Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the United States Capitol Historical Society has prepared a fascinating exhibit of artifacts and interpretative materials entitled ``From Freedom's Shadow: African Americans and the United States Capitol'' which is being displayed across America this year. It is a depiction of what is truly one of the better kept secrets in our Nation's history: that the construction of the United States Capitol, and even the casting of the Statue of Freedom that sits atop the dome, was accomplished with the help of slave labor.

Earlier this month the exhibit opened on the West Coast, at Olympic High School in my congressional district, and it has given everyone in my home community an interesting, yet disturbing, insight into one of the most troubling contradictions of American society in the 18th and 19th centuries. We were a society founded on the principle of freedom and yet even in the construction of the iconic seat of this Government we tolerated and benefited from the labor of people who were deprived of the essential freedoms that were celebrated beneath the Capitol Dome.

This is an important and instructive exhibit, Mr. Speaker, and I am honored to submit for the Record an article from the Central Kitsap Reporter that was published on March 1st, entitled ``Black History exhibit at Oly exposes `cruel irony'.''

[From the Central Kitsap Reporter, Mar. 1, 2008]

Black History Exhibit at Oly Exposes ``Cruel Irony''

(By Paul Balcerak)

Central Kitsap School District board members, employees and

educators had the tables turned on them Wednesday night.

It was their turn to learn as they got one of the first

looks at the U.S. Capitol Historical Society's traveling

exhibit, ``From Freedom's Shadow: African Americans and the

United States Capitol.''

The exhibit, a production of the U.S. Capitol Historical

Society, offers insight into one of the better kept dirty

little secrets in American history: that the U.S. Capitol was

built with help from black slave labor.

The exhibit put front-and-center a jarring truth which the

historical society's Web site called a ``cruel irony.''

``It's a real tangible experience of the history that most

people don't know,'' Olympic Principal Bob Barnes said.

Barnes admitted unawareness of the history before being

introduced to the project during the plan to bring it to CKSD

last year.

``In mainstream history, you get little snippets of things,

but you don't really get a feel (for what things were

actually like),'' he said. ``There are lots of little facts

out there that our history, as it's written, doesn't

necessarily reflect.''

Documents showcased at the exhibit cover a period from

1794-1800 and shed light on some of the people history has

forgotten, People like Philip Reid, a slave who, ironically,

helped cast the five sections of ``Freedom,'' the statue that

sits atop the Capitol, in bronze.

The title of the exhibit is in reference to the statue

itself.

It wasn't easy unearthing stories such as Reid's, as

evidenced by the work exhibit curator Felicia Bell and her

colleagues did to bring the exhibit to life.

``It was a lot of primary source research, but also

secondary source research (to understand the context of the

primary sources),'' Bell said.

Also director of education and outreach for the historical

society, Bell has spent countless hours at the National

Archives, Library of Congress and various historical

societies searching for any remnants of information that

could contribute to the exhibit. Some of it is scant, but

striking; Bell showed off an old timecard used to track all

workers' hours that used an ``N'' next to slaves'' names to

denote them as ``negroes.''

The small document offered a blunt lesson: even timecards

were segregated.

``It's chilling, but I think it's important to understand

so we don't make those mistakes again,'' CKSD Curriculum

Specialist Jeni Zapatka said.

Zapatka was responsible for discovering the exhibit and

pushing to have it brought to CKSD. Thanks to donations from

UPS, the exhibit is shipped across the country for free and

the only cost to the district was to bring Bell to the area

to showcase the exhibit.

``It's fun to see how students from various locations and

various backgrounds react to the exhibit,'' Bell said. ``I

think that it was kind of an eye-opener for students and

adults.''

She has traveled with the exhibit to various locations

around the United States. Its arrival at Olympic, however,

marks the first time either have ever been to the West Coast.

The exhibit is now in the hands of students at Olympic, who

spent Thursday being trained as docents by Bell. They'll be

the ones to pass information along to the public, which has a

few opportunities to see the exhibit between now and March 19

(see gray box).

Students were equally outspoken and struck by the exhibit

during their training day.

``I never knew anything about the Freedom statue and all

the things the enslaved people had to go through to build the

Capitol,'' junior Amanda

Vincent said. ``As it stands now, this exhibit being here

is top rate for me.''

``I like that it's at our school because our school, in the

district, is kind of known as the most diverse,'' junior

Kylee McWilliams added.

The exhibit got high marks from those who saw it Wednesday

and several involved expressed excitement for the project's

value to students and the public.

``I'm just sorry we don't have it in a place that will be

open more hours,'' school board member Christy Cathcart said.

``There was . . . quite a lot of introspection going on (at

Wednesday's showing).

``Everyone went away with some knowledge that they didn't

have before.''

`From Freedom's Shadow' public viewing times

March 3, 5-7 p.m.

March 11, 6-9 p.m.

March 19, 6-9 p.m.

The exhibit is located in the Olympic High School library.

The exhibit also can be previewed online at

http:\\uschsonline-exhibits.uschs.org/freedom (no ``www.'').

Madam Speaker, as we look forward to considering legislation in Congress this year to address our Nation's energy shortage, it is my sad duty to announce that one of the real giants of the energy business in the United States has passed away. Charles F. Luce, the former chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, died this past weekend at age 90 after a brief illness.

Starting as a meter reader for a power company when he was a teenager, Chuck Luce rose to become a legend in the electric power industry through an interesting career progression. Following his clerkship for Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, Chuck Luce practiced law in Walla Walla, Washington, for 15 years. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy summoned him into public service as the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, which markets the power from the Columbia River hydroelectric system in the Pacific Northwest. At BPA, he was an enlightened leader who keenly understood federal energy issues, pioneering many jurisdictional arrangements that established the distribution of federal power resources in the Northwest, including the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie.

During the Johnson Administration, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall brought him back to Washington to serve as Undersecretary of the Interior Department, but his talents were quickly recognized and summoned when Con-Ed, New York's largest utility, needed a steady hand to confront looming problems of growth and supply. He led Con-Ed during the toughest times that any American utility has faced in our Nation's history, including the oil supply crisis of the 1970s and the infamous New York City blackout in 1977. His leadership through those times of crisis set an example of calm and focused action, and he is remembered as one of the most effective and thoughtful leaders in an industry that affects every American every day.

I want to take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to insert into the Record Mr. Luce's obituary, printed today in the New York Times, so that Members can read the story of a truly legendary figure in the history of electric power generation and transmission in the United States.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 29, 2008]

Charles F. Luce, Ex-Chief of Con Ed, Is Dead at 90

(By Dennis Hevesi)

Charles F. Luce, the chairman and chief executive of

Consolidated Edison, the giant New York electric and gas

utility during some of its most difficult times, died

Saturday in Torrance, Calif. He was 90 and lived in

Bronxville, N.Y.

The cause was prostate cancer, said Joyce Hergenhan, a

former company spokeswoman.

Mr. Luce headed Con Ed from 1967 to 1982 and dealt with the

oil crisis of the 1970s, customer rage over rising rates, the

1977 blackout that paralyzed New York City and the settlement

of a decades-long struggle with environmental groups over

construction of a power plant at Storm King Mountain on the

Hudson River.

A liberal Democrat and an environmentalist, Mr. Luce did

not fit the standard profile of the big-business executive

when he agreed to leave his post as under secretary of the

interior in the Johnson administration to take over

Consolidated Edison.

``The metropolitan area's need for electric energy doubles

about every 15 years,'' Mr. Luce said then. ``To supply these

vast new quantities of energy at reasonable cost, but protect

the city's environment from pollution and unsightly

structures, is a king-size job.''

It became particularly difficult in 1973, when fuel prices

skyrocketed because of the Arab oil embargo, and Con Ed's

rates followed.

Facing customer protests, Mr. Luce chose to soften the

monthly billing blow by eliminating the company's April 1974

dividend. That prompted shareholder protests, and on May 24,

1974, Mr. Luce presided over a meeting at the old Commodore

Hotel on 42nd Street at which customers and shareholders

boisterously expressed their views.

A New York Times headline the next day said, ``Days of

Anxiety for the Man Who Saved a Watt.''

That was a reference to the ``Save-a-Watt'' program, which

Mr. Luce had instituted soon after taking over as Con Ed

chairman. It was a shift from the electricity industry's

traditional marketing strategy, succinctly expressed as

``Live better electrically.''

For 25 hours, starting on the evening of July 13, 1977, New

York City could not live electrically at all. Two lightning

strikes on major tie-lines in Westchester County led to the

collapse of the entire system.

Some Con Ed officials attributed the blackout to ``an act

of God.'' Although Mr. Luce did not utter the phrase himself,

he became associated with it.

He kept cool in the face of Mayor Abraham D. Beame's

accusations of ``gross negligence'' on the part of the

company, saying, ``Respectfully, I think he's wrong,'' and

calling for a fair review.

In the end, Con Ed had to concede that the systemwide

expansion of the power failure after the local lightning

strikes was largely its fault.

Four years before Mr. Luce became chairman, Con Ed had

started seeking approval from regulators to build a

hydroelectric plant on Storm King Mountain in Orange County,

55 miles north of New York City. Opposition to that plan and

to proposals for other power plants along the Hudson River

was fierce and unrelenting for nearly 20 years.

Then, in December 1980, 11 environmental groups, Con Ed and

other utility companies reached what became known as the

Hudson River Peace Treaty. Mr. Luce had asked Russell E.

Train, a former head of the Environmental Protection Agency,

to mediate the dispute.

Under the agreement, Con Ed abandoned efforts to build the

Storm King plant. In return, the environmental groups and the

federal Environmental Protection Agency dropped their demands

that Con Ed build six costly cooling towers to protect fish

from being sucked into power plants at Indian Point and

several other sites along the river. The agreement was widely

cited as a model for balancing economic and environmental

needs.

Charles Franklin Luce was born on Aug. 12, 1917, in

Platteville, WI, a son of James and Wilma Luce. His father

owned a furniture store and a mortuary.

As a teenager, Mr. Luce got some early exposure to the

utility business as a meter reader for the local power

company.

Mr. Luce earned a bachelor's degree and a law degree

through a five-year program at the University of Wisconsin in

1941, then received a master's degree in law at Yale in 1942.

Unable to enlist for military service in World War II

because of an attack of polio, Mr. Luce became a staff lawyer

for the Board of Economic Warfare in Washington.

A year later, on the recommendation of a professor at Yale,

he was chosen as a law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black of the

Supreme Court.

For 15 years after World War II, Mr. Luce practiced law in

Walla Walla, Washington.

Then, in 1961, President Kennedy chose him to head the

Bonneville Power Administration, which markets power from the

Grand Coulee Dam and more than 20 other federal hydroelectric

plants in the Columbia River Basin.

Mr. Luce also worked with Interior Secretary Stewart L.

Udall in creating the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest

Intertie, a vast power transmission complex. He negotiated a

1964 treaty with Canada for joint hydroelectric development

of the Columbia River.

At Mr. Udall's request, President Johnson appointed Mr.

Luce as under secretary of the Interior in September 1966.

But within six months, Con Ed officials--spurred by a Fortune

magazine headline, ``The Company You Love to Hate''--asked

Mr. Luce to take control of the company.

Mr. Luce's first wife, Helen Oden, died in 2001. He is

survived by his second wife, the former Margaret Richmond;

two sons, James, of Vancouver, Washington, and Charles Jr.,

of Boulder, Colorado; two daughters, Christina Gordon of

Mansfield Center, Connecticut, and Barbara Luce of Portland,

Connecticut; and eight grandchildren.

Mr. Luce was an avid biker. As Con Ed chairman, he would

regularly pedal around Manhattan on a three-speed bike,

wearing a meter-reader's cap, inspecting company work crews

and peeking into open manholes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4140, a bill to designate the Port Angeles Federal Building in Port Angeles, Washington, as the ``Richard B. Anderson Federal Building.''

Private First Class Richard B. Anderson was born in Tacoma, Washington on June 26, 1921 and graduated from Sequim High School in Sequim, Washington. Private Anderson entered the Marine Corps in 1942 and eventually joined his last unit, Company E, 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines in San Diego, California. He departed for Roi-Namur, an island in the northern part of the Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands, with his unit in January 1944.

While hunting enemy snipers on Roi-Namur, PFC Anderson, a member of the invasion force, hurled himself on a live grenade in a shell hole to save the lives of three Marines. Anderson was evacuated to a ship, where he died of his wounds on February 1, 1944. For his heroic actions, PFC Anderson was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Purple Heart.

Mr. Speaker, the House is now considering legislation that will honor PFC Anderson for his heroic efforts on Roi Island. Specifically, this legislation would rename the Federal Building in Port Angeles, Washington after Richard B. Anderson. I urge the House to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives today is faced with a regrettable decision on the eve of the adjournment of the first session of the 110th Congress. With the appropriations bills that fund the routine operations of all of the departments and agencies of the Federal Government now approved by both Houses of Congress, we are once again being asked to provide additional funding for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House has already expressed its view on this question when we voted on November 14th to approve $50 billion in supplemental defense funding with three very clear and very reasonable conditions: that our troops should be properly trained; that our forces will not use torture when conducting interrogations of enemy combatants; and, that we should establish a goal of redeploying all offensive troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. It would have been easy--and appropriate--for the President to sign the bill that was approved by a majority of the Members of this House and supported by a majority of Americans, rendering the debate we are having today unnecessary. The President has remained stubbornly determined to continue our involvement in Iraq without clearly defining a plan for the eventual re-deployment of our troops, and he has stated his intention to veto any legislation that attempts to change the course he has set.

After more than 4\1/2\ years, it is clear that our Nation's involvement in Iraq has cost far too much. It has cost the lives of nearly 3,900 men and women in our military and it has affected the lives of many thousand more who have been seriously wounded--both physically and psychologically. It has cost at least $450 billion in national debt to date, with hundreds of billions more in future costs that will be incurred no matter how quickly we are able to extricate ourselves. It has also seriously diminished our military readiness and our ability to respond to other national security threats. And finally, our initial invasion and our protracted involvement in Iraq has diminished our international prestige and made it more difficult for the United States to exert leadership and influence around the globe.

It is against this backdrop that we in Congress have been working toward a strategy of timely redeployment of our troops that I believe is both militarily appropriate and necessary for encouraging the Iraqi government to assume greater control of the security of the Iraqi people. It was discouraging to me on our visit to Iraq last month led by the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman Jack Murtha, that the Iraqi government has clearly not taken advantage of the improved security climate, brought about largely by the increased numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq during this past year. President Maliki and his government have not taken the steps they pledged to take in national reconciliation, in the distribution of the oil revenues or in several other key benchmarks that were established as indicators of progress.

On the face of it, the provision that has been sent to us by the Senate appears to be strictly about providing funds for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that these funds would ensure that the soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen in harm's way are protected and continue to have the equipment, the supplies, the fuel, and the transportation resources that keeps them fed, repairs their equipment, treats their medical needs, and allows them to continue to operate. The reality, however, is that these funds will necessarily have an impact on our entire military. Because of the immediate need to protect troops in wartime conditions, all of the men and women in uniform--as well as the civilian workforce of the Defense Department-- are caught in the position of having to curtail important operations that underpin the very readiness of our forces, not just for Iraq, but for all aspects of our nation's defense.

The Army is on the leading edge of these impacts with installations across the country already having been notified to prepare for curtailing operations in the middle of February. The Army can keep going that long only by accelerating spending regular operations funds intended to last for the entire year, and by reprogramming other funds to the maximum allowed in law. If no further action is taken on this funding, the Army intends to furlough as many as 100,000 civilian employees and a comparable number of contractor personnel. In addition, it will sharply reduce travel, training, maintenance and child care and other day-to-day activities at installations across the Nation. And we know that the Marine Corps is close behind the timing of the Army in experiencing these impacts, all of which will exacerbate the level of readiness already diminished by our long involvement in Iraq.

So it is frustrating for me and for many Members of this House to be presented with the Hobson's choice that we have before us today: whether to impose a terribly chaotic situation on the entire U.S. military or whether to approve another substantial increment of funding for the Iraq war without any clear and well-articulated strategy for the eventual re-deployment of American troops. We are presented with this choice by a President who is unwilling to consider any change whatsoever in our strategy in Iraq and who has clearly not listened to the will of the American people or the views of their representatives here in Congress.

I have reluctantly concluded at this point that a vote to deny these funds now could potentially harm the troops in theater and could seriously diminish the condition of all of our military forces who still face other threats around the globe. Out of a responsibility to the men and women in uniform, to their families, to the civilian workforce in DOD and to our Nation's overall security, I intend to vote in favor of this resolution.

At the same time, it is my intention to continue working with what I believe is a growing majority here in Congress and a solid majority in the country to advocate for a major change in the direction of our policy in Iraq, and for the prompt re-deployment of the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the omnibus appropriations bill.

For better or worse, it is the Appropriations Committee that is charged with the job of making the difficult choices that provide the best mix possible of funding levels for competing programs. The interior and environment portion of this bill is the product of the difficult choices that had to be made as a result of the President's insistence that we cut $22 billion from the levels approved by the House 6 months ago.

The final allocation for the Interior Subcommittee was $26.6 billion, essentially flat funding at the 2007 enacted level, because we were unable to achieve a compromise with the President that would have allowed for modest growth in the Interior and related agencies as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. I would remind my colleagues that since 2001, these same accounts have been reduced drastically. Interior has been cut by 16 percent, EPA by 29 percent, and the nonfirefighting accounts in the Forest Service by more than 35 percent.

In allocating these funds in this omnibus bill, our subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, could have frozen funding for all programs at the Department of Interior, EPA, the Indian Health Service, and the Forest Service at the 2007 enacted levels. Alternatively, we could have approved deep reductions proposed by the President for the Forest Service, Indian health clinics, fire preparedness programs, clean air State grants, PILT payments or Land and Water Conservation Fund and Conservation Grants.

We did not choose either of these approaches. Instead, we chose to produce a conference version that was consistent with the priorities established in the House-passed Interior appropriations bill, reflecting the input from Members on both sides of the aisle and from 41 hearings held by our subcommittee this spring. The final version reflects the input of hundreds of individuals and organizations during these hearings.

The bill includes an increase of $123 million for the National Park Service operational accounts to fund an additional 1,500 FTE positions. This staff will help reinvigorate the Park Service for its centennial in 2016. An additional $24 million is included as interim funding for the new centennial matching grants program for 2008. This will get the program going while the authorizing committees complete negotiations to find a funding source for this new mandatory program. An increase of $39 million is provided for our national refuge system to begin refurbishing our refuges and replacing the 600 positions which have been lost since 2004.

$145 million is provided for the National Endowment for the Arts, an increase of $20 million, to partially restore this program to the levels 12 years ago. The gentlewoman from New York has been my partner as we fought to restore this program to the levels of 12 years ago.

The bill includes an increase of $165 million for the Indian Health Service to cover medical inflation and ensure adequate medical care for Native Americans, one of this country's most disadvantaged populations.

An increase of $169 million over the 2007 level is provided for various firefighting programs, $81 million more than requested by the President. And $188 million is provided for climate change programs, including $43 million for the EPA and $32 million at the U.S. Geological Survey. Included for the USGS is $7.5 million to expand its climate research, of which $2.5 million is for a new global warming and wildlife center.

$20 million is provided for the EPA geographic program to ramp up the cleanup of Puget Sound, which is the Nation's second largest estuary and which has been in serious decline.

In this bill, we have also addressed the very serious environmental challenges that exist in the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and other major bodies of water in the United States. These increases represent a significant redirection of funds to priorities which we believe serve the country's present and future needs and have not been adequately addressed by President Bush. But the President's requirement that our bill be reduced by $1 billion below the original House level has forced us to make very painful reductions. As I said at the beginning, these were tough choices.

Mr. Chairman, in concluding these remarks, I want to thank Mr. Tiahrt. And I would like to say to my colleagues on the Republican side, I have never seen a year in which Democrats and Republicans at the committee level, at the subcommittee level have worked better and have had better information on both sides of the aisle and have worked to adequately address earmarks to reduce the number of these earmarks very dramatically. So I would say that there has not been a lack of cooperation. There has been outstanding cooperation on the entire subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is unnecessary. The country does not need a new bureau to create minerals information. The current situation in which the U.S. Geologic Survey administers the minerals information works perfectly fine.

As chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, I have examined the Bush administration proposals to eliminate funding for the USGS minerals information function. Even during these difficult budgetary times, our subcommittee has appreciated the important function of the minerals assessment team at the USGS and refused the administration's recommendation to eliminate its funding.

The Pearce amendment would nearly double the size of the new agency. It would create a new bureaucracy with at least 300 staff and a yearly cost of $30 million or more. So please join me in rejecting this amendment.

I yield to the former chairman of the Interior subcommittee, Mr. Regula from Ohio.

I appreciate the gentleman's comment.

I want to congratulate the chairman for doing an outstanding job as one of my classmates.

I appreciate Congressman Hastings yielding to me, and I just want to echo his words. Our regrets go out to Jennifer Dunn's family, to her husband, Keith, and to her sons, Reagan, named after Ronald Reagan, by the way, and Bryant and Angus.

Jennifer Dunn was a great leader in our State. She was the first woman Republican chairman of the State Republican Party. She was elected to the Congress, was on the Ways and Means Committee. She always was willing to reach out across the aisle and work on projects. Congressman Larsen reminded me of her efforts on the Wild Sky program which was enacted this year, something she worked on for many years. She was a leader on trade issues and tax reform issues. She will be missed.

I appreciated the fact she was always willing to cross the aisle and work with Democrats or whoever to get legislation enacted. She was a great advocate for tax issues. She will be missed by all of us. We pass on our condolences to her family.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating Chairman Murtha, Ranking Member Young, Chairman Obey, and Ranking Member Lewis for guiding the committee work that brings this bill to the floor for consideration today. I expect that other committee members took as much satisfaction as I did in being able to report out this bill with unanimous, bipartisan support from both the subcommittee and the full committee.

One area that I want to comment on in particular regarding this bill has to do with the classified accounts. In preparing this bill, we undertook a new approach in which Members from both the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence worked jointly in a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. I was pleased to have been able to participate in this panel that was ably led by my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Holt.

Because we cannot comment in any detail on the classified accounts in this bill, I hope it is useful to my colleagues to hear that the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel undertook thorough reviews of the classified accounts, including many probing sessions with representatives of the intelligence agencies. In the end, the panel made recommendations on the classified accounts to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and the bill before us today reflects those recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, like all other agencies of the Federal Government, the intelligence agencies need to be subject to oversight and accountability. I believe that we have done that in developing the appropriations levels that are provided for in the classified accounts of this bill.

I also would like to call attention to a few additional areas of the bill that I think are significant. Equipment shortfalls for our Guard and Reserve forces have been an area of real concern to the committee. In order to continue to address this, the bill adds $925 million, $700 million of which is designated for the Army National Guard.

Recognizing the need to help the Army provide the facilities that it needs as it deals with the combined effects of growing its forces, rebasing its forces and transforming to the modular force, the bill adds $1.25 billion for facilities sustainment and restoration. These funds will be used to fix barracks, improve childcare facilities and enhance community services at installations around the world.

The Navy has some challenges too, some of which this bill attempts to address. In shipbuilding, the bill adds $3.7 billion above the budget request to provide funds for an additional five ships. Furthermore, I am pleased that the bill fully funds the account for ship depot maintenance to ensure that the Navy can continue to maintain the readiness of its current fleet.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I point out that the bill funds a 3.5 percent pay increase for our military personnel, and it includes $2.9 billion (an increase of $558 million over the budget request) for family advocacy programs, childcare centers, and dependent education programs.

There is much more that is very good about this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote to support it.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3184, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a competitive grant program for the Puget Sound area to provide comprehensive conservation planning to address water quality.

For generations, Puget Sound has been the most important geographic feature driving human settlement in the region--first Native American communities followed by the 4 million people who now call it home. With 2,500 miles of shoreline and 2,800 square miles of inland marine waters, it is the second largest estuary in the United States after Chesapeake Bay. Puget Sound is environmentally, culturally and economically linked to Washington State's way of life and it is truly one of America's most spectacular bodies of water, with more than 200 species of fish, 25 kinds of marine mammals, 100 species of sea birds as well as clams, oysters and shrimp.

But the health of Puget Sound is in decline--its waters are experiencing the stress of growth and development and its ability to sustain the abundant fishery we've always enjoyed is in doubt. Around the Sound we have detected low levels of oxygen and increasing concentrations of toxic substances in aquatic animals. With the overall health of this great ecosystem in decline, we have launched a cooperative effort involving all of the local government entities around the Sound, as well as the State and Federal governments, to curtail any harmful substances from being introduced into its waters, to change unwise industrial and agricultural practices and to continue aggressively our research into the causes of pollution in this historically pristine inland sea.

One of our responses must be to encourage innovation and action at the local level and to help local communities recognize the importance of incremental actions in the overall solution. Congressman Rick Larsen and I have introduced H.R. 3184, the ``Puget Sound Watershed Comprehensive Conservation Project Act of 2007.'' This legislation is supported by all Members of the Washington State congressional delegation. It would authorize a total of $25 million in grants to assist non-Federal governmental or non-governmental organizations, Tribes, and individuals in implementing land management practices and projects that improve water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife in the Puget Sound watershed.

H.R. 3184 authorizes conservation projects that will target innovative conservation measures where they do the most good. The program is intended to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies while leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection, in conjunction with agricultural production.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal government is playing a very important role in restoring the health of Puget Sound, and I believe H.R. 3184 can make a vital contribution to this effort. I urge adoption of the resolution.

I want to commend the chairman for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to be a conferee, and also Mr. King of New York for his good work.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am very proud to be a member of this committee. Over the last 4 or 5 years, whether it has been on the Republican rule or under Democratic rule, this committee has had incredible oversight. I commend the two chairmen for that.

Congressman Daniel E. Lungren was on the floor earlier. He was very vigorous in oversight. This is another part of the accomplishment here is it's strengthening congressional oversight, the speaker in the chair today, Mr. Murtha, and Speaker Pelosi created a panel on the Appropriations Committee with HPSCI. This is providing additional oversight. I think it's one of the most important things we can do. But getting this bill finally passed is a great accomplishment. You should be very proud of it.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is truly an American treasure. This remarkably well-preserved shop is an example of the once-common, shaft-driven job shop which played an important role in maintaining and repairing the machines that built early industrial America.

This rare industrial facility contains machining and foundry equipment dating back to the mid-to-late 1800s. When the shop doors were shuttered more than four decades ago, everything, the tools, drills, nails, presses, lathes, wooden molds and patterns were left behind, creating a priceless time capsule from the turn of the century.

The machine shop and foundry are still able to operate, but the structure of the facility has severely deteriorated and is in desperate need of repair and restoration in order to preserve the

facility and the historic equipment within. And I would assume that's why it hasn't been open; they're waiting to do the repairs.

The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is documented by the National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

I would also point out to my colleagues that in approaching this task, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I, and our staffs collectively, reviewed all of these projects. There were 10 requests for every project that was put in the bill. And when we added it up, at the end of the day, it is four-tenths of 1 percent. Now, that is still significant, but I think it's important for us to realize that we are dramatically reducing the number of overall earmarks in this bill, a much greater reduction than when the other party was in charge. From 1994 to 2006, it went from approximately 1,000 earmarks up to 13,000 earmarks; 13,000 earmarks. We have cut this back dramatically. I think we've done a good job.

I was hoping that the gentleman would be here today to praise us, saying you have met the standard that the administration said. You cut the 50 percent that Pelosi said you were going to cut. I was hoping the gentleman would be here saying, ``Well done,'' and yet we have another amendment.

So, I'm in opposition to this. I think we should keep moving. We have other legislation to do. I know a lot of people in this body want to get home on Friday, so I hope we can move expeditiously.

I appreciate the gentleman's even-handedness in making selections, though I didn't notice that he had a reduction of the President's request.

And again, I want to point out to the gentleman, you know, remember, the power of the purse is one of Congress' most important powers. And I think we should be very careful when we start undermining that important legislative tool that separates us from the executive branch.

So, this is Mr. Murtha's project from Pennsylvania, a very senior member of the Appropriations Committee. I urge all of my Members to support Mr. Murtha's project and to oppose the Flake amendment.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Will the gentleman yield?

I can get you his phone number.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would be glad to yield to the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the gentleman that the precedent on this Save America's Treasures has been to split the money 50/50; 50 percent would go to the administration and they would then make decisions on a competitive basis. The other 50 percent would be earmarked by the Members of Congress.

I think that process works well. Congress has the right to do this under the power of the purse. This is one of our most important constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with it. The Supreme Court has never questioned it. It is part of our constitutional history.

I just want to also join my friend from Kansas and say that I support this project. I urge that the Flake amendment be rejected and that we support this project. It has been carefully vetted. I think we could have straightened out the name of the title here and helped ourselves, but that is a lesson learned for next year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his interest in addressing the threat posed by invasive species to our natural resources. I will certainly work with the gentleman to help address this pressing need as we go through this process.

I know how important this invasive species issue is. Out in my area we have a major problem with Spartina, and we have had to fight it in the Willapa Bay area and Grays Harbor area. So I am very sympathetic to this. Also with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I guess there is an interagency group that is working on invasive species. So let's look at existing programs, and we will try our best to find a way to help the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's project. We have looked at this carefully. As we understand it, it deals with the historic facade, and this is an important project. I think it is a very modest amount of money, which has to be matched by the locals. They are putting up a huge amount of additional money so there won't be any problem with that.

I congratulate the gentleman on his project and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman's projects and congratulate him on the hard work that he has demonstrated and his very comprehensive knowledge of this project. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Flake amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I just would like to ask the gentleman from California, does he have an estimate of what the cost of doing this would be?

It may have been in the governor's study or one of the other studies that have been done.

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

As I understand it, some of the cost estimates that have come in, this would be up to $10 billion. I think one of the reasons why the committee took the action it did take was because of this great big $10 billion bill and not having any kind of a plan for how that would be financed.

But I am sensitive to what the gentleman has said in terms of the importance of this. We will take this very seriously, and we will look and see what the Senate does and we will continue to work with our friend from California who is a valued Member of the House.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's obvious sincerity and passion, and we will continue to look at this.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana for a statement.

I would like to say to the gentleman that I believe the committee has, in essence, enacted the spirit of your amendment. We have reduced the Smithsonian's budget by $35 million. The salaries and expenses level has come down to where it was in 2007. And we didn't do this as a punitive measure, we did this to send a very strong message, as the gentleman has in his very eloquent floor statement, and that message is we want the Smithsonian Board of Regents to reform the Smithsonian.

We all respect and admire and love the institution ourselves. We want to, and I personally hope we can in conference restore funding after they have made the appropriate changes that the committee has talked to them about. I think that is happening as we speak.

I have had a chance to talk to a number of the regents and Members of the House who serve as regents, and I am confident that they are on the right track. We hope by the time we get to conference, we will all be satisfied that they have reached the goal of reforming and changing so that the House and the other body can feel confident in funding them at the appropriate level.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman for his very thorough and comprehensive statement, and I want to join him in support of this project.

As the gentleman said, this project was authorized, signed by President Reagan, a very conservative President. This is historic activity that has been very productive. And so I urge that the project be supported and that the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona be defeated.

Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. But as was mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, there are four congressional districts involved in this. I don't know if people from the other districts, I guess they didn't request it or else it would be listed because we've tried to list it where there were multiple names involved.

Mr. Murtha is a former member of this subcommittee and this project has been funded for many years. When your party was in the majority, there were a number of years in which this project was funded. The previous chairman, Mr. Taylor, and others have been supportive of this project.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I'll be very brief.

The point I would make is that we only funded one out of 10 requests. So there was a lot of judgment made by both sides of the aisle working together to pick those projects that had a history, that were authorized in many cases. So I think there was a very careful vetting of this process. There are a lot of Members who are mad at me because they didn't get their project. This one met the test and was funded.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman has discussed this amendment with all of us. The bill includes an increase of $11.8 million, as you have mentioned, above the President's request for EPA enforcement. That is enough money to bring the EPA's enforcement level back to levels that we saw earlier in this decade. The majority has no objection and accepts the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

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

Am going to be brief here. This would be a devastating cut on this bill. I want to say something to the gentleman. These bills do have consequences.

Over the last 7 years, since this administration took power, the Interior Department's budget has been cut in real terms by 16 percent. The EPA's budget has been cut in real terms by 29 percent, and the Forest Service budget has been cut in real terms, taking fire out, by 35 percent. This is one of the few bills that has been devastated by this administration, and it's a regrettable fact.

All our bill does is stop this downward trend in our national parks, our downward trend in our national wildlife refuges, and our downward trend in enforcement and clean water and clean air in the environmental protection area, and the reduction in personnel, not covering fixed costs until Mr. Kempthorne came in, and he is only covering the fixed costs for the Interior Department. This is a devastating cut that would reverse all the good work in this bill.

I just think it's totally irresponsible, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this. We need the money for the firefighters, there is a huge fire out there in Lake Tahoe right now. We need to get this bill passed.

This kind of across-the-board meat-ax approach will not be successful, I predict. I just tell the gentleman that his amendment goes way too far and would have devastating consequences. It would undermine the President's Centennial Challenge that Mr. Kempthorne has worked so hard to create.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

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

And I will say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) we are, I have already explained, Mr. Obey's already explained why this amendment is not going to be passed by the House today, because it's too big a cut. And I would just say, again, and I want to say this to every Member: This administration has cut the Interior Department budget over the last 6 to 7 years by 16 percent.

It has cut EPA by 29 percent. It has cut the Forest Service by 35 percent. It is devastating these agencies, and this amendment would add to that devastation.

What we are doing is adding 4.3 percent to try to turn the corner, to try to bring these agencies back. And we are not laying back here. We are just waiting to move on to more important business.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague on the committee, a distinguished member from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

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

Yes, we have speakers. How many speakers do you have?

I am not going to yield you any time; so you might go ahead and start.

Mr. Chairman, again, the former ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Conte, when he was here in the House of Representatives, used to say that this is the ``meat-ax approach.'' An across-the-board amendment doesn't make any selectivity between the national parks and other issues. It's just an across-the-board cut.

Again, I must say that the reason we object on this particular bill is because over the last 7 years the administration has cut the Interior Department by 16 percent in real terms. And the cut for EPA is 29 percent and that cuts the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. I mean, it's hard to believe that this administration wanted to cut the Clean Water Revolving Fund by $670 million. How do you do that and go to bed at night and actually get sleep? I mean, it's shocking to me, these cuts.

The Forest Service funds all the programs for taking care of our multiple-use Forest Service land. More recreation is provided by the Forest Service than actually the Park Service, and they cut that by 35 percent since 2001.

This is a crisis. These agencies are headed down a devastating path, not having enough staff to do their work. The refuges didn't have enough staff. The Park Service didn't have enough staff. Every one of these agencies were losing people year after year because their fixed costs weren't covered. So this was a crisis situation.

I think everything we've done in this budget is totally responsible. And I reject the idea of any across-the-board meat-ax approach, using the language of the former ranking member, Mr. Conte from Massachusetts. And I just hope that we can move on here and get to the rest of these amendments.

There are a lot of people on the other side who told me they would like to go home on Friday morning, they would like to see us get done on Thursday night. So I don't want anybody to think that we're not in opposition to all these things. I just want them to know that we're trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get the job of this committee done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the committee (Mr. Israel).

And I would just add, if the gentlemen are so confident of their position, why don't we just have a vote on this and move along and get the committee's work done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the subcommittee (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

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

Mr. Chairman, again I want to say to my colleagues, the reason we have to make this increase in the Interior appropriations budget is because over the last 6 or 7 years the budgets for these agencies have been reduced dramatically. The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent. We have lost rangers at every national park in the Nation. The summer workers have been cut back. The services there are not as good as they used to be.

This was a crisis. The National Parks Conservation Association had a pamphlet, ``The Endangered Ranger.'' Here it was, our national parks, our national treasure, in decline.

I am no extremist. I am a moderate in this House, and I always have been. But this was a true crisis. And what we had to do was stop this decline, this downward trend of our national wildlife refuges, our national parks, and we put a little extra money in to get it turned up, so we could hire a few more people, so we could cover the fixed costs of the rangers and the people running these wildlife refuges.

That is why we had to do this. It was a crisis. And it is going to take us a number of years to get back. We only increased this budget by 4.3 percent. With a 16-percent cut, it would take 4 years to get back to where we were in 2001. With EPA, it would take about 7 years to get back to where we were. And with a 35-percent cut in the Forest Service, it would take about 8 years to get back. So we have a long ways to go, and I don't want to have any downward direction here.

I do say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is right, the 1 percent could be taken anywhere, and that might mean that all of the projects of interest to the Members would be eliminated by the administration. Now, I hope they wouldn't do that. I hope they wouldn't fall into that trap. But that is one possibility.

So, again, I resent the gentleman from Georgia even suggesting that we aren't over here fighting against your amendments. We just looked at the

Record last night and how the votes went, and we thought maybe some of the Members would like to get home on Thursday.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I can guarantee I think that this amendment will be treated properly by the membership.

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

This amendment would cut a total of $138 million from environmental conservation and Native American programs. It makes no choice based on need or merit of the program, but it cuts 0.5 percent in this bill. This is not merely an accounting change on a table. Cutting $138 million from the bill will have very serious consequences.

All of us have been listening on television about the big wild fire at Lake Tahoe. This bill would reduce overall funding for firefighting by $14 million at a time when we are facing what is potentially one of the worst fire seasons in history. It cuts 125 firefighters, shuts down firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It would decimate preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 80 more wildfires to escalate. This would lead to larger, more damaging and much more expensive fires, costing in excess of $20 million to extinguish.

This amendment halts hazardous fuel reduction projects without which there is little hope for reducing long-term fire costs and harmful impacts.

In our national parks, it cuts overall National Park Service funding by $13 million, includes a $6 million reduction below the President's request for the basic operational cost of the 391 units of the national park system.

It drastically impacts the President's proposal to hire 3,000 seasonal and 600 full-time park ranger positions.

For Native American programs, it rejects $29 million for programs that have received bipartisan support. By cutting $16 million out of Indian health care programs, this proposal would deny service to thousands of Native Americans.

It takes 4 percent out of the already struggling Indian education programs leaving even more Indian children without adequate education programs.

For the Environmental Protection Agency, it reduces a total of $40 million for EPA. Funding for efforts to help local communities with repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure, would be reduced by almost $10 million from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels. This would mean that many communities would not receive the financial assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer infrastructure.

Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site, the amendment cuts almost $8 million from programs to clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces the amount for restoration and protection of America's great water bodies, including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Puget Sound, and others. It would especially jeopardize the cleanup of toxic sediments in the lakes, and community efforts across this Nation to protect 28 estuaries.

For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the cuts here would be $7 million for an agency which has already lost 600 staff positions since 2004. And means that many of our wildlife refuges today have no staff whatsoever because of the devastating cuts that have been imposed over the last 7 years.

It would perpetuate staffing shortfall trends and reduce public service by taking funding out of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Forest Service. This amendment reduces funding for the non-fire portion of the Forest Service by $13 million. Forces up to 100 employee layoffs and closures of more than 10 campgrounds while reducing fire improvement activities on several thousand acres.

It diminishes cooperative land conservation and forestry actions which serve thousands of nonindustrial private forest landowners.

It freezes research efforts and compels the closure of at least four labs.

So these are, I think, very substantial and important reductions that would adversely affect this bill. I have a great regard for the gentlelady. As much as I enjoy and appreciate her, I can't accept this amendment. I want her to know it is nothing personal, it is just that we have to do the job.

We are in a recovery mode here. That is what I tried to explain. The gentleman who talked about the $16 billion, it wasn't $16 billion, it was a 16 percent reduction in the funding for the Department of the Interior. This has had a devastating impact. We also had a 29 percent reduction in EPA and a 35 percent reduction in the Forest Service budget. All of these budgets have been hit hard. Only the Department of Labor has been hit worse.

What we are trying to do is stop this downward trend in the personnel in these agencies. The Park Service budget, 80 to 90 percent of the budget are for people. That is why we are so concerned about this. Without the people, the American people when they go to the parks are not going to have the kind of experience that they should have. That's why we have tried to stop this.

The Secretary of the Interior, he got it. I told him, I said you cannot succeed, Mr. Secretary, unless you get 100 percent of fixed costs covered in your budget for the Park Service, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Bureau of Land Management, the Mineral Management Agency, and he did that. But we have to recover over a period of time.

Unfortunately, to make further reductions will take us longer before we can restore the services at our national parks, and restore service at our national wildlife refuges. This is a very well put-together bill. I just regret that these cuts are being offered. I think this bill should be accepted as it is. We have to go to conference, obviously we know that. So I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

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

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

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

I may have one more speaker. I think I have the right to close, don't I?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, with deep regret, I insist on my point of order.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

The amendment proposes to appropriate funds for the rural school program that has not been reauthorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I am sorry that I have to raise a point of order, but the payments for the Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000 are not authorized.

This is a reachback appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, I am sorry I must insist on my point of order. I will also point out that it would be irresponsible to cut this budget bill by $425 million.

Public Law 110-28 did not reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think the gentleman is addressing the point of order.

I insist on my point of order.

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

I want to say how badly I feel about this because this Secure Rural Schools program is a very important program in the northwest, as well as in California. But I just could not allow this amendment to come for a vote because it would have cut $425 million out of this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

I regret that I can't take that chance. If this amendment were enacted, it would have a devastating consequence on this bill. And it was subject to a point of order, and I had to insist on it. I regret that we have this controversy, but that's the reality of the situation we're in.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The point I'd like to make, this is an authorization problem. This isn't supposed to be handled on the appropriations bill. We had an agreement that we would help you do this for 1 year, but then you would go back to the Natural Resources Committee and find the mandatory spending to offset this. This is not an appropriations matter.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The only thing I would say here is that you can raise a point of

order against the gentleman from Oregon's amendment, but that is going to hurt the other gentleman from Oregon. I mean, this is a partial help as a place holder in this bill.

And the distinguished chairman and I were just talking about we put $425 million in the supplemental to take care of this problem. Now, you've got to go get this done in the authorization committee. And I'm not going to risk this bill, which we fought so hard to create, on a chance that we might pass this amendment and cut all this other spending that's important in the bill to my constituents.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Okay. So I just yield?

Can you let me know when 1 minute is gone?

Mr. Chairman, I now will yield my remaining time to Mr. Inslee, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to tell the gentleman that I think he has got a good amendment here. Our side is prepared to accept your amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Kansas is referring to the other Udall amendment, not this amendment. I don't think there is a point of order here. There is another Udall amendment that did have an issue with it. There are a lot of them, so I can see how he could get confused.

Well, we will wait and see. But I didn't note the gentleman making the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, I agree. In our report on this bill, the Appropriations Committee warns the Interior Department that we are concerned about the Department's interpretation and actions that would disclaim Federal interests in lands subject to an R.S. 2477 claim or issue any nonbinding determination that would have a similar effect. That is why we tell them to provide advanced notice to the Congress if the Interior Department plans to approve any R.S. 2477 claims. We also require them to provide quarterly reports on activities concerning claims under the R.S. 2477 statute. But it would be even better for the administration to work with the gentleman and the Natural Resources Committee to develop a legislative solution for this serious problem, and I urge them to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. I think this is a very positive amendment. It has nothing to do with what we were discussing earlier, and I am prepared to accept your amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

The only thing I would say here is that this amendment is much different than the Doolittle amendment. This would help the gentleman from Oregon and Mr. Doolittle in having a placeholder in the bill.

As the gentleman knows, we agreed to $425 million in the supplemental to help these gentlemen on the rural schools. My concern here is that this is not an appropriations problem, this is supposed to be an authorization problem. I even helped them way back in 1992 or 1993 when the timber harvest went way down--Congresswoman Dunn and I got the first program through Congress to keep this going for 10 years.

I have been a friend of this rural schools program. I don't quite understand why this very small amendment that doesn't have any negative impact on anyone would be stricken.

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

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

It is important for Members to realize as they consider the committee action that the $160 million recommended only partially restores cuts made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in this bill is still $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After adjusting for inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below the level in 1993, as displayed on a chart that I showed Members earlier.

As we debate this amendment, Members should also note that the National Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts funding debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the NEA into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivey, appointed by Bill Clinton, negotiated and implemented bipartisan reforms in NEA's grant structure to ensure that funds go to activities for which public funding is appropriate.

Dana Gioia, the current chairman, then energized the agency with many new programs and a commitment to reach beyond the cultural centers of our major cities.

Last year, every single congressional district received NEA support through innovative programs such as the American Masterpieces, Operation Homecoming and the Big Read.

Today, NEA is a truly national program with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of her society. Each of us have different reasons to support the arts. Some will describe their support in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a personally enriching experience. Others support the arts as engines of job development and economic growth.

It is equally important to emphasize that most Members of the House in recent years have been supporting funding for the arts and for the humanities. I believe the cultural wars should be over. For each of the last 7 years with the help of many Members in this Chamber, a bipartisan majority in the House has voted to increase funding for the NEA. During the last 2 years, Ms. Slaughter's and my amendments to add funds were adopted by voice vote, without opposition from Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Chairman, I do not normally include quotes in my floor remarks, but I was struck in preparing for this year's art debate by a quote attributed to actor Richard Dreyfus at the Grammy awards ceremony:

``Perhaps we've all misunderstood the reason we learn music and all the arts in the first place. It is that for hundreds of years, it has been known that teaching the arts helps to create the well-rounded mind that western civilization, and America, have been grounded on. America's greatest achievements in science, in business, in popular culture, would simply not be attainable without an education that encourages achievement in all fields. It is from that creativity and imagination that the solutions to our political and social problems will come. We need that well-rounded mind now. Without it, we simply make more difficult the problems we face.''

I believe Mr. Dreyfus is right, and the committee has acted to provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American communities with a richer variety of programs.

I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment and support for the committee position.

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

I just will wrap this up.

I would say, you know, it's very unusual to say you support a program or support the arts when you offer an amendment to eliminate the entire program. It's like saying I'm for the B-2 bomber but I want to vote against it. You can't have it both ways. Either you're for the arts or you're not. When you're here, you have to demonstrate that support by supporting the program.

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

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

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

This amendment is a mistake. There are plenty of reasons to delay the oil shale leasing which the BLM is doing. The Governor of Colorado and several other local Members of Congress have also asked for an appropriate delay so the public can fully understand the ramifications of massive oil shale leasing. Furthermore, the large- scale demonstration projects have begun and it is far too soon for large-scale commercial leasing.

To give the companies time to learn from the demonstrations, I think we should defeat this amendment and stay with the Udall amendment. What this does is basically overturn the Udall amendment, which is pending at this time.

I urge opposition to the Cannon amendment.

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

I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Do you want us to all vote for the Udall amendment so that your amendment can repeal it?

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

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. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.006

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, if the motion uses the word ``promptly,'' as this one does, it takes the bill off the floor and sends it back to the Appropriations Committee. The committee is not required to act because the instructions are considered merely advisory to the committee. In other words, by using the word ``promptly,'' they would kill the bill.

Now this motion to recommit is simply a device to protect excess profits of the energy companies. It does this by overturning section 115 of the bill. This section simply requires energy companies who are realizing $9 billion of excess profits to renegotiate the faulty leases which were signed in 1997 and 1998. In legal terms, this is called ``unjust enrichment'' at the expense of the taxpayers.

The motion overturns section 115 by delaying it until impossible conditions are met, as certified by the secretary. If this language is adopted, these enormous unjustified profits will continue for an industry making tens of billions of dollars of profit.

Adoption of the amendment would kill the bill and with so many good things in it, I urge all Members to vote against the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I share your interest in seeing that the economic development and recreation accounts under the gorge act are fully funded. I will be happy to work with you on this issue which is so important to the communities in your scenic area.

That is correct. The earmark in the committee report is for land acquisition in areas of the scenic area represented by the two gentlemen who requested the funding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2643, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 2643 pursuant to House Resolution 514, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield.

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

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

Would the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

I appreciate your yielding.

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

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

That is correct.

That is correct.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield?

Madam Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, yes, I withdraw my reservation.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

The gentleman is correct.

Yes, the gentleman is correct.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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