[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 159 (Thursday, October 29, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12057-H12068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2996, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
       ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 876, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2996) making appropriations for 
the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 876, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 28, 2009, at page H11871.)

                              {time}  1200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2996.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  It is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2010 
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill to the 
House today. This very fine bill is the product of many hours of work, 
always with bipartisan input and excellent participation. I especially 
want to thank my friend and ranking member, Mr. Simpson, for the 
outstanding participation and cooperation he offered throughout this 
process.
  I want to thank Chairman Obey for recognizing that the programs 
funded

[[Page H12058]]

through this bill have been chronically underfunded and for providing 
the allocation necessary to reverse that trend. From 2001 through 2008, 
when adjusted for inflation, the budget request for the Interior 
Department went down by 16 percent, the EPA went down by 29 percent, 
and the non-fire Forest Service accounts were down by a striking 35 
percent. This bill invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, 
and for this investment all Americans will see a great return.
  This conference report also contains the continuing resolution which 
will keep the government running until December 18. It is vital that we 
pass the Interior conference report to avoid a shutdown of the Federal 
Government.
  This agreement provides focused funding to protect the environment. 
Clean water and drinking water infrastructure receive $3.6 billion, 
enough to provide assistance for more than 1,500 communities throughout 
the Nation to improve public health and restore ecosystems. We include 
authority for subsidized assistance to those cities and towns that 
cannot afford conventional loans.
  This agreement invests $641 million to restore major American lakes, 
estuaries, and bays. It fully funds the President's request of $475 
million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and makes 
significant investments to protect other great American bodies such as 
Puget Sound and the Chesapeake Bay.
  To address global climate change, this bill provides $386 million for 
climate change adaptation and scientific study.
  The agreement before us also represents a promising renewal in our 
Nation's trust responsibility for Native Americans. It provides a $654 
million increase for health care, law enforcement, and education in 
Indian country for a total of $6.8 billion. The increases here will 
help these communities promote the health and safety of our Nation's 
``First Americans.''
  This agreement makes a major investment of $3.37 billion for Forest 
Service and Department of the Interior wildland fire activities, 
including the largest non-emergency increase ever for wildfire 
suppression. We also have included the FLAME Act, which reforms 
wildfire budgeting and will help create a steady and predictable 
funding stream for wildfire suppression. This agreement provides $90 
million for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program to protect 
streams and water systems from damaged forest roads.
  We have agreed to provide a $218 million increase for the National 
Park Service to invest in what Ken Burns has called ``America's Best 
Idea.'' The National Wildlife Refuge System gains a $40 million 
increase, to a level of $503 million, which will reduce critical 
staffing shortages, implement climate change strategies, and improve 
conservation efforts.
  We have provided an increase of $82 million above 2009 for the 
cultural agencies supported by this bill. We recommend $167.5 million 
for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment 
for the Humanities. The endowments are vital for preserving and 
encouraging America's creative and cultural heritage. They are very 
important for education.
  Finally, I want to thank the dedicated staff who have spent long 
hours over many months to prepare this bill. For the subcommittee 
staff, majority clerk Delia Scott, Chris Topik, Julie Falkner, Beth 
Houser, Melissa Squire, minority clerk David LesStrang and Darren 
Benjamin. And I also want to thank Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers on my 
staff and Missy Small and Megan Milan on Mr. Simpson's staff. 
Additionally, I want to take note that we are losing Greg Knadle after 
6 years of loyal service to the Appropriations Committee. We thank him 
for his work on the Interior Subcommittee and wish him the best in his 
new endeavors. I think we should give him a round of applause for his 
good work.
  In closing, I am very proud of this bill. It funds programs that 
cover a wide range of issues: from our cultural and historic heritage 
to the water we drink and the air we breathe. These programs redeem our 
trust responsibilities for the First Americans, fight fires, protect 
public health, and conserve natural resources. The impact of this 
conference agreement stretches across the Nation and will make a 
difference to the well-being and the future of every citizen.
  We should all be proud of this conference agreement and I urge the 
House to support it when the vote comes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to begin my comments today by expressing my thanks to 
Chairman Dicks for the even-handed manner in which he has conducted the 
business of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee this year. While 
we may disagree about the need for a 17 percent increase in spending in 
this conference agreement, our work together has been a bipartisan, 
collaborative effort. While we certainly don't agree on every issue, 
when we do disagree, Chairman Dicks and I continue to work very well 
together.
  Of the many things achieved by this legislation, I hope it will be 
remembered for the effort made to address the long-standing issue of 
adequately funding our country's fire suppression needs without 
bankrupting other non-fire accounts. From our hearings earlier this 
year, we know that almost 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is 
consumed by the costs of fighting wildfires. In past years, the Forest 
Service has had to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from other 
accounts just to pay for fire suppression.
  The President took positive steps this year by proposing a 
contingency reserve fund for fire suppression. The House and Senate 
also acted by approving the FLAME Act in each Chamber with overwhelming 
bipartisan majorities. Working together, authorizers and appropriators 
have developed FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Funds, providing both 
the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service the additional 
tools they need to combat large, severe fire emergencies.
  This conference report also provides needed attention to our Native 
American brothers and sisters. There are many unmet needs within Indian 
Country in education, health care, law enforcement, drug abuse 
prevention, and other areas, and this legislation does a great deal to 
address these issues. I thank Chairman Dicks for his attention to this 
important area of the budget.
  However, while this conference agreement tackles many challenging 
issues, it also assumes that more money is the answer to every problem 
we face. I just don't believe that a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, 
increase over last year makes sense. This additional spending comes on 
the heels of a 13 percent last year and an $11 billion infusion from 
the stimulus bill.
  The Federal budget deficit is now a staggering $1.4 trillion, the 
highest deficit in history, and three times higher than that of the 
previous administration. Our current deficit is almost 10 percent of 
the gross domestic product, a level not witnessed since World War II. 
Remember, this is before Congress begins tackling the issue of health 
care, cap-and-trade, and other expensive pieces of legislation.
  I believe a better approach would have been to create a balanced 
bill. This conference report provides a disproportionate level of 
funding to one agency, the EPA, and creates an imbalance that 
undermines what could be a very fine piece of legislation.
  I question the need for a $10.2 million budget for EPA, a 35 percent 
increase from just last year. This is on top of the $7.2 billion the 
agency received in stimulus funding and the $7.6 billion it received in 
last year's Interior bill. Taken together, the EPA will receive more 
than $25 billion in this calendar year. That is about the size of the 
entire Interior and environment spending bill just 2 years ago.
  This package also provides large increases in programs without having 
clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure 
results or the return on our investment. We are making rapid 
investments in water, climate change, renewable energy, and other 
areas, all of them worthy endeavors, but with relatively little 
planning and coordination across multiple agencies and the rest of 
government.
  I look forward to receiving a detailed report from the administration 
on how and where climate change dollars are being spent, not just 
within this bill, but across all of government. Spending on climate 
change programs in this package alone has increased from $231

[[Page H12059]]

million in last year's budget to $382 million in this year's conference 
agreement. That is a 66 percent increase in 1 year.
  As I said earlier, I have the highest regard for Chairman Dicks and 
look forward to continuing our work together. I would very much like to 
support this conference report, but regrettably, I cannot. The bottom 
line for me is that the conference agreement simply spends too much 
money.
  In closing, I would like to thank both the majority and minority 
staff for their long hours and fine work in producing this conference 
report. On the majority side, this includes Delia Scott, Chris Topik, 
Julie Falkner, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Melissa Squire, Pete Modaff 
and Ryan Shauers. Of the minority staff, I'd like to thank my staff, 
Missy Small, Megan Milam, Kaylyn Bessey, and Lindsay Slater, as well as 
committee staffers, Darren Benjamin and Dave LesStrang.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a person we worked very 
closely with on all aspects of the bill, my classmate and good friend, 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding, and I rise today in strong support of this Interior 
appropriations conference report and to congratulate the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees for their work on this important 
funding measure.
  In particular, I wish to express my deep appreciation and 
congratulate my classmate, Interior Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks, 
as well as full committee chairman, Dave Obey, on the completion of 
this conference report. I thank Ranking Members Lewis and Simpson as 
well.
  I am privileged to serve as chairman of the House Natural Resources 
Committee. Many of the priorities funded in this legislation have long 
been priorities of the authorizing committee as well.
  We often hear Members of Congress express concern about the future of 
our national parks, our forests, our refuges and public lands. We often 
hear Members express support for a strong trust relationship with 
native people. We often hear Members express deep concern regarding 
wildlife, climate change, and water quality and quantity.
  I would say to my colleagues that today is one of those days where 
Members who say they care about these things can come to the House 
floor and prove it by voting for this strong conference report.
  Last spring, the House approved legislation that I sponsored, the 
Federal Land Assistance and Management Enhancement Act, or FLAME Act, 
to authorize a separate funding stream for emergency wildfire 
suppression. Over the last decade, wildfires have become increasingly 
dangerous and destructive, burning more acreage and more property more 
often. Yet financially, the Federal Government has continued to be ill-
prepared to respond to these fires. Time after time, we have seen 
wildfires rip through communities, while at the same time they burn 
through the agency's budget.
  I moved the FLAME Act through the House because it will give the 
agencies the money they need to knock down catastrophic fires, while 
protecting the important funds needed to stop fires from starting in 
the first place. Thanks to the cooperation and assistance of the 
Appropriations Committee, the FLAME fund is included in this conference 
report, and for the first time, we are creating a savings account to 
cover the cost of fighting fires we know are going to happen.
  Instead of a ``rainy day'' fund, it is a fund for fire seasons when 
we have not had nearly enough rainy days, and I know the communities 
threatened by these dangerous fires are grateful it is included in this 
bill.
  The conference report also includes funding for increases for our 
national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and public lands, investments 
in what Ken Burns has reminded us is one of America's best ideas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman.
  The conference report also contains significant funding for the land 
and water conservation fund, a contract we have made with our 
grandchildren that, as we deplete our offshore energy reserves, we will 
invest some of the profits in conservation.
  Finally, the conference report honors our enduring commitment to 
native people with significant funding increases for Indian health 
services and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The rates of poverty and 
illness among native people continue at unacceptably high rates, and 
sufficient funding for these programs is vital.
  Of course, as with all compromises, this conference report is not 
perfect. It includes several individual provisions I do not support. 
However, this legislation represents a continued commitment to 
protecting and preserving that which makes our Nation unique.
  I urge Members' support and appreciate the work of the chairman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member 
of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleagues yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend my good friends, Chairman Norm Dicks 
and Mike Simpson, for a rather fabulous job of working together on this 
bill. While I am concerned about the volume of dollar increases, there 
is no doubt that this bill represents much of the most positive work on 
behalf of our country, especially the work of the EPA, I might mention. 
I want to say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that you 
have reason to be proud of this bill. My wife tells me that she has 
gotten an inkling from your wife, Susie, that she is very proud of the 
work you have done here as well, and she welcomes you back home one of 
these days.
  Anyway, moving right along, while I wish to suggest that the money 
allotted in this bill is more than adequate, I am very hopeful that in 
organizations like EPA that we will be able to not find ourselves just 
awash in funding and, thereby, begin to throw funding at programs. In 
the meantime, there is little doubt that there is plenty of work to be 
done. The Interior appropriations conference report is important, but 
it's only the fifth of 12 conference reports that we need to complete. 
We now find ourselves 29 days into the new fiscal year, and we have 
fewer than half of our bills done.
  Sadly, the most important appropriations bills, the defense bill and 
the military construction and Veterans Affairs bills, are being put on 
the shelf, being held for a time and a purpose that causes us all to 
wonder. There is no better illustration of the misplaced priorities of 
this Democrat majority leadership than that fact. This leadership chose 
to send to the President the legislative branch bill for its first bill 
of the year. Imagine that. While the troops are awaiting our assistance 
and serious recognition of the challenges they face, the legislative 
branch bill was first sent to the President's desk--to make sure we've 
got enough money, I guess, to make sure they keep the lights on while 
we're talking to the public today. And what kind of a signal does that 
send to those who are in harm's way at this moment, protecting our 
freedom?
  Mr. Speaker, what kind of signal are we sending, and what is our 
purpose for holding these bills on the shelf? The House passed the 
Defense appropriations bill. It contains critical funding for the men 
and women of our Armed Forces, including over 130,000 troops stationed 
in Iraq and over 60,000 troops currently in Afghanistan. The $128 
billion provided for the U.S. warfighting efforts is essential to 
continue our mission overseas and to provide critical resources, as I 
have said. The defense bill is ready to go today, and it should be 
moving today. So Mr. Speaker, why the delay?
  The military construction-Veterans Affairs bill is also essential. We 
have all talked about our commitment to our veterans. This legislation 
contains much-needed funds for military construction, family housing, 
pension payments for disabled veterans, widows and children, and the 
veterans medical care and treatment programs across the country. While 
the Senate has had

[[Page H12060]]

over 100 days to complete its work on this bill--that is the 
preliminary construction VA bill--this bill is still not in conference. 
Given the importance of each of these bills, why are they being 
delayed?
  Well, reports have indicated that the Democratic leadership may use 
these bills to carry controversial legislation that could--at least 
they seem to think--could not be passed as stand-alone measures. What 
in the world does increasing the national debt limitation or the 
District of Columbia voting rights bill have to do with our national 
defense or providing for our veterans? Mr. Speaker, the House has 
wasted weeks and months on trivial legislative matters, as I have 
suggested. The Congress is setting a dangerous precedent by holding up 
these major pieces of legislation rather than acting in an expeditious 
way. Let's move forward quickly today, pass this bill. I intend to vote 
against it because of the dollar amounts. But in the meantime, I will 
listen with care to this discussion.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), the chairman of the Military Construction and VA 
Subcommittee, who I have enjoyed working with over the years and who is 
one of the best leaders we have in the House on military construction 
and VA matters. He has done a great job leading our subcommittee.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I wish I could yield more time 
to the chairman, Mr. Dicks, to continue his comments. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for your comments and for your leadership on this 
legislation, protecting our national parks and our environment and for 
being a real champion of America's military in our Nation's defense.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2996 because this bill will 
provide much-needed funding to improve clean and safe water 
infrastructure for our cities and our rural communities. It will repair 
and maintain our treasured national parks, and it will protect our 
environment from pollution and wildfires.
  On the issue of natural gas production, one that is important to me 
and I believe many Americans, it is important that this bill's efforts 
to safeguard our environment will not infringe upon our Nation's 
ability to harness clean and domestically produced natural gas.
  This bill encourages EPA to do a study on the relationship between 
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. Hydraulic fracturing is a 
crucial process for natural gas production, and it has been in practice 
for over 60 years. It is imperative that continued research is 
conducted, as this bill language report includes, through the best 
available science, science that is independent and peer-reviewed, while 
consulting with other agencies and the States, as has been done in the 
past.
  I urge my colleagues to support this strong legislation.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I want to thank 
Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Simpson for their courtesy and 
openness in the process of putting together this legislation. However, 
I reluctantly rise today in opposition to the fiscal year 2010 Interior 
appropriations conference report.
  While Americans are cutting their budgets, the Democratic leadership 
continues the spending frenzy with an increase of $4.7 billion--that's 
17 percent, as was mentioned earlier--over the 2009 levels for the 
Interior appropriations bill. This increased spending is on top of the 
$11 billion included in Interior programs in the stimulus package. 
That's an increase of $15.7 billion in 1 year.
  This bill does fund certain vital initiatives, such as hazardous 
fuels reduction, the so-called FLAME Act which was mentioned, in areas 
that face the highest risk of catastrophic wildfire. Funds to ensure 
that firefighters have the resources they need to battle fires and 
diesel emission reduction grants to improve air quality are also 
included.
  Unfortunately, the bill simply spends too much money with too little 
in return. For example, it includes $750,000 for yet another study to 
look at the science behind the federally imposed pumping restrictions 
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in California. While I certainly 
have no objections to yet another study, I do believe that it may very 
well take a number of months to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars 
to merely confirm what I think we already know: that after 4 years of 
water restrictions in the delta, the delta smelt remains close to 
extinction, all while farmers and families continue to suffer.
  The Democratic leadership in this Congress continues to sit on its 
hands while the flaws and shortcuts of the Endangered Species Act have 
tied the hands of judges and water resource planners, creating a man-
made drought that is killing jobs in California. Rather than addressing 
an issue that is creating 40 percent unemployment in some parts of the 
Central Valley, the majority has ignored yet another opportunity to 
resolve the problem and, instead, is focused on yet another job killer: 
cap-and-trade climate change language.
  The bill includes $385 million for climate change initiatives, and 
earlier this week, Energy Secretary Chu suggested at a Senate hearing 
that the U.S. is falling behind countries like China in developing 
green energy because Congress has failed to pass the cap-and-trade 
legislation. The last time I checked, China has not implemented a cap-
and-trade, nor has any intention to enter into a regulatory regime on 
cap-and-trade, so I was a bit surprised to hear the Secretary point to 
them as the gold standard.
  I believe the statements from the Secretary, like the bill before us, 
reflect a key policy difference. While my friends on the other side of 
the aisle prefer to achieve results by expanding government, increasing 
spending, regulating everything, I believe we can achieve results by 
implementing policies that give hardworking Americans the freedom and 
basic tools that will enable them to unleash their ingenuity and 
entrepreneurial spirit.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who is also a classmate and someone who is known 
in the House of Representatives for his concern about Native Americans 
and his advocacy on their behalf.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2996, the Interior 
and Environmental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This is a 
great bill. The conference agreement includes unprecedented funding 
levels for many of the programs that serve Native American and Alaskan 
Natives. The conference agreement, among other things, includes $6.7 
billion of total funding to support and improve health care education, 
public safety, and human services for Native Americans and Alaskan 
Natives throughout the Nation. These numbers demonstrate an increase of 
$705.7 million above FY 2009 and $91 million above the original 
request.
  The conference report includes unprecedented levels of funding Indian 
Health Services, at a level of $398 million, a $116 million increase 
from FY 2009. The bill also contains increased levels of funding for 
BIA Justice and public safety programs of $328.8 million, a $58 million 
increase from FY 2009.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KILDEE. This conference agreement also contains an $81 million 
increase for K-12 and tribal college educational programs, including 
$50 million to fund tribal colleges to help aid in academic and 
enhanced curriculum plans.
  This is a great bill, and I appreciate it very much.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), another member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank my friend for yielding. I want to commend 
Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Simpson for putting together what I 
consider to be a fine bill. Like most bills around here, it has some 
warts, but overall, this is a good bill.
  Particularly, I want to highlight what I think is good for the part 
of the world that I live in. I want to thank the President, President 
Obama, for putting in his budget request for the first time since I 
have been here real money for the Great Lakes; $475 million is included 
in the conference report. I also need to thank Delia Scott,

[[Page H12061]]

the clerk of the subcommittee, for working with us on report language 
to make sure that that $475 million, which is primarily given to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, doesn't get stuck to the sticky 
fingers sometimes here in Washington and that it actually gets to the 
Great Lakes to improve water quality, habitat restoration, and things 
of that great nature.
  As we all know, those of us that live near the Great Lakes, it has 20 
percent of the world's fresh water. I can remember a couple of years 
ago when we put real money into the Everglades, and it really was the 
Great Lakes' turn. The President deserves credit and so do the crafters 
of this conference report. I am also grateful that included in here are 
some things that we worked on in a bipartisan fashion, some land 
acquisition for what used to be called the Blossom Music Center. I'm 
grateful for that.
  I am grateful for the work of the full committee chairman and 
chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in solving 
the difficulty that we had with some EPA regulations for Great Lakes 
shipping, and it was their leadership that, in fact, fixed that. I 
would just say to my good friend the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, when I was the ranking member on the Coast 
Guard Subcommittee and this pollution on ships legislation came up last 
Congress, I said, ``I told you so.'' And now those chickens have come 
home to roost. But I am grateful for that.
  If there were disappointments with this conference report, one is, 
which I expressed during the conference, in the House bill--there is 
wonderful water infrastructure in this bill. If you represent an older 
group of cities, you know that we have pipes in the ground that have 
been there since 1920, 1930. Water infrastructure is greatly needed.
  I was pleased to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in 
offering an amendment that would have attached prevailing wage 
requirements for that infrastructure construction. The House bill had 
it, and it was accepted. But a funny thing happened over in the 
conference. The Senate said they couldn't do it. So now you have this 
sort of unique situation where you only have Davis-Bacon protection for 
fiscal year 2010. Now the EPA says they can handle it. I guess that you 
could handle it--but this pipe was laid in 2010, this pipe was laid in 
2011. I think it's difficult, and I guess I am disappointed that we 
couldn't prevail on that issue.
  The last source of disappointment is that this legislation carries 
the continuing resolution. I don't object to the fact that there is a 
continuing resolution. We need to keep the government operating. But 
the attachment, which has been done in the past--it was done earlier 
this year, it was done in 2006--to this legislation prevents the 
minority from having a motion to recommit on the continuing resolution. 
And the last time that we had this discussion, I was sort of chastened. 
The full committee chairman said, Well, you don't necessarily need a 
motion to recommit; we made in order hundreds of Republican amendments 
during the appropriations process. So I actually had my staff look at 
it, and in fact, that's right. There were 714 amendments made in order 
to the appropriations bills that we considered this year, but sadly, 
688 of them were authored by only three Members: Mr. Flake, Mr. 
Campbell or Mr. Hensarling.

                              {time}  1230

  So that means that 26 substantive amendments by everybody else over 
here are the only amendments that were made in order. That's 
disappointing. I hope that, if we need another CR, we can have it be 
freestanding so we at least have the opportunity to make a couple of 
observations.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Transportation and HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, 
also a very hardworking and conscientious member of our subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Obey, for the very good allocation 
that has been afforded the Interior Subcommittee, which has allowed 
Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Simpson and their excellent staffs to 
craft a very good bill.
  Madam Speaker, I want to talk about just the funding levels in three 
particular areas within the bill.
  Firstly, this bill provides more than a 12 percent increase in 
funding for the Indian Health Service, which will greatly improve the 
quality and the availability of critical health care services to 
address the many health deficiencies that our Indian people suffer.
  Secondly, it provides $500 million for national wildlife refuges, 
which is an increase of $40 million over the last year. This increase 
will provide critically needed staff, will improve funding for 
conservation efforts, and will implement strategies to mitigate climate 
change.
  Lastly, the bill provides an increase in funding above $2.7 billion 
to restore and help protect the quality of our Nation's air and water.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference report.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, former President Woodrow Wilson, who was, of course, a 
considerable scholar of this institution, used to reflect that Congress 
on the floor is Congress' theater, but Congress in committee is 
Congress at work.
  I want to particularly commend Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member 
Simpson for the manner in which they worked and, more importantly, for 
how they worked together throughout the process.
  We hear a great deal--and there is sometimes considerable truth in 
it--about the absence of bipartisanship. I just want to make a point as 
a freshman member of this subcommittee as to how much bipartisanship 
there was on the subcommittee and as to how well we worked together. Of 
course, that couldn't happen without the chairman and ranking member 
setting the example and taking the lead.
  You know, like all Members, I look at this appropriations bill, and I 
come to an undebatable conclusion that it spends too much money on 
things that I don't care about but not nearly enough on things that I 
do. Unfortunately, every other Member seems to have a somewhat 
different opinion about what is important and about what is not, and it 
has been left to the chairman and ranking member, as best they can, to 
work through that. Yet where I think there can't be much debate is that 
this is truly an excellent piece of legislation and funding from a 
Native American perspective and from the perspective of Indian country.
  Madam Speaker, it's a trite but true observation that the First 
Americans are often the last Americans. They live shorter lives; they 
are poorer on average; they are less educated; they have less 
opportunity. This bill makes major steps to try and correct those 
inequities. It does really revolutionary things, in my opinion, in 
terms of health care, in terms of law enforcement, and in terms of 
education.
  I want to particularly thank again Ranking Member Simpson and 
Chairman Dicks for taking that into consideration. I want to thank, 
frankly, every other member of the committee who I found really focused 
on this issue, and I want to thank the staff, which really did a superb 
job as well. We had a series of absolutely first-rate hearings, and I 
think we made good and wise decisions that the American people can be 
proud of.
  It was a privilege to be able to participate on this committee.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. I yield.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman.
  He was at every single hearing and was especially very helpful to all 
of us on the Native American issues.
  As a Native American, we appreciate your contribution, and we thank 
you for your good work and for your participation. It made a big 
difference.
  Mr. COLE. Well, the gentleman, as always, is very kind.
  Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank the committee, and I want to 
thank the leadership of the committee. I look forward to the passage of 
this very important legislation.

[[Page H12062]]

  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, again, on this question of how much is in this bill, I 
want to remind people that the Interior budget had been cut by 16 
percent, the EPA budget by 29 percent, and the Forest Service budget by 
35 percent. So the Obama administration made an increase here, but this 
is playing catchup. I mean these budgets have been really stressed over 
the last 7 or 8 years. We did good things on the Park Service, but many 
other agencies were cut, and because we didn't have the FLAME Act, we 
had to borrow money out of the trails and road repair and out of other 
things which are essential.
  So I think this is just a catchup year, and I hope Members will take 
that into account as they make their decisions on how to vote. I hope 
that they will vote for this conference report, remembering that the CR 
is in this, and we don't want the government to come to a screeching 
halt on Saturday.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a valuable member of 
the Resources Committee, the authorizing committee, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Idaho.
  Madam Speaker, Homeland Security and our Border Patrol have done a 
marvelous job in the urban areas of our southern border, which is why 
the bulk of illegal immigration now coming across our southern border 
comes through rural lands which are owned by the Bureau of Land 
Management and the National Park Service.
  According to two uncirculated public reports by the Department of the 
Interior, we have areas now in the southern part of this country that 
are public lands which are controlled by the drug cartel from Mexico. 
We have areas where citizens of America cannot enter those lands 
without an armed escort, where the land has been devastated, where 
military training missions have been curtailed, and where citizens of 
America have simply been attacked and mugged by foreigners on our own 
soil.
  The House recognized this when it passed a motion to recommit by an 
overwhelming majority on the floor. The Senate also recognized this by 
including an amendment by Senator Coburn on the floor. Yet the 
conference committee, behind closed doors, has taken this amendment 
that dealt with the entire southern border, and they limited it only to 
the 340 miles where fencing actually exists. In essence, they have 
eviscerated the amendment and have denied the spirit and the sentiment 
that was expressed on the House floor as well as on the Senate floor.
  Secretary Napolitano has simply said it is a major difficulty when 
there are multiple public organizations with various interpretations on 
land policy. More graphically, she said it is difficult for border 
security when they have to stop hot pursuit and have to wait until the 
arrival of horses to continue on.
  This is a problem we should be facing directly, not glossing over and 
ignoring in a conference report. We should recognize that our 
inactivity by Congress has helped cause this problem, and our further 
inactivity on this issue cannot solve this problem. It is one of those 
areas that is a glowing and great error within this particular 
conference report. Congress should be doing better.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to make it clear that what we tried to do 
in dealing with the Coburn amendment was to focus it on the very 
southern border, itself. We were concerned, that if it weren't focused 
on the fence area, it could overturn the Archaeological Resources 
Protection Act, the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, the 
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Endangered Species Act, 
NEPA, and many other laws. So we tried to focus this like a rifle shot.
  I went out there myself to visit the border. I think the fence area 
is working pretty effectively, but I am concerned about the impact on 
other areas adjacent to the border.
  So we have tribes there, and 700 miles of the border are part of 
Federal lands. This is a very significant problem, and we're taking it 
very seriously, and we want to make sure that Secretary Salazar and 
Secretary Napolitano work together.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself another 1 minute in order to yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the gentleman a question, if I might, 
and I very much appreciate his responding to this line of questioning.
  The gentleman knows that I worked with the EPA for literally decades, 
years ago, in writing that legislation which created the Air Quality 
Management District Act in southern California. They were extremely 
helpful as we did battle with the executives of our auto industry, as 
they thumbed their noses at us, as we tried to get them to improve the 
engines of our automobiles. The EPA was great to work with, so I am 
impressed by the increase in funding here for the EPA; but because of 
that, I can't help but ask a couple of questions.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, might I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Idaho has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I will continue this 
discussion, if you would not mind, with the chairman.
  I mentioned the EPA. I worked with the EPA for years, particularly in 
the field of air quality, and I am a great admirer of their work. 
Within this legislation there is a very interesting line. It involves 
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. I note that there is a 692 
percent increase in that funding within this bill.
  Now, frankly, the environment that involves the water of the Great 
Lakes deserves a lot of attention. I don't know just how much it really 
needs or can handle in a single year; but juxtaposed to that is a bit 
of language inserted in this bill, in the conference report, that was 
not in either bill that left the House or the Senate. That language 
specifically has an exemption for emissions coming from engines of 
ships doing business on the Great Lakes.
  Especially because of my interest in air quality and because of the 
work that I've done to try to improve the American auto industry, it 
strikes me as ironic that we are not willing to really put pressure on 
including changes in emission requirements for those ships on the Great 
Lakes. There needs to be an explanation of this, and I would very much 
appreciate our understanding why we should allow these huge sulfur 
emissions, et cetera, to continue as they are in the Great Lakes 
Region.
  That is the question I have. If the chairman would respond, I would 
appreciate it.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, if the 
gentleman has questions, I would like to hear what they all are. When 
he has asked them all, then I will be happy to respond on my own time.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, it is intriguing to me that the gentleman from 
California is so concerned about the Great Lakes. I welcome his 
interest, and I welcome his support for an increase in funding for the 
removal of bottom sediments that contain toxins, which are getting into 
the fish and into the food chain. We desperately need the funding. It 
has been neglected for at least 15 years.

                              {time}  1245

  The provision in this bill deals with an EPA emissions rule that was 
announced in the Federal Register to deal with exhaust emission 
standards for the largest marine diesel engines used for propulsion on 
ocean-going vessels. Never in the discussion in the Federal Register 
nor in the hearings EPA held on the saltwater coasts did they ever 
mention the Great Lakes. At the end of

[[Page H12063]]

the rulemaking process, Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, at 
the end of the rulemaking process, EPA threw the Great Lakes in.
  Now, there are 13 vessels, that range in age of construction from 
1906 to 1959, the most recent vessels built on the Great Lakes, that 
burn this bunker fuel. The combined horsepower of those 13 vessels is 
less than that of the Regina Maersk, a 6,600 container carrying vessel 
that plies the saltwater and puts in on east coast ports. Those 
vessels, those modern vessels, burn bunker fuel at sea, but when they 
are within the 200-mile economic zone of the United States where they 
are subject to emissions requirements, they can switch to low sulfur 
diesel fuel. The older vessels on the Great Lakes do not have that 
capability.
  Never once were our ports, were our lake carriers, consulted in the 
process of the rulemaking. What the language does in this bill is 
simply to give our industry time to evaluate various emissions control 
mechanisms, such as re-engining, such as new shafts, drive shafts, for 
the vessels. There is a worldwide shortage of drive shaft production. 
It would take 2 years to build drive shafts for a 1906 vessel, even for 
the Anderson, which was built in 1952. And we also need time to 
consider other means of low sulfur, biodiesel fuel.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. But never once did EPA come and knock on the door and 
say, you have a problem.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman on the limited 
time I have.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my chairman yielding.
  I must say I have worked with him many, many a year regarding EPA's 
work, particularly with the automobile circumstance. It took us years 
and years and years to get Detroit to even respond to this problem, the 
air quality problem in Southern California. It began to respond to 
improving engines once the Japanese produced a car that produced much 
better mileage.
  There has been almost a revolution in Southern California. We have 
been successful with that in no small part because you have helped us 
raise that pressure, and I would suggest there is a need for pressure 
now on those who are using these engines that spew sulfur endlessly and 
are polluting the air in the Great Lakes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, there is no hue and cry from any of the ports on 
the Great Lakes. There isn't any effect on residents in the Great 
Lakes. EPA never raised this issue in any appropriate fashion for ship 
owners to offer suggestions or negotiate terms and conditions under 
which they could undertake the conversion. It was just dropped in their 
lap.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate the exchange with my 
colleague.
  I have a letter here from the American Lung Association that I would 
like to submit at this point in the Record, for it speaks to the very 
question you are asking here.

                                                  October 7, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related 
         Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Feinstein: We are writing to express our 
     strong opposition to any rider on the FY 2010 Interior and 
     Environment Appropriations Bill that will weaken, delay or 
     limit the ability of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency 
     to promulgate regulations that will reduce pollution from new 
     marine compression-ignition engines at or above 30 liters per 
     cylinder. Our organizations have long advocated for the 
     cleanup of these vessels because of the enormous impact they 
     have on air pollution.
       EPA has conducted an extensive public process on marine 
     compression-ignition engines. This process includes a 
     November, 2007 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the 
     2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was announced on July 
     1, 2009 with public hearings in New York and Long Beach, CA 
     on August 4 and 6 respectively. The comment period closed on 
     September 28, 2009. All stakeholders have had ample 
     opportunity to participate in this rulemaking.
       The need for these rules is urgent. EPA's analysis 
     estimates that the cleanup of these vessels will prevent up 
     to 33,000 premature deaths each year by 2030. Any delay will 
     postpone the health benefits. The impact of pollution from 
     these sources is not limited to communities surrounding the 
     ports but EPA's analysis shows that the impact is felt 
     hundreds of miles inland. We commend EPA for working to 
     address this problem through the pending regulations, but 
     also through the International Convention on the Prevention 
     of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI).
       Chairman Feinstein, please oppose any rider that will 
     weaken, delay or limit the ability of the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency to promulgate regulations that will reduce 
     pollution from new marine compression-ignition engines at or 
     above 30 liters per cylinder.
           Sincerely,
       American Lung Association.
       Clean Air Watch.
       National Association of Clean Air Agencies.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

  We are in the process of negotiating an international agreement 
regarding these huge engines that we are worried about. If we find 
ourselves as those negotiations are coming to a conclusion with an 
exemption laid out in the law for American vessels, it would seem to 
me, and I would ask you, don't you think it could put pressure in a 
negative way on our ability to establish those standards on those 
international carriers that are under consideration at this very 
moment?
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The International Maritime Organization negotiations 
which have been going on for some time will affect oceangoing vessels. 
These are landlocked vessels. These vessels operate exclusively within 
the Great Lakes. There is no fuel capability for these old steamers, 
and we just need time to see if there is a way of converting or maybe 
retiring those vessels.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time for just a moment, I 
would read this first sentence from this letter addressed to Chairman 
Feinstein:
  ``We are writing to express our strong opposition to any rider in the 
Interior and Environment appropriations bill that with would weaken, 
delay or limit the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
to promulgate regulations that will reduce pollution from new marine 
compression-ignition engines at or above 30 letter per cylinder. Our 
organizations have long advocated for the cleanup of these vessels 
because of the enormous impact they have on air pollution.''
  They are specifically expressing concern about these engines and the 
potential loss of life that results from not being able to successfully 
complete major change for the world of vessels.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would further yield, the rule 
promulgated by EPA, and which is being negotiated in international 
maritime councils, applies to oceangoing vessels. These vessels will 
never set anchor in saltwater. Never.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, what has occurred here is this: As the gentleman from 
Minnesota indicates, EPA had been developing a standard for oceangoing 
vessels for quite some time, but it was not until a very few weeks ago 
that it was discovered that, belatedly, under their proposed rule, they 
attempted also to apply that to the Great Lakes. When we discovered 
that, we reacted with alarm on both sides of the aisle. The gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), for instance, participated in a meeting 
with EPA, along with Mr. Oberstar, myself, Mr. Young from Alaska and 
several other people.
  Out of that came a decision to bring forward the proposal that we 
have in this bill today. That bill does two things. The bill simply 
exempts from the rule--it does not delay the rule in any way. In fact, 
the Canadian Government was opposed to the EPA rule--but what this 
provision does is to exempt the 13 steamers on the Great Lakes from 
that regulation, for one very good, simple reason--because if they use 
the kind of fuel that EPA wants them to use, they have a risk of 
blowing up, and we think that might be a bit of a problem for people on 
those ships.
  Secondly, the provision simply asks EPA to also consider when they 
deal

[[Page H12064]]

with the question of the diesels on the Great Lakes, we ask EPA to 
simply do two things: We ask them to do an economic analysis to 
determine what the impact is on the Great Lakes region; and we ask them 
to provide, as they do in many other rules, for the possibility of a 
request for a waiver from the operators of those ships. Whether a 
waiver is granted is up to the EPA to determine.
  The other waiver we asked them to consider putting in the rule is a 
waiver which would apply if the fuel that EPA wants them to use is not 
available. That sounds to me to be a perfectly reasonable proposition.
  I think EPA thinks it is reasonable, which is why they have issued 
this statement: ``EPA welcomes public input on its Clear Air Act 
proposal to address emissions from large ships. The agency understands 
the unique technical and economic challenges that steamships would face 
if they were required to use lower sulfur fuel. The amendment announced 
today is consistent with one of several policy options the agency has 
been considering and would apply to only 13 U.S.-flagged ships, which 
account for less than one-half of 1 percent of the Nation's particulate 
matter emissions.''
  So if someone wants to make a Federal case out of it, be my guest. 
But I would point out there are two other reasons for the committee 
action: number one, the EPA rule as it originally was being 
contemplated would have been a devastating blow to the Midwest. It 
could have wiped out steel production in the Midwest because it would 
raise prices on those tankers so high that that region would have been 
uncompetitive. The result could be that steel production would move 
from that region of the country and from Canada to China. If you do 
that, you wind up with much greater emissions, because under the rule 
if you operate a ship outside of 200 miles from our coast, you can use 
the old, dirty fuel. But if you ply the Great Lakes, you have to use 
the new fuel, because on the Great Lakes you are never further than 200 
miles away from shore.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. OBEY. I would also point out that if the result is to shift 
transit on the Great Lakes from ships to trucks or rail cars, you 
increase, you do not decrease, the emissions, because it takes a Great 
Lakes ship 18 tons of carbon dioxide to move 1,000 tons of cargo 1,000 
miles. If that cargo were shifted to a rail car, it would emit 55 tons 
of carbon dioxide for the same job, and a truck would emit 190 tons.
  So I submit the committee solution is good for the environment, it is 
good for the jobs in the upper Midwest, it assists the economies of New 
York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Indiana, and, in 
economic times like this, I make no apology whatsoever for doing that.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Would the Speaker tell us how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I would like to just respond briefly by reading from a communique 
that came from a person that has been very actively involved in the air 
quality of the region for years and working specifically with the EPA 
addressing some of the health questions that somewhat were addressed by 
my chairman, Mr. Obey.
  ``The stakes for human health are enormous, huge, colossal. Weakening 
the domestic standards will have their own adverse effect, but it is 
crucial to recognize that doing so could also imperil International 
Maritime Organization's final consideration of the entire U.S. Emission 
Control Area application, which was favorably received by the IMO's 
Marine Environmental Protection Committee in June. The IMO is slated to 
make a final decision in March. Our nation will weaken the basis for 
its request that the IMO enable the most protective emissions standards 
under international law for foreign-flagged ships if we are including 
domestic vessels.''
  So weakening standards for our vessels is going to threaten this 
effort internationally.
  ``As you know, the stakes for human health are profound--up to 14,000 
premature deaths annually are to be prevented by 2020.''
  It is very important that America speak with a strong and unified 
voice here. I think that the timing of this exemption itself is most 
unfortunate.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, two points: First of all, we specifically 
worked with EPA to assure that there would be no delay in the rule. 
That is why we did not pursue a wholesale exemption for the Great 
Lakes, as we originally had requested EPA to consider.
  Secondly, I must say I welcome the gentleman from California's 
belated interest in the health of the Great Lakes.

                              {time}  1300

  But I wonder, is this the same gentleman from California who, years 
ago, when chairing the appropriations subcommittee, brought to the 
floor a bill which contained some 17 riders to gut virtually every 
environmental protection you could find which, for instance, exempted 
the oil refinery industry from air toxic-emission standards, which 
would have allowed 1 million tons of hazardous waste from cement kilns 
to be exempted from air toxic requirements, which would have prohibited 
EPA from protecting any of the Nation's remaining wetlands and would 
have stopped all work on the Great Lakes Initiative, for which this 
bill provides $500 million?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, when will the insanity stop, the runaway spending, the 
debts, the deficits? The American people are saying enough is enough.
  Now we have a Department of the Interior and environment conference 
report that contains a 17 percent increase over last year's spending. I 
assure you the family budget that has to pay for this Federal budget, 
their budget didn't increase 17 percent. People want to know why is 
Federal spending out of control?
  In addition, now we have a continuing resolution attached to this 
conference report. Why are we voting on it? We are voting on it because 
this Congress and this President have spent too much money, and now 
they want more.
  Already this President and this Congress have passed a $1.1 trillion 
government stimulus plan which, by the way, since it passed, over 3\1/
2\ million of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs. We have the 
highest unemployment rate in our Nation in a generation. That stimulus 
plan weighed in at $9,745 per household. I would suggest to you, Madam 
Speaker, the American people didn't get their money's worth.
  Next, this Congress and this President passed and signed into law an 
omnibus spending plan costing $410 billion, weighing in at $3,511 per 
household.
  Then under this administration and Congress the bailouts continue: 
another $30 billion for AIG, almost $36 billion for Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, $60 million for GM and Chrysler. Now the news today is the 
administration wants to hand GMAC another $12 billion.
  What has it all brought us? The Nation's first trillion-dollar 
deficit, a spending plan that will triple the national debt in the next 
10 years. On top of that, we have the announcement of the trillion-
dollar government takeover of our health care.
  How can you raise the cost and decrease the quality all at the same 
time? This Congress apparently has figured it out. Under this spending 
plan, the American people cannot afford it.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
vice chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Moran of Virginia, who knows more 
about endocrine disruptors than any other Member.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the very distinguished chairman of our 
subcommittee from Washington State who is also my good friend.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good bill. The Federal Land 
Management

[[Page H12065]]

Agency gets the resources they need to meet their stewardship 
responsibilities.
  The EPA gets the resources they need for the first time in more than 
a decade to better protect the environment and our public health. It 
brings us closer to meeting our treaty obligations with America's first 
residents.
  I am proud to say that this bill moves us from an emphasis on 
unsustainable resource extraction and towards conservation of those 
resources. Offshore royalty fees are reformed and the oil and gas 
industry will be reimbursing the Federal Government closer to the 
actual cost that the government bears in permitting drilling operations 
on the public's land.
  Now, finally, on Indian reservations, we are taking the right steps 
after decades of neglect, equipping trained nurses and law enforcement 
with the tools that they need to end the epidemic of violence committed 
against Native American women.
  I thank the chairman for his very good work.
  This bill begins to address a backlog of needs. It responds to the 
current challenges we face. It deserves our unanimous support.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would inform the gentleman from Washington that I am 
ready to close whenever the gentleman is.
  Mr. DICKS. I still have some speakers.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Holt from New 
Jersey, who is very concerned and one of our best environmental 
supporters in the House.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, Chairman Dicks may hesitate to blow his own 
horn, so I will say it. This is the best Interior appropriations bill 
we have seen.
  Where do I begin praising it--$453 million for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, more than a third up from last year, doubles the 
State matching grants. LWCF is an issue I have worked on since I first 
came to Congress. This robust funding for Federal agencies and States 
to preserve open space is critically important.
  The bill's $385 million for climate change mitigation, a large 
increase over the last year, including $17 million for establishing a 
national greenhouse gas registry that my colleagues Representative 
Baldwin, Representative Inslee and I have advocated.
  It includes a good increase for our national parks to preserve these 
national treasures for the enjoyment of future generations.
  It includes a real increase for the National Endowment for the Arts 
and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The arts and humanities 
play a crucial role in our society in enhancing creativity, quality of 
life and, yes, improving local economies. I could go on--EPA, land 
management, Native Americans and more.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak), who has been a very hardworking Member and very concerned 
about the issues in this bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2996, the 
Interior appropriations conference report.
  I congratulate the Chair, Mr. Dicks, for a fine piece of legislation.
  I want to thank Chairman Obey for the work he did with the 
Environmental Protection Agency so that they would strike the 
appropriate balance between the Great Lakes economy and its 
environment.
  In my district I have three of the five Great Lakes. I have over 
1,600 miles of Great Lakes shoreline. And on October 9, the 
International Maritime Organization adopted new rules to control 
exhaust emissions of oceangoing ships. The EPA then decided to apply 
these oceangoing ship standards to Great Lakes ships.
  The EPA was completely unaware that the proposed limitation to sulfur 
emissions from oceangoing ships would ensnare a distinct segment of our 
Great Lakes shipping fleet. Great Lakes members have raised these 
concerns with Chairman Obey and others about the EPA's proposal.
  What this conference report really does is fixes this problem in two 
ways: The 13 steamships of the Great Lakes fleet that cannot switch to 
the new proposed fuel, these older ships that we talked about, would be 
exempt. These 13 ships combined emit less than what one oceangoing 
vessel emits.
  The larger category 3 diesel ships would still comply with the final 
EPA rule, provided that the new fuel does not increase the cost of 
shipping by water so much that it would make shipping by land cheaper 
and cause more pollution.
  Without these changes, Great Lakes shipping, the economic shipping 
that we see through waterborne commerce of coal, steel, iron ore, paper 
and farm commodities, would come to an end.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I will close. Again, I want to thank Chairman Dicks and 
the staff for the tremendous job they have done and the bipartisan way 
in which they have worked with us in trying to solve some problems.
  Madam Speaker, I don't think there is anybody on this side of the 
aisle that actually disagrees with the various programs that are going 
on in this appropriations bill. The disagreement comes that we just 
believe it's too much money; a 17 percent increase on top of the $11 
billion that was received during the stimulus package I think is too 
much, given these economic times and the hardship that is being felt by 
Americans all across this country.
  I think that's where the main opposition comes. It's not about any 
particular program. We have done a tremendous job in a lot of different 
areas that I think all of us agree with. There are specifics that I 
think if I were king for a day would probably be a little different, 
and this bill would probably be a little different if you were king for 
a day.
  We realize it's a compromise, and we try to work out those 
differences between both the majority and the minority and between the 
House and the Senate. I think Chairman Dicks has done an admirable job 
of doing that. In fact, I don't even disagree with the discussion that 
was going on here earlier about the Great Lakes shipping. I don't 
disagree with what Chairman Obey was trying to do here. I understand 
the impact that it would have on the economy in the Great Lakes and 
what is going on there.
  All we ask oftentimes is that when we have those same types of issues 
relative to mining or timber or industries in our part of the country, 
that people will be sensitive to the impact that some of the 
regulations that are imposed by the EPA and other agencies are going to 
have on those, and we are only seen as trying to gut those regulations 
when, in fact, we are trying to do oftentimes the same thing that's 
being done here. I don't disagree with what you are trying to do, and I 
understand it. I support what you are trying to do.
  While I would like to tell the chairman that I could support this 
bill, because I think we have done some good work here, unfortunately, 
I can't, just because of the spending level. I would encourage my 
Members to vote ``no'' on this appropriations bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I again want to point out that over the last 8 years, Interior's 
budget has been cut by 16 percent. The EPA has been cut by 29 percent, 
and the Forest Service by 35 percent. This budget does provide a 
significant increase, but it's only catchup because these agencies have 
been severely damaged. The Forest Service has a huge backlog of work on 
infrastructure, on roads, on trails. The Park Service has billions of 
dollars of requirements. Christine Todd Whitman, the first EPA 
administrator under President Bush, said there is a $662 billion 
backlog on infrastructure for clean water and wastewater treatment in 
this country, which are fundamental to the health of the American 
people.
  I am a little bit amazed to hear all this concern about the EPA when 
at the same time they are saying let's vote, give the EPA less money. 
That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. If you are concerned 
about the EPA, you need to know that they need those resources to do 
the enforcement work that's necessary.
  This is an extraordinarily good bill. I have been on this committee 
for 33 years. This is the best Interior bill we have ever presented. 
The money here for Native Americans is long overdue. This is a catchup 
bill.

[[Page H12066]]

  I urge the House to vote for it and to reject the negativity of the 
other side.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This bill will fund many vital 
activities over the coming year that protect our public lands and our 
environment and that support our cultural heritage and contribute to 
the vibrant artistic life of the Nation. This bill also will have a 
major impact on the future energy development for our country.
  It is in the best interests of our Nation to become energy 
independent and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. No country can 
remain a leading player in the community of nations if it must 
increasingly rely on other nations for one of the bedrock elements of 
its economy. We must do everything we can to effectively increase our 
domestic supplies of energy in the most responsible manner possible.
  As we all know, there are many things that we can do to facilitate 
the production of domestic energy including tapping of vast resources 
of clean-burning fuels such as natural gas. According to recent 
reports, the United States now holds as much as 1,800 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas reserves, almost one-third of which is in shale 
reservoirs. This is perhaps equivalent to over 300 billion barrels of 
oil, more than even the energy reserves of Saudi Arabia.
  Hydraulic fracturing is one key and very important technique to help 
us tap the potential of our domestic oil and gas resources. Since the 
first commercial hydraulic fracturing operation was conducted in 1948, 
the use of this technology has become routine and often essential in 
the production of oil and natural gas. In fact, over 95 percent of new 
wells in unconventional formations such as tight sands, shales and 
coalbeds are hydraulically fractured. Hydraulic fracturing has 
literally unlocked vast supplies of natural gas in our country and has 
allowed us to produce natural gas in areas where it was never before 
possible.
  States have effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing for many years 
and are fully capable of continuing to do so without unnecessary 
federal oversight. The key state organizations with the most 
significant involvement in oil and gas regulation--the Interstate Oil 
and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) and the Ground Water Protection 
Council (GWPC)--have both strongly reaffirmed the adequacy of state 
regulation of hydraulic fracturing. In fact, after analyzing the oil 
and gas regulations of 27 states, including the regulation of hydraulic 
fracturing by these states, the GWPC recently concluded that existing 
state oil and gas regulations were ``adequately designed to directly 
protect water resources.''
  A number of studies have confirmed that these state regulatory 
programs are effective in protecting sources of drinking water. It was 
only a few years ago, in 2004, that EPA issued a report concerning its 
study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing of coalbed 
methane wells on underground sources of drinking water. At the time EPA 
stated that its report was the most comprehensive study ever undertaken 
of hydraulic fracturing. The Agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing 
of CBM wells--which was thought to represent a worst case scenario 
since coalbeds tend to be shallower and therefore closer to drinking 
water aquifers than other types of formations such as shales--posed 
little to no risk to underground sources of drinking water. EPA also 
found that there were no confirmed instances in which hydraulic 
fracturing had contaminated a drinking water well, despite the fact 
that the technology had been in use for over 50 years and hundreds of 
thousands of wells had been hydraulically fractured during that time.
  Since its publication some have sought to discredit this EPA report 
based largely on the allegations of a single EPA employee who disagreed 
with the methods by which the report was created. However, the study 
was and remains both valid and credible. In fact, since EPA issued the 
report state regulatory officials have reiterated on numerous occasions 
that they are aware of no instances in which hydraulic fracturing has 
contaminated drinking water supplies.
  The evidence clearly indicates that there is no need for further 
study of hydraulic fracturing. Rather than spend additional resources, 
EPA's Office of Drinking Water should be addressing activities that 
actually pose a significant risk to drinking water supplies. 
Nevertheless, the conference report we are considering today calls for 
EPA to undertake another study of hydraulic fracturing.
  Under these circumstances we must ensure that any further study is 
guided by some key, well-recognized principles. First and foremost, any 
new study should be conducted in a very comprehensive, scientific, 
credible and transparent manner. To achieve this goal, it would be 
extremely prudent for this study to be conducted in accordance with 
applicable Agency quality assurance guidance and should be guided by 
recognized principles of risk assessment that consider hazard 
assessment, exposure pathways, and exposure levels. This work also 
should be based on substantiated information that is developed in 
accordance with fundamental scientific protocols. This approach will 
allow EPA to conduct a high quality study that focuses on the actual 
risks to public health, if any, that hydraulic fracturing entails.
  In addition, another key point is that this study should be based on 
a phased approach in order to conserve resources and to avoid 
undertaking investigative activities that are not warranted. As part of 
this approach, EPA should first review and consider any existing 
studies, particularly the studies by the Groundwater Protection Council 
and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, who have already 
undertaken considerable efforts in this area, and other related 
information concerning hydraulic fracturing and its potential impacts 
and determine specific areas that might deserve further review.
  In addition, the study should be conducted with the involvement of a 
variety of key participants. For example, the study should be conducted 
in consultation with the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological 
Survey and should include the participation of key state regulatory 
officials as well as the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and 
the Ground Water Protection Council. Interested stakeholders should 
certainly be involved at key stages of the study, and the public should 
have an opportunity to comment on the proposed design of the study and 
should be allowed to review and comment on a draft of any study report. 
The study also should be subject to an appropriate peer review process 
consistent with standard Agency guidance.
  Finally, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Any study by EPA 
should certainly take into account the Agency's prior 2004 study of 
hydraulic fracturing and the conclusions reached in that study. At the 
same time, the study should take into account the impacts of current 
state and federal regulatory programs covering hydraulic fracturing 
Finally, it might be prudent to give proper consideration to an 
appropriate role for the National Academy of Sciences, an independent 
body of distinguished experts, in developing the study.
  Madam Speaker, I am confident that if EPA embraces these principles 
as it further studies hydraulic fracturing, this study will properly 
address this issue in the detail that it deserves. This approach will 
help us then move forward in developing our nation's energy resources 
in the most effective manner possible.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the conference report on H.R. 2996, the Interior, Environment, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010.
  This legislation provides a 17 percent increase over FY09 levels for 
critical programs that protect our public health and environment.
  Among other provisions, the legislation provides $605 million for the 
Superfund program which will assist sites across the country clean up 
hazardous substances, including potentially the San Jacinto River Waste 
Pits site.
  It also provides $3 million to fund four new centers of excellence to 
study toxin and chemical impacts on children.
  Madam Speaker, I would also like to highlight two important projects 
I requested funding for in this bill, but unfortunately, did not 
receive mention in the final conference report.
  The first is the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research 
Center to continue air quality public health research on air toxics in 
urban areas as directed by the. U.S. Congress. The Center is a 
501(c)(3) institution authorized by Congress in the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990.
  The individual FY2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations bills 
approved by both the House and Senate included language recognizing the 
significant contributions made by the Center in the understanding of 
the human health effects due to exposure to air toxics. Further, the 
House legislation encouraged EPA to consider allocating funding for the 
Center in EPA's budget. The EPA has gone through a deliberative process 
during the past four months to review the qualifications and research 
contributions to-date made by the Center and as a result, has 
recommended that funding for the Center be included in the agency's 
FY2011 budget. Funding air toxics research through the Center is 
consistent with the congressional intent and supports the 
Administration's stated objective of expanding research and efforts to 
address the human health effects of air toxics.
  I am concerned the final conference report did not reaffirm the 
importance of the Center's work to our country. Americans want to know 
whether they are at risk from pollutants in the air that they breathe. 
People who live near sources of air toxics such as major roadways, 
industrial facilities, or small businesses, are often especially 
concerned about their risk.
  The Center is conducting The Houston Exposure to Air Toxics Study, 
HEATS, which is an ongoing project designed to study the relationship 
between personal exposures--the air

[[Page H12067]]

people breathe as they go about their daily activities--and fixed site 
monitored concentrations of air toxics by measuring personal, 
residential indoor, and outdoor concentrations.
  Federal support for the Center is critical to ensure this research 
continues and I hope to continue working with the chairman, EPA, and 
OMB to get funding for this research in the budget as Congress intended 
when it created the Center.
  We also sought funding funding for a 6-year Capital Improvement 
Project that will rehabilitate and upgrade the city of Baytown, Texas's 
wastewater and water infrastructure to comply with federal and state 
regulations, maintain its condition and reliability and save costs. The 
city has implemented an asset management program to assess equipment 
condition, optimize work practices and ensure funding remains in place 
to sustain infrastructure improvements over time.
  The funding we requested under the State and Tribal Assistance Grant 
would help rehabilitate portions of the Central District Wastewater 
Treatment Plant to include elevation of redesign of critical components 
to reduce the storm surge impacts suffered during Hurricane Ike. These 
include the influent lift station, blower building, administration/
laboratory building, and grit removal process. The internal piping 
needs to be replaced to improve energy and operating efficiency, along 
with the chlorine contact basin and plant pumping/transfer systems. 
Installation of post-storm emergency power systems are also a part of 
this effort.
  This is an important project to help Baytown recover from damage 
caused by Hurricane Ike, and overall to upgrade their wastewater 
system, and I look forward to working the Chair as we move forward to 
find assistance for this project.
  I also want to express some reservation and guidance to EPA as it 
works to carry out a study in the bill ``on the relationship between 
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that 
relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of 
information.''
  I understand the concerns and desire to adequately protect the 
environment when developing our domestic resources. Hydraulic 
fracturing is a well-tested technology that has been used to develop 
energy for over 60 years.
  First used in 1947, hydraulic fracturing has become a standard 
practice for improving the process of natural energy extraction. The 
practice involves the pumping of fluid into wells at high pressure to 
create fractures in rock formations that allow for complete production 
of oil. Hydraulic fracturing is responsible for about 30 percent of our 
domestic recoverable oil and natural gas. About 90 percent of currently 
operating wells use this technology. Hydraulic fracturing, as used to 
produce natural gas from shale formations,  has created new 
opportunities for clean energy and employment without causing 
environmental damage.

  Recent studies on fracturing conducted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency in 2004 found no confirmed evidence of contamination 
of drinking water. The study concluded that the injection of hydraulic 
fracturing fluids poses ``little or no threat'' to humans or the 
environment, EPA. The EPA did not find a single incident of the 
contamination of drinking water wells by hydraulic fracturing fluid 
injection.
  Just like EPA's prior study, the new study in H.R. 2996 should be 
conducted using a systematic, scientific approach that assures 
transparency, validity and accuracy. The study should be based on 
accepted quality assurance guidelines in order to ensure that the 
information on which the study is based is of sufficient quality to 
support the study's conclusions. It should be properly peer-reviewed by 
qualified experts in accordance with standard practices, and should 
also draw on the expertise of those both inside and outside the Federal 
Government who can contribute relevant information to a high quality 
study. These contributors should include the Department of Energy and 
the U.S. Geological Survey as well as the state regulators who have 
many years of experience with hydraulic fracturing. This study should 
eventually be made available for review and comment by interested 
members of the public prior to being finalized.
  At the same time, since we have already studied hydraulic fracturing, 
it would be prudent for any proposed study to fully take into account 
other studies that have already been undertaken by Federal or State 
governmental agencies, councils, commissions or advisory committees. 
For example, given the significant effort associated with the Agency's 
prior 2004 study, it would certainly be prudent to fully consider this 
study in undertaking any further examination of hydraulic fracturing.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the study should be based on 
well-recognized principles of risk assessment to determine whether 
there is any realistic risk that individuals may be exposed to 
substances used in the hydraulic fracturing process at levels that 
could possibly be considered harmful.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that a targeted study of hydraulic 
fracturing is the most efficient way to use our resources to accomplish 
the goals of this study. We need to continue to develop our domestic 
energy resources, including clean-burning natural gas. A focused 
approach to the study will allow us to address concerns about hydraulic 
fracturing while facilitating the continued use of this critical 
technology.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2996, the 
Interior Appropriations bill.
  This legislation provides critical support for redevelopment of the 
Great Lakes and includes $475 million to jumpstart restoration 
activities in our freshwater rich region. For the past decade, our 
region has been carefully assembling a comprehensive restoration 
strategy, and for the first time, this bill begins to fund that 
restoration.
  With 84 percent of our Nation's fresh water, over 40 million people 
living on the Great Lakes and over 20 percent of the world's 
freshwater, America must implement a restoration strategy that empowers 
the basin to use this freshwater resource to promote sustainable 
growth. As we are constantly reminded, freshwater is becoming a scarce 
resource.
  This has been a watershed year for the Great Lakes. With the 
inclusion of this language in the budget resolution and now the full 
fledged commitment of the Appropriations Committee and Congress, 
America takes a significant step to restore the landscape on which over 
40 million Americans rely.
  In addition to this historic commitment for the Great Lakes, this 
bill provides nearly $3.6 billion for sorely needed drinking water and 
wastewater investments, and significant increases for the National Park 
Service. This legislation supports activities by the Forest Service to 
more effectively deal with invasive species that have destroyed the 
tree cover by bugs such as the Emerald Ash Borer which have killed as 
many as 40 million trees in the Midwest. Our region alone will lose 10 
percent of its tree cover as a result of a bug that came into our 
country from imported material.
  Let me congratulate the chair of the full committee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey and the chair of this subcommittee, Mr. Dicks, 
the gentleman from Washington who have done yeomen's work in 
shepherding through this legislation which protects the environment and 
allows Great Lakes shipping to continue. U.S.-flag Great Lakes fleet 
already burns cleaner fuel than that used by many of the world's ocean 
going vessels.
  The useful lives of the 13 U.S.-Flag steamships to 2020, will be 
extended when the .5 percent sulfur standard is implemented worldwide. 
Ships burn less fuel and produce fewer emissions than trains and 
trucks. It would take 1.1 million trucks or 290,000 railcars to replace 
their carrying capacity. We all win when we keep these cargos on 
vessels working the Great Lakes.
  Let me thank all the conferees for their hard work.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the nation's current debt 
ceiling is $12.1 trillion, and the Congress is going to have to act to 
raise that ceiling in the next month or so. Let me be clear--the 
spending path we are on is unsustainable, and we cannot have 17% 
spending increases on appropriations bills as standard operating 
procedure. I would warn the majority that we should not make these 
large increases a regular practice.
  That being said, I am willing to support the Conference Report for 
the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill because of the 
tremendous positive impact it will have on the Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes are one of the world's unparalleled natural 
resources. They are wholly \1/5\ of the planet's fresh water supply. 
They are home to a tremendously diverse ecosystem. They represent the 
identity and economic prowess of the region, and my home state of 
Michigan.
  Throughout my career at the local, state, and federal levels of 
government, I have promoted efforts to clean up our precious Great 
Lakes, which have suffered from severe pollution--partly out of 
ignorance and partly out of indifference. Improper sewage discharges, 
industrial pollution, and invasive species have wrecked havoc on the 
Great Lakes over the decades. It takes tremendous coordinated efforts 
at all levels to deal with these problems.
  It is the legislation before us today that gives us an opportunity to 
embark on a new chapter in restoring the Great Lakes. This Congress and 
this administration have stepped up to the plate and provided full 
funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative--a $475 million 
effort that will combat invasive species, reduce non-point source 
pollution, and remove contaminated sediment. Through this measure, we 
will begin to undo the damage that has occurred, and we can take a big 
step forward in preserving the Great Lakes for future generations.
  This conference report also includes an important policy provision 
that will help protect

[[Page H12068]]

thousands of jobs in the Great Lakes Region. Late this summer, the EPA 
proposed a rule that would have the effect of eliminating up to half of 
the U.S. flag vessels on the Great Lakes. In addition to the maritime 
jobs that these vessels support, the cargo on these vessels is critical 
for commerce including the steel and automobile industries. Losing 
these vessels would have meant higher costs for consumers and lost jobs 
for many in the Great Lakes region.
  I want to commend Chairman Obey and Chairman Oberstar for their hard 
work on this issue. As a result of their efforts, the conference report 
includes language that will grandfather in 13 of these affected 
vessels, and provides a waiver for other vessels if economic hardships 
can be shown. We all want cleaner air, but the EPA went about this the 
wrong way by targeting these small ships that collectively produce 
fewer emissions than one large ocean-going vessel.
  Because of the importance of this legislation to the Great Lakes 
environment as well as the jobs of those who live in the region, I will 
support this conference report and I urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 876, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the conference report will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion 
to suspend the rules on H. Res. 783.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, 
nays 178, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 826]

                               YEAS--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barrett (SC)
     Buyer
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler (NY)
     Nunes
     Towns

                              {time}  1339

  Messrs. TURNER and MOORE of Kansas changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. TANNER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________