Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am extremely concerned about our national security and deeply troubled that our intelligence community has been prevented from doing the job they need to protect Americans, For that reason I strongly oppose H.R. 3356 as it will only further tie the hands of our intelligence community.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) clearly states that we are at risk of an attack. We have all read the reports this week about the very real concerns that our enemies intend to attack the in the next month or so.

Police forces in the nation's capital have beefed up security in response to these perceived threats. But without good intelligence, they will not know when or how we may be attacked--never mind having a chance to thwart any plots. Due to Democrat undermining of our intelligence of our intelligence community and our military for the past couple of years--through leaks and political games--we are less prepared to uncover terrorist plots and prevent such attacks.

We need to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) so that the intelligence community can do its job. The American people know we need to fix the loopholes in FISA implementation that allow terrorists to bypass our intelligence capabilities. For several months Administration and Republican Leadership have repeatedly asked the Democrats to address this problem, and they have ignored these requests.

As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence I have been very disturbed by what I have seen this past year. The vitriol that Members on the other side of the aisle have for the President has clouded their judgment. In an effort to embarrass him, they have weakened our intelligence gathering capabilities and caused long term damage to the security of this nation. We do not monitor phone conversations, emails or finances of suspected terrorists and terrorist allies as we used to and the enemy knows it. It is time for us to strengthen, not weaken, terrorist surveillance.

Unfortunately this bill does not address the needs of the intelligence community. The Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is strongly opposed to this bill:

I have reviewed the proposal that the House of Representatives is expected to vote on this afternoon to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House proposal is unacceptable, and I strongly oppose it.

The House proposal would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially in our heightened threat environment.

I urge Members of Congress to support the legislation I provided last evening to modify FISA and to equip our Intelligence Community with the tools we need to protect our Nation.

I trust the DNI far more than the Democrat leadership that has clearly chosen to put politics over security. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and encourage the majority to bring a true FISA reform bin before this body so that the intelligence community can have every tool at its disposal to protect the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great reluctance that I am not able to support the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, H.R. 2419. The Agriculture Committee worked for many months in a bipartisan manner to craft an omnibus farm bill that would have achieved broad support in the House. H.R. 2419 was not a perfect bill, but it was a compromise that I would have supported in hopes that an even better package could be produced during conference negotiations with the Senate.

Unfortunately, Democrat leadership decided to insert a last-minute tax increase into the farm bill after the bill had left the House Committee on Agriculture. The tax provision represents a $7.5 billion increase in taxes on companies that supply high-quality, high-paying jobs for American workers. These are often union jobs held by hard- working men and women trying to earn a living for their families. Instead of producing a farm bill that meets the needs of America's farmers, ranchers, landowners and those who rely on nutrition programs, the Democrats have instead resorted to a tax-and-spend policy instead of an invest-and-create-jobs policy.

The $7.5 billion tax increase on foreign-owned American businesses inserted in H.R. 2419 could result in more jobs being sent overseas. In a time when the United States should be encouraging investment in our country and in American jobs, this kind of tax policy takes our economy a step backward. The last-minute Democrat tax increase will make it less attractive for foreign companies that employ American workers to initiate or expand operations in the United States. And that means bad news for American workers.

The United States has negotiated 58 tax treaties with 66 different countries. The Democrat tax proposal applies a tax increase on companies located in countries with which we have a tax treaty. This calls into serious question the United States' upholding our end of the treaties, which could invite retaliation.

Aside from the damage H.R. 2419 would do to American jobs, the Democrat's farm bill would cut a total of $3 billion from the crop insurance program compared to the 2002 farm bill. Most troubling, is that $1 billion of these

cuts were made without consideration by the full Agriculture Committee to determine how this will effect risk-management services farmers in Kansas rely upon. With nearly every county in Kansas being declared as a federal disaster area in 2007, we should think long and hard about cuts to the federal crop insurance program. It is disappointing that Democrat leadership chose to make this cut without first considering what it will mean for America's farmers.

Another harmful provision included last-minute in the farm bill would apply Davis-Bacon act wages to new ethanol plants being built if those plants utilize loans or grants from the USDA. This provision negates any positive benefit that would have been provided by the USDA's loan guarantee program. By artificially dictating what wages have to be paid to workers constructing a new ethanol plant, the farm bill will result in increased ethanol costs. This translates to higher costs at the pump for consumers of ethanol-blended gasoline. Instead of allowing price competition for newly constructed ethanol plants that access USDA loans or grants, this artificial wage provision is another example of unnecessary federal manipulation in a private-market matter.

I am also disappointed the bill included a prohibition on States being able to use private contractors to perform administrative functions for the food stamp program. States that choose to enact reforms within their systems to provide better food-stamp services at a savings to taxpayers are denied that ability under H.R. 2419. Rather than defer to States and allow some common-sense savings for taxpayers, the Democrats have drafted a farm bill that restricts certain reforms at the State level.

The commodity title of H.R. 2419 proposes a commodity spending cut of 42 percent compared with the 2002 farm bill. The 2007 farm bill proposes $42 billion in baseline spending on commodities, representing just 14 percent of the entire farm bill. I think Kansas farmers deserve better.

As a State that is renowned for being the breadbasket of the world, Kansas and its farmers deserve a farm bill that provides a solid safety net while remaining fiscally responsible to taxpayers. I do not believe this $297 billion farm bill meets this standard. And as my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Moran, has pointed out, this farm bill fails to fully implement a revenue counter-cyclical program that would better respond to Kansas farmers in times when they need support the most.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against H.R. 2419. The American farmer, the American taxpayer and the American worker deserve a better farm bill. I can only hope negotiations with the Senate will address this bill's shortcomings and that the House will have another opportunity to vote on comprehensive farm policy that is good for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington.

I rise in opposition to the rule and also to the underlying Ag bill for a couple of reasons. One is the current trend that we're seeing played out on the floor of the House. We saw it last week as we addressed the farm bill, and it seems like the bill that once was designed to make sure that we had a low-cost, stable food supply is moving money out of the rural areas and being hijacked into the urban areas.

And you look at the pie chart of the total funding of the Ag appropriation that was used earlier, you can see that 35 percent of this pie chart is the agricultural side of the programs and 60 percent, almost two-thirds, is the domestic food assistance. Now, nobody thinks it's bad to feed people who are having a tough time, and we must be doing a very good job of it because the number one problem for people in poverty today is obesity. Maybe we're giving them the wrong foods. We should go back to the basic foods that we present them, but this big shift in funding is accentuated in the current farm bill that was passed last week.

The farm commodity portion in the bill that we passed last week is only 14 percent of total spending, and if you look at how it's been reduced in this Ag appropriations bill, it's a continuation of movement from helping the rural areas, moving it into the urban areas. And I think that's a reflection that only 2 percent of our population are farmers in America today.

In small States like the ones that I represent, in Kansas with only 3 million people, we only have four Representatives. And when we try to fight for rural development and for rural agricultural programs, we hope that we can keep our economy strong in those rural areas. But we also want to make sure that the benefits that were designed to keep a low-cost, stable food supply don't get hijacked and sent to the urban areas. This is something that I believe has developed just over this last year.

In the past, just a short story, how we have given farmers more opportunity in the past, now that has changed in Ag policy. Opportunity is dwindling for farmers.

In 1996, we had four farmers in Kansas who raised cotton. The farm bill then, the Freedom to Farm Act, allowed farmers to expand their product lines. Now we have over 50,000 acres of cotton in Kansas. We have a dozen cotton gins. We expanded their financial base a lot by giving them more opportunity.

Under the current plan, which is exhibited here with the shifting of emphasis to the urban areas, we're taking a lot of the opportunity away from the farmers and giving them less opportunity, while more opportunity is going to the urban areas.

So I'm opposed to this bill. I'm opposed to the rule because I don't think it gives us an opportunity to turn this trend around. I don't think it gives us an opportunity to get the assistance where we need it in the rural areas so we can develop the infrastructure necessary to build a strong economy to allow the agriculture to grow for the future so we have a low-cost, stable food supply well into the future.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington, and I would like to respond to the gentlelady from Connecticut. It is true, the Carsey report is true that 40 percent of rural America does rely on food stamps. The problem is, there is a lot of poverty there because we have not done the right thing on building infrastructure in the rural areas.

It's the shift from this low-cost stable food supply we have had in the past and the help we had to build that infrastructure. The finances are now shifting to the urban areas because we have so many urban Members of Congress. The Democrat leadership has been allowing that to happen.

It's true there are $940 million put in this bill for the rural areas, but it's an $18 billion bill. It has $18 billion; $940 million of it is not a very big chunk of that.

I just think that we are seeing a bad trend here in America. The Democrat leadership is allowing this trend to continue where resources are being shifted out of the rural areas, because there are a high number of urban Members of Congress, and they are leaving farmers vulnerable who are trying to keep this low-cost stable food supply available, and trying to keep the agricultural exports growing.

Madam Speaker, on July 18th, I inadvertedly voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote No. 662, it was my intention to vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2956, the so-called ``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.'' This legislation is short-sighted, dangerous, and will not bring our Nation closer to success or Iraq closer to security. The only likely result would be to appease the anti-war activists and damage the national security of the United States.

Throughout this country, Americans are growing weary with this war. No one likes war, and every loss pains us. Unfortunately the arguments from the anti-war activists are becoming persuasive. These activists have been able to shape the debate on the war by focusing on the number of U.S. military casualties and the level of violence in Iraq. I do not trivialize these issues. Every soldier's death is a horrendous tragedy for our Nation and a family. In the 4th District of Kansas we have lost 11 young men in the Global War on Terror, and we must never forget their sacrifice.

However, focusing solely on these grave issues does not address the most basic question facing our Nation in Iraq. The fundamental question of Iraq is, ``what are the consequences of success and failure?'' Unfortunately, the consequences of losing this war are rarely discussed, and I fear this legislation will likely be passed by this House. The Democrats are fond of saying that we have ``lost'' in Iraq. While I do not agree with this assessment, I think they need to answer who we lost to. If we lost, who won? Can the Democrats answer this question, and if they do, can the American people live with the answer? The reality is that this ill-advised approach will have dire consequences on Iraq and the United States.

With the premature withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq this legislation accomplishes the first step in al Qaeda's four-prong plan in Iraq. Starting with forcing the U.S. military out of Iraq and ending with the use of Iraq and the wider Middle East to launch additional attacks on Western governments and the U.S. homeland, al Qaeda has a clear plan for global terrorism. Unfortunately, the Democrats only provide the American people with a clear plan for defeat.

Throughout the Iraq War, the President and his military commanders have continually altered both strategy and tactics to meet the changing threats posed by our enemy. The latest strategy, called a ``New Way Forward,'' was outlined by the President at the beginning of this year. This strategy included an additional 21,500 American troops in order to achieve a six-part strategy, which involves letting the Iraqis lead, isolating extremists, and create space for political progress.

This new strategy acknowledges that the Iraqis must ultimately take responsibility for the security and stability of Iraq while understanding that the Coalition Forces have an integral role in helping to provide security for the country in order to allow the Iraqi government and military to succeed. Since January, steps have been taken to fully implement the New Way Forward plan, and only in the last month have all additional forces finally been put into place.

There is still much work to do, but coalition forces are seeing some early signs of progress from this approach. Sectarian murders in Baghdad are now down from January, and because U.S. and Iraqi forces are living among the people they secure, many Iraqis are now coming forward with information on where the terrorists are hiding. Progress is being made at the local level, including more tribal sheiks joining the fight against al Qaeda, citizens forming neighborhood watch groups, young Sunnis signing up for the army and police, and more Shia rejecting militias.

Although progress is being made, it is certainly not moving at the speed I, nor the American people, want. However, the reality is that the ``New Way Forward'' strategy has only recently entered full implementation. It has not had a chance for success or failure. To change course at this time will only resolve us to defeat, while not providing us an opportunity to succeed. We must give the ``New Way Forward'' a chance, and not just resign America and its military to failure and Iraq to civil war and a potential genocide.

The Democrats may not understand the dangers of a withdrawal approach, but the Iraqis do. Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, recently said of the dangers of a premature U.S. military withdrawal, ``The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country or maybe to regional wars. In our estimation the danger is huge. Until the Iraqi forces and institutions complete their readiness, there is a responsibility on the U.S. and other countries to stand by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help build up their capabilities.''

Madam Speaker, this is a delicate and dangerous issue. It is essential that we have all the available facts before making decisions on how to move forward towards success. This is why I am looking forward to the September report from General David Petraeus, the U.S. Commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. The progress report will provide essential information on the current situation so Congress and the President can make an informed decision on the next steps in Iraq.

The Democrat plan has real consequences: the likely collapse of the Iraqi state and the creation of terrorist havens. It will embolden the terrorists and endanger the security of our homeland. Now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions. Now is the time for thoughtful consideration, examination of the options and consequences, and creating solutions that will make America more secure, not less. Although patience is not the word Americans want to hear, the consequences are too high to make uninformed decisions prior to reviewing the September progress report. For if we bring the troops home prematurely, we also risk bringing the war home.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join with me in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, contains language that undermines the Mexico City Policy. While the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nina Lowey (D-NY) drafted a bill that included excellent funding levels for foreign nations in need of assistance, her amendment would essentially gut the Mexico City Policy. This will have a devastating effect on women and families overseas.

The Reagan administration, in 1984, restricted U.S. population aid by terminating USAID support for any foreign NGO that was involved in promoting or performing abortions as a method of family planning in other nations. This was called the ``Mexico City Policy,'' named after the location of the United Nations population conference where the policy was first announced. In 1993, President Clinton rescinded the policy imposed by the

Reagan and Bush administrations. As his first act in office, President George W. Bush restored the Mexico City Policy on January 20, 2001 and released a letter stating, ``I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.''

The Mexico City Policy should not have been weakened. Taxpayer dollars should not, in any way, be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning. The United States should never be active in promoting abortions overseas. Instead, the U.S. should offer family planning programs that support the health of the mother, child and family unit.

There are several known organizations that use U.S. foreign aid funding to promote and provide abortions, as well as sterilizations, overseas. In 1998, newspapers were filled with stories of women participating in U.S. funded family planning programs who were forced to undergo sterilization procedures, especially in Peru. There were also stories of women coerced to participate in family planning programs by threatening to withhold food, clothing and shelter from their family.

In response to these atrocities, I introduced an amendment to the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill in 1998 that defined the meaning of ``voluntary participation'' in family planning programs. It was to ensure the NGOs receiving USAID funding for family planning programs understood what voluntary participation meant and required informed consent for women on the benefits and risks associated with different family planning methods. Since it was enacted for fiscal year 1999, there have been several violations and vulnerabilities in countries receiving funding. These violations and vulnerabilities were identified and corrected by USAID.

Without strong direction from the United States on how taxpayer dollars are spent, we will continue to find violations that are destructive to women and families.

It is due to the Lowey amendment, which undermines the Mexico City Policy, that I will be voting against final passage of a bill that contained important foreign aid for countries in need, such as Israel. It is unfortunate this amendment was adopted, and organizations that promote and perform abortions to the women overseas will be able to receive U.S. taxpayer funding. It is my hope the Senate will take up this bill and strike this harmful language.

Tonight, I will vote against H.R. 2476 on the basis that it clearly undermines good policy and subjects what could have been a good piece of legislation to a veto by the President. I urge my colleagues to vote against final passage of this bill.

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, is it possible for a gentleman who has an amendment before the Committee of the Whole under the current unanimous consent to reserve part of their time?

The gentleman from Arizona wasn't aware of that. So for the purposes of debate, I will move to strike the last word.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for this. I want to point out that we did a joint review process of each of these earmarks to make sure that they were within the guidelines of what we have done in past precedence in the House. This particular earmark, like the other earmarks, passed this process. This is part of the Save America's Treasures program, authorized by the Save America's Treasures Act. It is a 50/50 match on a small portion of a larger project. It is also on the National Registry of Historic Places.

I think the fundamental question that we have is, do we think it is proper for Federal dollars to be part of this effort? I think that is what Members should base their vote on, whether we think that this should be a part of the Federal effort to save a historic place like this.

The gentleman from Arizona brought up a very good point. He said that we can't fund every request. That is true. I think that some requests we have had were culled from this because they didn't meet the past precedent or the standards that we had left in place before. Just by sheer limits on the number of amendments and the dollar amounts available, we have also created limits for this process of selecting these treasures that are part of our history and to save them.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing up this important issue. There were problems that were occurring at the Smithsonian, and it was evident in the press and it was evident in the dialogue we had here on the Hill and in committee. I want to commend the chairman for his leadership in trying to focus our resources on the problem.

When the studies are complete, I think we will all be satisfied that we can move forward. The Smithsonian is a great institution and it needs powerful leadership, and we need to have strong checks and balances in place. I believe those are being put in place.

So thank you for bringing the issue to the floor of the House. And I thank the chairman for helping us get a strong institution in the Smithsonian that will last for years.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think the gentleman from Michigan has done his research and prepared this well. I think this is a part of the EPA that needs attention

and needs a little reinforcement. I congratulate him on his amendment and I have no objection to it.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?

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

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.

I appreciate the chairman and his accuracy on what he is reserving a point of order on.

However, I would like to point out that we have other issues pending that are also subject to a point of order. It seems arbitrary to me that we do not let the House work its will on Mr. Doolittle's efforts, and yet we move forward on other areas which are under the same point of order, and we expect some comity.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this is an arbitrary reservation on a point of order, and because other similar issues are pending, that it should be withdrawn so that we can move on and let the House work its will.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have an issue pending which is going to come up, I think, rather quickly, from the gentleman from Oregon who is worried about the very same issue, and he's coming at it from a slightly different angle.

And, yes, the gentleman from California was having offsets for his cuts, but I see no ill will in allowing the House to work its will on Mr. Doolittle's amendment, which affects Western States deeply. It's very similar to what the gentleman from Oregon is also trying to do, so why don't we just let both of them go, let the House work its will?

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

I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Reclaiming my time, I just want to point out to the chairman that we're now picking winners and losers, and it's an arbitrary decision. And if we allowed the House to work its will, I think the gentleman would be successful and his worries would be abated.

But right now we've gone into this selection process of who's going to win and who's going to lose. The gentleman from California loses, the other gentleman from Oregon wins. And I don't think that's right. I think we ought to have a consistent manner to move forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we're being inconsistent here. And I would hope for some consistency in the way we administer these areas where we have a point of order that can be reserved or can't be reserved. I think you should let the House work its will.

And when we make some winners that are chosen on your side, and then we arbitrarily choose not to allow Republicans to have the same opportunity, I think it's unfair. I would like some consistency in all the appropriations bills and not just this one.

And here we have a very critical need that affects both Republicans and Democrats. It's a critical need in these areas. And as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) can tell you, it's going to be a big problem for him as well. So I just want some consistency here and allow the gentleman from California to have the House work its will.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, a real crisis in the rural areas, and I do not blame the Members for using every means available to them to try to solve the problems in their districts. And I know it's not your responsibility to do it, but we've come through for these folks in the past, and I would just ask consideration in the future.

Would the gentleman yield?

I understand the difficulty in it, but it was off-set. And the chairman of the Interior Committee did not like the offsets, and that's why he pushed the point of order. But it's just a different priority. And I have to say that is a pretty high priority.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I was just curious as to which line this amount was coming from and where it is going to because the amendment I have just says it decreases $1 million and it increases $1 million.

Okay. I have no problem with that.

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

Under the current law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits, under very stringent rules, the importation of bear parts for trophies. But this is only allowed from an approved management area in Canada.

Importation from other countries is prohibited because they are covered by the CITES, or Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species.

Also allowed under current law, other exemptions are permitted, but limited to Native American purposes, for medicines, for religious reasons and for certain scientific purposes. All of these require a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service. And as far as the committee knows, the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing a very good job.

I also have a letter from the Canadian embassy. The Canadian Government is opposed to banning the polar bear trophy imports. Canada has strong opposition to this amendment, where two-thirds of the world's polar bear population exists. Now they're studying this through their endangered species group. We are studying this, as far as America is concerned, under our Endangered Species Act. And these two reviews are just about to be done. So this amendment is actually premature. And knowing that these two studies are pending, the Canadian Government has decided to oppose this. So I think this is premature. It should probably wait until next year, or they should just wait until the governments of the United States and Canada come to a conclusion.

Also, I want to note for the record that there are groups that are opposed to this amendment. These groups, besides the Canadian Government, include the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association, Boone & Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, the Conservation Force, the North American Bear Foundation and the Wildlife Management Institute, among others.

So I think it is very important that we allow top scientists in both the United States Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service do their polar bear population studies and see what problems exist before we start to limit what's going on under the current situation. So I think it's premature.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

I just want to remind the gentleman from Washington, it's not a loophole, it's the law today.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly in a balanced energy policy. We need to invest in alternative energy sources and we need to tap the resources that we have in a responsible manner.

The Department of the Interior is now completing a programmatic environmental impact study on the commercial leasing program that is authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This study is focused on evaluating the potential impacts associated with the development of commercial leasing programs for oil shale and tar sand resources on public lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The scope of this environmental impact study will include an assessment for the positive and negative environmental, social and economic impacts of leasing oil shale and tar sand resources, both the positive and the negative impacts. I think that is important.

This will also include a discussion of the relevant mitigation measures to address any potential impacts on the Bureau of Land Management's administered lands in Colorado, as well as in Utah and Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management anticipates that the draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact Study will be issued just this summer. But this amendment would stop that from occurring.

The draft environmental impact study will be followed by an extensive public comment period, and a second revised programmatic environmental impact study will be issued prior to the final record of decision.

I believe we must pursue environmentally responsible means of developing domestic energy sources, and this amendment delays the responsible planning process already in place.

The gentleman from Colorado said this is important to our energy policy, and I agree. He also said that this was important to our taxpayers. I also agree. But the leases that were expected to come in under the Energy Act of 2005 have been taken into consideration in the budget we already passed this year. By stopping this, you will stop the income from those leases in fiscal year 2008. So this will cause us to exceed the budget authority.

I would suggest the gentleman from Colorado withdraw this amendment because it is subject to a point of order because your budget authority is going to be exceeded by this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Colorado, but I would request that he withdraw this amendment.

Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time to explain the reason the revenue would be depleted, there was planned income from fiscal year 2008 from the leases on the oil shale. So I believe, in my estimation, I am waiting for confirmation from the Congressional Budget Office, that it will be out of order.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I would say it is important that we let this process continue, and therefore I think we should vote down the Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the chairman for trying to continue to hold the ranking Member in accuracy, but I believe it applies to both Udall amendments.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand that I have missed my window of opportunity at this point in time to raise a point of order, but I will reserve that opportunity in the future, if such an opportunity will present itself.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

For purposes of discussion, I would like to ask the gentleman from Utah if it is correct, and my understanding of what you're trying to do is offset what Mr. Udall is doing because he is stopping the permitting process not only in Colorado but also in Utah, your home State.

Is it also true he would stop the permitting in Wyoming as well?

So, Mr. Chairman, as I understand this, what the gentleman from Utah is doing is his very best to represent the interests of his State. And what the gentleman from Colorado is doing was try to represent the best interests of his State. So I think in fairness to the Members of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, it would be proper for us to adopt Mr. Cannon's amendment. That way it would satisfy Mr. Udall by restricting and limiting the permitting process in Colorado but allowing the gentleman from Utah to represent his district by letting the permitting process move forward.

So I would encourage the Members of the House to support Mr. Udall via Mr. Cannon's amendment and vote to accept the Cannon amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Dicks is to be commended for the reasonable manner in which he has conducted the business of the Interior Appropriations Committee and the personal consideration he has given me in my role as ranking member. It is a reflection of the experience he received while waiting 30 years to become chairman. We should all recognize the patience and expertise that Mr. Dicks brings to the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's work this year has been a bipartisan collaborative effort. But in spite of the comity reflected in much of the subcommittee's work, the minority does have genuine policy differences with the Democratic majority and a divergence of views over the level of funding necessary to address the critical needs of this bill.

Our 38 subcommittee hearings revealed many unmet needs and urgent priorities. Still, while we have an obligation to be good stewards of our Nation's environment and public lands for future generations, we also have an obligation to be good stewards of our tax dollars. In that respect, I believe this legislation falls short.

The 302(b) allocation for this bill is $27.6 billion, a $1.9 billion increase over the President's budget increase and a $1.2 billion increase over the enacted fiscal year 2007 Interior bill. The enacted fiscal year 2007 Interior bill itself was $400 million over what the House passed last fall.

The initial subcommittee allocation, which was $858 million above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, though very generous, would have resulted, I believe, in a better, more balanced bill. The additional $335 million added to the subcommittee's already charitable allocation is simply unnecessary, and, more importantly, unsustainable. No matter how well-intentioned, this overly generous allocation will cause many of the same problems down the road that this subcommittee has been trying to resolve in recent years, namely, huge backlogs in operations and maintenance.

The circumstance is, in many respects, similar to the homeowner who receives a big bonus and uses these extra funds to buy a bigger house for his family. The bigger bonus is welcome and unexpected. Buying a bigger house seems like a great idea at the time. But down the road he realizes he can't depend on getting a bonus every year, and he finds himself unable to afford living in this new house. He, like this subcommittee, risks becoming overextended and unable to pay the bills. The difference is the homeowner goes bankrupt and a new owner takes over. The government fails to keep up with the new property, and the property soon becomes listed on a maintenance backlog.

It is human nature that we want to create new programs to build new structures, to buy new land. Yet it seems no one worries about the future cost of maintaining them. Over the years, this subcommittee has learned through good oversight that too little money can do real harm. The same is true for too much money.

We believe that the subcommittee should strive for a balance, and that is precisely what the original subcommittee allocation achieved. We ought to provide enough money to allow the agencies to carry out their primary mission. We should focus on taking care of what we presently have in the public trust. We have to give careful, thoughtful consideration before purchasing something new. Again, we must strive for balance. As this bill goes on to conference with the Senate, I am hopeful that the majority will be sensitive and responsive to this challenge.

In many areas this legislation has achieved balance. I applaud Chairman Dicks for his focus on the operating accounts within this bill. There has clearly been an erosion in this area, due in part to the absorption of the pay and fixed costs over the years. However, I believe the subcommittee should move more cautiously in providing funds for new land acquisition and construction. While there are high priority needs in these areas, it is important that we focus on the core mission of these agencies and not become overextended.

The subcommittee risks creating a larger problem down the road by hastily expanding current areas that we cannot oversee or creating new ones that we cannot maintain. Many will recall that when Congress provided these agencies with too much funding too quickly in the early to mid-nineties, they lost focus. The result was a huge backlog, redundant programs and large unobligated balances, many of which still remain, and numerous operational shortfalls. Our job is to provide for core needs, be vigilant about oversight, and avoid the mistakes of the past.

I recognize that Chairman Dicks and Chairman Obey have a special place in their heart for the great open spaces of this country, and I know that they appreciate the grandeur of our national parks; and I join both chairmen in support of the $198 million increase in the operations budget for the National Park Service.

I am also very pleased with the needed attention in this bill that it provides to the Native Americans. There are many unmet needs in Indian country, in education, healthcare, law enforcement, methamphetamine treatment and other areas; and this bill does a great deal to address those priorities. I also believe it is critically important to restore full funding for Urban Indian Health Clinics, and this bill does exactly that.

While this bill is positive in many respects, I would be remiss if I didn't outline several specific areas where I would have written the bill differently. The fire season is upon us once again and catastrophic fires out west are again commanding national headlines, like the South Lake Tahoe fire just yesterday. It is appropriate that this bill provides additional funding for wildfire preparedness at the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Subcommittee hearings this year demonstrated that there is a great interest and great concern over the ongoing wildfire suppression challenge which is presently burning up about 45 percent of the Forest Service budget. In light of the large subcommittee allocation and the tremendous anticipated need during this fire season, I think the subcommittee could have done even more to address fire preparedness and fire suppression problems, because being prepared can avoid the need for fire suppression.

Mr. Chairman, while reasonable people may disagree over the cause, there is clearly a need for more focused science on climate change. I believe

Chairman Dicks would agree that our response to climate change must look at long-term solutions rather than simply trying to provide for a quick fix.

The USGS is the science agency for the Department of the Interior, and I believe they should manage any additional funds directed to address this issue for the department. While I have the greatest respect for Chairman Dicks, I am concerned about the inclusion of the global climate change sense of Congress resolution in this bill. My concern is based on the simple fact that it does not reflect a consensus opinion of many climate change experts who testified before the subcommittee this year. It proposes conclusions and solutions to a problem that is not yet fully understood. Historically, mandatory market-based limits suggested in the language simply have not worked.

I believe we need to make wise, science-based decisions rather than merely respond to the heated rhetoric of political dialogue of the day.

As one agency scientist testified this year, our greatest need is to focus on the gaps in credible scientific information. Without understanding the complete scientific data, we will be unable to solve the problems created by climate change, and it will create a false hope presenting bad solutions to the wrong problems.

America needs to secure its own sources of energy, be it from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, renewable or other sources. A strong and vibrant economy and the well-paying jobs that go along with it are closely linked to reliable and preferably inexpensive energy sources.

If we want to help American working families to continue to build and strengthen our economy, we must provide them with the tools they need to pursue reliable sources of energy. I believe responsible use of our resources is precisely the right course. The approximately 43 million outer continental shelf acres under lease generally account for 20 percent of America's domestic natural gas. To address the growing demand for domestic sources of natural gas, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) last year offered a commonsense amendment in full committee which was supported on a bipartisan basis.

Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that the United States needed to lessen its dependence on foreign sources of natural gas. Mr. Peterson will soon be offering the same amendment on the House floor, and I urge its adoption.

Many heard me say over the past few months how fortunate I have been to be selected as the ranking member of the Interior, Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. Not only do I have the privilege of working with Chairman Dicks, but I have had the pleasure of working with a fine appropriations committee staff.

First, I would like to thank Debbie Weatherly and Dave LesStrang here beside me on the Republican staff for all of their hard work and dedication not only to crafting this bill, but also preparing me for this new subcommittee in this inaugural role as ranking member. This spring would have been a very difficult learning process but for their guidance.

Many of you know Debbie and her impeccable stewardship of this appropriations bill during the Republican majority. She is also one of the most beloved and respected committee staffers I have ever come across. The fact that Members across the aisle continue to consult her is a testament to her depth of knowledge. I have appreciated all of the time she has spent with me over the past few months. I know that her husband, Glenn, has missed her, and I am glad he will soon get to see her more often.

I am also extremely grateful to Dave LesStrang who has taken on Interior Appropriations as part of his portfolio for Mr. Lewis. Like Debbie, Dave is one of the most respected and well-liked staffers on the Capitol campus. I thank Mr. Lewis, and especially Dave's wife, Elaine, and his sons Matthew and Michael for their patience in allowing him to spend so much time on the important work of this subcommittee.

Let me also commend Steve Crane of the minority staff for his guidance on issues related to offshore oil and gas drilling. Steve's expertise on these issues is exceeded only by his knowledge of anything related to the Boston Red Sox.

I am also grateful to the majority staff led by Mike Stephens. They have been cooperative and effective in not only crafting this bill, but also in helping me and my staff become acquainted with the Interior, Environment appropriations process. The entire Interior staff is to be commended for fostering a spirit of teamwork in crafting this legislation. Chris Topik, Delia Scott, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, and Martin Brockman are bright, friendly, dedicated and among the most knowledgeable staffers on the Hill. I am pleased that once this bill is passed, they will finally have a weekend to themselves.

I would be remiss if I did not also point out the many contributions of Pete Modaff and Kelli Shilito of Chairman Dicks' staff, as well as Jeff Kahrs, AmyClaire Brusch, and Melissa James of my own staff.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, while I have real policy differences and spending concerns related to this legislation, it is our hope that between now and the conference negotiations with the Senate later this year, we can address those issues of disagreement and seek a bipartisan consensus on a reasonable, sustainable subcommittee allocation. Our sincere desire is to work with Chairman Dicks to fashion a responsible, balanced conference report worthy of broad bipartisan support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the cochairman of the Parks Caucus, who has a great passion for our national park system, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing up this very important issue.

We have heard in testimony in the Interior Committee that not being able

to maintain the security of our borders has had an impact on our park service and Interior lands. We need to do a better job of maintaining our borders. I thank the gentleman for his efforts in trying to make this country more safe by maintaining our borders.

Announcement by the Chairman

Madam Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

I think that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) has made a good point and reinforced what I was saying in my opening statement that we can get overextended in the Park Service and acquire more than we can take care of.

The beautiful building that he used in his example provides a wonderful purpose is now closed because we have not been able to maintain it. My concern, in getting overextended, is that we build new buildings and acquire new land that we are unable to maintain and we get into the same problem that we're trying to correct today.

So I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, and I think it makes a valid point.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida and commend him on his leadership on this issue and also the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

I think this is a very important time in American history that we need to capture and preserve for future generations. So congratulations. We have no objection to this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to say I have no objection to this, and I appreciate the gentlemen from New York and New Jersey for attempting to open up the steps of Liberty once again.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for his persistence in pursuing environmental issues in the Illinois area as well as across the United States. It is very important that we have clean air and clean water for our children and grandchildren.

The gentleman's leadership has been excellent. Also I want to acknowledge his special recognition of the Great Lakes and taking care of them. He has been worried about the fish life as well as the quality of the water. I congratulate the gentleman in these efforts there.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for working with the committee on this very important issue. Truly they have a backlog. Without your looking into this issue, we never would have made the kind of progress that is going to be made because of your efforts. So I want to congratulate the gentleman, and I have no objection to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not have any objection to this amendment, and I would commend the chairman on his leadership in this area.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah and also the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, the chairman of this subcommittee, for understanding the depth of this problem. We do need to put additional funds into PILT, because the Payment in Lieu of Taxes has created shortfalls for school systems, for local municipalities and for counties.

I want to commend the gentleman from Utah for his effort. We have no objections to his amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Virginia's concern about Northern Virginia being overrun by horses, but there are those of us in Kansas who do enjoy seeing those flowing manes and hearing those pounding hooves across the plains. So in your attempt to move towards horse contraception, I hope you are not going to be horsing around too much with the population so that we can still have those beautiful animals running across the plains of Kansas.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am looking forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia in satisfying the needs of controlling our wild horse population.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman from Idaho for hitting on a topic that was very important in our hearing process because we heard from not only dentists, but also the medical community that we have a shortage in many other parts of the medical industry including nurses, anesthesiologists, et cetera. But dentistry is one area where they had an acute shortage. And so your leadership is very important in this area. We want to work with you in support of these efforts to make sure that we have enough medical providers in Indian country.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would like to thank the grand gentleman from Michigan for coming down here and talking about the importance of this bill; and also acknowledge what a leader you have been on environmental issues over the years and we appreciate your service to the country and your leadership here on the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, America needs to secure its own sources of energy, be it from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear renewable or other sources. A strong, vibrant economy with well-paying jobs goes along with it. It's inextricably linked with reliable and preferably inexpensive energy sources.

Sadly, as Mr. Peterson points out, we pay more now for natural gas than we ever have before in the history of this Nation. If we want to help workers and businesses that employ workers, we must continue to build and strengthen our economy and provide them with reliable energy resources.

If we want to have high-quality, high-paying jobs in America, and I think we all do, then we are going to need additional energy, and we are going to need additional natural gas. Do we have the resources? Yes, we have the resources. Can we produce it safely? Yes, we can produce it safely.

We have been producing gas, natural gas, in Kansas for over 100 years. Natural gas is very versatile. You can make so much from it. You can make fertilizer, you can make make-up, clothing, plastics, ethanol. But we mostly use it to produce energy or electricity, energy in the form of electricity.

I think when we look at this issue, we have to figure out, are we going to make energy available inexpensively, and, if we are, we are going to have to go to where the reserves are. This amendment opens up an area for us to produce natural gas, or it can be produced safely, and it's going to be essential if we are going to continue to grow our economy.

So I urge the adoption of Mr. Peterson's amendment, because I think we know that we have proven reserves that can produce safely, natural gas. This is the time for us to send this message to America, that we are going to continue to build a strong economy, and we are going to give our economy the tools necessary to produce the jobs we need to continue to provide the hope and a source for continuing to complete dreams here at home.

I urge strong support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman from New York. This is a very important monitoring program. The gentleman from New York has made a very reasonable request. I want to thank him. I know he's been very concerned about environmental issues all across the Nation as well as in New York. I thank him for his leadership. We have no objection to this amendment and thank the gentleman for offering it.

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia. I think it's a very important issue that we test our Nation's water and make sure that we do have a secure water system. This is very timely. We're a little behind schedule now, so I think it's a very appropriate amendment. We have no problems with it, either.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are some people on their way down here that wanted to talk about a very important issue related to the Department of Agriculture related to Payment in Lieu of Taxes, which is an issue that has been very important to many members of the committee, especially the Western Caucus. And in that problem we have seen several charts that have been brought forward. One of them showed all of the Federal lands that are in the Western States and because of those Federal lands, they are unable to assess taxes for their local communities and including their schools.

So at this point in time, it seems like it is a very pertinent time for us to deal with the PILT issue. And I know, Mr. Chairman, when we heard testimony about Payment in Lieu of Taxes, it was a great hardship on the local communities, especially the schools.

We should give our Members an opportunity to talk about their particular communities and the needs that they have. I think it is important for us to think about how we are going to make an equitable situation for these Western States where they have problems in those areas.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the concept is to not increase the amount of the bill but to rebalance it so that it is a more balanced bill that would take into consideration some of the needs of the people in the Western States, which I think is a fair debate for us to have on the floor. Some of these local communities have had very difficult times.

But in order to move the bill along, I will yield back the balance of my time so that we can get on with the other issues.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Washington will yield, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for bringing this to the attention of the House. This is a very important issue.

The community of Treece has been trying to bring this issue to resolution for years. In fact, it was over a decade ago when it first came to my attention, and I had a staff member working on it for some time. I am pleased that the gentlewoman is carrying on the work of her predecessor, Congressman Jim Ryun, and other Kansas officials. Earlier this year, State Representative Gatewood came to my office and asked for some help with the Office of Surface Mining, and we still have the request pending from them as well.

According to the estimates for the State of Kansas, it will cost approximately $8 million to conduct a buyout program, which is not a lot of money in the scheme of things. While we understand that the bill which we are debating today cannot address the buyout program, we both hope that the EPA will speed its approval of the funding to remove the chat and hope that other Federal resources will come to bear to help the people of Treece find relief through a similar buyout program.

I am also hopeful that the OSM and the Army Corps of Engineers will also help the residents in their struggle to improve their communities.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking an issue that is so important to his district and really important to the kids in that area that have been exposed to mercury and would join with the chairman in supporting your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think to strike this because it authorizes on an appropriations bill would be duplicative of what the current language does. It also authorizes on an appropriations bill, so I think the amendment should be made in order.

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

I just wanted to mention to the chairman and to the House that even though this is a sense of Congress, I think that it is opposed enough in the way it is worded that the amendment should be agreed to and the language should be stricken. For example, in the very beginning, where, number one, it says, ``greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability,'' we had a lot of testimony in this Subcommittee of Interior about this very issue. It was very clear that the scientists that study this say that we have large gaps in the scientific data, and it is still inconclusive.

One of the great examples of this is the ocean itself. The ocean itself is a carbon bank. It retains carbon sometimes. When it gets warmer, it actually allows carbon to go up into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. That in itself brings the question whether carbon in our atmosphere is a cause of heat or whether heat is a cause of carbon in the air. If you look at the core samples that are found in the Antarctic which have been drilled down to go back and date what our environment was like hundreds of thousands of years ago, we find that there is a high carbon content in our atmosphere when our earth was warmer. And we do know that our earth is getting warmer. In fact, 10,000 years ago, Kansas was covered by a sheet of ice.

Just a weekend ago or so, I was back there playing golf, and I can tell you for sure, there is no ice covering the State of Kansas today. Why? Because the earth is getting warmer. But for us to say that the cause is human-induced raises the question. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when they looked at it this year, revised their estimate of the ocean going up because of climate change, from going up to 36 inches. They revised it downward to only going up 17 inches. So that means that they were half off.

They said that, as far as climate change, it's human-induced, and they have a 90 percent confidence level. Well, if that's based on their estimate of what the water level is going to be 10 years or 50 years from now, then they are admittedly 50 percent off, so that means they've only got a 45 percent confidence level. That means less than half.

My point is that there is no growing scientific consensus on the cause of climate change. In fact, it may be a normal cycle that we're going through. And, in fact, it may be a cycle that is moving us into a cooler climate rather than a warmer climate. So this language, I think, makes assumptions that are based on data that is inconclusive. The scientists tell us there are gaps in the data. It certainly isn't a consensus of Congress from my view. So I would think that we should adopt the gentleman's amendment.

I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I agree that the temperature is going up. It's the cause that is a concern for me. The wording here says that we already know what the cause is and we should move forward and try to do something to stop it, and that includes some very drastic types of actions, including caps and market-based limits on incentives, mandatory market- based limits, I might say. It's my view that those things have not been successful in the past. In fact, when we did mandatory limits, I thought we ended up with gas lines and higher gas prices. That's my view.

I would ask that my colleagues here in the House accept this amendment and vote for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The administration proposed the rule, and the reason for it is simple, and it is to provide incentives and to encourage industry to lower emissions. It reminds me of the story when the Kansan went over across the river to visit Missouri.

The story goes that he took the ferry across, and he was picked up by a gentleman who had a cart with a mule in front of it. The gentleman was dangling a carrot in front of the mule. The mule would move forward, and that incentive got the mule to move.

So he went down to the courthouse in Saint Joseph, and he conducted his business. Then he went back out to get a ride back to the ferry, and there was another gentleman with a cart and a mule. So he hopped in the back of the cart and he said, I would like to go back to the ferry.

And the mule skinner said, ``Giddyap,'' and the mule did not move. So he got out of the car and he pulled out a 2 by 4, and he whacked the mule in the head. The guy from Kansas said, ``well, why'd you do that.'' He said, ``well, I had to get the mule's attention.'' He got back in the cart, and he said, ``Giddyap.''

The man from Kansas said, ``Wouldn't it have been better if you gave the mule an incentive, like a carrot,'' and he explained the whole story.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the companies have no incentives under the old Clinton policy to reduce pollution, because once designated as a major source, they are always designated as a major source. As a result, companies are stuck at certain levels of pollution and

not provided with any incentive, no carrot whatsoever to lower their emissions below that level.

Over the last decade, pollution prevention methods have changed, and many companies are now embracing the economics of environmental protection. EPA is currently reviewing the public comments on this proposed rule, and we should allow that process to move forward.

The bottom line is, if there is even a chance that this proposed rule would encourage more sources to strive for additional reductions of toxic air pollution with these new incentives, then we should encourage that action.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Texas if this is the same language that she offered last year.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word

Mr. Chairman, there are really two ways to proliferate wolves, one is in the wild, where they respect their distance from humans, and the other is in captivity, where they have no respect for humans. The Mexican wolves have been propagated and proliferated in captivity, and as a result, they encroach into areas that put humans at risk.

I think the gentleman from New Mexico has brought up a valid concern because these isolated problems are now coming home to people who live in this area and having to carry firearms with them everywhere they go.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico to let him complete his point.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I wanted to congratulate the gentlewoman on a fine amendment. We have no problems with it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I am also a fiscal conservative, but I think this amendment is misdirected. We should not limit the funds to do proper forest management on the Tongass.

Some limited road building is needed to take care of the land. The Tongass National Forest is, indeed, a wonderful place. But under the existing forest management, approximately 90 percent of the 16.8 million acre forest, over 15 million acres is roadless and undeveloped.

Only 4 percent of the forest is suitable for commercial timber harvest, and only half of that area is within the inventoried roadless areas.

The amendment would prevent the Forest Service from doing road maintenance on a large area of southeast Alaska. Most of these communities have no road access to the outside world, but they need the Forest Service roads to get around during their daily activities.

This amendment would also harm a variety of forestry, recreation and wildlife conservation activities by preventing the proper road maintenance. The existing forest plan allows timber harvest on only 300,000 acres, only about 2 percent of the more than 15 million total acres of roadless area on the forest.

I have a letter here from the United States Department of Agriculture, and it's from a person called the forest supervisor up in Tongass. He said we have heard the figure today that there was $40 million lost each year. He says from fiscal year 2005 to 2006, the Tongass spent $2.4 million less on roads, reducing the level from $10 million to $7.8 million; from 2006 to 2007, the program reduced further to $6.1 million. All told, over the past 3 years, the forest has cut spending by $4.1 million to less than 50 percent.

So I don't know where the $40 million per year figure came from when they are only spending $6.1 million this year on the roads. In addition, when you add up all the jobs, according to the Forest Service, it's about 1,000 jobs that are at risk with this legislation.

This, by also prohibiting roads, also makes the forest more vulnerable to forest fires. So if you love the forest, if you love the bounty, if you love the beauty, then oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I also would request my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this amendment here. The Energy Star Program has been a very successful program, and it has saved the American taxpayers many, many dollars already. I think this program, again, will get into the billions. It's something that we need to have as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan.

So I commend them on their amendment and encourage the passage of it by voice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and give recognition to the life and continued service of the honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States District Court judge for the District of Kansas.

Since Judge Brown's appointment to the Federal bench by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, Judge Brown has served his beloved State of Kansas and this Nation with great distinction. And after 45 years of service on the bench, Judge Brown continues to serve as a senior judge, coming in each morning and carrying a full caseload. In fact, the Federal courthouse in Wichita could not manage its caseload without Judge Brown's service and his commitment.

Prior to his judicial appointment by President Kennedy, Judge Brown managed to work his way through law school by taking classes at night in Kansas City while working during the day assembling model A cars for the Ford Motor Company. After losing his job at Ford during the Great Depression, he served as Reno County Attorney in Kansas and later enlisted in the United States Navy to serve in World War II as a lieutenant, stationed at Commander Philippines Sea Frontier.

Today I have the honor of introducing a House resolution which not only recognizes Judge Brown's distinguished service to our Nation as the longest-serving Federal judge in Kansas, but also celebrates his 100th birthday today.

Judge Brown, your State of Kansas and this Nation wishes you a very happy birthday today and thanks you for your continuing service.

Mr. Speaker, today I was very pleased to help honor America's fathers by voting for H.R. 2356. This bill amends title 4 of the U.S. Code that governs how and when it is appropriate to fly the flag of the United States. I recently introduced similar legislation in this Congress, and I am pleased to work with other Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to move this idea forward.

Prior to 1923, flag etiquette was not established in U.S. law. Handling of the flag was done in accordance with traditions that traced back to service procedures in the Army and Navy. These procedures were codified during the National Flag Conference in 1923. Congress solidified these procedures in a joint resolution in 1942.

Contained within this code is a list of holidays on which it is especially appropriate to fly the flag. Independence Day, Memorial Day and Veterans' Day are among the holidays listed. Mother's Day is rightfully on the list of recognized holidays. Unfortunately, Father's Day is not.

This idea was actually suggested to me by Mr. Joe Beffer's 8th grade civics class at Roosevelt Middle School in Coffeyville, Kansas. The students had a six week assignment to replicate the legislative process, complete with elected Representatives, Senators, and a President.

One young man noticed that our flag code did not recognize Father's Day as a holiday on which it is especially encouraged to fly our Nation's flag. He offered a bill to add Father's Day to the honored holidays and it passed their replica Congress. I was honored when the class passed their idea to me. I am pleased to be a part of this Congress' efforts to help honor the contributions America's fathers continue to make to our strong Nation.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 476, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas