Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for yielding. I certainly agree that PILT is a necessary funding item. We have added $30 million to it. I agree with the gentleman that we will make every effort to do so as we move to conference with the Senate. As the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a moment ago, when you go to the Senate, you cannot always control what happens. We will certainly stand by our statements to decrease the spending on land if we can manage that, and we will count on the House to support us in that area. But I do thank the gentleman for calling this to our attention, and we certainly support what he is thinking about.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I agree with the gentleman that invasive species pose a threat to the marine environment, and we do provide funds in the bill reported by the Committee to address the Invasive Species Act. We have also provided other invasive species funds to stop that in areas of timber and things coming in from imports. For instance, the hemlock wooly adelgid is one of the invasive species that are threatening one of our species and may wipe it out in plant area. But the gentleman is right, and I will work with him to see if we can increase funding in this area in the conference report. I note there are some small increases included in the bill for invasive species efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service also. So we will try to work with him to increase his request.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I certainly sympathize with the gentlewoman and other Members who have already spoken. I support PILT. In fact, we increased it some $30 million in our bill. And as we indicated with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) a few minutes ago, we will certainly do more and we appreciate their bringing it to our attention. But the Department of Interior is responsible for one-fifth of the land in the United States and manages programs that affect over 4 million Native Americans. This amendment would eliminate 110 staff positions and drastically impact the management of numerous important programs, including the management of PILT, the very program that this amendment is intended to help. The PILT program is managed using staff from the Department Management account. The Interior bill is a balanced bill. In developing this bill, The Committee made a number of difficult choices. If we had additional resources, I believe PILT would be a deserving program and I certainly would try to increase it. But I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman is correct. In no way should this study delay or disrupt either phase 1 or 2 of the planned cleanup of the Hudson River, any other ongoing Superfund site, And I know of no party involved that wishes that delay. I will work with the gentleman to consider whether modifications to the language are needed to further clarify this point.

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

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 2361 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 287, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 17; Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1, 4, 5, and 14, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) regarding environmental justice, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding a $500 million increase in Clean Water State Revolving Fund and tax matters; An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding a $100 million increase in Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) regarding State and Tribal Assistance Grants; An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) or the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) regarding the Tongass National Forest, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) regarding making spending on certain accounts subject to authorization; An amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) regarding intentional dosing; An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to amendment No. 5; An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) regarding concession sales; An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) regarding Lower Klamath and Tule Lake; and An amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) regarding funding levels. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except as specified, and except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

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

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, and we certainly would not want that. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law . . . '' The amendment poses additional duties.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment would increase funding for the Superfund program at the expense of EPA's research program funded under the Science and Technology Account. I note that the Superfund program received an $8 million increase over the 2005 level under the committee's recommendations, while the total amount for EPA is $348 million below the 2005 level, so the Superfund site received much better treatment than most of our programs. The bill as a whole is more than $800 million below the 2005 level. Now, we have received many requests from Members of Congress asking that we fund programs for EPA's research, and we are able to do so only to a limited extent, and many people want the science and technology area just as well. A cut of the $130 million in science and technology would decimate the program's restorations. These research programs provide critical support to all other EPA programs, including the Superfund program. The Superfund program was treated the same as the Science and Technology Account in that limited increases were provided for proposed initiatives associated with homeland security. The committee bill balances the many competing needs of the EPA within a constrained allocation. And while I understand the gentleman's concern, given the funding we have already done and the limited funding we have totally, I cannot accept the gentleman's amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if there are other speakers?

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2, rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order in changing existing law, the amendment modifies existing powers and duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.