Charles Taylor: “I oppose the amendment for three reasons. First of all, some $9.5 billion of the $35 billion that has been appropriated…”

“I oppose the amendment for three reasons. First of all, some $9.5 billion of the $35 billion that has been appropriated will go to food, housing and other critical needs. So we have met those criteria as much as possible. Secondly, as the gentleman said, this is required by section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act. We don't want to get into amending and trying to put that in the middle of this supplemental. I would suggest if the gentleman wants to take that up at a later time, we could do that. Thirdly, it is needed because an $18 billion tourist industry is involved here, and getting the assessment of these national historical preserved sites is going to be the first step in trying to get back that $18 billion. Those are three reasons I would oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). The amendment was rejected. The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments to title II, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. Sec. 3002. Notwithstanding subsection (b) of section 102 of title I of division B of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat.…”