Floor Statements

I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays by $140 million in the bill.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The principal purpose of this amendment is to block the long overdue increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts provided in the bill. The gentleman is correct that the bill reported by the committee provides $160 million for the NEA, an increase of $35 million over the 2007 enacted level. I am very proud of that increase which I think is fully justified and broadly supported by the Members of this body.

It is important for Members to realize as they consider the committee's 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 the chart in front of the Members.

As we debate the 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 President Clinton, negotiated and then 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 American Masterpieces, Operation Homecoming and the Big Read. Today, NEA is truly a national program with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of our society.

Each of us has 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 except for a few members of the Flat Earth Society, there is little opposition to Federal funding for the arts and for the humanities. The culture wars are over. For each of the last 7 years, with the help of many Members in this Chamber, a bipartisan majority of 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.

Mr. Chairman, I do not normally include quotes in my floor remarks, but I was struck in preparing for this year's arts 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 obtainable 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.

Point of Order

I want to insist on my point of order.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

It was in 1984 when the gentleman created the moratorium off the coast of Washington and Oregon. I hope it never goes away.

I have a parliamentary point. Limitations are appropriate on an appropriation bill. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman from Hawaii was reminded of that technical point.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's passion on this issue, but I do not agree that this is the time or the place to overturn the 25-year moratorium protecting our Nation's best ocean beaches and fishing areas. I agree that energy supply is vital to our Nation and our economy, but so is the natural environment.

Our committee has looked at this issue closely. The President's budget request and this committee's bill maintains the existing drilling moratoria for oil and natural gas exploration. I want to say that again. The President, who has been the strongest advocate for oil and natural gas development in the history of the country, in his budget opposes lifting this moratorium. I think we ought to listen to him this time. This leaves substantial areas in the Gulf of Mexico and off of Alaska that are available for exploration.

Our bill also continues the exploration and development of public resources onshore on our public lands. We really do not need to lift the moratorium now. The protected areas do not have substantial reserves. The total technically recoverable resources on the OCS are estimated to be about 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas. The amount under moratoria, or Presidential withdrawal, after January 9, 2007, is estimated to be 17.8 billion barrels of oil and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of gas.

I also point out, and maybe the gentleman from Pennsylvania disagrees with this, that the industry people I have talked to say it is impractical to pursue natural gas-only drilling, which does not involve oil. It simply is impractical to issue leases only for gas and not for oil, as well.

I think it is important that we do not start major new developments in areas that are entirely lacking drilling and energy infrastructure. These are large areas which are already leased and are available for development. Before we open large, new and sensitive areas to development, we should focus our Nation's efforts in places that already have access to existing pipelines and distribution systems.

Mr. Chairman, the Peterson amendment seems so very simple, but that is not a good approach to such a complicated issue. This amendment would not allow the various States to have meaningful input on drilling activities and the extensive development on-shore which would follow.

Please join me and continue our protection of America's priceless coastlines. Please defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask for a vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this point, so I would like the gentleman to finish and then I will finish.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, I want to point out to the gentleman that we really do not need to lift the moratorium now. The protected areas do not have substantial reserves. The total technically recoverable resources on the OCS, the areas where we are drilling off of Alaska and in the Gulf are estimated to be about 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas.

The amount under moratoria, or Presidential withdrawal, after January 9, 2007, is estimated to be 17.8 billion barrels of oil, which is about one-fifth, and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is about one- eighth.

So the reason we have the moratoria is because we think those areas are more important from an environmental perspective, that we need to protect our oceans and beaches. The gentleman from California was here and talked about the north coast of California. I represent the northern coast of Washington State, and I put this moratorium in place, I think, in 1984 for both Washington and Oregon. Mr. AuCoin and I did at the time.

I have yet to have one citizen in my State ever come up to me and say, why don't you let us drill for oil and gas off the coast of Washington? Nobody has ever asked us to do that. They want it

protected. It has got fisheries. It is one of the most beautiful beaches and coasts in the entire Nation.

I went up to see what happened with Exxon Valdez and see that oil spill and all that oil in and around the waters up there and how it destroyed the herring reproduction and all of the other species.

I want to protect the coast of Washington. I want to protect the coast of Florida, the coast of Virginia. Yes, we will drill off of Alaska. We will drill off the areas where the oil and gas exists. And if the gentleman from Hawaii is so interested in this, I am sure we can work out something for him out in Hawaii.

I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania briefly.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we should continue to work in the gulf and off of Alaska where most of the reserves exist.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the concerns you have raised. I commit to you to work with you to resolve this issue in conference so that this program can continue to be implemented as is authorized by the Congress.

And I would also point out to my good friend from Texas, both of my good friends from Texas, that there is still $47 million in 2007 money that has not yet been obligated.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman is concerned about that, and is working to see that that money is obligated as well. We will work with you on this. It is a very important issue. I appreciate your hard work and interest in this subject.

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

No, no, no, just for this one amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Under your amendment, would you be able to drill in the Great Lakes or in the Chesapeake Bay or in Puget Sound or in the Long Island Sound?

Okay. I knew that I opposed this amendment, but now I will oppose it with even greater fervor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who has been a strong supporter of the moratorium throughout her career and has been a real leader on this issue.

I don't have any additional speakers, and I have the right to close.

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

I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I hope the House will defeat it resoundingly. This does not make any sense for our environmentally sensitive areas, particularly on the coast of California and Washington and Oregon on the West Coast, and the sensitive areas on the East Coast as well.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

We want to work with the gentleman on this important issue. We are very concerned about this problem and think it deserves our complete attention.

Yes, that is the intention of this legislation.

I completely agree with the gentleman. The increase is necessary in order to deal with this very serious problem. We will continue to work with the gentleman as we go to conference with the Senate. We will do the best we can to help on this important issue.

Yes, it is. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention. We should focus the resources on those areas where the problem is the most severe. If we have any problem with this, I'll be glad to work with the gentleman with the agencies involved to make certain that that happens.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman for bringing up this issue. Based on the additional information that has come to light concerning the impact of this 25 percent reduction to the Clean Air Status and Trends Network, CASTNET, and based on the gentleman's hard work and effort on this, we are prepared to accept his amendment.

If the gentleman will yield, yes, that is correct. There are presently no Member projects within the EPA EPM account within this bill.

While I can't predict the future of negotiations with the other body, I would be willing to take a closer look at the gentleman's specific concern at that time.

If the gentleman will yield, one approach might be for the gentleman to go to the EPA with the money that they get that is unearmarked and make a presentation there about the importance of this program. I'm not certain he's going to do that, but that's a suggestion we have from our staff.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

We are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's very constructive approach to this matter. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman knew that the distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon, and I had a colloquy at the start of the day in which I committed myself to work with him to align our approach with the work of the Science and Technology Committee when that legislation is enacted.

I would hope that the gentleman might consider that in making his decision whether to go forward with this amendment, because I do believe we have a commitment to get this important work done.

As the gentleman has mentioned, and I will give the gentleman additional time, if necessary, as the gentleman has mentioned, adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change are terribly important to the United States, to our wildlife, to our habitat. In fact, this is an issue that is worldwide in reach and scope.

I would hope that the gentleman might reconsider his amendment to strike and allow us to go forward with a commitment that I have made to the chairman, and I make to you, that we will work this out in a way that is consistent with the authorizing legislation. That's why the chairman was willing to go along with me at this point.

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

I believe the report language beginning on page 100 very adequately describes and justifies the new Commission on Climate Change, adaptation and mitigation. As I noted in my opening remarks, we have tried in this bill to move the climate change debate beyond talking about whether global warming exists and, instead, focus on what we must do to deal with this as a reality. The recent reports of the international panel on climate change make clear that warming will persist for many years irrespective of any regulatory actions or technology breakthroughs which may occur in the near future.

Testimony before our subcommittee in April describes significant impacts already occurring. These impacts included 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. The 2-year Commission established in this bill is intended to help identify and jump start the science which can help our country and the world adapt to these changes.

The Commission brings together a panel of 15 of this country's science leaders, and is headed by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ralph Cicerone. Dr. Cicerone, who I have met with personally on this proposal, is one of the world's leaders in climate change studies.

While the use of advisory panels is common in guiding federally- funded science, this panel is different in two ways. First, it cuts broadly across all areas of Federal science in looking at the climate problem. I make no apology for that. This is a national and worldwide problem, and I think we need to think beyond the traditional agency or subcommittee's stovepipe approaches.

Second, the Commission has $45 million to begin implementation of its recommendations. Giving the commission implementation funds will make it both more credible and more effective.

This is not a large amount of money, but we believe it could get a few of the

most critical science initiatives going without having to wait for the 2009 funding cycle.

Chairman Obey has asked our subcommittee to be aggressive and imaginative in approaching the climate change challenge this year. We think that the funding, provided in this bill for the climate change adaptation and mitigation science, responds to that need, and I urge the funds be preserved.

The committee is aware, however, that a number of other committees are working on legislation in this area. Chairman Oberstar, from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has written us in support of our Commission, which he believes can be supportive of efforts in his committee.

We are also working closely with the Natural Resources Committee, and we understand how Science, as I mentioned earlier, will mark something up in July. I want to assure the Members that when we get to conference on this bill, presumably in September, I am going to try for July. We will give full consideration to any new legislation which may be adopted as we finalize fiscal year 2008 spending for climate research in our committee.

I think it would be a real tragedy for this House, on the first major amendment this year on climate change, to have a negative vote, to show that we still don't get it, that we still don't realize that the planet is at risk here.

So I urge the committee to stay with us. This was approved in the Appropriations Committee, and I think it's a very good Commission, and I think this thing will work and will help us adapt to the problems that we are going to face because of this. We have these problems on all of our Federal lands. We had a hearing on that.

I think this is an important amendment. I urge everyone to defeat the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate his hard work on this issue, and we're prepared to accept his amendment. And having had dead zones off the coast of Washington State, in Puget Sound and in Hood Canal, I can tell you this is a very serious problem, and I'm very pleased the gentleman is working so hard to deal with it and bring it to our attention.

I certainly agree with the gentleman that rural communities are unfairly burdened by the high costs associated with Federal clean water regulations and that families in such communities are shouldering alarmingly high rates of increase.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I commend the gentleman for his efforts on the part of his constituents and for all the rural water users who are facing similar problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see what can be done to address the problems as this legislation moves forward to conference with the Senate.

I might point out that we did put $16 million in the bill for the rural water. There's going to be a competition. This had been an earmark in the past, but it got thrown out in 2007.

I have been calling over there to Mr. Grumbles at the EPA to try to get this thing moving as fast as possible so that the money gets out to the rural communities. And I commend the gentleman. This is a major problem. I have a lot of rural areas in my district, and every single one of them is having a terrible time getting the money to do the clean water issues.

Now, remember this too: When Christine Todd Whitman did her study, she came up with a backlog of $388 billion. So we are going to need a new authorization program. And I commend the gentleman for having one that focuses on the rural areas. And we have got to at least do that as a priority.

So I commend the gentleman and we will continue to work with him.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman has been urging me to try to figure out ways to reduce the size of this bill. We have already increased PILT by $43 million. I mean, when does this end?

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

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

The principal purpose of this amendment is to block the long overdue increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts provided in the bill.

The gentleman is correct that the bill reported by the committee provides $160 million for the NEA, an increase of $35 million over the 2007 enacted level. I am very proud of that increase, which I think is fully justified and broadly supported by Members of this body.

It is important for Members to realize, as they consider the committee's 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 just $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 the chart in front of the Members.

As we debate this amendment, Members should also note 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 Ivy, appointed by Bill Clinton, negotiated, then 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 culture centers of our major cities.

Last year, every single congressional district received NEA support through innovative programs such as American Masterpieces, Operation Homecoming and the Big Read. Today, NEA is truly a national program with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of our society.

Each of us has 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 an engine of job development and economic growth. It is equally important to emphasize that here in the House we've had votes on this issue year after year after year. In fact, in the last 2 years, the votes on the Slaughter-Dicks amendment have been accepted on voice vote.

As far as I'm concerned, one of the things that I'm proudest of is the fact that we had a hearing this year and brought in artists from all across our country to testify about the arts and what it means not only in terms of educating our youth, but also what it means to the American people.

I'm always surprised that there are some on the other side of the aisle who always want to beat up on the National Endowment for the Arts. In fact, when Mr. Regula was chairman of the committee, an outstanding chairman, he put into place some very significant reforms which I supported. And what we emphasized was quality, that we don't have enough money to fund every single project, that we must emphasize quality. And that's what Mr. Ivy has done; that's what Mr. Gioia has done. And I want you to know the endowment is thrilled about this increase. They think they can spend this money wisely and effectively.

I just urge the gentleman to reconsider his amendment. I wish he would withdraw it and recognize and join all of us who support the arts here in the United States. I'd like to see us have a bipartisan approval of this bill, and particularly this particular increase for the Endowment for the Arts. And we also increase funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The humanities are very important to our country as well.

So I urge that we oppose this amendment and keep moving along.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York was on the floor asking for recognition.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady be recognized.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady have 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I just asked unanimous consent for the gentlelady to have 1 additional minute.

What's the difference? I'm the chairman of the committee. I can ask unanimous consent any time I want.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for the gentlelady from New York.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I was somewhat mystified by the gentleman's amendment. He was talking about the border. As we understand it, the money for this amendment would go to Forest Service research, which is, as we understand it, $15.5 million over the old 2007 level, and $33 million over the President's level in our budget. We don't need any more money for the forest research. We've already very adequately and generously taken care of it.

I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding and for her great leadership over many years. I have always enjoyed being your partner on this important amendment, and now we're close to getting back to where we need to get.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 2643 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 514, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

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

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding historic preservation;

An amendment by Mr. Pearce striking language related to administrative cost sharing for certain activities performed by the Minerals Management Service;

An amendment by Mr. Lamborn regarding funding for the National Endowment for the Arts;

An amendment by Mr. Rahall to strike certain provisions relating to national wildfire refuge management of wild horses;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding for the U.S. Forest Service;

An amendment by Mr. Nunes regarding funding for the U.S. Forest Service;

An amendment by Mr. LoBiondo regarding funding for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;

An amendment by Mr. Ellsworth regarding Smithsonian Institution salaries;

An amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida reducing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts;

An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 percent, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia striking language expressing the sense of Congress on global climate change;

An amendment by Mr. Barton of Texas or Mr. Sullivan regarding global climate change;

An amendment by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas regarding Maximum Achievable Air Control Standards;

An amendment by Mr. Andrews or Mr. Chabot regarding the Tongass National Forest;

An amendment by Mr. Inslee or Mr. LoBiondo regarding importation of polar bear parts;

An amendment by Mr. Salazar or Mr. Udall of Colorado regarding oil and gas leasing on the Roan Plateau;

An amendment by Mr. Udall of Colorado regarding oil shale leasing;

An amendment by Mr. Udall of Colorado regarding RS 2477 road determinations;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made

through amendment for deficit reduction;

An amendment by Mr. DeFazio or Mr. Walden of Oregon regarding Secure Rural Schools county payments;

An amendment by Mr. Pearce prohibiting funds for the continued operation of the Mexican wolf program;

An amendment by Mr. Pearce prohibiting funds for the expansion of the Mexican wolf program;

An amendment by Mr. Dent prohibiting funds for implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;

An amendment by Mr. Kingston prohibiting funds for contracts to entities that do not participate in a basic pilot program related to illegal immigration;

An amendment by Mr. Upton regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting the use of funds for international conferences;

An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 4.3 percent, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill by 1 percent, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California regarding funding for the San Gabriel watershed study;

An amendment by Mr. Bishop of Utah limiting the use of funds for non- profits which are a party to a lawsuit against certain Federal agencies;

An amendment by Mr. Bishop of Utah limiting the use of funds for land condemnation actions;

An amendment by Mr. Doolittle regarding funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act;

An amendment by Mr. Stupak regarding funding for the EPA Administrator's security detail;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa prohibiting funds for certain EPA computer modeling activities;

An amendment by Mr. Cannon prohibiting funds for certain oil shale leasing activities in Utah and Wyoming;

An amendment by Mr. Cannon limiting the use of funds to implement restrictions on certain oil and gas leasing activities;

An amendment by Mr. Heller of Nevada prohibiting funds in contravention of a court decision related to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance;

An amendment by Mr. Heller of Nevada limiting the use of funds for certain Heritage Areas that do not contain private property provisions;

An amendment by Mr. Flake prohibiting funds for the Ohio Association of Professional Firefighters in Columbus, Ohio;

An amendment by Mr. Flake prohibiting funds for the W.A. Young and Sons Foundry in Greene County, Pennsylvania;

An amendment by Mr. Flake prohibiting funds for the Philadelphia Art Museum in Pennsylvania;

An amendment by Mr. Flake prohibiting funds for the Payne Gallery at Moravian College in Pennsylvania;

An amendment by Mr. Flake prohibiting funds for certain entities related to the Southwest Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage Route;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the Clover Bend Historic site;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the St. Joseph's College Theater;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the Bremertown Public Library;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the Maverick Concert Hall;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for Wetzel County Courthouse;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for equipment for anadromous fish research;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding urban forestry;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding Smithsonian Institution outreach;

An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks;

An amendment or amendments by Mr. Dicks regarding funding levels; and

An amendment by Mr. Feeney regarding competitive sourcing.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank my colleague from Kansas for working on this issue. I understand Treece's frustration and look forward to working with you to see what the agencies within our subcommittee's jurisdiction can do to help. We appreciate your bringing this to our attention.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am prepared to accept the amendment. We want to work with the gentleman on this a little bit to improve it as we get to conference. But we are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a colloquy.

Yes, that is correct. As written in the committee record, the committee believes it is important to address the shortfalls in staffing around the Nation, and we have provided the largest operational increase in the history of the refuge system to do so.

We have also included language directing consideration to those areas, like Great Bay, that have pressing shortfalls and needs.

That is also correct. The committee includes language in our report directing the system to reduce the number of complexes. The increased funding is to be used to address staffing shortfalls, and the committee does not view the use of complexes as a sufficient means for managing refuges.

These complexes move the staff too far from the communities and resources that they serve, and we have asked that the number of complexes be reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Thank you for your good work on this. Protecting our national wildlife refuges was one of our major priorities in the subcommittee. We are pleased to have your support for the bill and this effort.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

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

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

The language in title V of this bill is identical to language added by the Appropriations Committee last year to the FY 2007 Interior bill when the Appropriations Committee was being run by the minority party of today. Since that time, this sense of the Congress has been supported by both an international scientific body and the United States Supreme Court.

First, the sense of Congress states that ``there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.'' So far this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group consisting of hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, has issued two reports on the science of climate change, with a third report to be issued later this year. The panel's first report, issued in February, concluded that there is an overwhelming probability, at least 90 percent certainty, that human activities are warming the planet at a dangerous rate, with consequences that could take decades or centuries to reverse. The panel's second report on the consequences of global warming concluded ``with high confidence'' that greenhouse gases produced by human activity has already triggered changes in ecosystems on both land and sea. As evidence, the report cited longer growing seasons, earlier leaf-unfolding and earlier egg-laying by birds, traceable to human activity. The report estimates that 20 to 30 percent of the world's species could be in danger of extinction.

I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, who I think did a good job as chairman of the Commerce Committee, but this is a sense of Congress. It's the authorizing committees that will enact the legislation. What this does is express concern that this problem must be addressed.

Clearly, the sense of Congress correctly captures the state of global change science.

Second, the sense of Congress states that mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. In April of this year, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles. The court also held that EPA has the discretion not to regulate only under very limited scenarios. This decision has been widely interpreted to force the administration to propose regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the Supreme Court agrees with what I would consider our sense of Congress resolution.

Again, I state my opposition to the gentleman's amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

I would hope we're not asleep at the switch again, as the planet is heating up, and climate change is occurring.

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

We will accept the gentleman's amendment.

I think the time has expired, Mr. Chairman. This was not done in a timely way.

I object.

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

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment. EPA's proposed rule would weaken almost every air toxic rule issued since 1990 by allowing some air pollution sources to increase their emissions. EPA purports that the proposed changes would encourage more sources to strive for additional reductions of toxic air pollution. Yet the EPA cannot provide concrete data to support this assumption and has avoided quantifying the environmental impacts of this proposal.

In fact, when given the opportunity to comment on the proposal, EPA's own regional office expressed significant concerns about the increase in emissions that will likely occur from the revisions to the existing policy.

I congratulate the gentlelady on her amendment and urge that the committee accept it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while straightforward is not what it seems. While it seems logical that we should not issue grants to any group that is in litigation with the agency issuing the grant, that could result in far-reaching consequences. Even the gentleman, I don't think, could predict accurately all of the implications of this.

For instance, this amendment could very well impact programs in Indian country. Many tribes choose to create, through separate organizing documents, an entity separate from the tribe that does not have sovereign powers and is organized exclusively for purposes described under IRC section 501(c)(3).

Here are some examples of non-profit groups within Indian Country:

United Tribes Technical College, the Inter-tribal Bison Council, the Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest, the Native American Chamber of Commerce, the National Congress of American Indians.

If organizations such as these were involved in any litigation against the Department of the Interior, they would be ineligible to receive grants. Now, I remind the Chair that many tribal organizations across the Nation are in litigation with the Department of the Interior. Are we to deny the services these groups provide to Indian Country because they have longstanding legal disputes with the U.S. Government?

In addition to Indian Country, there are many wildlife conservation groups whose grassroots members provide thousands of hours of services to agencies in this bill. Groups that help the agencies with natural resource education, wildlife and habitat management, maintenance and upkeep of our national wildlife refuges and parks, and many other important efforts. These groups would be denied grants to provide those services because their parent organizations are involved in litigation regarding a legitimate difference in policy with the United States.

I think this is an ill-advised amendment, and I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to accept the amendment.

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

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

I understand the gentleman's concern on this complex issue. And I also withdraw my point of order.

I understand the gentleman's concern on this complex issue, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs has a process for putting land into trust. We should not interfere with that process.

When an American tribe decides it wants to engage in gaming activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on a parcel of land that is not already into trust, it must go through an exhaustive application process that determines if a gaming establishment on newly acquired land will be in the best interest of the tribe and its members, and not detrimental to the surrounding community.

Additionally, the Department is currently drafting regulations that will implement section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by articulating standards that the Department will follow in interpreting the various exceptions to the gaming prohibition on after-acquired trust lands. We need to let that process go forward.

Even if the Department approves a tribe's request, the Governor of the State must also agree. To interfere with this process circumvents the Gaming Regulatory Act, interferes with an established process in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and should not be included in an appropriations bill.

And I want to say that again. This should be in an authorization bill. And if the gentleman is concerned, take it to the Natural Resources Committee or the committee of jurisdiction. That's where this should be worked out, not here on this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is with a very heavy heart, but I must insist on my point of order.

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

Is this a discussion on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, or are we wandering around?

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

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

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

The restoration of wolves in the United States is a conservation success story. Wolves in the Great Plains and the Northern Rockies have made a dramatic comeback.

I will not yield. The gentleman had his 5 minutes. I am going to take my 5 minutes.

And we need to let the Mexican wolf population have the same chance.

There is no doubt that there have been problems with the reintroduction, but we cannot cancel the entire program because of these isolated problems. There are programs in place that compensate livestock operators when wolves prey upon their stock. I am in favor of working to streamline and expand these programs. I am also in favor of pushing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work more closely with the affected livestock operators.

Finally, I believe we cannot interfere with the Endangered Species Act, and that's what the gentleman is attempting to do here. His amendment would overturn the Endangered Species Act, something that we have never done on this House floor that I can remember, and I don't think we should start today.

I have experience with the Red Wolf Program at Point Defiance Zoo in the State of Washington where we regenerated the population, and then we introduced them into North Carolina. That program has worked very successfully. We have wolves in Alaska. We have wolves in Canada. There were wolves in New Mexico. And this is part of nature.

I think the gentleman is completely overreacting to this. I urge him to withdraw his amendment and not to try to overturn the Endangered Species Act here on the floor of the House.

I urge all my colleagues to vote strongly against this ill-considered amendment.

I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a ruling from the Chair whether the gentleman's comments about blood on my hands is a violation of the House Rules.

Yes, I do.

If the gentlewoman would yield, we are prepared to accept the gentlelady's amendment. We accepted it last year. We think it's a positive amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for the amount of money in this bill to address problems in Member districts or the process through which projects were selected. I just want to tell the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Tiahrt and I did this on a bipartisan basis. We worked this out. Our staffs worked together. We went through these projects very carefully. We only approved one out of every ten projects that were requested by the Members.

Now, I would remind the gentleman that in the Constitution of the United States, the most fundamental power of the United States Congress is the power of the purse, the power of the Congress to redress grievances of the American people, to help on projects that are important to the Members' districts.

Now, in this budget, we also laid out all the projects that are requested by the President. I would just, as one example, point out to the gentleman that in 2004 in terms of STAG grants, there were $533 million; in 2005, $513 million. These are all earmarks.

In 2006, $282 million. In 2007, zero. In 2008, $140 million. This is responsible. The administration even says we met their test on earmarks. We went through these projects carefully, we looked at them closely, and we did it in a professional way.

So I would urge the gentleman to consider these facts. We are not going to be doing this the way it was done in the past, but we have the right to do it. And even the gentleman from Texas can't give away the power of the purse, because it is in the Constitution of the United States, and the Founding Fathers of this country stated that this was one of the most important powers that the Congress possessed. Throughout history, the British Parliament worked feverishly over the years to gain the power to be able to decide and limit the executive, the king in this case, of Britain. That was one of the most important powers that the Parliament developed over many hundreds of years.

So I am here tonight to defend our right to take care of our constituents, and I defend the process by which we did this. We did it in a professional way. We did it with both parties sitting in the same room looking at all these projects, helping each other, so we didn't make any mistakes.

I just want the gentleman to know how strongly I feel personally about this. We did a good job, and we cut it way back, and I thought the gentleman from Texas would be here applauding what we did, not attacking it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from Indiana, who has been a valued member of our committee for many years, that I strongly support his project. Our committee evaluated it. We looked at all the details. We think it is a worthy project that should be supported.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment.

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

I want to commend the gentleman from New York for his participation on our subcommittee and for all of his good work during the year.

I must say, a performing arts facility in a town can be such a fantastic thing. One thing I hope my colleague from Texas remembers is that the local community has to match the money. I think in this case this is a grant of $150,000 to Save America's Treasures which clearly this is one of. And then the local community has to raise $150,000, and out of that there are improvements to the facility and the structure that are done over a period of time.

Again, as we analyzed all of these projects, this is exactly what we had in mind. This legislation was authorized by Congress. And I would mention also that Mrs. Bush has her program, the Preserve America Program, which our committee has supported. Mr. Tiahrt has been a strong supporter of that program. I saw Mrs. Bush the other night and I told her we were working hard together up here to try and preserve this program, which does exactly the same things as Save America's Treasures. There may be a nuance or two, but basically it is the same thing.

So again, I support the Hinchey project and oppose the gentleman from Texas's amendment. I appreciate the good work of my colleague from New York over all of the years we have been on this committee together.

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

This is an amendment that affects a project in my hometown of Bremerton, Washington.

The downtown Bremerton library building opened in August 1938. Now, that may sound recent, but, remember, Washington has only been a State since 1889. The building was funded under the Works Progress Administration. The WPA was one of Franklin Roosevelt's principal public works programs that helped America recover from the Great Depression. The building is constructed in an art deco style which was a signature style during the twenties and thirties and a favorite today of preservationists across the country. The building has a large rotunda with skylights. Because of its distinctive style, the library remains one of the most attractive buildings in downtown Bremerton. Like many art deco buildings, the library has a very bright color, in this case a vibrant yellow.

The downtown Bremerton library was constructed on land that has housed a library for nearly a hundred years. When this library opened in 1938, it served as the main library. The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County combined their library system in 1955. In 1978, a new headquarters library was built for the regional system and the downtown library became a branch library.

The library in downtown Bremerton has been undergoing rehabilitation for the last 1\1/2\ years. The city invested $100,000 last year in general fund money and $100,000 from its community development block grant funds. These were matched with $100,000 from Kitsap County and $100,000 from the Gates Foundation. The moneys were spent replacing windows and doors, remodeling bathrooms, rebuilding the roof and other structural improvements which brought the building, to a reasonable degree at least, up to current building codes and took care of pressing life/safety concerns. This year, the city is spending an additional $200,000 in general fund money to replace the existing heating, cooling and air ventilation system, to remove asbestos from the heating plant and associated piping, replace much of the building's plumbing, and to rewire the entire building for additional electrical capacity and other modern communication equipment.

When I was a kid growing up in Bremerton, Washington, this was the library that I used to go to with my mother and father and my younger brother, Les. Bremerton is a city where we have the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, probably the most effective and productive shipyard in the United States. We have about 10,000 workers working there, and we have thousands of sailors who are home-ported in Bremerton and at the Trident submarine base at Bangor. I would like to think that this facility would be available to those men and women serving us in the military and for all of those thousands of government employees who work in the Kitsap County area. This is a good project. The money that we are providing, $150,000, will be matched by the city of Bremerton. They've already put in a lot of additional money. And this is a partnership. This is one of those good projects where there's a partnership.

I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment and to support this worthy project.

I would also say, again, to the gentleman, this is such a dramatic reversal, what we have done on this side of the aisle on earmarks from the comparison when the other side took power. In 1994, there were about a thousand earmarks. In 2006, there were 13,000 earmarks.

The other thing I would suggest, too, it's one thing to go after the projects of your colleagues, but the President has what we would call earmarks, executive branch earmarks in this budget. If the gentleman was evenhanded in his approach, and I think he has been very fair in how he has selected these projects, but if he was evenhanded, he would go after some of the things that the President requests. As I said, the Preserve America Program is almost identical to Save America's Treasures, but I don't notice the gentleman offering an amendment on that particular project. No, I don't want to incentivize him, but I guess we can't because there is a unanimous consent agreement.

But, again, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and it is important. Dealing with the entitlements where two-thirds of our spending is has got to be done, and I hope that we can approach those problems just the same way as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I have approached this problem, with approving only one in ten of the projects that were requested from our colleagues.

Again, it is our power. Don't give up Congress's power of the Constitution, which is the power of the purse. That would be a tragic mistake that would haunt this House for many years.

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

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

The gentleman is correct. Last year, when Mr. Taylor was chairman and I was the ranking member, Mr. Taylor wanted to accept this amendment, and I went along with Mr. Taylor.

However, this year, I am the chairman, and the Congresswoman, Ms. Solis, is concerned about this amendment and is opposed to it.

And let me just give you a little text of what she said. This amendment is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the study process incorporated in the legislation which she authored, which was signed into law on July 1, 2003, and would result in a change in the study design.

The San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act was signed into law on July 1, 2003, after a lengthy effort to build consensus, an effort which included outreach to and coordination with all the members of the San Gabriel Valley delegation, including representatives of Diamond Bar, La Habra, Industry, Chino Hills and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and the community of Rowland Heights. As a result of this effort, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives with broad support.

Congressman Radanovich noted in a letter to the editor on August 4, 2002, that, ``legislative process works best when those with differing views get together to resolve those differences and arrive at solutions that are responsible, workable and widely acceptable. That is what happened in this instance.'' The process by which this legislation was drafted and enacted was iterative and compromising. In fact, upon passage, Representative Pombo noted that this bill enjoys the broad support of both the majority and the minority and urged his colleagues to support it.

During this process, the boundaries of the study were clearly defined. According to the legislative text, the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a special resource study of the following areas: the San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and including the City of Santa Fe Springs, and the San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, as defined in section 32603 (c)(1)(c) of the State of California Public Resource Code.

This study was directed to be done in consultation with Federal, State and local governments, including the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles River and Mountain Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State and local government entities. These areas were chosen for their importance in the regional watershed.

During consideration of this legislation, the Department of Interior recognized the need for this study. It noted that:

``The watershed of the San Gabriel River contains important natural resources which are disappearing throughout Los Angeles County. Continuous greenbelt corridors provided by the river serve as a habitat for breeding, feeding, resting or migration birds and mammals, which allows migration to take place throughout developed areas. The rugged terrain of the higher reaches of the watershed contain different vegetations, including rock outcroppings and vegetation native to the Pacific Coast foothills. This area also has a rich cultural heritage, which is evident by the large number of historically significant properties within the proposed study area. Among them is the Mission San Gabriel Archangel, founded in 1771 by the Spanish missionaries who were moving up the coast of California.''

The Department of the Interior also noted that this study would have to examine a number of alternatives for protecting resources in the area. Specifically, the Department of the Interior stated:

``Alternatives to Federal management of resources are often considered in a special resource study for this type of area including national trail designations, national heritage area designations, and the provision of technical assistance to State and local governments for conservation of rivers, trails, natural areas and cultural resources. A study of an area where land ownership and jurisdictional boundaries are as complex as they are in the San Gabriel River Watershed would likely emphasize public-private partnerships.''

What I can't do here, because the gentleman and the gentlelady from California have not been able to work this out, I can't accept this amendment when the gentlelady is in opposition to it. And I think what she's basically saying is that you should not be able to take out all of your jurisdictions from this study because they need to be in there to do a comprehensive study. That's how I view it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his strong statement in support of the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

I would point out to my colleagues that in 1993 we had a $176 million budget for the NEA. That was cut by almost 50 percent, and over time this budget has been built back up. We have had many votes on this. The Slaughter-Dicks amendment has been voted on many times by the Congress and in strong support of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Now, we didn't do this frivolously. Mr. Regula, when he was chairman, and I worked together and came up with some guidelines for the NEA. And I think the NEA has done a better job under Bill Ivey, Dana Joya, Jane Alexander, who have all been outstanding leaders of the Endowment.

This is important for the education of our children. This is also important because, as the gentleman from Connecticut mentioned, all 435 districts received a project. And when I was first on the committee, it was the big cities that got funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. That is no longer the case.

Also, it is a very major economic tool. The gentlewoman from New York has pointed out many times how the funding for the arts has caused a tremendous economic expansion in the country. And I think it is a very important point.

So let's continue to support the National Endowment for the Arts. I wouldn't want you all to go home and have to explain why you made this terrible, outrageously big cut on the arts.

But I just wanted to say that this is an important amendment. These groups all over the country are excited about Congress stepping up and increasing the funding.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, if we were just at a cost-of-living increase, we would be at $259.2 million. We are at 160. We are fighting to get back to where we were, but we have got a long ways to go.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman's project. Our committee looked at it very carefully. We think it is an outstanding project and one that deserves to be funded.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Campbell amendment.

Will the gentlelady from California yield?

We are prepared to accept this amendment. We spent $52 million in EPA's budget for the Energy Star Program, so we agree with you that this is a worthy cause. Energy conservation is a big part of our initial effort on climate change and global warming. I appreciate your leadership on this important issue, and we're prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Massachusetts. He said that so beautifully. I want to hear more.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to add that I served with Silvio Conte. He was the ranking Republican member of the Appropriations Committee. I had the chance to pursue anadromous fish in Alaska in Mr. Young's district with Mr. Conte. There was no more avid fisherman than Silvio Conte. But he wasn't just a fisherman who liked to catch fish. He was also someone who cared about the resource and wanted to see the resource restored in the Atlantic States.

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

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wanted Mr. Campbell to know all this history so that tonight he will just say, how could I have done it? How could I have done it to old Silvio? Let's have a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank Mr. Fossella for joining with me in this colloquy today and for bringing up this issue of national importance. The Asian Longhorned Beetle not only impacts forests in the northeast but also has been discovered until several cities, like Chicago. Invasive species like the Asian Longhorned Beetle are a serious problem, and I will urge the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service to develop a plan to control the beetle. I also recommend using portions of the additional funding in the development of this plan.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

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

Offered By: Mr. Dicks

Amendment No. 14: Page 39, line 17, after each dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 55, line 22, after the second dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 58, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $5,000,000)''.

Page 60, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Page 61, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, point of order. I don't see a sufficient second, Mr. Chairman. I think we have been going automatically assuming. I see staff people on both sides. I do not see Members.

I just want to make sure that everybody sat down and we had the Members stand up.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee to inquire about the language in the report accompanying this bill relating to funding for the capability replacement laboratory that is being built as part of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory complex in the 300 Area at Hanford. This lab is being constructed in order to replace facilities that are being demolished as a result of the environmental cleanup program managed by the Department of Energy. The existing lab provides critical science and technology capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security, including radiation detection and analysis, information, analytics and testing, evaluation and certification capabilities.

To maintain these capabilities, DHS, along with two agencies within DOE, has entered into a memorandum of understanding to share the cost for replacing this laboratory complex.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman for those important points. It is my understanding that there is language in the report to accompany the bill addressing the funding commitment made by DHS in the MOU.

I would yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for clarification.

I thank the chairman for his response, and I ask him to continue to work with me and my colleague from Washington to ensure that this obligation is fulfilled by DHS.

Thank you.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I am very much aware of the need to take action to address global warming, and I recently held a hearing to examine the impact of climate change on many of the agencies and resources under my subcommittee's jurisdiction. At the beginning of that hearing, I stated my belief that climate change may be the emerging issue of our time. Climate change may alter the face of our planet in ways we cannot yet comprehend, and I believe it is our responsibility not only to do as much as possible to halt or slow it, but also to do everything in our power to protect the earth's resources from its impacts so that future generations will be able to benefit from them as we and past generations have done.

Our Nation's wildlife is one critically important resource that is particularly vulnerable to climate change and is also a resource that is a fundamental part of America's history and character. Conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat is a core value shared by all Americans.

America's wildlife is vital to our Nation for many reasons. Wildlife conservation provides economic, social, educational, recreational, emotional, and spiritual benefits. The economic value of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation alone is estimated to contribute $100 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Wildlife habitat, including forests, grasslands, riparian lands, wetlands, rivers and other water bodies, is an essential component of the American landscape, and is protected and valued by Federal, State, and local governments, tribes, private landowners, and conservation organizations.

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the effect of climate change on wildlife will be profound. The recently released reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC have made clear that global warming is occurring, that it is exacerbated by human activity, and that it will have devastating impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife is already suffering from massive changes in habitat, particularly in the arctic, and shifts in ranges and timing of migration and breeding cycles. Continued global warming could lead to large-scale species extinctions. These impacts add to and compound the adverse effects wildlife and its habitat already suffer from land development, energy development, road construction, and other human activities, and from other threats such as invasive species and disease.

According to the IPCC, global warming and associated sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized now or in the very near future. I believe that, as a nation, we must craft responses and mechanisms now to help wildlife navigate the threats caused by global warming.

To conserve wildlife in the face of the far-reaching effects of global warming, there is a need for a coordinated, national strategy based on sound scientific information to ensure that impacts on wildlife that span government jurisdictions are effectively addressed and to ensure that Federal funds are prudently committed. Ensuring strategic and efficient allocation of funding is something of particular interest to me as an appropriator.

Today I am introducing the ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act'' as a first step in ensuring our Nation is using all possible means to help America's wildlife survive the impacts of global warming.

The ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act'' has four elements:

First, it includes a congressional declaration of national policy recognizing that global warming is having profound impacts on wildlife and its habitat and committing the Federal Government, in cooperation with State, tribal and local governments and other concerned organizations, to use all practicable means to assist wildlife in adapting to and surviving the effects of global warming.

Second, the bill requires development of a national strategy for assisting wildlife impacted by global warming developed by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce, States, tribes, local governments, conservation organizations and scientists, and coordinated with State wildlife action plans, the national fish habitat action plan, and other relevant wildlife conservation plans. A committee of scientists is established to advise the Secretary in development of the national strategy. The Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce are charged with implementing the national strategy on Federal lands and in conservation programs they administer.

Third, the bill will support improved science capacity for Federal agencies to respond to global warming, including establishment of a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center in the United States Geological Survey, and enhanced science capacity in Federal land management and wildlife agencies.

Finally, the bill directs strategic allocation of funding for implementation of the national strategy and State and tribal actions to enhance wildlife resilience to global warming. The Act allocates Federal funding to implement the National Strategy 45 percent to Federal land management agencies, 25 percent to federally funded and implemented fish and wildlife programs, and 30 percent to States. I am very pleased to say that the State and tribal funding allocated in the bill is made available through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. The bill also authorizes the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program

which was created by our subcommittee in the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill as an upstream solution to help conserve species before they decline to the point where they need Endangered Species Act protection. Now this important program, and the comprehensive State wildlife action plans that were required for states to get funding, will be on the forefront of our Nation's efforts to help mitigate the impacts of global warming on wildlife.

This bill will help ensure that the pressing needs that are faced by the agencies and programs under the Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee to help wildlife and wildlife habitat are addressed strategically, based on a foundation of sound scientific information, and that funding is allocated among the Federal agencies and the States in the most efficient way possible.

As I introduce this important bill, I also have one additional very significant point to make about funding to address impacts to wildlife from global warming. As Congress moves forward in considering comprehensive legislation to address global warming, it is possible that new sources of funding for the Federal Government will be generated. For example, in legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions, it is likely that a system of emissions credits that can be traded would be created. In the process, there is an opportunity to auction some of these credits, producing substantial revenue for the Federal Treasury. Although the ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act'' as I am introducing it authorizes funding to implement the provisions of the bill, I believe that a portion of any revenues that will be generated by upcoming global warming legislation should be specifically dedicated to implement the provisions of the ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act.''

The Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee allocation is woefully stressed just dealing with the current needs of the agencies and programs under its jurisdiction. Our Federal land management agencies have tremendous backlogs for operations and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and other public lands. This situation has been greatly exacerbated by the past 6 years of Bush administration budgets and prior Congresses. Hundreds of important biologist positions have been cut, and the agencies' budgets are far below what they have needed just to keep up with inflation. These programs have been starved to the point where they are on life support. It became apparent in the recent hearing on global warming held by the subcommittee that the land management agencies are already seeing the results of climate change on the ground, but that they have few, if any, resources to deal with these changes. With the effects of global warming only expected to increase in severity in the coming years, I believe it is crucial to infuse dedicated new funding into our efforts to address this crisis, and I will work to make this happen.

This is a great Nation with a unique and irreplaceable natural heritage. We must take steps now to protect our wonderful wildlife from the ravages of climate change.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings, in amending H.R. 1684 to emphasize what we believe is an important connection between our national research laboratories and the Department of Homeland Security, DHS.

Our amendment would simply insert in the bill a requirement of the Department to report to Congress about its plan for ``leveraging the expertise of the National Laboratories, the process for allocating funding to the National Laboratories and . . . for fulfilling existing National Laboratory infrastructure commitments to maintain current capabilities and mission needs.''

I believe the national labs represent a tremendously valuable resource that can and should be used by the Department of Homeland Security to protect our population. With expertise it biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear science and technology and computer and information science the national laboratories--those controlled by the Homeland Security Department as well as the laboratories under the jurisdiction ofl the Department of Energy--can play a vital role in the prevention, deterrence, detection, mitigation and attribution of the use of weapons of mass destruction. DHS has already initiated a series of cooperative arrangements with several of the labs recognizing the great synergy that is possible through combined research efforts.

Congressman Hastings and I have been working on one such cooperative program with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, in the State of Washington. Under a Memorandum of Understanding, the Department of Homeland Security, the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration and DOE's Office of Science are contributing to PNNL's Capability Replacement Laboratory, CRL, to replace mission critical RDT&E capabilities that will be otherwise lost as a result of the Department of Energy Environmental Management Office's accelerated cleanup of Hanford's 300 Area. Among the capabilities of the CRL that should and will be utilized by DHS are radiation detection and analysis, information analytics, and the testing, evaluation and certification of new methods and technologies.

According to the interagency MOU signed by all parties, DHS was expected to provide $25 million for the project in FY 2008; however, the President's budget does not include the funds. With construction scheduled to begin this year, we are now worried about the future of this project due to the lack of attention to this issue at DHS.

Although Congressman Hastings and I are working to correct this situation in the FY 2008 budget, I believe this situation highlights the need to examine more closely the relationship of the labs to the Department's R&D effort. Thus, our amendment calls for a report to Congress on the Homeland Security Department's strategic plan for its research efforts to include a plan for fulfilling existing national laboratory infrastructure commitments in order to maintain current capabilities and mission needs.

Our hope is that such a public clarification of the role of the labs can help the Department to make a stronger case to Congress for

the importance of the work at PNNL as well as the other important national research laboratories.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which, thankfully, reverses years of decline in Federal Government spending on environmental programs. John Spratt has made wise decisions on Function 300.

Last month, I testified before the Budget Committee, urging increased spending on these important programs. The chairman said he would consider my request, and he is a man of his word. I am pleased to say that the programs included in Function 300 will be funded at a level $2.6 billion, or 9 percent above what the President requested in his budget, and $15.7 billion between 2008 and 2012.

This budget resolution rejects the President's proposal to further cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Program, and EPA's Clean Water Assistance Program. In addition, the budget resolution accepts the best idea in the President's budget, and that is to increase funding for the national parks. The Ryan amendment in 2008 would cut $1.5 billion below current services and $4.6 billion between 2008 and 2012.

Many of the numbers contained in the President's budget were bleak. The President proposed a budget for these programs which was $2.8 billion less than what is required to maintain current levels of service. For example, funding for EPA faced a reduction of $508 million, the Forest Service down $343 million. The funding for the Park Service would have been reduced by $237 million. And, worse, the President's proposed cuts after 7 years of steady decline are severe. The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent, EPA by 29 percent, the Forest Service by a whopping 35 percent. These cuts have evidently led to declines in services for visitors to our parks, refuges, and forests and to dramatic reductions in assistance to State and local communities for environmental and conservation activities.

I urge you to vote against the Ryan amendment and vote for the Spratt budget if you care about the environment of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to commend my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha, for the excellent work on the supplemental appropriations bill that they have brought to the House floor. The House leadership has worked hard to put together the votes to pass this legislation.

This bill funds the troops. We have given them extra funds to deal with the critical issues of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We need to clean up the mess at Walter Reed and the other hospitals around the country, including the VA hospitals. There is money in this bill to provide extra staff, nurses and to clean up these facilities.

It is critical that we put pressure on the Iraqi Government to end the civil war. The Maliki government must get the message that the American people do not have unlimited patience. General Petraeus has said that we cannot end this war with only a military solution. We need the Iraqis to resolve the conflict amongst themselves. We need them to fix their Constitution, pass necessary oil legislation, and end the sectarian violence. The benchmarks in this bill will help them to accomplish these objectives.

I hope that General Petraeus is successful in reducing the violence in Baghdad and the surrounding area. I hope that U.S. forces embedded with Iraqi forces can stop the sectarian killing. Without political reconciliation, we cannot stop the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda- led terrorist attacks. We also need an economic recovery program across Iraq to create badly needed jobs.

This bill sets a timetable. It puts pressure on the Maliki government, and I think it is the right bill at the right time to change our Iraq policy and to bring the troops home in a reasonable period of time.

I hope we can stabilize Iraq, but we can only do it with the effort of the Iraqi Government and their people.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 22, 2007]

Congress's Challenge on Iraq

The House of Representatives now has a chance to lead the

nation toward a wiser, more responsible Iraq policy. It is

scheduled to vote this week on whether to impose benchmarks

for much-needed political progress on the Iraqi government--

and link them to the continued presence of American combat

forces. The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains

on American forces, requiring President Bush to certify that

units are fit for battle before sending any troops to Iraq.

Both of these requirements are long overdue. The House should

vote yes, by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin.

It is normally the president who provides the leadership

for American foreign policy and decides when there needs to

be a change of course. But Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to do

either, and the country cannot afford to wait out the rest of

his term. Given Mr. Bush's failure, Congress has a

responsibility to do all it can to use Washington's remaining

leverage to try to lessen the chaos that will likely follow

an American withdrawal--no matter when it happens--and to

ensure that the credibility and readiness of the United

States military is preserved.

House Democrats have wisely moved beyond their earlier

infatuation with mere deadlines. The benchmarks spelled out

in this legislation, which also provides the next round of

money for the war, require that the Iraqi government stop

shielding and encouraging the Shiite militias that are

helping drive the killing. United States and Iraqi security

forces must be allowed to pursue all extremists, Shiite and

Sunni, disarm sectarian militias and provide ``evenhanded

security for all Iraqis.''

The benchmarks also require the Iraqi government to take

measurable steps toward national reconciliation: equitably

distributing oil revenues, opening up more political and

economic opportunities to the Sunni minority and amending the

constitution to discourage further fragmentation.

The legislation does not settle for more empty promises--

from Mr. Bush and the Iraqis. It would require the president

to provide Congress, by July, with an initial detailed report

on Iraq's efforts to meet these benchmarks. By October, the

Iraqi government would have to complete a specific set of

legislative and constitutional steps. Failure to meet these

deadlines would trigger the withdrawal of all American combat

forces--but not those training Iraqis or fighting Al Qaeda--

to be concluded in April 2008. If the benchmarks were met,

American combat forces would remain until the fall of 2008.

The measure would also bar sending any unit to Iraq that

cannot be certified as fully ready. It sets a reasonable 365-

day limit on combat tours for the Army and a shorter 210-day

combat tour limit for the Marines. As for how many troops can

remain in Iraq--until the House's deadlines for withdrawal--

the legislation imposes no reduction on the level of roughly

132,000 in place at the start of this year.

Critics will complain that the House is doing the

Pentagon's planning. But the Pentagon and Mr. Bush have

clearly failed to protect America's ground forces from the

ever more costly effects of extended, accelerated and

repeated deployments.

If Iraq's leaders were truly committed to national

reconciliation and reining in their civil war, there would be

no need for benchmarks or deadlines. But they are not. If Mr.

Bush were willing to grasp Iraq's horrifying reality, he

would be the one imposing benchmarks, timetables and

readiness rules. He will not, so Congress must. American

troops should not be trapped in the middle of a blood bath

that neither Mr. Bush nor Iraq's leaders have the vision or

the will to halt.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that has occurred in my State over the past 23 years.

The White Pass Ski Area is located in the Cascade Mountain Range in the Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee National Forests. White Pass is renowned as one of the best small ski areas in the Pacific Northwest and offers particular appeal to families. The area, which provides critical tourism revenue to the surrounding rural communities on both sides of the mountain range, is now looking to expand to provide greater opportunities to skiers in the Pacific Northwest.

Over two decades ago, we succeeded in passing through Congress the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984. This legislation added over 23,000 acres of land to the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area and removed from wilderness designation 800 acres adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area as having ``significant potential for ski development'' and urging the Secretary of Agriculture to ``utilize this potential, in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.''

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated the 800-acre area that Congress had withdrawn from the Wilderness Area back in 1984 to Developed Recreation in recognition of the intent of Congress. However, the LRMP concurrently inventoried as roadless the same 800-acre area. The conflicting, confusing and uncertain status of the subject lands needs addressing, which is why I rise today.

I can say from first-hand experience that, at the time we passed the aforementioned Washington Wilderness Act of 1984, it was congressional intent to permit expansion of the White Pass Ski Area. I would like to submit for the record a letter signed by the 1984 congressional delegation stating that it was our intent to provide for the expansion of White Pass Ski Area. In a February 3, 2004 letter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture also confirmed this congressional intent, stating: ``We agree that the intent of Congress was clearly to allow for ski area development in the Hogback Basin.'' In addition, Congressman Baird, who represents the district where White Pass is located, submitted for the Record on January 31, 2007 a statement urging clarification and action on this Issue.

The Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill that passed the House in May of last year included important information clarifying congressional intent to permit expansion of White Pass Ski Area. The language stated:

The Committee notes that the Washington State Wilderness

Act of 1984 removed from wilderness designation 800 acres of

land adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area in Washington State

for potential ski development. The Committee notes that the

Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan allocated the 800-acre area as Developed Recreation to

allow for ski area expansion, while concurrently inventorying

the same land as roadless to reflect its current physical

character. The Committee recognizes that it was the intent of

Congress to permit ski area expansion into this 800-acre area

and urges the Secretary of Agriculture, once the

Environmental Impact Statement for the White Pass Ski Area's

Master Development Plan is properly completed, to move

forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in

accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

Unfortunately, the FY07 Continuing Resolution did not include any report language; therefore the language clarifying congressional intent that passed this body last summer was not included in the CR.

I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues and highlight the fact that the House Appropriations Committee was prepared and willing to clarify congressional intent, and that the full House approved that clarification by voting for the fiscal year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill in May. In keeping with this, I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to move forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations-- once the Environmental Impact Statement is properly completed.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that calls for a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives to slow, stop and reverse greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Warming Acknowledgement Resolution also states that these corrective actions should not harm the economy unduly, and that they should be designed in a way to encourage other countries to take similar steps to mitigate global warming.

As the producer of roughly one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--more than any other country--the United States has a responsibility to take the lead in confronting the threat of global warming. And with the release of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report in February, it is clear that the U.S. Congress must begin to act now to reduce greenhouse gases.

The IPCC report, which represents the most comprehensive and up-to- date climate research, found that global warming is unequivocal and that it is more than 90 percent probable that human activity is responsible for most of the warming of the past 50 years.

Madam Speaker, the time for ``what-ifs'' is over and the time for corrective action has arrived. During this 110th Congress, we will debate the best ways to reverse the increased accumulation of greenhouse gases. While we may disagree on the particulars of this debate, it is clear that global warming is a real threat, and the Global Warming Acknowledgement Resolution is a first step toward the development of a comprehensive strategy. There are 22 original cosponsors of the resolution, and I urge your support. Feel free to contact my staff if you would like to sign on to this important legislation.