service roads to get around on daily activities.

Also, only 4 percent of the forest is suitable for commercial timber harvest, and only half of that amount is within the inventoried roadless areas. The existing forest plan allows timber harvest on only 300,000 acres, about 2 percent of more than 15 million total acres of the roadless areas on the forest; and this of course is no threat at all.

The Tongass National Forest is indeed a wonderful place; but under the existing forest management, approximately 90 percent of the 16.8 million-acre forest, over 15 million acres, is roadless and undeveloped right now.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I submit this letter for the Record.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, Jun. 16, 2004.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House Of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman. This letter is in response to your

request for the views of the Department of Agriculture (USDA)

on the effects of a rider being considered in the FY 05

Interior Appropriations bill which would prohibit expenditure

of funds for road construction and maintenance on the Tongass

National Forest of Alaska.

Such a prohibition would be interpreted as eliminating all

projects on the Tongass National Forest that are funded

through the CMRD fund code (construction and maintenance of

roads). Currently the Tongass spends about $20 million on

construction and maintenance of roads through that fund.

Because of the dominance of Federal land in Southeast

Alaska, communities in the region are more dependent upon

national forest lands for access, recreation, economic

development, and for subsistence activities than communities

in the lower 48 states. Of the 32 communities in the region,

29 are unconnected to the nation's highway system. Most are

surrounded by marine waters and undeveloped national forest

system lands. The Forest Service is responsible for managing

the roads that connect and serve many of Southeast Alaska's

smaller communities.

Some of the expected impacts include the following:

The rider would prevent the administration of existing

timber sale contracts that include road construction,

reconstruction, or maintenance, because the expenditure of

federal funds is necessary to oversee the construction and

maintenance of those roads. The federal government could be

subject to substantial contract claims for breach of contract

on any existing contracts that could not proceed because of

the prohibition.

Contracts for future timber sales could not include any

road construction or road maintenance. This would effectively

eliminate much of the opportunity for timber sales identified

in the current forest plan. This would significantly reduce

the timber sale program below what is projected in the forest

plan.

Wildlife habitat improvement projects on the Tongass often

involve thinning timber stands. Any wildlife habitat

improvement projects that require road maintenance to access

the stands to be thinned would be eliminated. Data collection

and monitoring may also be affected if road access to remote

areas is reduced.

Fish passage restoration contracts on the Tongass, which

currently involve about $2 million a year, would be

eliminated. These contracts seek to repair or reconstruct

road passages across streams to remove barriers to the

passage of anadromous and freshwater fish. Those fish

populations are important to sport, subsistence, and

commercial fishermen throughout the region.

Roads damaged by storms could not be repaired. It is common

in Southeast Alaska for roads to be washed out, covered by

small landslides, or obstructed by blown down trees. Work to

repair or clear those roads would be eliminated. Some of

those communities could be effectively isolated (from other

communities or key facilities) if the ability to maintain

roads was eliminated. Access to national forest system lands

and other state and private land ownerships could be blocked.

The ability to construct and maintain roads in campgrounds

and other road-based recreation facilities, such as visitor

centers, may be eliminated.

Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

(ANILCA), the Forest Service is required to maintain

reasonable access to national forest system lands for rural

residents dependent upon subsistence. Elimination of road

maintenance on roads known to be used by subsistence users

could be in conflict with ANILCA.

If the elimination of funding for road construction and

maintenance continues for the long term, it would

significantly limit the ability of communities to develop

road and utility connection that almost all other communities

in the United States take for granted. Many communities have

long term plans for new roads and rights-of-way for utilities

to develop and diversify their economies.

In addition, the timber industry in Southeast Alaska is

more dependent on resource development opportunities on

National Forest lands than their counterparts in other parts

of the country because there are few neighboring alternative

supplies of resources for Southeast Alaska.

If a forest health problem arose, such as a significant

insect epidemic, the prohibition against road construction

and maintenance could restrict the ability of the Forest to

respond to the outbreak.

Road condition surveys and bridge inspections would be

eliminated, thereby endangering health and safety of road

users throughout the region.

The Forest road system is the primary access for

investigation and enforcement of timber theft, fish and game

related activities, occupancy and abandonment of facilities,

and vandalism. Road based law enforcement efforts of all

agencies would be hampered by the elimination of road

maintenance.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Sincerely,

Mark Rey,

Under Secretary, Natural Resources

and Environment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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 reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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 number XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I assume the gentleman's amendment is prompted by the Inspector General's report that they are spending $100 million to $200 million annually on websites, and I share the concern he has. I was alarmed when I saw the report. The subcommittee has been working with the department to understand the costs of web technology and to ensure that technology is used only for appropriate purposes and used in the most economic and efficient way.

There are good websites and bad websites and this has been complicated by court action that is underway right now.

My concern with the gentleman's amendment, and I commend him for always trying to save taxpayers' money because I certainly try to do that and I encourage him throughout his career to do that, but my concern is that the department uses the web to conduct business both internally and with industry. The use of the web is consistent with the best practices both in government and industry. Limiting web spending to $50 million will prevent the department from fully using web technology to save both itself and public industry.

For instance, the Minerals Management Service is implementing a web based system to communicate with oil and gas industry that will allow industry to obtain information and provide necessary filings electronically. Now, there are many other positive things with the websites. We are also, as I say, we have court action that is confusing. A lot of the work we are trying to do to get the department to eliminate those websites that are unnecessary, save the taxpayers' money and keep those websites that are necessary for communication.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I commend the gentleman's action to bringing this to our attention.

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

While this may be a worthy area to consider for an increase, I cannot accept the offsets. I hope that we will be able to increase this as we go through conference. The gentleman raised an important point. As we have more and more government land, it takes money away from the ad valorem tax, as we continue to cut less and less in forest service. Twenty-five percent in our area used to go to schools. They lose even more money, and so the gentleman raises a good point, but I will have to object to this and oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues and remember the vision and achievements of our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Ronald Reagan came to Washington with a core set of values that guided him through his two terms as our Nation's leader. President Reagan fought to reduce taxes, diminish the role of an intrusive Federal bureaucracy, and to end forever the oppressive Communist regime in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The times during which Reagan sought to achieve these goals could not have been more daunting. America in 1981 was a land of broken spirit. Many citizens could not live the American dream due to interest rates in the double digits. The Soviet Union had surpassed the United States in military capability. But Ronald Reagan achieved what he set out to do through a combination of ideology, pragmatism, charm, self-effacing humor, and, yes, hard work.

When the President left office in 1989, the Nation was in the midst of an economic renaissance. The Reagan tax cuts led to 96 straight months of economic growth. Record numbers of Americans were experiencing the pride that goes along with home ownership and economic self sufficiency. The Communist bloc would soon be a memory due to Reagan's determination. Ending communism was a stand upon which Reagan absolutely would not compromise. To him, the Soviet Union was truly an ``evil empire'' which was morally at odds with the United States and the principles of human dignity. Reagan battled head-to-head with Gorbachev at five peace summits and at home secured more money for our Nation's defense. Thanks to this combination, millions upon millions now live in freedom and Russia is a valued ally in America's quest for global freedom.

Perhaps the most enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan was his ability to make us proud to be Americans. Reagan gently lifted our spirits with his cheery optimism and geniality. He soothed our fears with a good joke or a funny story. He could have been our friendly neighbor or our favorite uncle. A reporter once asked Reagan what Americans saw in him, to which he replied ``Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves, and that I'm one of them? I've never been able to detach myself or think that I, somehow, am apart from them.''

On a personal note, I cannot forget the warmth and kindness that I was shown by this

great man. I first met Reagan in 1976 and later visited him at the Oval Office. He provided me with invaluable advice during my first run for Congress. During this meeting, he spoke of the beauty of our mountains and the kindness of the people of North Carolina. He remembered fondly his visits to Western North Carolina before he was a candidate and afterwards. During every meeting with Ronald Reagan I was treated with kindness, grace, and great humility.

Few political leaders have had the vision and integrity of Ronald Reagan. He had the guts and the courage to tackle the toughest problems of 1980s America. He left his office with a stronger and prouder nation than he inherited. He made us want to believe in ourselves and he made us a better people. Mr. Speaker, I and my constituents in Western North Carolina will always be grateful for Ronald Reagan's service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and commend one of Western North Carolina's and Buncombe County's finest citizens, the late Tom J. Donohoe, ``The big man with the big heart.'' Tom passed away on November 6, 2001. He was a personal friend of mine for many years, and he will be sorely missed.

Born in Greenville, South Carolina, Tom's family moved to North Carolina where he graduated from Biltmore High School in 1952. As an alumnus of Biltmore High School, saving the school from destruction became a pet project of Tom's in recent years. Last June the WNC Historical Association acquired the deed, and Tom sought my help for $300,000 for the ``Biltmore School Museum,'' which was provided in the 2002 Interior Appropriation.

After high school, Tom served in the United States Army and twelve years in the National Guard and Reserves. He was a man who loved his country, his community, and his people. Tom supported the East Asheville Youth Program for the past 47 years, giving freely of his time, materials, labor and money to this program, not for recognition but because he loved young people. Together, Tom and his wife Betty founded Asheville Electric forty years ago, building it into a thriving business, of which Tom was President, employing about 35 people.

When the new Reynolds High School was built, it was Tom Donohoe who offered to wire the school, and he drove to Kansas to get the famous ``Rocket''--an Army surplus ``Honest John'' rocket--which he helped mount at the entrance to the school and is the school's mascot. Tom provided the lighting for the school's football and baseball stadiums.

Tom took an active part in politics in Asheville and Buncombe County. For many years he contributed to the campaigns of good men and women who ran for public office and stood as a candidate for Asheville City Council in 1989. He was well known for donning an apron and cooking at fundraisers for local candidates.

In addition to being a well-known businessman, Tom served two four- year terms on the Asheville Regional Airport Authority. During that time he served as vice-chairman, chairman of the building and grounds committee, and employee relations committee. He was also a Shriner with the Oasis Temple and a member of the Biltmore Masonic Lodge, Asheville York Rite and the Asheville Scottish Rite.

Tom married Betty Brittain 43 years ago, they reared two children: Susan Donohoe Martin of Asheville and Daniel Woron of Florida.

Tom Donohoe was a big man with an even bigger heart. WNC and Buncombe County have lost a very good friend and we will miss him. I know that my colleagues will join me in saluting this fine man and community leader.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and commend one of Western North Carolina's and Buncombe County's finest citizens, the late Dr. Ralph Sexton, Sr. With the death of the Rev. Sexton Sr., Asheville lost one of the most energetic and effective members of its religious community. Sexton, who founded Trinity Baptist Church, died from a brain tumor. He was 84.

Sexton began preaching when he was just a teenager after being drawn into a tent revival where he gave his heart to God. He was on his way to see a movie when he physically felt something pull on his coat. ``He said it really frightened him,'' said Jerry Payne, who served as Sexton's assistant pastor for 42 years. Sexton left the movie and ended up at the tent revival.

Not long afterwards, he began preaching. And what a preacher he was. In the early years, he preached in tents and front yards, in empty lots and driving down the street in a car outfitted with a loudspeaker. He even found himself in jail a few times when police arrested him for disturbing the peace. ``He was from that old mountain cut,'' Payne said. ``He preached in simple layman's terms.''

``He was just a powerful preacher,'' according to his longtime friend, J. Wendell Runion, president and director of International Baptist Outreach Missions based in Asheville. Audiences were ``spellbound'' by him, Runion said.

In time, Sexton found a more potent way to deliver his message about Christ. His Sunday morning television program ``Send the Light'' first went on the air in 1960. He also preached on radio and at tent revivals. Then in 1966, Sexton founded Trinity Baptist Church. He built an auditorium for 500 people even though he had a congregation of about only 125. Trinity has since grown into one of Asheville's largest churches, with programs that support missionaries around the world and provide assistance to the victims of poverty, natural disasters and famine. Trinity's programs today include a Spanish Church, Trinity Baptist Bible College and Hearts with Hands, a nondenominational nonprofit humanitarian relief organization. Sexton served as the church's pastor until 1988, when his son, Dr. Ralph Sexton Jr., who had served for 13 years as youth pastor and evangelist, became pastor. The senior Sexton remained pastor emeritus and stayed involved despite health problems.

Sexton, who was always true to his calling, will be remembered as ``a very straightforward, unashamed preacher of the Gospel,'' according to Asheville Citizen-Times columnist Bob Terrell, who wrote a book about him. ``He was a giant among the nation's old-time religionists,'' Terrell said. ``He helped change literally thousands of lives.''

Sexton was a man of God and of the mountains who will be missed by many. His family and others who loved him can take comfort in knowing that he left a legacy through which lives will continue to be changed and enriched.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise and commend one of Western North Carolina's and Buncombe Counties finest citizens, the late Dorothy A. Potter. Dot, as she was fondly called by her many, many friends and acquaintances, passed away on November 8, 2003. She was a wonderful woman, who worked tirelessly for not only the Republican Party, but also to educate others about this great country's political system in general. I doubt there was ever an election that Dot did not participate in, in some shape, form or fashion.

Dorothy Belle Alexander Potter was born Feb. 24, 1920, in Charlotte, the youngest daughter of the late Robert Lester and Cynthia Welch Alexander. She was a direct descendant of Hezekiah Alexander, a signer of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence and a founding father of Charlotte. She was a classmate of the Rev. Dr. Billy Graham at Sharon High School and graduated in 1936. She earned a B.S. in library science from Queens College in 1940. Mr. and Mrs. Potter moved to Asheville in 1948.

Mrs. Potter was an energetic, founding member of the Buncombe County Republican Party and remained active in area politics for the majority of her life. She was vice chairman of the Buncombe County Republican Party for 16 years. Mrs. Potter served in many campaigns including the historic 1969 City Council Race, electing a Republican majority and Wayne Montgomery, M.D., as mayor, the 1972 gubernatorial race electing Jim Holshouser as the first Republican governor in North Carolina since Reconstruction and the 1980 election of Bill Hendon to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mrs. Potter was chairman of the Governor's Western Residence Committee during Gov. Holshouser's tenure. She served as deputy Clerk of Court in Buncombe County and was a valued member of former Rep. Hendon's district office until 1983. She was also the Buncombe County Chairman for the 1992 election of President George H.W. Bush.

Mrs. Potter was a charter member of Westminster Presbyterian Church, where she was an Elder and served as a member of the Session. She was also a member of the board of directors for the preschool. She was the last living charter member of the Buncombe County Republican Women's Club and a lifetime member of the North Carolina Republican Women's Club. She was also a member of Phi Mu women's fraternity and was a member and officer of the Sky-Hy Chapter of the American Business Women's Association.

She is survived by her husband of 60 years, Lt. Col. Wesley J. Potter (ret.); daughters, Dr. Cynthia Potter Smith and husband, Durham, of Lake Wylie, S.C., and Lynda Potter Fagan and husband, Michael, of Asheville; granddaughter, Shanon Fagan of Asheville; grandson, Matthew Smith and wife, Sonya, of Clover, S.C.; and granddaughter, Erin Fagan of Washington, D.C., and Asheville.

Mrs. Potter is also survived by three great-grandchildren; a niece, Sally Pollock and a nephew, Robert Suther, both of Washington state and a great-nephew.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 418, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2691) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2691, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, we bring to the House the conference agreement on H.R. 2691, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.

Let me take a moment to thank the members of the Interior subcommittees for their support and guidance this year. I want to especially and personally thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for the extraordinary assistance that he has given in helping us to shape this bill.

This conference report balances many competing needs and stays within the 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. It is fiscally responsible, providing $19.6 billion for our public lands, Indian programs, and critical science and energy research programs, and for cultural institutions like the Smithsonian Institution. It also provides $400 million as requested by the administration to repay partial funds borrowed from the program accounts to pay fire suppression. Also, another $289 million for wild fires and I will talk about that again.

You may hear that we are not doing enough for conservation programs in this bill. I disagree. Given the constraints allocated, we have provided over $1 billion for programs in the conservation spending category. But more to the point, there are a number of critically important conservation programs in this bill that have never been included in the conservation spending category, but are equally important. We provide increases of $65 million for national parks, $47 million for national wildlife refuges, $27 million for forest health, $10 million for hazardous fuel reduction. And I would like to argue that most of the funding of this bill is for conservation activities.

Some Members will argue that we need to buy a lot more Federal land. What we really need to do is a better job of taking care of the lands we have, and this bill does that by providing additional operation increases and funds for critically backlogged maintenance activities.

Firefighting needs are addressed in this bill as I mentioned before, $400 million in the President's requested amount and another $289 million above the enacted level for suppressing the wild fires. That is almost $700 million for the fire programs. We continue to provide support for the national fire plan with the investment of $2.5 billion. We support preparedness activities so that we have the people and the equipment in place to handle wild fires. We provide funding increases for hazardous fuel reduction, State fire assistance and forest health programs. And with the passage of that bill, I think we can stop many of the fires that we will have to contend with this past year.

We have provided substantial new resources to handle the Southern pine beetle and mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the West. I am proud of the balance we have achieved in these critical programs that are important to all Americans.

The bill ensures that energy research programs are appropriately funded and that we maintain a proper mix between research on improvements to existing technologies and longer-term higher risk on new technologies. We need to keep all of our options open and not fall into the trap of picking winners and losers.

When it comes to energy resources, ultimately the consumer, not the government, will determine what energy technologies will be successful in the marketplace.

The bill provides for the continued crux of critically needed schools and hospitals for American Indians and Alaskan natives. It also includes a 1-year limitation of funds for historical accounting.

The September 25, 2003, court order would require the Department of the Interior to spend an estimated $9 billion for an accounting that benefits attorneys and accountants. This subcommittee has maintained that this lawsuit continues to divert scarce resources away from critical programs that benefit Indian people and other programs in the bill. If we were to fund this court-required historical accounting, we would have to shut down one-third of the U.S. Department of the Interior. We would critically underfund education for Indians and health care for Indians. This is not worth the recommendation of the accountants and lawyers.

Finally, the bill takes care of our cultural agencies and provides the funding needed to ensure that the Smithsonian Institute maintains its responsibility for providing quality visitor services and world- renowned research. It provides increases above the enacted level for the National Gallery of Art and for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities. The conference agreement for the interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 strikes an appropriate balance among competing funds needs, and I ask for support for this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30OC03.005

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

I share the frustration of many of those who have spoken on the Indian trust issue. I represent the eastern band of the Cherokee Indians. I have been taught and seen it over and over again, the old adage that government will mess up a one-car funeral.

The committee spent $20 million of the taxpayers' money to do a transaction-by-transaction accounting of five named plaintiffs in the Cobell v. Norton litigation and found that one check for $60 went to the wrong person; $20 million to find a $60 error. Can anyone argue that this is a good use of the American taxpayers' money? A Federal court ruling on September 25, 2003, in the class action lawsuit ordered an expanded transaction-by-transaction historical accounting from 1887 to the present. Initial estimates indicate that the accounting ordered by the court would cost between $9 billion and $12 billion. Nobody ever envisioned that we would be spending $12 billion on an accounting that does not provide one dollar to Indian country. We have included language that limits funds available to the Department of the Interior for historical accounting to those activities that need to be accomplished and can be accomplished in the short term. Beyond the funding limitation, language has been included protecting the Department from further court action during this 1-year time-out period. This gives the authorizing committees time to address the issue. The appropriations committee is not addressing this. We are putting this with the authorizing committee.

Without this language in our bill, the court would likely hold the Secretary in contempt and find for the plaintiffs' accounting that the government owes $176 billion in this matter without any further negotiation or findings. For the past 3 fiscal years, the Committee on Appropriations has stated that it will not appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars, now billions of dollars, for a historical accounting. There was no other option but to include the time-out provision in this bill. There is only one source of money available to the committee; and an accounting of this magnitude, $12 billion, would require that vast sums be diverted away from other programs in the bill. Without the time-out language, we would have to divert vast amounts of money from Indian education, health care, the National Park Service, as well as critical fire fighting funding; and that is just to name a few. There will be further court proceedings in this case based upon the government's appeal of this court ruling. We should not expend hundreds of millions of dollars while this case is under appeal.

We fully agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that the authorizing committees should address this issue, and we are not trying to do that. All the interior bill does is provide for a 1-year time-out, basically the remaining term of this Congress, to allow the Congress to provide, hopefully, a comprehensive solution to the Indian trust issue, or at least address

the scope of the historical accounting so the Congress will not be put in the position of cutting programs in this bill to fund a $12 billion accounting. If the language is struck from the bill without providing full funding for the court-mandated accounting, some $3 billion in 2004, the court will likely hold the Secretary of the Interior in contempt and find summary judgment for the plaintiffs' accounting which purports to show that the government owes $176 billion.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out that we were $400 million short in this bill. If we have to pay $3 billion just for an accounting next year or we are asked to pay $176 billion in the next year, or $12 billion maybe in a short period of time, imagine what will happen to this bill and the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, Energy and the critical funds that we provide for Indian health, education and other needs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this conference report.

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. 2691), making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, 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, I sympathize with the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). We have had a hard fire season this year. We just passed $289 million, the President just signed it yesterday, so we have added that amount in. We are working with the administration on the new amount, and I have no objection to the recommendation the gentleman has to the committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2691.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the gentleman and gentlewoman for their leadership on this issue of fowl mortality associated with electric power lines. We always want to save any bird possible, but this is somewhat of a bird-brained interpretation of what the rule is meant to do. I recognize the importance of electric cooperatives in rural America and will work with the gentleman and gentlewoman to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service continues to work closely with the electric power industry to resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial manner.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been very attentive in bringing this to my attention. You continually fight for the rights of Native Americans and you have persistently expressed to me the need to properly fund our trust responsibilities to the tribes. It has been a longstanding policy of this committee to fund water rights settlements that have been enacted into law. This one is no exception. However, this settlement will be a challenge for funding in the fiscal year of 2004.

I will be happy to work with you to fund this Indian water rights settlement.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the extra $15 million. We may not be able to keep it through conference, but we will certainly support it now.

We will. We will try to keep the $15 million in.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

If the gentleman will yield, we are trying to determine which amendment the gentleman is offering.

Mr. Chairman, we withdraw the point of order.

I am, Mr. Chairman.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I oppose this amendment.

The amendment would strike the extension of the recreation program which provides resources for the national forests, refuges, and public lands. Over and over again, at many hearings and in visitors' surveys, and in my own travels, I hear that the public wants a recreation program that is consistent and simple. The President fully supports this program. This amendment would confuse the public.

I agree with the gentleman that this program should be run through the authorizing committee. Our committee and others have had many hearings on this, and I have assurances that the chairman of the Committee on Resources will work on this issue soon. But for now, it is essential that the recreation industry has certainty and ability to plan ahead for tours and recreation packages. The recreation industry needs to have a full year advanced knowledge of fees in order to plan tours and other services.

This program, begun in 1996, allows the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service to charge certain fees for recreation activities and retain the fees at the site to reduce the backlog in deferring maintenance and enhance the visitors' experience. This is not a charge to enter the forest or the reserve, this is a fee for recreational activity.

To date, the fee program has raised nearly $1 billion to enhance recreation experiences on America's public lands. If we accept the DeFazio amendment and allow only the Park Service to have this authority, the other agencies will lose some $110 million over the next 2 years that go to maintenance and enhancing visitors' services.

We should not give this authority only to the National Park Service.

This would cause confusion and inconsistency for our visitors to public lands. We need to work to create a seamless recreation program to make it easier, not more complicated, for visitors to our public lands.

The program has been discussed in numerous hearings in both the Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committees, and has been the subject of several House Floor debates and votes, all of which have supported the program. We need to keep this program going while the authorizing committees address the permanent solution. This funding is very important to provide focused improvements to the huge backlog and maintenance needs and to increase specific services.

Please oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is going to be studying this and making sure that these fees are for actual services, not visiting the recreation lands that the public already has paid for and owns, but getting special recreation services; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, if we find, I would say to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), that we are not providing actual services, I will join the gentleman in supporting the DeFazio amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's understanding, and I certainly will be willing to work with him.

I want to say at the outset we do not oppose competitive sourcing. I also want to say that this is not a limiting amendment. Section 335 provides that all studies that are currently ongoing for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 shall be completed and the results of those studies should be reviewed before new studies are initiated. The language makes no judgment on what the outcome of those studies should be, and it merely is an attempt to ensure appropriate congressional oversight of this important initiative.

The Interior Committee on Appropriations is no stranger to competitive sourcing. In 1996, the committee required the United States geographical survey to contract out 60 percent of its map and digital data activities. In 1999, the committee required the outsourcing of 90 percent of the National Park Service's consultant operations. So we are certainly no stranger in outsourcing, and we do not oppose that at all.

What we expect is clear budgeting in annual budget requests the amounts and purpose of the study, complying with the committee's reprogramming guidelines for use of funds that have not been clearly indicated in budget request, and OMB should provide clear direction to the agencies on how to manage these studies in a fiscally responsible manner.

We will be happy to work with the gentleman from Texas between now and conference, and hope that we can do that.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I agree that many of our National Forests do have unnaturally dense growth which contributes greatly to the extreme threat of catastrophic wildfire that our forests and communities face. Such fires pose a serious threat to the lives and homes of individuals who live in these communities and also to the health of the forest ecosystem, as the gentleman points out. Using funds and authorities in this act, the professionals of the Forest Service should use the best local information to prescribe treatments where needed to effectively reduce the threat of wildfire by improving the health of the forest ecosystem.

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

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's tireless effort in trying to work in the areas of budget control. I know yesterday the announcement was made that we are in a deficit of $450 billion. We must work to solve that this year and in future years as we move forward. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we have opposed a number of much larger amendments, of over $100 million or $500 million that have been proposed here yesterday and this morning. We have worked the best we can to balance this bill. We think it is a good bill.

There are 13 subcommittees. We work with one, with the Interior and Energy. We hope that we can convince the Senate to go with us and we will come out with a balanced appropriations bill that will be conservative as well as meet the needs of our Interior Department.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, while I oppose the amendment, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in opposition.

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

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

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The committee bill already includes a large $20 million increase for fuel reduction work, fully $15 million above the President's request. This work is essential, but the agencies can only ramp up so fast in, and extra funding is not needed this year.

Our bill makes a very strong contribution to the national fire plan. It is something that the Members can be proud of.

The bill also increases wildfire suppression funding by $179 million and an $89 million increase for wildfire land restoration, forest health projects, and State and community fire assistance. Despite the good intentions of this amendment, I must oppose it. We have a balanced bill, and we think that we can help in many areas, especially in the areas of forest restoration.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto to be limited to 30 minutes to be divided as follows: 10 minutes to the proponent, 15 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and 5 minutes to the ranking member.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife refuges were established with the expressed intent that agriculture uses of certain lands within the refuge should be continued. Under the law, not more than 25 percent of the total leased lands may be planted in row crops. The agricultural activities must be consistent with proper waterfowl management.

Now, we should step back and allow the process to work. The amendment can only serve to further complicate a very complex and touchy situation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle.

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

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

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

The gentleman raised a point that we stated in the beginning. I oppose this amendment because it will disrupt the very technical amendment that has been worked out.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2691 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 319, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate and, the amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 6, 15 and 16, each of which shall be debatable for 10 minutes;

The amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 4 and 12, each of which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

The amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes to be allocated as follows: 10 minutes to the proponent, 15 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and 5 minutes to the ranking minority member;

A substitute amendment by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) to the amendment numbered 1, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) to the amendment numbered 1, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes;

The amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 and 9, each of which shall be debatable for 50 minutes to be allocated as follows: 15 minutes to the proponent, 25 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and 10 minutes to the ranking minority member;

An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) regarding bear feeding, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes;

An amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) regarding Forest Service regulations on roadless areas, which shall be debatable for 50 minutes; and

An amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) regarding Forest Service land acquisition, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in this request, or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except as specified, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Each amendment shall be debatable for the time specified, and time on each amendment shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, except as specified.

All points of order against each amendment shall be considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon, and each amendment may be withdrawn by its proponent after debate thereon.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member for his cooperation and also the ranking member of the subcommittee for the cooperation he has shown in drafting this bill and on the floor of debate.

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

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

I reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I know he has been a leader in trying to provide funds in this project, and I would say that he has been successful in many ways.

The decision was made to make sure sufficient funds were made available for forest health and backlog maintenance. At the same time, limited land acquisition funds are available for the most critical inholdings and to manage the projects that are currently underway.

We provided $20 million above the President's request, and we hope to continue to work in this basic area of forest health and backlog maintenance.

So I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The question is a question of States' rights and management of wildlife populations. The States have broad responsibility and authority over resident fish and wildlife, including fish and wildlife found on Federal lands within a State. Congress has reaffirmed this authority through numerous acts.

States must be allowed to effectively manage resident wildlife populations. This is an authorizing issue and a States' rights issue and this provision does not belong in an interior appropriations bill. So I must urge defeat of this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, none of us are comfortable with this issue, but let me provide Members with some facts.

A record of decision was signed on December, 2000, by then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, and the Governor of Montana. This document was a long-term plan for bison management in this region.

The main objectives were to maintain a free-ranging bison population and manage the risk of transmission of diseases from bison to cattle. Both the State and the Park Service have specific responsibilities under this agreement.

When we have bison outside the park, bison are captured, tested and some are shipped to slaughter. On occasion, bison resist the capture or hazing and are shot. During the winter of 2002, there was a dangerous situation of this kind involving one bison bull. At the request of Montana, an interagency team, including the Park Service, shot the bull.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

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

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