Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 112 (Monday, July 25, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 112 (Monday, July 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5437-H5470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the esteemed chairman of the full committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise today to commend this bill to our
colleagues and urge that it be passed. It includes $27.5 billion in
Federal spending. That's a reduction of $2.1 billion below last year,
$3.8 billion below the President's request.
Some have complained that these cuts are too much, too fast. But it's
important to remember that these agencies and programs have seen
unprecedented massive increases in spending in recent years. This sort
of excess has contributed to our astronomical debt and is threatening
our recovery. We simply can't fund unnecessary and ineffective programs
when we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we spend. We just simply
can't afford it.
This legislation makes smart, significant cuts across each and every
agency funded by this bill. The bill still adequately funds the
agencies that are important to the health of our citizens, the
stability of our economy, and the preservation of our environment, but
we've made some priority adjustments in areas that can and should
withstand lower budgets.
Some areas that will see bigger reductions include climate change
programs, which are trimmed 22 percent from last year, and land
acquisition funding, which is at a level nearly 79 percent lower than
last year.
Frankly, many of the cuts in this bill are just plain common sense,
particularly when it comes to the Environmental Protection Agency. The
reductions and provisions in this bill were made with very good
reason--to rein in unparalleled, out-of-control spending and job-
killing overregulation by the EPA.
Though we all appreciate the core mission of the EPA, this agency has
lost grips with economic reality and has become the epitome of the
continued and damaging regulatory overreach of this administration. We
can't allow an agency to circumvent the authority of Congress,
especially when it has such destructive effects on our Nation's
economic recovery.
I'd like to say that we've heard from Americans all across the
country and across every sector of the economy who attribute harsh
regulatory burdens to their economic uncertainty, uncertainty that's
crushing job growth.
It's my hope that this legislation sends the message loud and clear:
Legislation by regulation must stop. We've restricted funding for EPA
personnel, as well as addressed EPA's flawed greenhouse gas regulations
and de facto moratorium on mining permits in Appalachia. It's my hope
that provisions like these will return the EPA to a better working
order, facilitating a more effective government, sending money where it
really needs to go, and removing burdensome barriers to job creation to
clear the way for economic recovery.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Moran, the subcommittee, and all of the staff for all their hard work
on this very tough bill. Chairman Simpson has led the way on an
excellent bill, I think, that makes good on our promise to reduce
government spending with real significant spending reforms.
His subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, held 22 oversight hearings, more than
any other of the 12 subcommittees on Appropriations. I'm confident that
they've gone above and beyond their duty to ensure that these cuts come
from wasteful and redundant programs. I know these decisions were not
made lightly, were not made easy, but they are responsible, and will
help us move in the right direction.
Although it's been difficult at times, the House should be proud to
be moving this year's appropriations process in regular order, the
first time in years. With this bill we will have finished more than
half of the fiscal 12 appropriation bills before the recess. And nearly
all of the bills have been moved through subcommittee or full
committee, and therefore are on cue to come to the full body. This
return to regular order has contributed to thoughtful, collaborative
appropriations bills that reflect the will of the American people and
will help get our Nation's finances in order.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the very distinguished ranking member of the
full Appropriations Committee.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. I rise to state my opposition to H.R. 2584, the FY 2012
Interior and Environment appropriations bill.

[[Page H5438]]

But before I state the reasons for my strong opposition, I want to,
again recognize Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran and their staffs
for all the hard work that was necessary to put together the FY 2012
Interior and Environment appropriations bill. I also want to repeat my
gratitude to the majority for being inclusive when developing this
bill.
That being said, however, the low allocation foisted on the Interior
Subcommittee made it impossible to develop a bill that is responsible
and reasonable, so it is no surprise that the resulting bill will harm
the environment and our ongoing efforts to preserve America's natural
heritage. Two key examples of this potential damage are that the bill
includes the lowest level of spending in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in more than 40 years, and funding levels for EPA not
seen in more than a decade.
Overall, the allocation for the bill is 7 percent below the amount
enacted in the current year, a level that will have a negative impact
on our natural resource agencies and on the Environmental Protection
Agency. After the EPA took a substantial cut of 16 percent in the
current fiscal year, 2011, the Republican majority is now proposing a
further reduction in the agency's budget of 18 percent. You add that
together, it's a 34-percent reduction in just this year.
This bill would substantially diminish the capacity of EPA to carry
out its responsibilities, which may actually be the goal of some of my
colleagues on the other side. But the repercussions will be felt across
the Nation, including an ever-growing backlog of water treatment
infrastructure projects and a decline in air and water quality.
As was pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, the vast
majority of the EPA's funds pass through to States and localities that
are already squeezed by budget cuts.

{time} 1420

These infrastructure projects create jobs in communities all across
the country and provide one of the most basic services taxpayers
expect--clean water. The Bush administration's EPA administrator
estimated that there was a $688 billion nationwide backlog of clean
water infrastructure projects, and that total is even larger today.
That backlog will not disappear if we just ignore it, but as we have
seen in so many cases this year, the majority has decided to push this
problem further down the road.
In addition to the clearly insufficient levels of funding across the
board in this legislation, we were surprised that the majority also
included a wish list of special interest riders to the bill that will
handcuff the EPA and the Department of the Interior. These types of
riders are largely ideological, have no impact on deficit reduction,
and will be rejected by the Senate and the President, hopefully.
It seems that special interest riders have become the new earmarks--
and I support earmarks. This bill was made even worse when the majority
adopted more special interest riders with amendments that were approved
at full committee, and I fear that there will be more policy amendments
offered on the floor as we consider this bill.
One of the riders is language that would effectively block any
funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service for new listings under the
Endangered Species Act. As Mr. Moran said, there are 260 candidate
species waiting to be listed, and they will not receive the protection
of the Endangered Species Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. Here is the situation that the Fish and Wildlife Service
faces in the administration of the ESA. Speaking of that 260, of that
total, there are just under 30 species that are poised for listing in
the near future. The spending provisions in this bill would block
further activity to protect these declining species. And remember, if
you delay listing too long, a species will go extinct, thus making
recovery impossible.
I also will be strongly supporting the amendments that aim to remove
these riders. These amendments include an attempt to protect Grand
Canyon National Park and the folks who depend on the Colorado River for
drinking water from the potential danger from new uranium mines.
Another amendment that I strongly support will increase funding for
sanitation facilities for Native American communities.
In closing, I do want to reiterate my praise expressed at
subcommittee mark for Chairman Simpson, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cole and other
subcommittee members for the funding levels for programs serving
American Indians. It is gratifying that this subcommittee's bipartisan
commitment to tribal programs forged over the last few years has been
continued by the new majority.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for the purpose of colloquy.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, 2 months ago, the Secretary of the
Interior announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remove
gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act list in areas covering the
northern Rocky Mountain States and roughly the easternmost one-third of
the State of Washington, the eastern quarter of the State of Oregon,
and a small piece of Utah. I understand that H.R. 2584 also would
exempt from judicial review any final rule issued by the Secretary that
delists wolves in the State of Wyoming and the western Great Lakes. So
I commend the chairman for your leadership to see that these States are
given a chance to succeed in their management of species.
As with other decisions, the Secretary of the Interior's May
announcement does not resolve the problem for many agricultural areas
in States that don't fit neatly within the Fish and Wildlife Service's
arbitrarily set geographical boundaries, and it reverses a policy that
the Fish and Wildlife Service itself implemented by regulation in 2003
in which wolves were delisted in all of the State of Washington and
other areas with appropriate State recovery measures in place.
Under the current administration's policy, in my own district in
central Washington, wolves will be delisted on the eastern side up to a
highway that cuts through a heavy agriculture area. Wolves on one side
of the highway will be listed, the other side not. The same is true in
Oregon and Utah.
I appreciate the steps the gentleman has included in this bill to
create a more rational approach toward delisting these recovered wolves
by allowing the States to manage the populations using sound wildlife
management principles. I want to confirm my understanding that the bill
and accompanying report language on page 10 is intended to include all
States in their entirety within the northern Rocky Mountain area,
including Washington, Oregon, and Utah.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Yes. Our intent is to make it clear that States with approved
management plans should be given authority to manage delisted wolf
populations in their States. The language in the bill ensures that
delisting decisions are made by scientists on the ground, not judges in
courtrooms.
The report language clarifies that similar bill language should apply
to areas where wolves have expanded beyond their original population
boundaries once State management plans are in place and the Fish and
Wildlife Service determines that the population should be delisted.
That language is intended to address States that currently face mixed
management challenges, like Washington, Oregon, and Utah.
I know your concern about this issue, and Representative Walden from
Oregon has shared with me similar concerns as well.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for that clarification.
As we both know, the problem goes far beyond wolves. The ESA has
nearly 1,400 listed species in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of
dollars being spent by local, State, Federal, and private entities on
ESA activities; yet Federal agencies are being regularly sued for poor
science and poorly drafted regulations, and only 20 species have been
recovered.

[[Page H5439]]

Do you agree with me that the Endangered Species Act is broken and
needs to be modernized and updated?
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Yes, today's ESA is so highly contentious, political, and litigious
that it has become a failure of public policy. Funding authorization
for ESA programs expired nearly two decades ago, but because we have
continued to fund them, ESA reform continues to stay on the back
burner.
This bill calls for a ``timeout'' for unauthorized funding of new
critical habitat or ESA listing decisions in order to encourage
authorizers and stakeholders to come to the table to bring the ESA into
the 21st century, which it is not now.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, a couple of weeks ago
Secretary Salazar acknowledged, ``There are changes and improvements
that can be made to how we deal with endangered species'' and that ``we
need to have an endangered species program that does, in fact, work.''
I couldn't agree more with the Secretary's statement.
The Natural Resources Committee that I chair has jurisdiction over
ESA, as well as NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and we will be
working in coming months to conduct robust oversight and look at much
needed proposals to update this law. I appreciate your leadership and
look forward to working with you on this very important issue.
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
It is important that authorizing committees like yours be able to
modernize landmark laws like the ESA--laws that were widely supported
when they were passed but no longer work as Congress originally
intended. No less than 56 agencies or programs in this bill have
expired authorizations, and stakeholders and interested Members of
Congress should know that these programs are also at risk of defunding
if they are not reauthorized. Our bill, hopefully, will provide
incentive for stakeholders who have been unwilling to participate in
the reform process to finally entertain serious reform of the ESA,
which I am sure your committee will actively pursue.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, that certainly is the
intent that we tend to pursue.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the minority would respectfully request of
the majority that such colloquies, including the one that just
transpired, as well as future ones, be shared with the minority. They
are meant to be a clarification of language and funding in the bill.
And they may very well prompt actions on our part to strike language if
we don't fully understand what the intent was, and that may very well
apply to the delisting of wolves. So we would appreciate, when the
majority engages in colloquies, sharing that language with the
minority.
Would the gentleman like to respond? I yield to the gentleman from
Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have no problem sharing with you the colloquies that we engage in.
Mr. MORAN. Good. So we would like a copy of the colloquy that just
transpired.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano), the ranking member of the Financial Services Appropriations
Committee.

{time} 1430

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
H.R. 2584, the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012.
First, however, I would like to acknowledge both Chairman Simpson and
Congressman Moran, who have worked in a bipartisan and collaborative
way throughout the lengthy hearing and markup process. It has been a
pleasure for me to serve as a member of this subcommittee.
Unfortunately, this subcommittee's insufficient spending allocation
has resulted in deep cuts in funding for important agencies and
programs. In addition, numerous anti-environmental riders have been
attached to this legislation.
Although there are many to choose from, I would like to mention a few
of these cutbacks and what their impact will be on specific agencies
and programs. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which
is crucial in helping to fund land acquisition and in protecting
threatened and endangered species, was funded at $66 million, which is
$834 million below the budget request.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, which play an important role in
making sure that we have strategic and effective wildlife conservation
programs, were funded at $22 million, or $73 million below the request.
The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is funded at $7.1 billion,
which is $1.8 billion below the request. At this funding level, the EPA
will be prevented from accomplishing many of its missions to protect
our environment.
There are so many destructive riders attached to this legislation
that it is difficult to figure out which ones to highlight during my
brief remarks. One that specifically harms my State of New York was
added during full committee markup. This rider prevents the Great Lakes
States from receiving any EPA funding if they have implemented ballast
water rules that have stronger timelines or standards than the Federal
or international requirements that are currently in effect. Because New
York has been at the forefront of efforts to require ships to treat
their ballast water before discharging it into New York's waterways,
our State will be immediately affected. States should have the right to
protect their own waters from dangerous aquatic invasive species.
Another particularly harmful rider would stop the EPA from limiting
greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources for a 1-year period.
Overall, 69 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States
come from stationary sources, such as our electric utilities and
petroleum refineries. This rider, which prevents the EPA from acting,
will have far reaching and devastating consequences on our Nation's air
quality. In particular, my Bronx congressional district, which has one
of the highest asthma rates in the Nation, will continue to suffer from
poor air quality.
Because of the sharp reductions included in this bill to the programs
and agencies that protect our environment, enrich our lives through the
arts, and increase recreational opportunities; and because of the
riders that harm our wildlife, our land, our water, and our air
quality, I will be voting against this bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), a valued member of the subcommittee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal
Year 2012 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill. I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran
for being excellent leaders on the subcommittee. It has been a pleasure
to work with both of them. I especially commend the 22 oversight
hearings that our subcommittee held this year. The subcommittee works
hard, and we have done our due diligence in putting this bill together.
The FY 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill recognizes
the current economic environment and the past 4 years of out-of-control
spending. It is $2.1 billion below last year's level, and $3.8 billion
below the President's 2012 request. It is a focused and lean bill which
supports funding for duties which are clearly the responsibility of the
Federal Government and makes tough decisions about how we allocate
taxpayers' dollars.
The bill fully funds Federal firefighters and Forest Service Wildland
Fire Management. It ensures our national parks, which belong to the
American people, remain fully operational in 2012. And it includes $30
million for diesel emissions reduction grants to retrofit old diesel
engines with cleaner burning ones, a program that has been successfully
implemented across the United States and is contributing to cleaner
air.
The bill also reduces the EPA inflated budget back down to the 2006
level and cuts $46 million in requested funding for burdensome
regulation of greenhouse gases, which means control of carbon dioxide,
a regulation unilaterally adopted by the administration

[[Page H5440]]

that is making the U.S. less competitive in the world and sending
American jobs overseas.
Finally, yes, Mr. Chairman, there are many spending reductions in
this bill, including programs I support. However, we have to start
somewhere to bring economic sanity back to the budgeting process, and
this is one of the first of many steps to come.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support this bill. I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Interior Environment
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have great respect for Chairman Simpson,
Ranking Member Moran, and the staffers on both sides of the aisle.
One important aspect of this bill is Chairman Simpson and
Representative Cole have worked together with Democrats to protect
critical education and health care investments in Indian Country as
part of our trust relationship with the 565 tribes in this country.
Native American children, families and elders will all benefit as a
result of our efforts.
However, on virtually every other aspect of this bill, particularly
on the environment, this appropriations bill is a radical attempt to
take America backwards from 40 years of bipartisan progress in
protecting human health and our environment.
There are nearly 40 special interest policy riders in this bill. It
is outrageous that these riders protect corporate polluters while
attacking clean water, clean air, our public lands, and wildlife
conservation. Representatives Waxman, Markey and Rush, as ranking
members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Natural
Resources Committee have sent letters expressing their grave concern
about these extreme, destructive policy riders that have no business
being on an appropriations spending bill.
This abuse of the legislative process to further Republicans' radical
agenda on behalf of polluters and special interests should not be
tolerated. These policy riders put the public health of Americans at
risk and will imperil America's natural heritage for future
generations. In particular, Republicans have chosen to mount an
unprecedented assault on the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency
created by President Richard Nixon.
Clearly, Republicans have now come full circle and this bill makes
House Republicans the most polluter-friendly Congress in nearly two
generations. In addition to gutting EPA's budget, Republicans have
added 10 policy riders that will make the air we breathe dirtier and
eight policy riders that will make the water we drink more polluted and
toxic. The Republican riders halt the EPA's work under the Clean Air
Act to protect the public health from impacts of carbon dioxide
pollution, mercury emissions, sulfur dioxide, soot and smog. This will
jeopardize the health of millions of children suffering from asthma and
put more Americans at risk for strokes, heart disease, and other
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
In 2010, the EPA found the Clean Air Act saved 160,000 lives
nationwide. That's equivalent to the entire population of Tempe,
Arizona. By 2020, that number is expected to grow to 230,000 lives
saved, leading to $2 trillion in economic benefits.
Republican riders also stop EPA's work under the Clean Water Act to
clean our rivers, streams, lakes, and to protect our drinking water
from the impacts of coal mining, storm water discharge, and toxic
nutrient pollution and pesticides.
Essentially, House Republicans are telling the American people that
protecting public health and the environment from corporate polluters
is no longer important. And despite the Tea Party Republicans' supposed
ban on earmarks, this bill is loaded with earmarks for a few privileged
polluters and special interests.

{time} 1440

Here are just four out of a dozen Republican earmarks contained in
this bill:
An earmark for foreign companies to allow for uranium mining adjacent
to the Grand Canyon, one of America's most treasured places;
An earmark for Shell Oil to ignore environmental regulations to drill
offshore in the Arctic Ocean;
An earmark for a few sheep farmers subsidized by U.S. taxpayers on
U.S. land so they can evade environmental laws that protect bighorn
sheep;
A special earmark for the State of Texas to continue its illegal air
permitting program in violation of the Clean Air Act.
These dirty, toxic, and dangerous earmarks to a few special interests
come at the expense of cleaner water, healthier air, our cherished
national parks, and endangered wildlife. Minnesotans are deeply
troubled by this reckless bill that endangers the health of our
communities while destroying our natural resources that are our
children's inheritance. This is one of the most extreme pieces of anti-
environmental legislation to ever come to the floor of the House. As
far as the American people are concerned, H.R. 2584 should be declared
a toxic Superfund site that is so dangerous to human health and the
environment that it needs to be remediated rather than passed into law.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and its abandonment of 40
years of progress we have made in protecting the American people's
health and the American national heritage.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to an esteemed colleague
and member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I
want to praise the process by which we arrived at this. This is
probably the hardest-working subcommittee on a very hardworking
Appropriations Committee; 22 separate hearings, a very open process. I
think even the minority that disagreed with some of the decisions that
were made would agree that they were made fairly, openly,
transparently, and by votes. And the American people can look at what
we did.
Usually, when you come to this floor, you come to debate and to
disagree. We're certainly going to have a great deal of that over the
course of the next several days as we work through the main legislation
and the many amendments which undoubtedly will be offered. But I want
to focus today on an area of bipartisan agreement, and that's the
decisions that were made regarding funding in Indian Country and Native
American programs.
Mr. Chairman, our chairman generously mentioned, and appropriately
mentioned, the hard work that Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks did in setting
the foundation for the progress that's being built upon this year. What
he was too modest about was his own role, first as a ranking member and
then as the chairman, and also seeing that an appropriate focus was
placed on Indian Country. Frankly, while I disagree with the
administration in many places, I want to thank them as well because in
many cases, they had great suggestions, they certainly put forward
serious proposals, and they've been very easy to work with in Native
American issues. So there's a lot of praise here to go around.
Most importantly, I think from an appropriations standpoint, the
numbers speak for themselves. The Bureau of Indian Affairs funding was
cut, but actually cut less than the President requested. The Indian
Health Service got a 9 percent increase--almost $400 million. You can
run through the program. IHS staffing for new facilities, $63 million.
Fully funded at the President's request. Road maintenance, $25 million.
Funded at the President's request. Indian guaranteed loan program,
something to help tribes as they move into private industries, actually
funded above the President's request. Contract support costs, fully
funded, $228 million. Indian Health Service, fully funded, $574
million.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman.
Contract support, again, fully funded or funded at very near what the
President requested. Most importantly, language put in to make sure
that those contracts are actually fully funded by the BIA, something
that has not always happened in the past. Again, important language on
joint ventures

[[Page H5441]]

whereby we encourage tribes to take some of their revenue, work with
the Federal Government, reinvest in health care facilities, other
needed infrastructure improvements in Indian Country.
I say all this just to point out that while we have serious
disagreements and serious debates, and while we made very hard
decisions, overall funding is, as Chairman Simpson suggested, down 7
percent from last year and certainly well below the request that the
President made. In this area, defending one of the most challenged
populations in the country, Republicans and Democrats alike can be
exceptionally proud of what was done and the priorities when we put,
again, the most challenged people that we deal with on that committee
in the most favored position. That hasn't always happened. I want to
thank my friend Chairman Simpson for making sure it happened and my
friends Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks for doing the same.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the FY 2012 Interior appropriations
bill in its current form. Not only am I deeply troubled by the bill's
lack of infrastructure investment that would create jobs, grow the
economy, and protect public health, but it is unfortunate that the
Appropriations Committee has included several dozen egregious special
interest policy earmarks in the bill that will undermine our Nation's
commitment to clean water, clean air, and the environment, which are
fundamental to local economies like the one I represent.
We've heard from our friends on the Appropriations Committee that we
must make difficult decisions in these trying economic times. I
couldn't agree more. Furthermore, we've heard from the chairman of the
subcommittee that he believes that many of the programs that are cut
are good programs, but that we must be willing to make cuts to reduce
our growing debt.
Consider this: The bill cuts $2.1 billion from 2011 levels for the
Department of the Interior, EPA, and other agencies. However, if we
were to eliminate the Bush tax cuts only for those households earning
more than a million dollars per year, we could save the revenues
necessary to preserve these critical agencies in less than 18 days. The
bill provides $1.4 billion less for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, a fund that is critical to both environmental protection and
economic development. If we were to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, we
could reestablish our commitment to clean water within 12 days,
affecting only those tax cuts from people who make a million dollars a
year or more. That's a reasonable price to pay for the economic
development that would result.
Over the past several months we have heard repeatedly that we must do
all that we can to prevent taxing our Nation's job creators, a
sentiment with which I agree in principle. However, in my district and
districts all across this country, it is the environment that is the
job creator. The economy of my district depends on clean water, clean
air, and safe, swimmable beaches. The cuts in this bill place all of
these in jeopardy. If the Republican priorities in this bill prevail,
we could put an effective tax rate of zero on the small businesses in
my district and it wouldn't help at all because they would have no
income--and no income means no jobs.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed former chairman of the
full committee, the member emeritus of several subcommittees, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to express my deep appreciation to the chairman of the
subcommittee as well as the ranking member, especially for the number
of public hearings they had reviewing all of the programs of this
subcommittee, taking us back to regular order in almost unprecedented
form, making sure the public had a chance to talk to us about their
view as to how these programs were working.
As we meet today, the country is faced with a crisis regarding our
debt. Should we raise the national debt ceiling or not? That debate is
swirling around whether we should reduce spending or we should increase
taxes to fund additional spending desired by the administration and the
former majority. It's very, very important to know that we are at a
crisis point in terms of spending. With that backdrop, we can hear the
same debate taking place in this very committee discussion. People
complaining about not enough money for EPA, for example.
The fact is that most of these programs are over-funded relative to
just a few years ago, and the debate and the concern is an expression
about a desire for more spending or a lack of increased funding above
and beyond the wish list of many around here. The fundamental issue
ought to be discussed in terms of how programs have worked and not
worked.
I've heard many complaints about air quality questions today by the
other side. It was, Mr. Chairman, my privilege to write the toughest
environmental laws in the country relative to improving air quality.
Years ago, as we discussed implementing those policies in my State of
California, the center of the discussion was to make sure we focus upon
the real problems.

{time} 1450

We can solve the problems of stationary sources, we said then, very
quickly, very easily--up to 97 percent-plus of their pollution. The
real problem lies with the automobile, doing something serious about
that. What people do driving their cars is the key to the question.
The EPA has failed us in many, many a way in dealing with these major
challenges, and I would suggest that any number of issues that might be
raised is illustrated by the one endangered species I'd mentioned. That
endangered species is the desert tortoise.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LEWIS of California. We could have solved that problem years ago
by planting endless numbers of eggs in the East Mojave. Instead, the
EPA decided to ignore and the environmentalists decided to ignore that
potential, saying it took too long to plant those and have them grow to
adulthood. The fact is, over the last 15 years, had we done that, we
would not have that endangered species any longer. Recently, we learned
the only healthy population of the desert tortoise was on the National
Training Center Army base where they took care of the animals versus
what we did in the environment. Indeed, the EPA deserves some serious
review as well as reauthorization.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an extraordinary champion of
the environment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I am uncomfortable coming to the floor and having to speak against
this bill. There is nobody in Congress I have more respect and
affection for than the subcommittee chairman; but this bill is an
example of why the Republican budget gimmick last week was a fool's
errand. If ever enacted, the public would be outraged.
These critical programs of EPA are not overfunded. Just talk to
anybody in your home community who is dealing with things like the
revolving fund for sewer and water.
This bill is not balanced. There are opportunities where there could
have been fees and charges from people who profit from the activities
of this bill. But no. Instead, we are shifting costs to the public and
damage to the environment. We are actually giving more money to some of
the special interests that profit from these activities.
We are slashing things that matter to most Americans--the ability of
the EPA to protect our families and their environment and land
acquisition to protect American treasures. It's going to cost hundreds
of thousands of jobs in rural and small town America where people rely
on our open spaces, our public lands, our parks and recreational
activities.
It shortchanges America's future.
The jihad against climate change continues from my friends on the
Republican side of the aisle, and it's ironic. When people can barely
walk outside in Washington, D.C. and when we're dealing with drought,
flood, wildfires, the extreme weather events across the country, the
scientists tell

[[Page H5442]]

us that it's related to human activity, and this budget reduces our
ability to deal with climate change and extreme weather events.
I agree that the subcommittee has a very difficult job, in part,
because of the unrealistic numbers that were given to them; but sadly,
if you look at the bill in its entirety, I must take gentle exception
to Chairman Rogers saying we all support the core mission of EPA.
Sadly, anybody who reads this bill understands that that's not the case
and that it's being brought to us in a way that simply undermines that
core mission that means so much to Americans, to our environment, and
to our future.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 1 minute remaining,
and the gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. SIMPSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the reality is that this is a bad bill.
There may be some good people who have been involved in putting it
together. I like the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, but
the fact is that this would severely restrict our government's ability
to improve the quality of our air and water. It would substantially cut
programs that, I think, many of the American people take for granted.
Our environment will be despoiled by this bill if it becomes enacted,
so I would strongly urge that this body vote against it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. In closing, I thank the Members for the debate that has
gone on with regard to this bill.
I notice that Members on the other side of the aisle continually
refer to some of the policy provisions that are in this bill as policy
rider/special interest legislation. In fact, they were called ``earmark
legislation'' in this bill, but they are special interest.
Let me tell you that the only special interest that I care about
right now are the unemployed people in this country who are looking for
a job. If you talk to any business in this country, the one thing they
will tell you is the uncertainty created by the potential regulation
and proposed regulation by the EPA is stopping them from expanding
their businesses because they have no idea--no idea--what it's going to
cost to hire a new employee.
They are the biggest wet blanket on our economy that we have today,
so we need to do something about it. We need to rein them back in
because they are totally out of control. That's what this bill does.
This is under an open rule. That means Members will have the
opportunity, if they have different ideas and if they can get a
majority of the votes, to remove some of these things. If so, they can
remove them, but I'd suspect more are going to be added rather than
removed as this bill moves through its full consideration.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this Rule and
this incredibly shortsighted legislation before us today. The
underlying bill is a direct attack on the environment and as a result
an assault on public health and our economy.
The programs included in the Interior and Environment Appropriations
bill affect so many aspects of our lives including clean air, clean
water, public health and support for the arts.
Unfortunately, at the funding level provided, the Environmental
Protection Agency will be fundamentally dismantled, making the agency
unable to implement its core mission of protecting the environment and
promoting public health.
The bill also removes funding for programs that help modernize
buildings and other infrastructure and funding for innovative projects
that are helping communities implement smarter water management
solutions that protect clean water and save consumers money.
In my district, the Sacramento and American Rivers provide 85 percent
of drinking water to those that live in the City of Sacramento that is
over 400,000 of my constituents. Mr. Speaker, we rely on federal
support to ensure the water we drink is safe. Without the proper level
of funding I am very worried that we are going down a path of unknown
consequences.
This bill also hurts Sacramento by slashing funds for the EPA's
Office of Smart Growth which has worked closely with the Sacramento
Area Council of Governments to ensure sustainable, positive growth in
our region. In a time when local governments are suffering massive
cuts, the investment in the Office of Smart Growth offers our
communities assistance that will help them grow and revitalize their
local economies.
Mr. Chair, the Sacramento area is on a path to become a national
leader in the green economy, with over 230 companies, and 14,000 jobs.
It is critical that we support policies that foster new innovation, and
job growth in the green economy. Unfortunately, this bill does not do
that!
What's more, this bill would cut the National Endowment of the Arts
and the National Endowment for the Humanities by 13 percent. Both NEA
and NEH grants are essential for our local economies. This funding is
fundamental to supporting a thriving arts scene in my district,
creating jobs and inspiring local students. As a former docent of the
Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento, I can tell you firsthand the effect
that an individual piece of art or a trip to a museum can have on a
child. These are cuts we cannot afford to make.
In previous years, the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill
has provided an opportunity to move our nation forward and make
progress in areas as diverse as climate change to water use efficiency.
But in this Congress, this Majority is forcing us to take a huge step
backwards.
As a whole, this legislation has an unprecedented number of special-
interest policy riders that endanger public health and go beyond the
scope of the legislation.
In an austere budget environment, we can all agree that cuts need to
be made but cuts to public health, cannot and should not be made just
to give subsidies to Big Oil and Wall Street Executives.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the
dangerous and unprecedented ramifications this bill would have on our
constituents. I strongly reject this egregious proposal.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment printed in section 2 of House Resolution 363 is
adopted. During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an
amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2584

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of
the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Amendment Offered by Mr. Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer a manager's amendment, and I ask
unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the amendment en bloc
and at this point in the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Idaho?
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 48, line 3, insert ``all'' before ``funds''.
Page 48, line 5, strike ``exhausted'' and insert
``obligated''.
Page 67, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $6,812,000)''.
Page 81, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
Page 105, line 19, insert ``to the National Endowment for
the Humanities'' after ``available''.
Page 125, lines 14 and 15, strike ``may establish'' and
``programs''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. The manager's amendment before us makes several
technical and conforming changes to the bill. These are all
noncontroversial changes, and they have been shared with the minority.
I believe the minority is supportive of the amendment, and I urge its
adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5443]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CLAY. I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Moran, for your
leadership and for this opportunity to discuss an important and urgent
matter.
As the chairman knows, there are two acts that seek to conserve
marine mammals--the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. I am not here to debate the merits of those acts but to
discuss an inadvertent and unexpected consequence of them.

{time} 1500

There is what seems to be a contradiction when it comes to the
protection of polar bears. Exactly the opposite may be happening.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
I am aware of this issue. This is one of those times when a law whose
intent is to protect may be unintentionally causing harm.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, you are correct. This is an urgent issue, as
we know, of polar bears, specific bears today that are in danger of
being lost and which could be saved by importation into the United
States. While it was the intent of Congress to protect these animals,
the acts were never intended to be bureaucratic obstacles to common
sense and to saving their lives.
Some brief background is in order. Mr. Chairman, section 101 of the
Marine Mammals Protection Act established a moratorium on the
importation of marine mammals. However, section 102 and 104 of the act
allow for the issuance of permits for the importation of marine mammals
under certain circumstances.
Now, the act generally prohibits permits from public display of
marine mammals from a species of stock designated as depleted, which is
defined as one that is listed as an endangered species or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act.
On May 15, 2008, the Secretary of the Interior listed the polar bear
as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act; and since
then, no permits for the importation of polar bears for the health and
welfare of the animals or for the purposes of public display have been
issued by the Secretary. The act does require that conservation plans
for taking animals include proposals to enhance their habitat which, in
this case, is impossible.
One of the main reasons the polar bear was listed as threatened is
the loss of their habitat. It is not possible to comply with this
requirement, and we urge the Secretary to take this into consideration
when making a final determination on these permits.
There is also a requirement that such takings be for scientific
purposes. Mr. Chairman, I think you would agree that establishing
successful captive breeding programs for a threatened species fits into
the Congress's intent for scientific purposes. Declining habitat
conditions for the polar bear and an increasing number of human-bear
interaction have resulted in an increase in the number of polar bears
brought into temporary or permanent captivity in Canada in recent
years, including an increase in the number of non-releasable animals
and orphaned cubs.
Canadian institutions cannot house all of these bears and any animals
not placed in suitable facilities could be used, euthanized or left to
die in the wild.
The Government of Manitoba, Canada, has passed legislation allowing
such bears to be exported from Canada for purposes of captive
maintenance and public display at accredited zoological institutions in
the United States. These are institutions that have undergone a
thorough and rigorous review and inspection process by zoological
professionals to examine all aspects of an institution's operation.

Prior to issuing those permits, the Secretary of the Interior should
determine the institution is accredited by the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums and meets specific public display criteria as determined by
the Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that it is your understanding
that under these acts, the Secretary of the Interior may issue permits
for the importation into the U.S. of live polar bears for the purpose
of public display at appropriate accredited zoological institutions.
Upon a finding that such importation of such will benefit the health
and welfare of the animal or is otherwise consistent with the
conservation of the polar bears, in addition with the other areas, the
Secretary's authority is granted under the Marine Mammals Protection
Act, section 102(b) and 104(c)(4)(A).
Again, I want to thank the chairman for this opportunity.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Clay was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I agree with the gentleman from Missouri, and I want to
be clear. I hope the Secretary of the Interior and the Fish and
Wildlife Service hear us clearly when we say that it is the sense of
the committee that under these acts the Secretary of the Interior may
issue permits for the importation into the United States of live polar
bears for the purposes of public display at appropriate accredited
zoological institutions upon a finding that such importation will
benefit the health and welfare of the animal or is otherwise consistent
with the conservation of the polar bear.
I thank the gentleman for raising the matter and for working with me
on this important issue.
Mr. CLAY. I thank the chairman, as well as Ranking Member Dicks for
requesting additional time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Bureau of Land Management

management of lands and resources

For necessary expenses for protection, use, improvement,
development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification,
acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and
performance of other functions, including maintenance of
facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands
and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, including the general administration of the
Bureau and the assessment of mineral potential of public
lands pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)),
$918,227,000, to remain available until expended; of which
$3,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2012 subject to
a match by at least an equal amount by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation for cost-shared projects supporting
conservation of Bureau lands; and such funds shall be
advanced to the Foundation as a lump sum grant without regard
to when expenses are incurred.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $18,663,000)''.
Page 92, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $18,663,000)''.

Mr. MORAN (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as I noted previously, there are a lot of
winners and losers in H.R. 2584.
Two of the winners are the oil and gas companies and the cattle
grazers who use our publicly owned land. One of the losers is Indians
who need Sanitation Facilities.
My amendment would do two things. First, it decreases funding from
the increase in the bill for the BLM's oil and gas and grazing
management programs. Second, the amendment would restore the Indian
Sanitation Facilities Program by what it was cut below the current
spending level. I find it ironic that the majority refused to allow the
administration to collect an inspection

[[Page H5444]]

fee from the oil and gas industry but had no problem in providing more
taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industry.
The oil and gas industry gets about $4 billion in subsidies per year.
Likewise cattle ranchers get about $400 million in subsidies per year
by paying their ridiculously low fee of $1.35 per month per cow while
States charge so much more. Texas, for example, charges $65 to $150 per
cow per month to graze on State-owned lands, but the Federal Government
charges only $1.35. Well, in this bill, they would see an increase in
taxpayer resources devoted to grazing management from $75 million to
$90 million, a 20 percent increase. Why not ask them to at least pay
the cost of administering their grazing subsidy?
If our national budget is truly about shared sacrifice, how about
starting with the oil and gas companies that have profited so
handsomely from the resources owned by the American public and from
ranchers whose use of the public lands is heavily subsidized by the
American taxpayer.
The second part of my amendment provides an additional $18.6 million
for the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program. It would simply restore
funding to last year's level.
At the end of fiscal year 2010, there were about 230,000 Native
American homes in need of sanitation facilities including 34,000 homes
without running water. According to the Indian Health Service, Native
Americans in these homes are at extremely high risk for
gastrointestinal disease and respiratory disease at rates similar to
Third World countries. Additionally, the Indian Health Service has
noted that many of these homes without services are very remote with
limited access to health care, which increases the importance of
improving environmental conditions in these homes.
The least we can do is to provide the same level of funding that was
provided this current year to the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program,
which is an integral component of the Indian Health Services disease
prevention activities.
I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, again, the chairman suggested that there were no
special interests. Well, this disproves that. There are special
interests. Oil and gas companies already getting subsidies from the
American taxpayer of about $4 billion a year, they get increases in
this bill. We're simply asking them to pay a little more towards the
Federal Government's cost of managing the fees that they should be
paying.

{time} 1510

Just a little bit more, we're asking them to pay. And we're also
asking the ranchers who, again, get special interest subsidies of about
$400 million in this bill, more money for the ranchers, more subsidy,
more subsidy for the oil and gas companies; and yet at the same time,
we cut the money that would provide sanitation facilities for 230,000
Native American homes in need, and 34,000 of those homes are without
even potable water. They are the losers. Oil and gas companies and the
grazers are the winners in this bill. That's why I would urge support
for the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague from Virginia.
Honoring our Nation's obligations to American Indians and Alaskan
Natives is an unshakable bipartisan sentiment shared by Members of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and is an accomplishment in this
bill that I am most proud of. This bill increases funding for Indian
Health Services by $392 million over the current fiscal year while
almost virtually everything else is being cut, a 10 percent increase
that also happens to be one of the rare and, by far, the largest
increases in this bill. This bill includes the same $19 billion cut for
sanitation facilities that was proposed by the President. And I note
that the President's Indian Health Service budget was an additional
$162 million higher than this bill.
The problem is the offset. The BLM's management of land resources
account has already been cut by $43.5 million below the FY 2011 and
$15.5 million below the President's budget request. This account funds
the management of the BLM's more than 245 million surface acres and 700
million subsurface acres. Further cuts to this account are not
appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, am I proud of the increases we were able to provide in
this bill and in previous bills by my predecessors Mr. Moran and Mr.
Dicks? You bet I am. Will I continue to fight for more funding for
Indian country despite the attacks from virtually every other interest
group who isn't happy with their share of the pie? You bet I will. Will
I stand by and let my friend and colleague from Virginia continue to
systematically dismantle the budget of the largest landowner in the
West, the BLM? Absolutely not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. I support my friend from Virginia's (Mr. Moran) amendment
which would increase funding for the Indian Health Service sanitary
facilities construction program. The amendment would provide $18
million for this important health program, which would bring the
funding level back up to the enacted level for this year. The offset
for this increase comes from a couple of programs that help support the
private sector energy and livestock industries.
I think this amendment is a very good deal for the American taxpayer.
And, by the way, if you've ever been out in Indian country, one of the
problems that they have is a lack of sanitary facilities. I can think
of the Skokomish Indians in my district in Mason County, Washington,
where they have a very serious need for new sanitary facilities. And
across Indian country, this is still a major problem. In fact, there
was a group of scientists a few years ago who were asked, What was the
greatest thing that happened in the 20th century to improve health
care? They came up with sewers and sanitary facilities as the thing
that improved health care around the world the most substantially.
The Indian Health Service program to construct sanitary facilities
that would benefit from this amendment improves the lives of some of
our poorest fellow citizens. The Indian Health Service program provides
funding for people who often lack basic sanitary facilities, such as
the delivery of potable water to their homes. For me, the choice is
simple. I urge my colleagues to choose to help provide basic sanitation
to Native Americans by making small cuts to programs that assist the
energy and livestock industries. This is a good amendment and should be
adopted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to also support the Moran
amendment for providing more access to clean drinking water.
And to Chairman Simpson's point, we did do a good job working
together to significantly improve the quality of life in Indian
country, and we did that working together. But one area in which some
of us felt we could have done a little better is in the area of Indian
sanitation. We're seeking to put the funding level back to where this
Chamber had it in FY 2011, not a cut. And the way that we're asking to
do that--and I will speak to the issue of grazing because I offered the
amendment in the full Appropriations Committee--is to ask cattle
ranchers to pay a fair fee to graze their cattle. A fee of $1.35, as
Mr. Moran pointed out, is less than what most States are charging for
the use of their public lands. And it is significantly less, as I found
in some information gathering that I did, than the private sector
charges for the use of their lands.
When we have our lands at $1.35, not only is it not of benefit to the
taxpayers, but it leads to overgrazing of our lands, which does nothing
to help improve the quality of public lands for

[[Page H5445]]

future generations of cattle ranchers. Fifteen million dollars to
grazers in this bill, $4 million to oil and gas. And the numbers again:
230,000 Native American homes without sanitation facilities; 34,000
homes without clean, safe drinking water.
No infant and no child in this country or in Indian country should be
at risk of gastrointestinal disease rates that are found in Third World
countries. Let us provide the same level of funding that we had in the
FY 2011 bill for Indian sanitation. Let us support clean drinking water
for our children.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $70,000,000)''.
Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,880,000)''..
Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $85,000,000)''.
Page 9, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $11,804,000)''..
Page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,047,000)''..
Page 10, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000)''..
Page 10, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $120,000)''..
Page 14, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
Page 15, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $32,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $47,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $150,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $900,000,000)''.
Page 66, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $771,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $344,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $427,000,000)''.
Page 76, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $78,000,000)''.
Page 78, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $12,500,000)''.
Page 88, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $432,000,000)''.
Page 96, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
Page 103, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
Page 105, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $135,000,000)''.
Page 105, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $135,000,000)''.
Page 105, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
Page 105, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 105, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,231,000)''.

Mr. HUELSKAMP (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Kansas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Today I rise on behalf of the Republican Study
Committee to offer an amendment to bring the Interior appropriations
bill in line with the RSC budget.
Mr. Chairman, credit rating agencies around the country are
threatening to downgrade our debt, and not because we won't pass a debt
ceiling increase but more so because we have not passed a credible plan
to pay that debt back. Every child born in America today owes the
Federal Government over $46,000, and that bill rises every day.
The times we are in demand that we look at the effectiveness of every
Federal dollar we spend, and that is why I offer this amendment today.
This amendment makes cuts across the bill, but the biggest cuts come
from the EPA. In my opinion, no agency in our Federal Government has
done more to negatively impact our economy than the EPA.
In my district in western Kansas, EPA foot-dragging and redtape is
delaying the construction of a new power plant. The construction of the
plant would create 1,900 construction jobs and 261 permanent jobs, yet
they cannot even break ground. Region VII is asking for changes.
Environmental groups continue to file lawsuits based on EPA rules,
exacting a death-by-litigation strategy against the rural electric
cooperative members seeking to build this plant.

{time} 1520

According to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 351 proposed
solar, wind, wave, biofuel, coal, gas, nuclear and energy transmission
projects have been delayed or canceled due to significant impediments,
such as regulatory barriers, including inefficient review processes and
the attendant lawsuits and threats of legal action.
The study found that these projects would produce 1.9 million new
jobs during construction and almost 800,000 jobs on an ongoing basis.
These jobs are simply in limbo when our economy sorely needs them. In
fact, not a week seems to go by without the EPA issuing a new rule or
regulation that increases costs to businesses and consumers.
BoilerMACT, water cooling intakes for power plants, interstate air
quality, dust and other particulate matter, ozone, and the list goes on
and on.
These actions not only drive up costs but they create higher degrees
of uncertainty in our fragile economy. And when the EPA isn't hampering
our economy at home, they are sending our tax dollars abroad. Nearly
$1.3 million was sent to China in grants over the past 2 years. Yes,
that's right, these grants were sent to the China Coal Institute, the
China University of Petroleum, the China Urban Construction Design and
Research Academy, and the China Association of Rural Energy Industry. I
guess the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt we owe them is not
enough.
The EPA has long given up sound scientific methods to ensure a clean
environment for a left-wing agenda that heaps billions in costs on our
economy in exchange for nearly immeasurable incremental changes in our
water and air quality.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment also zeroes out funding for the NEA and
the NEH. Federal spending on the arts and humanities has long been
controversial, not only for the nature of some of the grants but also
for the fact that I believe the Federal Government should not play such
a role in our society and certainly should not at a time when we are
facing an impending debt crisis. If we cannot make relatively easy
decisions to eliminate this funding, how can the American people expect
us to make the harder decisions necessary to balance our Federal
budget?
Mr. Chairman, the amendment also ends funding for National Heritage
Area grants. This provision was included as a result of the YouCut
program where the American people could vote on a government program to
cut, and this is the one they selected. Federal funding for heritage
areas was supposed to be seed capital to get them up and running for
the States, localities, and private sector who requested them. Many of
the grants have exceeded their original 10-year limitation. Even the
President recommended a 50 percent cut in his budget for them, which
was included in the bill; but in this time of much needed Federal
spending restraint, it is time to cut them altogether.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pass this amendment and
help put us on a track to balance our budget in the next decade.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts every environmental,
conservation, and cultural program across the bill, totaling $3 billion
in cuts, and then puts those funds in the spending reduction account.
The funding in the bill is already grossly inadequate, and this
amendment would cut the bill by more than

[[Page H5446]]

10 percent. The amendment zeroes out U.S. Fish and Wildlife
construction by cutting $12 million. It zeroes out U.S. Fish and
Wildlife land acquisition by cutting $15 million. It zeroes out Forest
Service land acquisition. It zeroes out the National Endowment for the
Arts. It zeroes out the National Endowment for the Humanities. It cuts
State and local water infrastructure by $770 million, 30 percent, even
though the infrastructure needs across this country, as Mr. Dicks has
stated, is $688 billion.
This amendment goes on to cut the National Park Service, the Office
of the Secretary, Wildland Fire Management, EPA Science and Technology,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr. Chairman, we should all oppose these draconian cuts. They don't
make sense. I don't think the gentleman proposing them necessarily
knows what the full impact would be. I suspect, though, that if his
constituents, let alone the American people, knew what was being
attempted, they would agree with me that this amendment should be
soundly defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to join with my good friend from Virginia in speaking against
this amendment, although I do appreciate my friend from Kansas in
offering it, because this is precisely what would be required if the
budget gimmick that was offered by the Republicans last week to
restrict funding to 1966 levels, a budget level that was never met by
Ronald Reagan, who never proposed a budget that was less than 21
percent, but this is exactly what would be required. It's why the House
is going to demonstrate the schizophrenia on the part of my friends on
the other side of the aisle, because this amendment is going to be
rejected, I predict. It will be rejected, even though that is what they
would wish on the American public.
Zeroing out the resources for the National Humanities, for the NEA,
things that, when push comes to shove, the American public embraces,
supports, have dramatic economic impact at home, that leverage private
dollars, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. I appreciate it being
offered. I wish that people would look at it closely because this is
what is being proposed by our Republican friends in their effort going
forward.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I will yield back, but I do hope people
pay close attention to what is embodied here, because this is a taste
of what people have in store for the American public.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
and while I appreciate my good friend from Kansas's passion for cutting
spending, the reality is that this is exactly what we're doing. This
bill comes in under the allocation. We passed the budget earlier this
year on the floor--we're the only body to have passed a budget,
actually. The Senate has not passed one yet. We were given an
allocation, and this bill comes in under that allocation.
We all know that we cannot balance this budget simply by cutting, but
we also know that reducing Federal spending is a necessary priority and
a first step toward getting us toward a balanced budget.
I think that this amendment goes too far. It would take $3 billion
from the numerous accounts in this bill, including the BLM, Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service, NEA and NEH, as was mentioned,
and transfer it to the budget reduction account.
While I appreciate the gentleman's concern that he expressed about
the impact that the EPA is having in this country on job creation, and
I have said repeatedly that when I go out and give a speech somewhere
to a chamber of commerce or Lions Club or whatever, I'll talk about the
Interior bill and the agencies that we fund, and when I get to the EPA,
someone in the audience will say, Just defund it, get rid of it, and
it's the first applause line in the speech. That's the reputation the
EPA has out in the public, and that's the concern that the public has
about the direction that the EPA is headed.
So I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the EPA; but as I try
to explain to people, you can't just do away with the EPA because if
you're out there and you have a business and the underlying law
requires you to get an air quality permit or a water permit or
something like that and you call the EPA to get your air quality permit
and no one's there to answer the phone, to help you with that, then
you've got a problem. We don't want to eliminate the EPA. What we want
to do is rein the EPA back in, because I think they've got an overly
aggressive agenda; and, as I have said, I think they're the biggest wet
blanket on the growth in our economy that there is.
I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would hope that my
colleagues would oppose the amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I move to strike the last word to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, what the American people want from their
leaders in Washington can be summed up in a single word: jobs, J-O-B-S.
The Republicans have now controlled the House for more than 200 days,
and they haven't lifted a finger to address the single overriding
priority of the people we work for, that is, jobs.

{time} 1530

It's a gross failure of leadership.
Instead, what's on their agenda this week? Only the biggest assault
on environmental protections in several decades.
I have yet, Mr. Chairman, to see a poll where Americans are clamoring
for the Congress to undermine pollution controls, damage public health,
and unravel a 40-year bipartisan conservation consensus. I can't think
of a single environmental program or initiative that is spared under
the base legislation, and this amendment makes it even worse.
The base bill would mean more toxic mercury, arsenic and soot
pollution released in our air. It leaves the area surrounding the Grand
Canyon, the Grand Canyon, an iconic national park, open to toxic
uranium mining.
It cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 78 percent. It tears
the heart out of the Clean Water Act, and it guts the Endangered
Species Act. And it removes those pesky regulatory obstacles that keep
pesticides out of our waterways.
The Republicans want to block EPA's efforts to protect communities
from stormwater runoff and to issue new energy-efficiency standards for
new vehicles after 2016. Everything we've put in place that makes sense
is what they want to get rid of.
And on and on and on and on it goes, Mr. Chairman, one extreme policy
rider after another. None of this will do anything to save taxpayers
money. It is an absolute frontal assault on the water we drink, the air
we breathe, the public lands we cherish.
This is a big special interest giveaway, and that is simple. It's a
classic example of legislating to benefit friends and benefactors, Big
Oil and other corporate polluters at the expense of national interests.
The Nation's natural resources are not ours to exploit at our will.
They are on loan to us. We must be the responsible stewards.
It will be a moral failure if we don't pass an improved environmental
bill, and if we don't pass an environment on to the next generation,
one that is in even better condition than the one we have today.
But that's what this disgraceful legislation would do. It breaks a
covenant that the American people take very seriously, a covenant they
actually take for granted. It's Republican extremism run amok on
steroids, voraciously rampaging out of control.
The base bill, H.R. 2584, must be stopped. This amendment cannot see
the light of day. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend Chairman Simpson for opposing this

[[Page H5447]]

amendment. This is an amendment that goes way too far. This bill is
$3.8 billion, almost $4 billion below what the President requested.
It's $2 billion below the FY11 level, which we just passed a few months
ago, and it would have a devastating effect on our environment.
When I hear people talk about growing the economy by cutting the
budget, I wonder what school of economics they attended. In fact, there
was an outstanding article just a few weeks ago in The New York Times
that really laid out the basic problem we have in this economy, and
that is that consumer spending has dropped by 7 percent. Normally, in
previous recessions, it only went down 3 percent.
So then when you cut State and local government funding, when you cut
Federal funding, you make a bad situation worse in terms of
consumption. And that is why the economy has slowed down, and that's
why it's not going to go up as a result of these kinds of reckless cuts
being offered by the other side.
Let me give you one example. The former EPA administrator, Christine
Todd Whitman, from New Jersey, did a study of what the backlog on
wastewater treatment facilities was. And it was $688 billion, and this
was in 2002. It's definitely gone up.
And yet we're slashing, and would slash again, the amount of money
for the Clean Water Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water
Revolving Fund and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Those are
exactly the programs that we should be plussing up in order to get
people back to work. It's infrastructure. That's one thing we used to
be able to agree on, both Democrats and Republicans in this House, that
we need infrastructure work. This will put people to work.
How are you going to get the deficit down? Not by slashing government
spending. You're going to get it by putting people back to work. When
you put them back to work, they start paying taxes, they start buying
goods, and that will drive down the deficit. It will drive down
unemployment.
This reckless amendment from the gentleman from Kansas, again, would
make this bad situation even worse in terms of job creation. So I am
pleased that the majority is resisting this ill-thought-out amendment,
and I urge its defeat.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, in the committee report for this bill, the
appropriations committee included some language expressing concerns in
regard to the Environmental Protection Agency's Urban Waters Initiative
and provides no funding in the bill for this program for fiscal year
2012.
I understand the committee's reluctance to extend funding for new
broad, cross-cutting initiatives, given our economic situation.
However, I feel this initiative has immense value to millions of people
who live in urban centers and who rely on the government to ensure that
they have clean water to drink and use in their daily lives. This
amendment would restore partial funding for the Urban Waters Initiative
for fiscal year 2012. This amendment does not increase the spending by
one single penny.
Cities share one key characteristic: they're full of people,
buildings, and businesses. Because everyone shares the same relative
space, air and water environmental impacts are concentrated in smaller
areas, including waterways. Urban waters take on large amounts of
pollution from a variety of sources, including industrial discharges,
mobile sources, such as cars and trucks, residential/commercial
wastewater, trash and polluted stormwater runoff from urban landscapes.
As urban populations often share centralized water sources, this
pollution creates public and environmental health hazards like lowered
drinking water quality and water bodies that aren't safe for human
swimming.
The EPA launched the Urban Waters Program to address water quality
challenges in the urban watersheds and build capacity of disadvantaged
communities through projects that revitalize these watersheds. If
maintained properly, urban waters can also yield positive impacts for
populations in both urban and upstream communities. Revitalization of
waterways can spur employment and the growth of local businesses and
promote improvements in housing, safety, and quality of life in these
areas.

{time} 1540

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reichert). The gentleman will suspend.

Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective
John M. Gibson

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the Chair's announcement of earlier
today, the House will now observe a moment of silence in memory of
Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.
Will all present please rise for a moment of silence.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri may proceed.
Mr. CLEAVER. Communities across the country are coming together,
working with the EPA, State and local agencies, and taking steps to
access, restore, and benefit from their urban waters and the
surrounding lands. My Missouri 5 District, a large section of which is
Kansas City, is one such community. The EPA regional staff are working
with Kansas City and local citizen groups to monitor water supply and
plan and conduct improvements to the Blue River watershed and Brush
Creek.
Covering 270 square miles, the Blue River compromises the largest
watershed in the greater Kansas City metropolitan area. Its drainage is
divided between the States of Kansas and Missouri and flows through
three counties, 12 cities, and 10 school districts. Brush Creek is the
most visible tributary to the Blue River and runs completely through an
area that we are trying to rebuild called the Green Impact Zone. The
EPA is monitoring water quality along the watershed and assisting in
local efforts to conduct large-scale watershed planning for Brush Creek
and the Blue River.
Whether as a part of a cleanup leading to waterfront development or
putting monitoring in place to ensure safe drinking water with the
EPA's help, community groups across the country have taken the
initiative, engaging volunteers, community organizations, and local and
State government to make their waters safe for many uses.
This amendment provides $3 million for urban waters within the EPA's
Environmental Programs and Management account, though it is by no means
the maximum amount of funds that this program could utilize. It will
ensure that this vital, community-driven initiative can continue, and I
ask for the approval of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The amendment would take $3 million from the BLM Management of Lands
and Resources and transfer it to the EPA's Urban Waters Initiative. The
BLM Management of Lands and Resources account has already been cut by
$43.5 million below the FY11 and $15.5 million below the President's
budget request. This account funds the management of the BLM's more
than 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres.
Further cuts to this account would not be appropriate.
We eliminated funding for the EPA's new Urban Waters Initiative
because it

[[Page H5448]]

was duplicative funding. Regardless of whether a water body is in an
urban or a rural area, EPA and States should be addressing the most
impaired waters first, and there are a number of well-established
programs that handle that. There is no need for a separate, duplicative
initiative in order to protect our urban waters; it only results in
duplicative spending.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the distinguished gentleman from
Missouri. Mr. Cleaver's amendment would add a modest $3 million to the
Environmental Protection Agency for the Urban Waters Initiative, which
the subcommittee refused to fund.
EPA and the Department of the Interior announced the first pilot
demonstrations of this program last month. They included Baltimore's
Patapsco watershed, the Anacostia watershed in the District of Columbia
and Maryland, the Bronx and Harlem River watersheds in New York, the
South Platte River in Denver, the Los Angeles River watershed, the Lake
Pontchartrain area in New Orleans, and the northwest Indiana area, all
areas in drastic need of attention.
The subcommittee report chides EPA for reprioritizing funds to begin
the program in fiscal year 2011 without the express approval of the
committee. But my friends on the other side should know that when you
fund the government under a continuing resolution, the agency has more
flexibility. If we don't want EPA or any other agency to decide how to
prioritize funding, then we should pass real bills. And, frankly, they
did exactly the right thing in moving forward with this Urban Waters
Initiative--that's where the need is.
Furthermore, denying funds to urban watersheds--where a majority of
our population lives--because of a dislike for all things EPA does is
simply unfair to these urban communities.
On a bipartisan basis, we have worked together to provide needed
funding for rural water programs. We agree that should be a priority,
but we should also show the same level of commitment for the Urban
Waters Initiative.
This program will also capitalize on work being done through EPA's
broader geographic programs, such as Chesapeake Bay and Lake
Pontchartrain. These are two very critical water bodies that are
endangered. I don't think I need to get into the extent of the
endangerment for Chesapeake Bay and certainly not Lake Pontchartrain.
Imagine, just think back to what happened in New Orleans just a few
years ago. This offset is from the management account of the Bureau of
Land Management, which is adequately funded in the bill.
So I really do support this amendment, and I would urge all of my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington
State.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's
remarks. I support this amendment.
I can think back to when I was going to the University of Washington,
when Lake Washington, which is between Seattle and Bellevue, was
completely polluted and you couldn't swim in it. The people there
bonded themselves and completely restored the lake. Today, that is some
of the most valuable property in the entire Pacific Northwest.
So these urban water initiatives are critically important for the
environment and for the health of the people of those areas.
I think this is a modest amendment, and I urge our colleagues to
accept it.
Mr. MORAN. I very much thank the distinguished ranking member of the
full Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
will be postponed.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, it is true that no bill is perfect, but
this bill is truly atrocious. I have come here as cochair of the
Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition to talk about how this
bill represents a wholesale failure to really recognize our stewardship
responsibilities of the greatness of this country. And it is a great
country. I fly across it every Monday and Friday, and the words of the
song that God's grace was shed on thee in this country are really true.
But this bill shows nothing but disdain for the precious assets of
clean air, clean water, and good open ground that we have in this
country.
I'm sad to say that when you look out across America today you will
see Republicans and Democrats out recreating--they understand what a
beautiful playground we have in our national lands and clean water--but
right now all this bill is is a playground for the special interests.
And it's sad to say that a party that we have worked with historically
has now turned its back on its stewardship responsibility. Teddy
Roosevelt, who started this effort, would be rolling over in his grave
to see this wholesale abandonment of this stewardship responsibility of
this great country.
Republicans and Democrats alike want more clean air; this bill gives
them less. They want more clean water; this bill gives them less. They
want more open good ground; this bill gives them less. And the reason
is is that it's based on a huge, mistaken belief that dirty air is good
for our economy, that dirty water is good for our economy, and that
despoiled land is good for our economy. These are falsehoods.
You want to talk about job creation, I'd like to talk about some jobs
we would like to create and keep that are damaged by this bill. Right
now in Puget Sound out in Washington State, we have historically grown
some of the best oysters in the world in Hood Canal and other places.
And now, because of water pollution, the oyster industry that employs
thousands of people in my State is endangered by water pollution.

{time} 1550

Now, one would think, when we're trying to protect jobs in every
industry, including the oyster industry, we might be interested in
preventing pollution that destroys a whole industry. But no, that's not
what this bill does. This bill weakens our ability to protect against
dirty water and storm water pollution that is endangering jobs in my
State and other places in this Nation. Now, if you go to talk to people
in this industry, they'll say their jobs are important. But according
to this bill, they are not. What's important are the special interests
and the ability to degrade our environmental protection.
Take a look at the alternative fuels industry that is now growing
across this country and its ability to create millions of new jobs. A
few weeks ago, I was at a company called Targeted Growth. Targeted
Growth had an idea a few years ago of creating biofuels that we could
fly airplanes with. Five years ago, people thought this was a pipe
dream. But because of their intellectual prowess, just a few weeks ago,
using Targeted Growth biofuels, we flew the first transoceanic flight
using biofuels from camelina that can be grown in my State and refined
in my State, the first time in American history. That's something to be
proud of.
Now, one would think in a bill like this, we would help new job-
creating industries like that get started. But no. What this bill does
is degrade the clean energy parts of our law that would give
inspiration and additional innovation and investment in these clean
energy industries.
This bill is an anti-job creation bill because it makes the
assumption that dirty air and sick people are good for

[[Page H5449]]

economic growth, and that is not a recipe for economic growth in this
country.
Now I'll just talk about one thing. There has been an 80 percent
reduction in our Land and Conservation Water Fund, which is very
disturbing, and it should be to Democrats and Republicans alike. This
is one thing I hope we can fix in this bill, and it is not something
that is so urban or rural. I think about this little city park in Mossy
Rock, Washington. A police officer said, Why do I get all of these kids
hanging around the bars? Let's get them in something. Let's get them
off the streets. Using some of these funds, we now have a city park
being built in Mossy Rock, Washington. Is that such a dangerous thing
for our economy?
I hope the Bass amendment is successful later on so we can at least
fix one thing in this bill. Otherwise, reject this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I take modest exception to the comments
of my good friend from the State of Washington because, having read
``Wilderness Warrior'' about Teddy Roosevelt, there is no doubt that
T.R. is spinning in his grave.
This Interior Environment appropriations bill represents an
abdication of responsibility on the part of the Federal Government. Not
only does the bill cut funding for clean air, clean water, and
protection of public lands, it is polluted with anti-environmental
riders. These riders have nothing to do with reducing the deficit and
everything to do with undermining the role of the Federal Government in
protecting our Nation's environment and public health.
This is a partisan attack on 40 years of progress to protect our
health and environment. It places profit-seeking interests of large
polluters over the health of the American public, privatizing the
benefits while forcing the children and elderly to bear increased
health care costs.
Most of all, this bill is a waste of time. In the midst of a looming
debt crisis, we are engaged in a rhetorical debate about legislation
that moves us backward and will never become law, either defeated in
the Senate or vetoed by the President.
Republicans are risking the stability of our economy for the
opportunity to demonstrate once again they are more concerned in
protecting industry profits than the American people.
In the midst of a heat wave in Washington, D.C., and around the
country, the bill pretends that climate change isn't happening, and
even prevents the EPA from following the law and a Supreme Court
decision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It threatens 2 million
jobs and over $363 billion of the Nation's economy that depends on the
support of the programs of the Department of the Interior.
There are devastating cuts to clean water and the State revolving
funds. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, as is referenced, an 80
percent cut, the most dramatic reduction in 45 years. It cuts EPA's
operating budget, oversight budget for offshore drilling, and will
leave communities around the country struggling to provide services to
their citizens and even comply with Federal laws.
In Oregon, the cuts to public lands funding will mean missed
opportunities to protect special places like the Columbia River Gorge.
It will also cripple local economies. Studies have shown that for
every billion dollars invested in water infrastructure, between 20,000
and 26,000 jobs are created. It cuts almost a billion dollars from the
State revolving fund that helps States finance federally mandated
upgrades in repairs to water and sewer systems. It will put additional
pressure on already tight local budgets, as well as potentially
increasing water and sewer rates. And in communities like mine, we've
seen them skyrocket in recent years.
The bill rolls back lifesaving and cost-saving measures under the
Clean Air Act and other environmental laws which were enacted to
protect the health and environment of the American people. It should be
no surprise that it is cheaper and easier to prevent toxics like
mercury and arsenic from going into our air and water in the first
place than trying to remove them later. The EPA studies show that the
benefits far outweigh the costs.
There is no doubt why a number of public health organizations,
including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health
Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all written to
Congress opposing these clean air policy riders.
The policy riders in the spending bill can only be described as
fulfilling a special interest wish list. From blocking clean air
regulations and oversight of mining to preventing Federal action to
clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and to a new moratorium
on listings in the Endangered Species Act, the bill countless times
ignores the needs of our communities and instead implements what
polluting industries have been asking for. Why are we talking about
allowing new mining around the Grand Canyon?
Finally, most paradoxically, this bill restricts the funding for the
EPA Office of Sustainable Communities. This is an office that provides
technical assistance and guidance to local communities that wish to
plan for increased economic growth and development, and account for the
changes in their community and demographic impacts. This office has
been in existence for over 15 years. It is an extraordinarily useful
tool to help communities understand how to put the pieces together, how
to coax out more value. The demand is so high for their services, they
can only help 9 percent of the applicants. Now would not be the time,
it would seem, to make it harder for communities who wants to encourage
economic development and growth in a thoughtful and sustainable
fashion.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. We can and must do
better for our communities.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose
of a colloquy.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, during our full committee markup on the
Interior bill, Congressman LaTourette offered an amendment to prevent
the Great Lakes States from receiving any EPA funding if they have
implemented ballast water rules that have stronger timelines or
standards than the Federal or international requirements that are
currently in effect.
At the time, Mr. Chairman, I asked that we look more thoughtfully at
the potential impact this amendment might have.
Since that markup, I have heard concerns from numerous groups and the
State of New York. In addition, it is my understanding that both EPA
and the Coast Guard are working towards finalizing national standards.
Would you be willing as we move toward conference with the Senate to
work with the New York Members, Congressman LaTourette, and other Great
Lakes Members to help us find a workable solution to this problem of
invasive species and ballast water discharges?
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his question.
The gentleman from New York has spoken to me about these concerns,
and I am aware that this is a serious issue that will have an immediate
impact on the State of New York and other Great Lakes States. Before
conference, I will work with you, Congressman LaTourette, and other
Great Lakes Members to try to resolve these concerns.
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for his assistance.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) for the reasoned and balanced approach he has taken to this.
Rather than filing a knee-jerk reaction either in committee or now on
the floor, he has recommitted to working together to solve this
problem.

{time} 1600

It's a problem that needs to be solved. And I just want the record to
be clear: In 2008, the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation--not the State legislature, not the State--enacted ballast
water exchange

[[Page H5450]]

regulations that would have gone into effect, had they pushed the
issue, that are 100 times more stringent than the international
standard and would have gone to 1,000 times more stringent a year after
that. Only two States, New York and Minnesota, had something in their
regulations called ``innocent passage,'' and that is it applies to all
ships that pass through New York's water, whether they take on ballast
water or discharge ballast water or whatever.
I take a backseat to no one in this Congress on the issue of invasive
species in the Great Lakes. My first piece of legislation I wrote was
with Senator John Glenn, the Invasive Species legislation, in 1996. But
this particular provision by the New York Port Authority would cripple
and perhaps eliminate commerce on the Great Lakes.
So this deserves thoughtful consideration. It deserves our study. And
I would again commit to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to
work with you and the chairman to find a way that solves this horrible
problem of invasive species in ballast water or anything else but
doesn't stop interstate commerce on the Great Lakes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in strong
opposition to this bill. I hope the press and the American people are
paying attention to what's going on on the House floor. I know the news
is all about raising the debt ceiling and all the cuts or revenues that
might be involved before we can get legislation to do something that
has been routinely done--almost automatically done--every year or two
for decades.
What is happening on the House floor deserves the attention of the
American people. This is the most antienvironmental House of
Representatives in history. The new Republican majority seems intent on
restoring the robber-baron era where there were no controls on
pollution from power plants, oil refineries, and factories.
This year, we've witnessed weather disaster after weather disaster.
There have been massive floods, record-breaking fires, record-breaking
droughts, and now record-breaking heat waves. Yet earlier this year,
the House passed a bill that repealed EPA's scientific finding that
climate change is occurring, is caused by man, and is a serious threat.
We don't hear about the connection between these weather events and
climate change and carbon emissions. We're not hearing about it when we
watch the daily news shows and we're not hearing about it from this
administration.
I just sent, recently, a letter to Secretary Chu, the Secretary of
Energy, a Nobel Prize winner, asking him to speak out. We need to
educate the American people so we can educate our colleagues here in
the House of Representatives.
In this bill, the Republican majority wants to block EPA from issuing
regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants and oil
refineries that are causing this catastrophic climate change. The
majority also wants to block regulations to cut carbon pollution from
motor vehicles, even though these regulations help break our dangerous
dependence on oil, save American families money, and clean the air we
breathe.
This House can deny science, we can amend our Nation's laws, but we
cannot rewrite the laws of nature. The longer we ignore the scientific
reality that our actions are destabilizing the environment,
destabilizing our climate, the more costly and disruptive our response
will need to be--and the more we endanger our children's future.
When we were debating carbon regulations earlier this year, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle claimed that they supported
reductions in what they call ``real'' air pollution, whatever that
means. But it turns out they're gutting those protections as well. This
legislation includes provisions that will block landmark rules to
protect the health of our children by cutting air pollution and
reducing toxic mercury pollution.

The bill blocks the Cross-State Air Pollution rule--an important rule
that is designed to prevent dirty power plants in one State from
contributing to air quality problems in other downwind States. EPA
estimates that this rule will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths and
nearly 2 million sick days a year beginning in 2014.
The bill indefinitely delays mercury and air toxics standards from
power plants. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that damages brain
development in infants and children, impairing their ability to think
and learn. EPA's mercury rule will clean up this pollution and prevent
17,000 premature deaths each year.
Republicans like to argue that environmental regulations must be
justified by a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Well, these regulations
have been thoroughly analyzed and their benefits are 10 times greater
than their cost, yet they want to stop those regulations from going
into place.
These essential health protections are not being targeted because
they are too costly. They are being targeted because they are opposed
by powerful special interests like oil companies and electric
utilities. We need to stop putting the special interests ahead of the
public interest.
This bill poses a choice: Are we for protecting pregnant women,
infants, and children from toxic pollution or are we for protecting the
profits of special interests? A strong and vital EPA is in our national
interest and the public interest. If we disarm EPA--as this bill would
do--there is no one to stand up to the polluters and protect American
families.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. I rise today in strong opposition to the 2012 Interior
appropriations bill, the most anti-environment bill I've seen on the
House floor since I was elected to Congress.
If this bill passes, our air will be more polluted, our water will be
dirtier, and we will know that much of what we love will disappear.
This bill rolls back the clock to a time when big companies could
poison our streams and rivers with impunity, when power plants could
freely contaminate the air we breathe, and when our national treasures
were destroyed by corporations, all for a bigger profit.
First, the bill slashes funding to the EPA by $1.8 billion, stealing
funding that keeps our drinking water and wastewater systems clean.
Then it guts the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This program has
done more than any other to expand local parks, recreational green
spaces, and public lands enjoyed by hundreds of millions of Americans.
This bill cuts this program by 80 percent, to its lowest level in
history, nearly eliminating efforts to ensure that our treasured places
are protected for families to enjoy for generations to come.
Then it abolishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Climate Service, which is crucial to understanding how the changes in
our national climate affect our farms, coastal communities, and
businesses.
Finally, it proposes crippling cuts to the development of renewable
energy sources and energy efficiency, only making our Nation more
dependent on importing oil and gas from foreign countries. But what's
worst of all is that these cuts severely jeopardize the 12.5 million
jobs that could be created as a result of American clean energy
innovation and undermine growth in our Nation's clean tech industries.
Even though some are calling this a cost-cutting bill, it's really a
bill to pad the pockets of big corporations and the worst polluters.
Unbelievably, it gives away $55 million in subsidies to oil and gas
companies and blocks the necessary increase in fees to inspect oil and
gas stations from disasters like the BP gulf spill. That's not all.
The bill includes 39 different environmental policy bans that open up
our natural resources to greedy polluters and keep our environmental
agencies from doing their jobs to protect us from contamination. It
allows more soot pollution in our air by blocking critical public
health standards that ensure our air is very healthy for Americans to
breathe.
It blocks the EPA from implementing greenhouse gas pollution

[[Page H5451]]

standards for new cars in 5 years, jeopardizing 7,000 new jobs and the
estimated 2.4 million barrels of oil a day saved in just two decades.
It prohibits my home State of California from moving ahead with its own
clean air standard. It exempts oil companies from complying with Clean
Air Act standards for offshore drilling--again, protecting the special
interests of Big Oil.

{time} 1610

It puts the drinking water of 117 million Americans at risk by
blocking EPA from keeping our water clean--half of America's streams
and some 20 million acres of wetlands. It allows the unregulated
discharge of pesticides directly into our rivers and lakes.
This bill is a direct attack, a declaration of war, on our air,
water, wildlife, and wildlands. It is clear that this bill isn't about
cutting spending. It is about cutting years off our children's lives by
increasing their exposure to contaminants in the air and water. The
Republicans are putting polluters ahead of the health and safety of the
American people, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, when some of us go home and we speak to
different groups about how Congress conducts its business, one of the
parts of those conversations that may be hard to understand is that we
have personal relationships and that we have people on both sides of
the aisle who we respect and we like. So especially during these times
it becomes difficult for some of us when, for instance, a person like
myself looks at a Chairman Rogers or a Chairman Wolf or a Chairman
Simpson, and we know that these are good people who are totally
confused as to what it is we're supposed to be doing.
You say to a Republican these days, Good morning; and he or she
answers, Cut the budget.
The sky is blue.
Cut the budget.
We all understand the need to get certain amounts of spending under
control, but the problem is that some folks--and this bill shows that--
continue to totally misunderstand that, yes, we may have economic
issues that we have to deal with--that's a given--but we are also
still--and are perhaps forever--the greatest country on Earth.
How did we get there?
We didn't get there because we decided every couple of years to
simply cut the budget. We got there because we invested money; because
we created, yes, rules; because we created, yes, laws that protected
our way of life and the way that we wanted our future generations to be
treated.
What you see across the board now is this belief that if you get the
budget down to a certain number--and I say this profoundly
sarcastically, perhaps, that some people would like to get it to zero,
and I don't know what happens constitutionally after that if the budget
is at zero--then the country will do better and everything will be
well. Couple that with the fact that, while some folks on that side
are, in fact, strong believers that you must cut spending, others have
taken the opportunity to roll back language, to roll back regulations
that have made the environment safer, that have made our lives better,
that have made us safer as Americans.
The public is being told it's about cutting the budget. The public is
being told it's about not having a national debt. The public is being
told it's about the future of our country in terms of what we owe. Yes,
that is a legitimate concern; but what the country is not being told is
that, for instance, in this bill, through riders, we are going back,
perhaps not even to the sixties, but to the fifties or even the forties
on environmental issues and on other issues.
So what we need to do is to continue to be a voice on this side, as
well as the folks on that side who believe as I do, that this is a
wrong route to take and that we have to continue to stand up and say,
We all understand the need to address the issues we have to, but we
can't throw away everything that we've had; we can't throw away
everything that we've built, and we can't simply not invest in the
future.
I sit on other committees, committees that have traditionally given
us an opportunity to invest. Somewhere right now in this country, there
is a person, male or female, sitting with a white robe, in a
laboratory, who is coming up with the next medicine, the next Velcro,
if you will--the next invention that will make us a better Nation and a
better society, that will help us and help the world.
If you look at those budgets--and they'll be coming to a floor near
you pretty soon--those budgets are devastated when it comes to
investing money in research. So, while it's good to tell the public to
cut the budget, we need to be honest and say, In the process, we may
set you back 30 or 40 years.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. This bill, H.R. 2584, is a terrible bill. It is a
terrible bill for our country, and it represents an assault on our
environment.
Actually, I was looking through the various assessments about this
bill, this Interior and Environment appropriations legislation for
2012, from different advocacy groups out there that are concerned about
the environment, that are concerned about clean air and clean water.
That's the word they kept using, ``assault.'' This is an assault on
clean water. It's an assault on clean air. It's an assault on
conservation. It continues the assault that was begun at the beginning
of this year with H.R. 1--to completely dismantle our environmental
protections.
I confess to you, I just don't understand the motivations of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Do we not breathe the same
air? Do we not drink the same water? Do we not traverse the same
beautiful terrain across this country? I can't imagine. I can't fathom
what the motivation is to engage in this wholesale attack on our
environment.
Let's look at that attack.
They are proposing to cut the EPA's budget. This is the agency that
is charged with protecting our environment. They are proposing to cut
that budget by 18 percent below 2011 levels and by 40 percent below
2010 levels.
I come from the Chesapeake Bay. I grew up fishing for crabs in the
Nanticoke River on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. My grandmother lived
in Salisbury. That's where we used to go during the summers. This would
be devastating for the Chesapeake Bay. It cuts funding to the
Chesapeake Bay Program, which is designed to put the Bay on a pollution
diet so we can clean up the Chesapeake Bay. This would undermine that.
It puts all these policy riders on it. It's loaded up with policy
riders. It would prevent the regulation of coal ash as a hazardous
waste. We have that issue in my district, regulating coal ash. I want
the Environmental Protection Agency to be able to do that work, but
this bill would undermine it. So it is an assault on clean water, and
that affects the Chesapeake Bay.
Let's look at what else it does.
It's an assault on clean air. This bill, with all of these policy
riders, would block standards to cut air pollution from cement kilns,
delaying standards for power plants by 6 months, standards that would
do--what?--reduce mercury, arsenic and lead in the air. Don't we want
to do that? So why would we undermine that effort?
It would exempt oil companies. Now, this is no surprise. That has
become a common practice. How many exemptions can we give to the oil
and gas industry? Here is another one. It would exempt oil companies
from complying with the Clean Air Act in offshore drilling operations.
It's an assault on clear air. Do you know what? A study was done by the
EPA that said the air quality improvements under the Clean Air Act, if
maintained for the period from 1990 to 2020, will result in $2 trillion
in savings for this country and will prevent 230,000 deaths. So why
would you want to undermine the protections with respect to our clean
air?

{time} 1620

It's an assault on environmental education, taking funding away from
the

[[Page H5452]]

National Park Service in terms of needed construction that has to be
done. It's an assault on our National Wildlife Refuges. The reduction
in funding for our National Wildlife Refuges would result in 140 of
them being closed. That's 25 percent of them across the country. It's
an assault on conservation, reducing the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to a 45-year low of $66 million. That's an 80 percent cut from
2011 levels.
But here is the great shame of it.
The great shame of it is the American people are ready to step up and
be stewards of the environment. They want to do that. They want to take
ownership in their own backyards, but they can't do it if the Federal
Government isn't there as a partner, so I urge the defeat of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOYER. The American public was concerned mainly about two things
in this last election:
A, jobs--trying to get opportunities for themselves and their
children and young people to earn a living. They were also concerned,
correctly, about the debt and deficit that confronts this country.
Those were the two items that they were very focused on and concerned
about, and I think almost everyone on this floor shares their concerns.
I got no message from any voter that I ought to come to Congress and
undermine the air, water, land that they survive on, recreate on and
rely on for the quality of their lives. Not one constituent, whether
they voted for me or against me, said, ``Undermine the protections of
our land and water and air.'' Not one. However, that is what we're
dealing with today--not jobs, not deficit--but undermining the
integrity of our air, our water and our land.
I rise, therefore, Mr. Chairman, in strong opposition to this bill,
which puts some of our Nation's most precious natural resources at
severe risk. This bill slashes funding for the Environmental Protection
Agency by nearly 20 percent, after a year in which its funding already
declined by 16 percent. The result of these cuts will be an agency
unequipped.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to address you, but if I didn't under
the rules have to address you, I would address all of America about
their concerns about this undermining of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Americans want the environment protected. They don't want that
effort undermined.
It will mean higher risks of dirtier air, unsafe water and carbon
pollution in our atmosphere. No American said that that's what they
wanted when they talked to me.
This bill also includes a rider that would defund the listing of
endangered species and habitats--a true failure of environmental
stewardship.
Perhaps worst of all, this bill comes with 39 separate anti-
environment riders that cater to some of our Nation's most powerful
special interests.
Now maybe I missed it. Maybe there's an American somewhere who said,
``Look, protect the special interests and undermine our environment,''
but I just missed talking to them maybe. Maybe that was it.
These riders would endanger and exploit our public resources,
including such treasures as the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River,
the quality of our Nation's air and water for the private gain of just
a few.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which reinvests money we can
gain from offshore oil and gas drilling into protecting our public
lands--now, we have just seen a dramatic assault on our lands on the
gulf coast--it's cut 78 percent from the current year's funding in this
bill.
Communities waiting for funding for new sewer and drinking water
systems will find a 40 percent cut from current levels. No American
asked me for that.
In 1995, the very first vote the new Republican majority cast was on
a bill like this one, one that attempted to slash the EPA and an active
wish list of special interest priorities. The year is different but the
policy is the same. But there was one major difference. That failed
bill had just 17 environmental riders--less than half of this one. This
one has 39. These provisions do nothing to control spending. They are
end-runs simply around laws to protect our environment.
Now, as then, the wish list deserves to be voted down. Sherry
Boehlert, who was a member of the Natural Resources Committee, stood on
this floor when that 1995 bill was offered. A Republican leader in the
House of Representatives said: Do not do this to our land, our air, and
our water.
Let me close by quoting the wise words of the ranking member of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, my colleague and friend
Congressman Jim Moran: ``There are those who want to make this
controversy between humans and the environment, but that is a false
assertion.''
I urge you to read the balance of Mr. Moran's quote in opposing this
bad bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. H.R. 2584 is, without question and without precedent,
the most regressive, destructive, and shameless attack on our
environmental protections, this country's public health, and
conservation in over four decades.
This is accomplished through the backdoor changes, 40 idealogically
driven policy riders in the legislation, and it's easily the biggest
payout to polluters and special interests who helped craft these riders
and who are now adding those to our laws. And it's also accomplished on
the riders, riders on an appropriations bill that legislates.
It's also accomplished through defunding agencies, such as the EPA,
so that their oversight is weakened and their enforcement becomes
nonexistent.
Giveaway public lands. These mechanisms are used in this legislation
to not only undermine but to dismantle protections that have been part
of the legacy of this Nation for years upon years and decade upon
decade. Matters of life and death to the American people, clean air and
clean water, are left without funding to protect American families.
And the legislation before us does not create jobs. If the reason of
the deficit--the reason that this is being done, as we hear from the
other side, is for deficit reduction, that sounds hollow and contrived
when one measures the cost of public health and cleanup that awaits the
taxpayer in the very near future. It sounds hollow when the taxpayer
sees the tax breaks, the public resource giveaways, and unregulated
privileges to industry and big business. It seems hollow when the
average American taxpayer suffers both the financial and human costs of
this legislation.
Let me use one example of a rider introduced by my colleague from
Arizona, a son of Arizona, to the Grand Canyon. This would effectively
defund any opportunity to study, to analyze the consequences of uranium
mining on 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon.

{time} 1630

If anything else were to be an important point for this Congress, it
is the icon of all our national parks, the Grand Canyon. And the
uranium mining in that area has caused damage to people and the
environment for years upon years. And now with this rider, we are
perpetuating the same climate, the same strategy that has caused the
problems in the area. We are jeopardizing the water, the Colorado
River, and water users in Nevada, California, and Arizona. And they use
an expert; they tout an expert, as of today and recently, a person who
rationalized that there will be no real damage to the Grand Canyon.
Isn't it ironic and somewhat interesting to note that this expert is
sitting on 30 or more mining claims in the withdrawal area around the
Grand Canyon and would stand to do very, very well financially upon the
sale and resale of these claims? This is the expert.
This legislation, H.R. 2584, is a feeding frenzy for polluters, Big
Oil, and speculators who make their huge profits by cutting corners,
ignoring regulations, and skirting the responsibilities that we all
have to follow the law. Now

[[Page H5453]]

their mission has an eager partner--the majority of the House of
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
legislation and to protect the health of the American people and the
health of our legacy as a Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, as we sit and endure this mini-
filibuster about how horrible Republicans are when it comes to this
bill and the environment, I want to give a perspective about how some
of these riders actually got in the bill.
I and a number of my colleagues have spent a lot of time talking with
this EPA, this EPA administrator, and it's like talking to this
lectern. Nothing gets through. And I want to bring to your attention
one particular matter that I put in this bill that's a rider, and it
has to do with the U.S. EPA draft notice 2010-X, and that was a notice
that went out to the manufacturers of lawn fertilizers.
Now, everybody in the Chamber would agree that the people who
manufacture lawn fertilizer, what they put in the bag should be safe;
it should not harm the environment; and it should actually what do it's
supposed to do, and that's grow grass or do something else. However,
the EPA, because they had precious little to do, decided that they
weren't content with regulating what was in the bag. They want to
regulate what's on the bag, and not the list of ingredients but what
the product is called.
So draft regulation 2010-X says that these companies need to
reevaluate the trademark names--some of them that have been in effect
since the 1960s--and remove those that the EPA determines are
misleading to the public. Now I sat down with Ms. Jackson, the
administrator of the EPA, and went over this. She sort of smiled and
said, You know what, this really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I
brought it up in subcommittee last year and withdrew it at the request
of the then-majority who said they'd work on it. Well, it's still here.
And here is a list of the words that they determined you can't use if
you are in a lawn fertilizer business: ``Germ shield,'' ``100 percent
protection,'' ``professional grade,'' ``pro,'' ``safe,'' ``safer,''
``safest,'' ``natural,'' ``environmentally safe,'' and ``green.''
Now, hold on a minute. There's a company in Ohio. It's not in my
district--full disclaimer--but it's called Scotts, and they make a
product called Turf Builder. They also make a product called Turf
Builder Pro. This draft notification tells them they can't call it
``Pro'' anymore because it's misleading to the public, even though the
word ``Pro'' was installed to create a brand that small hardware stores
could sell so you didn't have to go to the big-boxes, the Wal-Marts,
the Kmarts, and those other companies. So it's a niche brand for
smaller retailers. But you can't call it that anymore.

You can't claim that a bag of lawn fertilizer does anything green,
unless that ``green'' applies to livability and sustainability. Now,
Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up, green was a color. This folder was
green. Not anymore. If I can't demonstrate this folder has something to
do with livability and sustainability, I am misleading the people that
are watching this program.
There's another company in Ohio that's over in Toledo--Ms. Kaptur's
district--they have a product called Anderson's Golf Pro. And the EPA
has indicated that they are not allowed to call it ``Golf Pro'' anymore
because you don't have to use the seed or the weed and seed on a golf
course. You could use it, Mr. Chairman, on your front lawn. So they
have to call it ``Anderson's Pro.'' Well, wait a minute--they can't
call it ``Pro'' anymore either because that's misleading. So they can
call it ``Anderson's'' and hope you can figure out what you are
supposed to do with it.
I told my friends at Scotts, You have really barely scratched the
surface on this thing because the product that Scotts manufactures that
I like so much is Miracle-Gro. Now can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, how
is the EPA going to be able to certify when I put that Miracle-Gro on
my tomato plant that a miracle has occurred? You are going to put a
tremendous burden on the Vatican. All these little old ladies are going
to be at the airport, flying over to Rome to talk to the College of
Cardinals and say, Did a miracle occur? That's why some of these riders
are in here. You have to be able to talk to people. And if they won't
talk to you, you have to take action, as is contemplated by the
Constitution as a coequal branch in the government. We have done that.
And I'm sorry that it offends some of our colleagues.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, when Americans think of America, they think
of our great resources. Now for Big Oil, that probably means the oil
that's found on public lands and off our shores, where they can get it
for a song and charge a fortune.
But for most Americans, it's the spacious skies and purple mountain
majesties. This bill, this legislation that we're considering here now
has no appreciation for America's priceless resources. According to the
League of Conservation Voters, though, going farther than just
beautiful vistas or purple mountain majesties, ``This bill is the
biggest assault on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the
wildlife and wild places we hold dear to ever come before Congress.''
Continuing, the Clean Water Network or the American Lung Association or
the American Public Health Association or Physicians for Social
Responsibility, they all go on to point out that the budget cuts or
policy riders in this legislation undermine the laws that protect
public health and reduce health care costs for all by preventing
adverse health outcomes, including cancer, asthma attacks, strokes, and
emergency department visits. It is not just for the beauty of this
country, although that might be reason enough to try to preserve all of
these things; it is for the health of America's people.
This legislation would put children's health at risk at the same time
that it would be exempting oil companies from complying with clean air
standards. We cannot tolerate this. Unregulated discharge of pesticides
into our waterways, withholding funding for wild lands, allowing
uranium mining all around the Grand Canyon. Mr. Chairman, this is an
unprecedented attack, and not just on those things I've mentioned, not
just on lifesaving public health protections and essential pollution
control; it's an attack on science as well.
This bill includes reductions in funding for the U.S. Geological
Survey, research in climate and land use, scientific research,
monitoring, modeling, forecasting. Let me give an example: The LandSat
7 satellite just in the past month has been used to track the largest
fire in Arizona's history. Yet because of the cuts that would come to
pass through this legislation, the data coming from the LandSat system
would go unrecorded, unanalyzed, unused. Talk about false economy.
And it's an unprecedented attack on our public lands. The largest cut
in the Land and Water Conservation Fund that most of the Members of
this House have seen in their service. And I must say, that's
particularly important to a State like mine, New Jersey. My
constituents reside in the most densely populated State in the Union,
and yet they've demonstrated again and again with their votes their
support for open space preservation, for fighting sprawl, for providing
their kids, our kids, with safe places to experience the outdoors.

{time} 1640

Mr. Chairman, there is a long list of reasons, and you'll be hearing
still more about why this is terrible legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
underlying bill, H.R. 2584, and am disappointed that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are using this appropriations process to
put at risk the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our
public lands, and our public health.
For example, this bill would dismantle the Clean Water Act, which

[[Page H5454]]

would not only undermine our constituents' access to clean and healthy
waterways but also would mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.
My district, the Fifth District of Massachusetts, is home to dozens
of remarkable rivers and streams which are a key part of the history,
culture, economy, and natural beauty of the Fifth District. Most of our
rivers have excellent water quality; and it is common on warm days to
see people swimming, fishing, and paddling. But our rivers were not
always so hospitable. There was a time when the Merrimack River, one of
the largest watersheds in New England and the river that flows through
my hometown of Lowell, was a depository for waste and pollution. For
150 years, the Merrimack River was one of the 10 most polluted rivers
in the country. It was the Clean Water Act enforcement of the early
1970s that changed the future of our rivers. Because of the act, and
the enforcement authority it afforded the EPA, a cleanup plan was put
in place and polluters and violators were held responsible. Slowly, the
Merrimack and surrounding rivers were monitored and improved to meet
the clean water standards we take for granted today. This is just one
unfortunate example, but replicated all across our country, to our
great good fortune and that of our children and grandchildren.
While some States may adequately protect their waters on their own,
not all do. That is why Congress has given the EPA the authority to
protect our waterways under the Clean Water Act. We must continue to
strengthen safeguards for rivers and streams to ensure that all across
the country Americans enjoy the benefit of clean, safe water.
I urge my colleagues to reject the shortsighted proposal to undercut
the Clean Water Act and help protect America's clean water legacy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to a reckless
and unconscionable Interior appropriations bill put forward by the
House Republican majority. Once again, they have put a radical, out-of-
touch agenda and the desires of Big Oil and big polluters before the
interests of the American people, the need to create jobs, and the
health of our environment. This appropriations bill is more than just a
danger to the health and safety of American families. It represents the
worst assault on clean air and clean water in our Nation's history.
This legislation slashes funding for the Environmental Protection
Agency by 18 percent. The majority has shown time and time again that
it opposes any environmental regulation that might hurt the bottom line
of polluters. But it doesn't stop there.
This legislation also slashes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
which helps States finance wastewater system improvements by providing
55 percent of the resources, meaning that America's waterways will be
put at risk of sewage and urban runoff pollution, and good middle class
jobs will be lost. And it cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
which protects national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges from
development, by 78 percent. In addition, this partisan legislation
includes at least 38 policy riders that, for purely ideological
reasons, would harm American families and the environment.
The bill would prohibit the EPA from implementing rules to protect
communities from power plant pollution. It blocks the EPA from
restoring Clean Water Act protections to more than half of our Nation's
streams and 20 million acres of wetlands, meaning the drinking water of
117 million Americans is put at risk. It blocks the EPA from moving
forward on fuel efficiency standards that will reduce foreign oil
imports and cut pollution. It blocks the EPA from regulating carbon
pollution at power plants, refineries, and industrial sites. It even
stops indefinitely long overdue standards to control air pollution from
toxic mercury, endangering pregnant women, infants and children.
This legislation would open up more of our coastline to offshore
drilling and 1 million acres of land around the Grand Canyon, a
national treasure, to toxic uranium mining.
Mr. Chairman, there was a time when the Republican Party was known as
defenders of the environment. It was a Republican President, Teddy
Roosevelt, who inaugurated the National Forest Service and who worked
to conserve 230 million acres of American land, including the Grand
Canyon, which is now put at risk. He called the canyon, and I quote, a
natural wonder, which is in kind absolutely unparalleled throughout the
rest of the world. ``Leave it as it is,'' he said. ``You cannot improve
on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.''
It was a Republican President, Richard Nixon, who signed significant
expansions of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and who brought life
to the Environmental Protection Agency. Twenty years later, another
Republican President, George Bush, Sr., expanded the Clean Air Act even
further to protect Americans' health.
Yet today, a Republican majority brings us an Interior appropriations
bill which undoes all of this good work, which endangers American
families and threatens to do permanent and irrevocable damage to the
environment.
I urge my colleagues in the majority, return to your roots to once
again put the American people before the interests of polluters, and to
oppose this disastrous legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.
Instead of working on a bipartisan solution to address the looming
default crisis or to create American jobs, today House Republicans have
brought to the floor H.R. 2584, unprecedented legislation that would
gut pollution controls and public health protections in order to give
bigger profits to Big Oil and other special interest polluters.
By attaching more than three dozen policy riders to this bill, the
House GOP is attempting to use a spending bill to make backdoor changes
to 40 years of Federal laws that protect clean air, water, lands, and
wildlife. The legislation would also cripple the budgets of key Federal
agencies charged with protecting American citizens and our natural
resources.
This is a new low for the 112th Congress, which has already seen the
new House GOP majority attempt to gut the Clean Air Act, overturn the
Clean Water Act, repeal cost-saving energy efficiency standards, and
pull the plug on American jobs in clean energy innovation and
manufacturing. This legislation would overturn 40 years of bipartisan
progress protecting the American people and the environment.
One area I choose to focus on is the continued attacks on the Clean
Air Act, which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and improved
the health of Americans in every State. It protects the air we breathe
and the water we drink. It protects our children from developing asthma
and our seniors from developing emphysema. According to the American
Lung Association, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act saved over 160,000
lives. Since 1990, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act prevented an
estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory
illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000
cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths.

It is clear that the Republican majority is doing all it can to stop
EPA from carrying out its mission of protecting public health and
protecting the environment. Many will claim that the EPA is moving at a
faster pace than any other administration in history. However, the EPA
has proposed fewer Clean Air Act rules under President Obama over the
past 24 months than in the first 2 years of either President Bush or
President Clinton.
That is why in December of 2010, 280 groups, including the American
Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public
Health Association and others sent a letter urging the Congress to
``reject any measure that would block or delay the United States
Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all
Americans from life-threatening air pollution.''

[[Page H5455]]

{time} 1650

This bill, an appropriation bill, is not the place to legislate these
types of changes. These should be policy changes, not made during this
process.
The Clean Air Act is promoting innovation and breaking Americans' oil
dependence, but Republicans would give big polluters a loophole to roll
back our clean energy progress and continue our addiction to foreign
oil. The Clean Air Act is good for the economy. Many studies have shown
that the Clean Air Act's economic benefits far exceed any costs
associated with the law by as much as 40-1 ratio.
As President Obama so eloquently spoke of during his State of the
Union address, we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our
global competitors and win the future. Rolling back a law that protects
the air our children breathe to allow oil companies, companies that are
already reaping record profits the ability to spew chemicals, smog,
soot and pollution into the air just to please a lobbyist or a big oil
corporation is irresponsible and, yes, extreme.
The Clean Air Act has been on the books for decades with positive
results for our economy, our environment, and our businesses. Rolling
back these protections will hurt our most vulnerable. We simply cannot
afford to go backward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the Interior and Environment
appropriations bill before us today represents an all-out assault on
clean air, clean water, and land conservation efforts in our country.
To be clear, passage of this measure is an absolute abandonment of this
body's responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the United
States.
This bill seriously undermines the significant advances that we've
made as a country as responsible stewards of our land and natural
resources, our wildlife, our air, and our water. And perhaps most
important, this legislation is a threat to the health and well-being of
all Americans.
Some have argued that the riders attached to this bill are sensible
and an attempt to rein in what they call the excesses of the
Environmental Protection Agency and job-killing regulations. This is an
absurd claim. This legislation is nothing more than a complete caving
in to special interests and Big Oil and some of our Nation's worst
polluters.
For the people I represent in the First Congressional District of
Rhode Island, the stunning reductions to the EPA and the related policy
riders that strike against the gains we've made to clean air and clean
water are a threat to public health and the environment.
Let me give you one example, Mr. Chairman: According to reports from
Rhode Island Clean Water Action, Rhode Island has the third highest
rate of childhood asthma in the Northeast and the fifth highest
nationally. The State spends $316 million providing health care for
problems attributed to particulate matter every year.
What's more, 27,000 Rhode Island children currently suffer from
asthma. The average length of a hospitalization stay for children with
asthma in Rhode Island is 2 days, with an average cost of $7,840.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to realize that the
drastic reductions and the anti-environment riders in this bill
threaten not only our air and water quality, but they will have real
and economic consequences on real people, on real families, increasing
health care costs, generating additional lost days of work and
productivity, and inciting detrimental long-term health and
developmental consequences for our children.
In addition, this bill slashes vital infrastructure funding that's
not only essential to protecting our environment and public health, but
also creates jobs and supports State and local economic development
opportunities.

This bill sets the Clean Water State Revolving Fund at 55 percent, or
$833 million below the FY 2011 level. The bill sets the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund 14 percent below the fiscal year 2011 level, and
that's a cut of $134 million.
I'd like to read an excerpt from the 2010 annual report of the Rhode
Island Clean Water Finance Agency, the entity charged with
administering Federal and State programs relating to municipal
wastewater and drinking water financial assistance: ``A revolving fund
allows the perpetual availability of funds to assist local governmental
units in meeting water quality goals by providing loans and other forms
of financial assistance. Our primary goals are to provide low-cost
means to reduce pollution caused by wastewater, help provide safe
drinking water, and to provide low interest loans to cities and towns
to help citizens repair failed, failing or substandard septic
systems.''
Undeniably, at this moment we're working to rein in our public debt,
we have to be smart about the investments we make. Just consider the
mission of this State agency whose efforts are supported through the
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to provide low-
cost means to reduce pollution caused by wastewater and to provide safe
drinking water. These are fundamental objectives to safeguard the
health and well-being of Rhode Islanders and of men, women and children
all across this country.
And what's the response by our friends on the other side of the aisle
in this Congress? To cut these vitally important infrastructure
programs by more than $1 billion. If this Congress wants to be serious
about reining in spending, we can no longer try to fool ourselves with
the misguided belief that critical infrastructure projects, especially
those supported through State revolving funds that protect our health
and environment, are going to miraculously become less expensive with
time.
Reducing Federal funds that help support these kinds of projects to
improve our water and wastewater systems will only incite deferred
maintenance. Deferred maintenance only makes future projects more
expensive and, in many instances, will increase the likelihood of
infrastructure failures that threaten public health and the environment
and impede economic growth. These will undoubtedly cost us more in the
long run.
Some have called this bill the worst assault on clean air and clean
water in history. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this assault
on the health, welfare, and economic vitality of our States, our
cities, and our towns. Let us not be known as the Congress who betrayed
our solemn responsibility to be good stewards of the earth.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Having set sail in search of new shores for
pirating and profiteering, it's quite apparent that the GOP is lost at
sea under the helm of a confused, misguided leadership. Under the guise
of austerity and deficit reduction, they have plotted our Nation on a
fateful course that will only result in the surging of torrents of
sewage, untreated chemicals and other hazardous materials into our
rivers, streams and creeks, along with factories, plants and refineries
belching smoke, smog and mercury into our blue skies. Sick children and
the aged who suffer from asthma, respiratory illnesses, they'll get
sicker and sicker, while oil and gas companies and mining companies get
fatter and fatter.
Mr. Chair, as I see it, this bill is nothing more than an attempt to
remove 40 years of Federal laws that protect our air, water, land, and
wildlife. Only in a Republican-controlled House would we increase
access to oil and gas leases, while reducing our ability to ensure
drilling operations are environmentally safe.
Only in a Republican-controlled House would we reduce the ability of
States to safely manage their sewage and wastewater run off.
And, Mr. Chair, only in a Republican-controlled Congress would we
allow more uranium mining near the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Chair, these efforts are opposed by the majority of Americans who
believe in oversight of drilling operations, protection from tainted
drinking water, and those who believe that the Grand Canyon, with all
of its majestic beauty, should be a natural national treasure for the
enjoyment of

[[Page H5456]]

families and tourists, not a wasteland laid bare by mining companies
whose insatiable appetite for profit is equaled only by the magnitude
of the damage they would inflict upon our environment.

{time} 1700

These aren't the rants and raves of liberal environmentalists hell-
bent on protecting nature at all costs. These are the sentiments of
red-blooded Americans who believe that our natural resources, like the
Grand Canyon, improve our quality of life.
The American people don't want progress if progress means that our
skies get darker, our water gets murkier, and they don't want our
wildlife to go extinct, but clearly that will be the effect of this
bill should this ill-gotten measure pass.
Mr. Chairman, day after day, week after week, and month after month
House Republicans hand out life preservers to special interests while
kicking the American people overboard like the bundled tea kicked
overboard by the real tea partiers at the start of the American
Revolution. Sure our children have asthma, but big business gets to
pump more pollution into our air. Sure our water is tainted, but
special interests get to dump runoff in our streams. Yes, our
endangered species are slowly fading away, but now we can drill in
their habitats. What happens, Mr. Chairman, when our air becomes too
dirty to breathe, when our water becomes too dirty to drink, and when
our wildlife all go extinct?
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. But before I close, I would like
to remind my colleagues across the aisle that the captain always goes
down with the ship. And that's the real deal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Colleagues, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I
just wanted to start by acknowledging the loss of our valiant Capitol
Police, Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson, who
were honored today. I just wanted to acknowledge the men and women of
the United States Capitol Police for their service, and my sympathy
again to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.
I also wanted to make note of my worshipping with the Norwegian
Seamen's Church yesterday in Houston and let the Norwegian people and
the people of Norway, of course, know that America stands with them
during this very difficult time.
I thought it was appropriate to acknowledge those tragedies because
it is a time when we have had to come together. And I also believe that
as we look at where we are today, this should be an opportunity for us
to be able to come together. So I'm disappointed in this legislation
because it really does not seem to call us to do that.
I want to remind America and my colleagues that we are 50 States, but
there are times when we act on behalf of our States and districts and
there are times when it is important to exist as a single nation.
One single State did not defend the Nation after the attacks on Pearl
Harbor; we came together. One State on its own or one region did not
end segregation and establish civil rights; we did it together.
There are times when the stakes are so high that we simply must
unite. And so I raise the question of: Where are we with this bill that
seems to attack both clean air and clean water by repealing
requirements that prevent pesticides sprayed from chemical companies
from entering rivers and streams?
I come from the energy sector, and I believe that the energy sector
creates jobs. I also believe that we can be a good neighbor, strong in
our domestic development and production, but also concerned about clean
air, clean water and the environment.
When you listen to those who have worked in this area for so long,
you hear opposition from the Wilderness Society that says this Interior
bill is an extreme assault on America's bedrock--environmental
protection; the Clean Water Network that says these severe spending and
budgetary cuts in this bill include not only cuts but a series of
policy riders, really having no place in the appropriations process;
and the American Lung Association, the American Public Health
Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, these budget cuts
and/or policy riders would impact EPA's ability to do their job.
I don't know if our Members realize that in 2011 we cut 16 percent
from the EPA; now we want to cut 18 percent, over $1.5 billion. That
cripples the very agency that protects our water and our air, protects
our children and our elderly.
What is the response to our responsibility to be the custodians of
this wonderful Nation? What a beautiful country we have. And then to
hear that another one-third is being cut from the National Landscape
and Conservation System that does monuments and trails and our wild
rivers. How many families pack up in times that are hard and take those
family members on a road trip to travel the beauty of this Nation--the
tall mountains, the deep valleys, and the wonderful rivers?
Well, let me tell you what this legislation will do. It will be a
bill with a litany of additional cuts, important for programs that cut
climate change prevention programs, the Fish and Wildlife, and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is a program that, in essence, assaults
what we're trying to do here in America.
How many friends know that we have been able to prevent 230,000
deaths each year by regulating toxins in the air? We've already heard
my colleagues come to the floor of the House and talk about the rising
increase in many cities of asthma.
So let me make it very clear: We want to create jobs. I have joined
together where we can deregulate and de-entangle the regulations that
would keep us from creating jobs. But I also believe that when it comes
to protecting the Nation's assets, we join together as Republicans and
Democrats.
I remind you that none of this creates jobs. I remind you that we
have already engaged in these cuts. Isn't it interesting that in
regular order we are now doing, even though there is disagreement, what
our friends on the other side of the aisle said they can't do? That's
why they're not raising the debt ceiling. But I will tell you that
these draconian cuts, along with the draconian debate on the debt
ceiling, is what is going to undermine America.
Let's stand as Americans unified to fix this crisis.
First, I would like to thank my friends in the Congressional
Progressive Caucus who are here today to stand up for the environment,
and the health of our constituents. I am saddened that so many of my
Republican friends are willing to sacrifice the quality of the very air
we breathe, and water that we drink.
This harmful legislation cuts the budget of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by 18 percent, in addition to a 16 percent cut
in funding for FY 2011. This is unacceptable; in order to protect the
environment without harming industry, we must reach a compromise
instead of haphazardly slashing the EPA budget.
The cuts to the EPA budget included in the bill reduce funding for
the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, grants for
state implementation of environmental programs, and restorative funding
for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound.
The Administration estimates that cuts to the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund will cut off funding for nearly 400 wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure projects, resulting in thousands of lost
jobs.
These cuts purposefully limit the EPA's ability to ensure that all
Americans have access to drinking water that does not contain harmful
pathogens and toxins that expose Americans to serious risks, such as
typhoid, hepatitis, cancer, and organ damage.
This legislation has attached several riders to further undermine the
Clean Water Act, by repealing requirements that prevent pesticides
sprayed by chemical companies from entering rivers and streams, and
stopping the EPA from treating coal ash as hazardous waste.
The assault on public health does not stop with the quality of our
drinking water; this bill also takes drastic steps to weaken the Clean
Air Act. A rider is attached that will prevent the EPA from
implementing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, a regulation that was
implemented to protect the public from dangerous air pollution and
prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and
400,000 cases of aggravated asthmas.
As a Representative of the 18th District of Houston, I am firmly
committed to protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and

[[Page H5457]]

the land we need for our survival. Since 1999, Houston has exchanged
titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the nation. The
poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of
carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have
been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the
very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this
serious problem. Those regulations should be of course fair while doing
the job they are intended to do.
But, my friends, the disregard this bill shows for the health of the
American people does not stop there. Another rider prohibits the EPA
from finalizing regulations to reduce mercury emissions from factories.
There is no reason why Energy, jobs creation and the environment cannot
work harmoniously.
Not only does this legislation irresponsibly eradicate life saving
provisions of the Clean Air and Water Acts, it also cuts the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) budget by 78 percent. The LWCF funds
many park and outdoor recreation areas that contribute over $700
billion to the economy and facilitate 6.5 million jobs.
This bill makes a litany of additional cuts to important programs
that cut climate change prevention programs, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is full of perks for
special interest, and reduces our ability to facilitate the upkeep of
National Parks, protect the Grand Canyon, and add species to the
endangered species list.
I am outraged that my friends on the other side of the aisle would
consider passing this legislation that compromises our access to
healthy air and clean water; that reverses EPA regulations that were
implemented to save lives. Public lands, national parks, the air, the
water, the wildlife in this nation belongs to everyone, and I cannot
support a bill that trades the quality of these precious resources for
benefits to big business and special interest groups.
There are times in which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as
a single, united, nation. One single state did not defend the nation
after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end
segregation and establish Civil Rights. There are times when the stakes
are too high, when we must unite as states and act as one.

Our Nation's parks are maintained by the National Park Service. The
Park Service is responsible for preserving, restoring, and maintaining
our Nation's monuments for the enjoyment of all Americans.
Recently, the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Memorial has joined
other historic sites on our Nation's Mall. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
gave his life in the pursuit of a dream. His ``I Have a Dream'' speech
has been read and heard by millions of men, women, and children around
the world.
The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial is one of many
cherished sites honoring men and women who have advanced the society we
know today; historic sites that include Freedman town and the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. When the Republicans cut the National Park Service,
they cut our ability to maintain and preserve our Nation's monuments.
The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic site is operated by the
National Park Service (under U.S. Department of the Interior). This
legislation contains $2.5 billion for the NPS, which is $132 million
below last year's level. Operation of the National Park System is
funded at $2.2 billion, which is $10 million below FY 2011 enacted
levels. This funding will allow all National Parks to remain open and
NPS activities to continue through next year without furloughs or
reductions in full time or seasonal employees. These cuts result in the
loss of jobs and the loss of our Nation's cherished and prized history.
The EPA has a broad responsibility, for research, standard-setting,
monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards:
air pollution, water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and
pesticides. The EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these
problems. There has been a systematic effort to tie the hands of the
EPA's ability to protect our environment and thereby protect the long
term health of our Nation. Cuts to the EPA are just another means to
bring down the agency. The EPA can keep our environment safe without
hindering job creations. There are many critics out there who despise
the EPA because they say that it is a burden to economic growth. I say
that this is nonsense, for healthy populations are the foundation for
prosperity.
Let us not forget what happened in Woburn, Massachusetts in the
1980s, where numerous families were afflicted with cancer as a result
of toxins being placed in the water. It was the work of brilliant
lawyers in conjunction with the EPA who proved that the chemical
entities involved deliberately placed toxins in the water.
Let us also not forget The Love Canal of the 1970s near Niagara Falls
either. In this region, scores of women had miscarriages and many more
were contaminated from chemical wastes in the water. Are supporters of
this bill encouraging our country to go back to a time when these
problems were common?
Because the issues associated with Woburn and the Love Canal are well
in the past, supporters of cuts to the EPA must feel that the water
people drink is perfectly safe to drink and does not need to be
regulated. Just last year in the small town of Crestwood, outside of
Chicago, it was discovered that town officials were secretly
introducing tainted well water into the town water supply for years.
The people were told that the water came from Lake Michigan. When the
story broke, the Department of Public Health conducted a survey of
disease rates and found that men in the town had high rates of kidney
and gastrointestinal cancer. I, for one, will not tolerate this and I
know the American people will not tolerate this as well. The American
people will not tolerate the fear of turning on their faucets and
wondering whether or not the water coming out has lead, plutonium, or
wastes from chemical entities.
Protecting the quality of our air and water, protecting the health of
each and every one of our constituents, is an example of a time when
Congress must consider the implications beyond our districts and our
states.
Surely preventing 230,000 deaths each year by regulating toxins in
the air, and ensuring that millions will not lose their access to
healthy drinking water is not controversial. I urge my colleagues to
consider the constituents they represent, and take essential steps to
protect the environment. Until that time, I cannot, and will not,
support this damaging legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in strong opposition to
this reckless bill and the abundance of extraneous and irresponsible
provisions that it contains.
Right now we are down to the wire on defaulting on our debt. But
instead of focusing on a way forward, the majority is offering up this
ill-conceived piece of legislation, a bill that is polluted--and I
emphasize ``polluted''--with unrelated and inappropriate riders that do
not belong in a spending bill. The reality is that these riders will
have very little impact on our national deficit, but they will have a
huge and lasting effect on our health, our environment, and our natural
resources.
So why are these programs being targeted? Well, we've seen this
before with H.R. 1 earlier this year, and we're seeing it again now.
The majority is choosing to reward Big Oil and polluters at the expense
of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife and wild
places we hold dear.
Mr. Chairman, it's not an exaggeration to say that this bill
drastically undermines our government's ability to protect our
environment. This bill jeopardizes the conservation and protection of
places like the Channel Islands National Park in my congressional
district and the wildlife this special place harbors; closing a quarter
of national wildlife refuges across the country, affecting places like
the Guadeloupe Dunes near Santa Maria; slashing support for Federal
programs that support our outstanding natural areas, like the Piedras
Blancas Light Station or the Carrizo Plain National Monument in
California; opening up protected and sensitive areas in California's
national forest to off-road vehicle use, putting places like Los Padres
National Forest at risk; and blocking the protection of wilderness-
quality lands.
And as the bill stands, Mr. Chairman, it would bar new listings of
threatened and endangered species as well as critical habitat
designations. And it would gut the successful Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which is our Nation's principal source of Federal
funding to preserve irreplaceable lands and waters.
Under this disaster of a bill, the LWCF would be reduced to the
lowest level in its 45-year history, an 80 percent cut compared to last
year's funding.

{time} 1710

And who will benefit from this cut? Not the American taxpayer because
this fund is paid for from offshore drilling revenues. Instead,
communities will lose important conservation and recreation projects
that create jobs and improve the quality of life for working and middle
class Americans.

[[Page H5458]]

But this assault isn't limited to our lands and wildlife. This dirty
legislation is also littered with riders that seek to gut the
protections of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, such as preventing
the EPA from strengthening limitations on polluted storm water runoff,
blocking the EPA's oversight on water used by power plants, and
impeding the clarification of which streams and wetlands are protected
under the act.
Under the House spending plan, the Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds will also see significant cuts. These are the
funds established for States to complete water infrastructure projects,
projects which create jobs and provide clean, safe drinking water. The
riders in this bill, Mr. Chairman, are also an assault on the very air
we breathe. They would prevent the EPA from limiting carbon pollution
from power plants and other stationary sources, from updating limits on
smog and mercury emissions.
One rider would block the EPA from setting new mileage standards for
cars, and won't even allow the State of California to set its own
standards. Surely we can think of better solutions to solve our fiscal
problems rather than attacking our air, our water, and our lands.
Sadly, this Interior appropriations bill deeply undermines our
important role of passing on an America whose land, water, and air are
clean, healthy, productive, beautiful, and accessible for all to enjoy.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible,
terrible bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as one of the former cochairs and leaders of
the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest, bipartisan,
bicameral caucus in this Congress, I reluctantly rise in strong
opposition to this Interior appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill falls short on so many different levels--
especially our responsibility to future generations to be good stewards
of the public lands, the vital natural resources, and the wildlife that
we have within our borders.
But don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. We have had a tradition
in this place for many years of having strong, bipartisan support for
reasonable, sensible, land and water conservation programs. That's why
earlier this month, a coalition of over 640 outdoor recreation entities
sent a letter to each of our offices, including the Congressional
leadership, expressing their deep concern and dismay over the funding
cuts proposed in this appropriation bill.
This letter was signed by entities such as the Boone and Crockett
Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Wild Turkey Foundation, Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited, and it was
also signed by the president of The Wilderness Society, Bill Meadows,
and a board member of the Civil War Trust, John Nau. I would like to
read that letter at this time.
``We are a broad coalition of organizations representing millions of
members with very diverse political backgrounds and areas of interest
united behind a shared belief that natural resource conservation,
outdoor recreation, and historic preservation, and investments in them,
are vital to the future of our great Nation.
``Like you, we are concerned about our Nation's fiscal health. The
Nation faces unsustainable future fiscal deficits, which must be
addressed. As part of the overall solution to our deficit challenges,
we know that conservation, recreation, and historic preservation
programs will not and should not be exempted from scrutiny. We are
willing to engage in a process to find further savings in spending and
review the economic and budgetary benefits of critical conservation,
outdoor recreation, and historic preservation programs.
``The Federal budget cannot and should not be balanced
disproportionately on the backs of conservation, outdoor recreation,
and preservation. Doing so will impose on the future generations whose
well-being depends on the conservation and preservation of our common
natural and historic resources.

``As a diverse community of taxpayers and voters who care about
natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic
preservation, we stand ready to work with you on serious efforts to
address our Nation's economic and fiscal challenges, as they relate to
investments in, and tough choices about, the programs we care about. We
urge this Congress to address the Federal deficit while still investing
in critical conservation, recreation, and historic preservation
programs in 2012.''
Mr. Chairman, these groups realize, as many of us realize too, this
is more than just being good stewards of the land and doing right by
future generations. Investment in these vital programs is crucial for
economic development and job creation in this country. The Outdoor
Industry Foundation has issued a survey from year to year showing the
economic impact of many of these conservation programs on outdoor
recreation activities. They found that outdoor recreation contributes
$730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports 6\1/2\ million
private sector jobs, one out of every 20 jobs, and stimulates 8 percent
of consumer spending.
In Wisconsin, my home State, hunting and fishing alone supports
57,000 jobs, and $400 million in State revenue. Sportsmen spend $3.1
billion annually, which helps stimulate the Wisconsin economy and other
States.
Mr. Chairman, the irony in all this is that these organizations and
these programs have been giving at the idol of deficit reduction for
some time. In fact, over the last 30 years, American investment in
parks, wildlife, clean water, and clean air has fallen from 1.7 percent
of overall Federal budget to less than 0.6 percent. So throughout the
years, there has been a continual reduction in funding for these
programs. The irony is that for many of these programs, for every
public dollar used, it is leveraged to draw in more private sector
dollars. This too will be in great jeopardy with the dismantling of
these programs. These aren't programs you can just turn on and off with
a spigot. You need a continuity of care to keep them going. With
funding reductions of this magnitude, it will be difficult, if not
impossible, to maintain that continuity of care. Whether it is to clean
water, clean air, to wildlife preservation and enhancement, all of
these programs are under a direct assault with this Interior
appropriations bill.
With the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an 80 percent proposed
cut, the irony with this program is that it is funded by oil royalties.
It has been a grand bargain that has been used in the past to allow
development of oil on public lands.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this appropriations bill.
We can do better than this. We have to do better.

July 6, 2011.
Hon. Harry M. Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner: We are a
broad coalition of organizations representing millions of
members with very diverse political backgrounds and areas of
interest united behind a shared belief that natural resource
conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation,
and investments in them, are vital to the future of our great
nation.
Like you, we are concerned about our nation's fiscal
health. The nation faces unsustainable future fiscal
deficits, which must be addressed. As part of the overall
solution to our deficit challenges, we know that
conservation, recreation, and historic preservation programs
will not and should not be exempt from scrutiny. We are
willing to engage in a process to find further savings in
spending, and review the economic and budgetary benefits of
critical conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic
preservation programs.
The Federal budget cannot and should not be balanced
disproportionately on the backs of conservation, outdoor
recreation and preservation. Doing so will impose on the
future generations whose well-being depends on the
conservation and preservation of our common natural and
historic resources.
As a diverse community of taxpayers and voters who care
about natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and
historic preservation, we stand ready to work with you on
serious efforts to address our nation's economic and fiscal
challenges, as they relate to investments in, and tough
choices about, the programs we care about. We urge

[[Page H5459]]

this Congress to address the federal deficit while still
investing in critical conservation, recreation and historic
preservation programs in 2012.
Please see attached for list of signers as of 7/6/11.
Thank you.
Bill Meadows,
President, The Wilderness Society.
John Nau,
Board Member, Civil War Trust.
____

We are a broad partnership of nonprofits, organizations and
businesses that represent tens of millions of American
citizens who believe we must elevate the importance of
natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and
historic preservation programs.

List of Signatories

National Organizations

Access Fund, Alliance of National Heritage Areas, American
Alpine Club, American Association for State and Local
History, American Bird Conservancy, American Canoe
Association, American Cultural Resources Association,
American Farmland Trust, American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American
Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade Association,
American Forest Foundation, American Hiking Society, American
Land Conservancy, American Mountain Guides Association,
American Recreation Coalition, American Rivers, American
Trails, American Whitewater, Association of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies, Bird Conservation Network, Blue Goose Alliance,
Boone and Crocket Club, Catch-A-Dream Foundation, Choose
Outdoors, City Parks Alliance, Civil War Trust, Congressional
Sportsmens Foundation, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari
Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Delta Waterfowl Foundation,
Ducks Unlimited, Endangered Species Coalition.
Great Old Broads for Wilderness, HistoriCorps,
International Mountain Bicycling Association, Izaak Walton
League of America, Land Trust Alliance, Marine Fish
Conservation Network, National Alliance of Forest Owners,
National Association of Forest Service Retirees, National
Association of State Park Directors, National Audubon
Society, National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National
Marine Sanctuary Foundation, National Park Trust, National
Parks Conservation Association, National Preservation
Institute, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild
Turkey Federation, National Wildlife Federation, National
Wildlife Refuge Association, Northern Forest Canoe Trail,
Openlands, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Orion--The
Hunters' Institute, Outdoor Alliance, Outdoor Industry
Association, Outdoors America, Outward Bound U.S.A.,
Partnership for the National Trails System, Pheasants
Forever, Portland Trails, Preservation Action, Public Lands
Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Restore
America's Estuaries, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
Saving Birds Thru Habitat, Sierra Club, Society for
American Archaeology, The Center for Desert Archaeology, The
Center for Large Landscape Conservation, The Coastal States
Organization, The Colorado Mountain Club, The Conservation
Fund, The Forest Land Group, The Hawk Migration Association
of North America, The Land Connection, The Lands Council, The
National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Nature
Conservancy, The Trumpeter Swan Society, The Trust for Public
Land, The Wilderness Society, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, Tread Lightly!, Trout Unlimited, Western Rivers
Conservancy, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlands CPR, Wildlife
Forever, Wildlife Management Institute, Winter Wildlands
Alliance.

State, Local, and Regional Nonprofits and Organizations

Agricultural Stewardship Association, Alabama Historical
Commission, Alabama Trust for Historic Preservation, Alaska
Association for Historic Preservation, Alliance for Historic
Landscape Preservation, Alliance for Historic Wyoming,
Alliance for New York State Parks, Alton Marketplace/Illinois
Main Street, American Society of Landscape Architects, Amigos
de la Sevilleta, Amigos de los Rios, Ammonoosuc Chapter of
Trout Unlimited (New Hampshire), Angel Island Immigration
Station Foundation, Appalachian Highlands Conservancy,
Appalachian Mountain Club, Arabia Mountain National Heritage
Area, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Arlington
Heritage Alliance, Ascutney Mountain Audubon Society, Ashland
Mainstreet, Inc., Audubon Outdoor Club, Audubon Society of
Northern Virginia, Baltimore Department of Recreation and
Parks, Baltimore National Heritage Area, Bear-Paw Regional
Greenways, Bedminster Regional Land Conservancy, Berkley
Conservation Institute, Bernheim Arboretum and Research
Forest, Bird City Wisconsin, Blue Mountain Land Trust, Bosco-
Milligan Foundation, Boston Harbor Island Alliance, Branford
Land Trust, Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center, Bull Moose
Sportsmen's Alliance, CA Japanese American Community
Leadership Council, Cahaba Riverkeeper, California Capitol
Historic Preservation Society, California Council of Land
Trusts, California Heritage Council, California Preservation
Foundation, California State Historic Preservation Office,
Californians for Western Wilderness, Carolina Mountain Land
Conservancy, Cascade Land Conservancy, Cashiers Historical
Society, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc., Center for
Desert Archeology, Central Coast Land Conservancy, Central
Virginia Battlefields Trust, Charles River Watershed
Association, Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge.
Complex, Inc., Cherokee County Historical Society, Cherokee
Forest Voices, Chesapeake Conservancy, Chesapeake Wildlife
Heritage, Chicago Wilderness, Chisago Lakes Main Street
Initiative, Chisholm Trail Heritage Museum, Cienega Watershed
Partnership, City of Madisonville, City of Minneapolis,
Department of Community Planning and Economic Development,
City of Shelby, Clinton Brown Company Architecture ReBuild,
Coastal Conservation League, Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado
Preservation, Inc., Columbus Landmarks Foundation, Community
Open Land Trust, Connecticut Audubon Society, Connecticut
Preservation Action, Connecticut State Historic Preservation
Office, Conservation Council for Hawai'i, Conservation
Federation of Missouri, Conservation Trust for North
Carolina, Cooks Creek Watershed Association, Crossroads of
the American Revolution, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center,
D&R Canal Watch, DC Preservation League, Deer Creek Museum,
Glenrock Historical Commission, Delaware and Raritan Canal
Coalition, Delaware Highlands Conservancy, Delmarva
Ornithological Society, Eau Claire Historic Preservation
Foundation, Endangered Habitats League, Environmental League
of Massachusetts, Finger Lakes Land Trust, Fire Island Land
Trust, Florida Trail Association, Inc.
Florida Trust for Historic Preservation, Foothills
Conservancy of North Carolina, Forest Trust, Foundation for
Historical Louisiana, Four Corners School of Outdoor
Education, Frederick Historic Sites Consortium, Friends of
Acadia, Friends of Back Bay, Friends of Blackwater, Friends
of Camas National Wildlife Refuge, Friends of Congaree Swamp,
Friends of Dyke Marsh, Friends of Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge, Friends of Hagerman National Wildlife
Refuge, Texas, Friends of Hakalau Forest, Friends of Heinz
Refuge at Tinicum, Friends of Ironwood Forest, Friends of Las
Vegas National Wildlife Refuge, Friends of Louisiana Wildlife
Refuges, Inc., Friends of Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, Friends of Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Friends
of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Noxubee Refuge, Friends of
Princeton Nursery Lands, Friends of Princeton Open Space,
Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, Friends of
Red Rock Canyon, Friends of Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge, Friends of Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge,
Friends of Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Friends
of the Arapaho Wildlife Refuge Complex, Friends of the
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Inc.,
Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge, Friends of the
National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island, Friends of the
Neches River, Friends of the Prairie Learning Center.
Friends of the Refuge Headwaters, Friends of the Sonoran
Desert National Monument, Friends of the Southwest Louisiana
Wildlife Refuges and Wetlands, Friends of the Tampa Bay
National Wildlife Refuges, Friends of Tualatin River National
Wildlife Refuge, Friends of Wallkill River, Friends of
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, Georgetown Trust for
Conservation & Preservation, Georgia Forest Watch, Georgia
Land Conservation Center, Georgia Trust for Historic
Preservation, Glendale Heritage Preservation, Gold Coast &
Hamburg Historic District Association, Grand Canyon Trust,
Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Grand Traverse Regional Land
Conservancy, Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association, Greater
Houston Preservation Alliance, Greater Lovell Land Trust,
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Greenbelt Land Trust, Guam
Historic Resources Division, Harris Center for Conservation
Education, Harrodsburg First, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary
Association, Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area, Heart of
the Lakes for Land Conservation Policy, Heritage Alliance of
Northeast Tennessee & Southwest Virginia, Heritage Nebraska,
Heritage Ohio, Historic Annapolis, Historic Boulder, Inc.,
Historic Charleston Foundation, Historic Chicago Bungalow
Association, Historic Denver, Historic FL Keys Foundation.
Historic Fort Worth, Inc., Historic Hawaii Foundation,
Historic Kansas City Foundation, Historic Madison, Inc.,
Historic Preservation Alliance of Arkansas, Historic
Preservation Commission of South Bend & Joseph County,
Historic Preservation League of Oregon, Historic Seattle,
Historic Valley Junction Foundation, History Colorado,
Hoosier Environmental Council, Housatonic Valley Association,
Hudson Highlands Land Trust, Huyck Preserve and Biological
Research Station, Ice Age Trail Alliance, Idaho Conservation
League, Idaho Rivers United, Idaho State Historic
Preservation Office, Idaho State Historical Society, Illinois
Audubon Society, Illinois Environmental Council, Illinois
Historic Preservation Agency, Indian River Lakes Conservancy,
Iowa Wildlife Federation, Jackson County Tourism, Jay
Heritage Center, Jefferson Land Trust, John G. Riley House
Museum, Kentucky Woodland Owners, Keweenaw Land Trust,
Kingston Greenways Association, Kingston Historical Society,
Land Conservancy of Adams County, Land Trust for Santa
Barbara County,

[[Page H5460]]

Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, Landmarks Illinois,
Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, Life of the Land,
Little Beaver Creek Land Foundation, Los Alamos Historical
Society, Main Street Corning.
Main Street Perryville, Maine Preservation, Malheur
Wildlife Associates, Marine Conservation Institute, Maryland
Commission on African American History and Culture, Maryland
Historical Trust, Maryland Ornithological Society, Mendocino
Land Trust, Messa Land Trust, Michigan Historic Preservation
Network, Milford Preservation Trust, Minneapolis Heritage
Preservation Commission, Minnesota Forestry Association,
Mississippi Heritage Trust, Mississippi Land Trust,
Mississippi River Trust, Mississippi SHPO, Missoula Parks and
Recreation, Monadnock Conservancy, Montana Association of
Land Trusts, Montana Audubon, Montana Preservation Alliance,
Montana Wildlife Federation, Montpelier Mansion, Mount Grace
Land Conservation Trust, MS Dept. of Marine Resources,
Nantucket Historic District Commission, Napa County
Landmarks, National Committee for the New River, National
Outdoor Leadership School, Natural Resources Council of
Maine, Natural Resources Initiative of Mississippi,
Naturaland Trust, Nevada Conservation League & Education
Fund, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, New Jersey
Recreation and Park Association, New London Landmarks, New
Mexico Archeological Council, New Mexico Heritage
Preservation Alliance, New Mexico Wildlife Federation.
New River Land Trust, New York City Audubon, New York-New
Jersey Trail Conference, NH Association of Conservation
Commissions, North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, North
Carolina Historic Preservation Office, North Country Trail
Association, North County Conservancy, North Dakota
Historical Society and State Historic Preservation Office,
North Preston Properties, North Shore Land Alliance,
Northeast Wilderness Trust, Northern Forest Canoe Trail,
Northern Sierra Partnership, Northern Virginia Conservation
Trust, Northwest Watershed Institute, Norwalk Preservation
Trust, Oakland Heritage Alliance, Oblong Land Conservancy,
Ohio Archeological Council, Ohio Forestry Association, Ohio
Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical Society,
Oklahoma Historical Society, Old Escondido Historic District,
Open Space Institute, Oregon Natural Desert Association,
Oregon Wild, Oregon-California Trails Association, Outside
Las Vegas Foundation, Pacific Crest Trail Association,
Pacific Rivers Council, Parker River Clean Water Association,
Pasadena Heritage, Passaic River Coalition, Peconic Land
Trust, Pleasant River Wildlife Foundation, Prairielands
Preservation Foundation Board, Preservation Alliance of
Philadelphia, Preservation Alliance of Minnesota,
Preservation Alliance of West Virginia, Preservation America.
Preservation Buffalo Niagara, Preservation Commission, Rock
Island, Illinois, Preservation Foundation of Palm Beach,
Preservation Kentucky, Preservation Louisville, Preservation
Pennsylvania, Preservation Resource Center, Preservation
Texas, Inc., Preservation Trust of Vermont, Preservation
Wayne, Preserve Calavera, Preserve Rhode Island, Providence
Preservation Society, Public Land and Water Access
Association, Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space,
Quindaro Ruins/Underground Railroad-Exercise 2011, Redlands
Conservancy, Richland County Conservation Commission, Ridges
to Rivers Open Space Network, Rio Grande Return, Riveredge
Bird Club, Rock Island Arsenal Historical Society, Rock
Island Preservation Society, Rowayton Arts Center, Sacred
Sites International, Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy, Salem
Audubon Society, Saline Historic Downtown Alliance, San Juan
Citizens Alliance, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, Santa
Fe Conservation Trust, Saratoga Springs Preservation
Foundation, Sayre Main Street, Inc., SC Coastal Conservation
League, Scenic Hudson, Scenic Virginia, Scott County Historic
Preservation Society, Sequoia Riverlands Trust, Serpentine
Art & Nature Commons, Inc., SEWEE Association, Sheepscot
Valley Conservation Association.
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Soda
Mountain Wilderness Council, Solano Land Trust, Somers Land
Trust, Sourland Planning Council, Southern Appalachian
Highlands Conservancy, Spokane Preservation Advocates, St.
Marks Refuge Association, Inc., Stanford White Casino Theatre
corp., State Historic Preservation Office, Wisconsin
Historical Society, State Historical Society of South Dakota,
Swan Ecosystem Center, Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges,
Taos Land Trust, Tapteal Greenway Association, Tennessee
Clean Water Network, Tennessee Ornithological Society,
Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation, Tennessee
Riverkeeper, Texas Land Conservancy, The Arkansas Audubon
Society, The Audubon Society of Greater Denver, The Cazenovia
Preservation Foundation, The Clinch Coalition, The
Connecticut Ornithological Association, The Conservancy of
Montgomery County, The Cragsmoor Conservancy, Inc., The
Delaware River Greenway Partnership, The Foundation for
Historical Louisiana, The Georgia Conservancy, The Grand
Staircase Escalante Partners, The Great Swamp Conservancy,
The Harris Center for Conservation Education, The Historical
Society of Harford County, Inc., The Journey Through Hallowed
Ground Partnership, The Lake County Forest Preserve District,
The Land Conservancy for Southern Chester County, The Land
Conservancy of New Jersey, The Maryland Historical Trust.
The Mississippi Department of Archives and History, The
Oblong Land Conservancy, Inc., The Prairie State Conservation
Coalition, The Preservation League of New York State, The
Trustees of Reservations, The Villagers Inc., The Warwick
Conservancy Inc., TN Environmental Council, Torne Valley
Preservation Association, Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust, Tulsa
Foundation for Architecture, Upper Midwest Archaeology, Utah
Heritage Foundation, Valley Conservation Council, Vanceburg
Renaissance on Main, Vermont Land Trust, Virgin Islands
Historic Preservation Office, Virginia Forest Watch,
Voyageurs National Park Association, Wallowa Land Trust,
Inc., Washington Water Trails Association, Washington
Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, Washington Wildlife
Federation, Weeks Bay Foundation, Western North Carolina
Alliance, Western Reserve Land Conservancy, Western Resource
Advocates, WHALE--New Bedford, Wheeler Wildlife Refuge
Association, Whidbey Camano Land Trust, Wildlife Mississippi,
Williamsburg Main Street Program, Willistown Conservation
Trust, Winyah Rivers Foundation, Woodstock Land Conservancy,
WV Land Trust, Young Preservation Associates of Pittsburgh.

Industries and Associations

1% for the Planet, Acorn Products, Advanced Flexible
Materials, Inc. American Alpine Institute, American Outdoor
Products, Inc., American Sportfishing Association, Angling
Trade Magazine, B.A.S.S. LLC, Backpacker Magazine, Big Agnes,
Bison Belts, Black Diamond, Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine,
BlueWater Ropes, Boa Technology Inc., Brandwise, Inc.,
Breathe Magazine, C4 Waterman, CamelBak, CarbonVerde, LLC,
Cascade Designs, Inc., Casual Adventure, Chaco, Colorado
Kayak Supply, Confluence Films, Conservation Easement
Consultants, Dale of Norway, Inc., Dansko, Inc., Deckers
Outdoor Corporation, Deneki Outdoors, Deuter USA, Inc., DNF
Media, Inc.--Outdoor USA Magazine, Eastern Mountain Sports,
Ecosystem Management Consultants, Elevation Outdoors
Magazine, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, Far Bank
Enterprises, Fly Fish 10k, Forest Capital Partners, G.Loomis,
Inc., Gerber Legendary Blades, GoMotion Inc., Gramicci, Great
Outdoor Store, Harboe Architects, PC, HCFR Outdoors, LLC.
Honey Stinger, Hornady Manufacturing, Horny Toad, Hurricane
Kayaks, Immersion Research, Injinji, Karhu, KINeSYS Inc.,
Kokatat, Lafuma America Inc., Lawson Hammock, LEKI USA Inc.,
Leupold & Stevens, Liberty Mountain, Light and Motion, Loksak
Inc., LOWA Boots LLC, Marmot Mountain, LLC, Merrell, Metolius
Mountain Products Inc., Momentum Media PR, Morsel Munk, LLC,
Mountain Gazette, Mountain Gear, Mountain Mama, Mountain
Shades, Mountain Tools, Nantahala Outdoor Center, National
Marine Manufacturers Association, Nau, Inc., NEMO Equipment,
Inc., Nester Hosiery, New England Wood Pellet LLC, New
Forests Inc., Noelani Hawaii SUP LLC, North Preston
Properties, Oboz Footwear, One Source Apparel, Orvis, Osprey
Packs, Outdoor Divas, Outdoor Industries and Associations
Association.
Outside Adventure Film School, Pack Rat Outdoor Center,
Paddlers Supply, Pennsylvania Fly Fishing Company, Petzl,
Piragis Northwoods Company, Prana, Product Architects Inc.,
Pure Fishing, Red Wing Shoe Company, Reflex Sourcing Inc.,
REI, Remington Arms Company, Rock Creek Outfitters, Rose
Creek Anglers, Inc., Sanitas Sales Group, Sasquatch, Saucony,
Serac Adventure Films, Sierra Business Council, Skinny Skis,
Small Planet, Smith Optics, SnowSports Industries America,
Sport Chalet, Inc., Sporting Culture Advisors, Sportworks
Northwest, Inc., Sullivan-Bishop Agency LLC, Suspenz Storage
Racks, Terra Public Relations, Terra Strenua Outfitters,
Terramar Sports Inc., The Fly Shop, Inc., The Forest Group,
The Lyme Timber Company, The Mountaineers, The Painted Trout,
The Seeley Lake Nordic Ski Club, The South Carolina Aquarium,
The Trailhead, The Walton Works, LLC, Thompson Manufacturing,
Inc., Tierra Environmental, Timbuk2, Twenty Two Designs, LLC,
W & W associates, Inc., Waterwisp Flies, West Coast Corp.,
Wild River Outfitters, Inc., Yellow Dog Flyfishing
Adventures.

I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, there is an unfortunate time-honored
tradition in the House of people coming to the floor and objecting to
reductions in spending with heartfelt arguments as to why the spending
is necessary and never offering any suggestions about where the money
might be made up instead. That, frankly, is one of the reasons we have
the huge deficits and debts that we do. So I want to break with that
tradition and talk to you about a spending reduction I have a great
concern about and then talk about how we might make it up instead.

[[Page H5461]]

There is not a person in this House who has not been touched in some
way by cancer in their family, in someone they love, some friend. I
don't think there is anybody here who hasn't had the heartbreak of
dealing with malignancy in their family. Let me say from the outset,
Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is a Member of this House that
doesn't want to do everything he or she could to deal with solving that
problem. There is not a Member in this place, Republican or Democrat,
who is indifferent to the problem of fighting cancer.
Now, cancer comes from a lot of things. It's genetic. It's
hereditary. It comes from foods. But a lot of it comes from the
environment. It comes from water. If the water we drink or we cook with
or we bathe in is not clean, it can sometimes be the trigger that
triggers the dreaded disease of cancer for someone we care about.
So a long time ago when this was discovered in the 1960s, there was a
bipartisan agreement to try to do something to try to clean the water
of this country and keep it clean. It was upheld by Presidents like
Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Barack
Obama, many others, Democrats and Republicans in control of Congress.
That's why I have to look at the bill before us today and just be
astonished by the fact that the Clean Water Fund is cut by 55 percent.
Let me say that again. The fund that has been set up to protect the
clean water of our country that is consumed by Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and conservatives, cut by 55 percent. The amount
of that cut is about $833 million below the amount of money that we
spent last year; about $833 million.

{time} 1720

Usually, people stop there. But I want to talk about where we should
get the money instead.
Now, $833 million is less than 3 days' worth of spending in Iraq and
Afghanistan. How about that? We will spend more than $833 million in
the next 3 days in Kabul and Baghdad, in part to help build clean water
systems there, in part to help create jobs there. I just think that's
inexcusable that we find ourselves in a position where we're spending
in 2 or 3 days in Iraq and Afghanistan what we could spend to eliminate
this cut and provide clean drinking water for the people of our
country.
The amount of subsidies we're going to give oil companies--the oil
companies made record profits in 2010. They made about $60 billion in
profits, if I'm not mistaken--$77 billion, actually, in profits last
year. We'll spend six times as much of this cut in the Clean Water Fund
to give money away to those oil companies this year. These are people
who made $77 billion in profits last year, whose stocks are off the
charts, who are paying their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars in
compensation, and we're going to give them about $7 billion from the
wallets of the people of this country this year. That's six times the
amount of this cut in the Clean Water Fund.
So I understand if you come to the floor you've got the
responsibility of saying, Well, if you don't want to cut this, you've
got the responsibility to say, Where else should we get it from? I
think that's a reasonable rule under which to live.
So, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my proposal would be this:
Let's not reduce the Clean Water Fund by 55 percent. Let's not say to
cities and villages and towns and States and Indian tribes around our
country that the money that we lend to them--we don't give it to them;
most of the time it's a loan--to help build clean water systems that
bring clean water to our kitchens and our homes and our places of
worship and work, hospitals, let's not reduce that. Instead, let's take
2\1/2\ days of what we're going to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan and
put it there. Let's take one-sixth of the money we're going to hand to
the oil companies and put it there.
This is something we shouldn't do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. LEE. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2584, the Interior
appropriations bill.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I want to thank Ranking
Member Moran and our full committee ranking member, Congressman Dicks,
for leading the fight every step of the way against this Republican
assault on the environment.
Sadly, Mr. Chair, this bill is nothing more than a vehicle for bigger
profits for Big Oil and other special interest polluters.
This bill and all it contains destroys critical environmental
standards established to protect the public's health. By attaching more
than 40 extremely dangerous policy riders, the Republicans take direct
aim on the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the environment in
which we live. This terrible legislation guts the budgets of key
Federal agencies charged with protecting our citizens and our national
resources. It terminates air quality standards as well as land and
water conservation funding that will impact all communities in our
country. But these cuts will hit my home State of California especially
hard.
Mr. Chair, I'm proud to serve as a Representative of California's
Ninth Congressional District, which has long been at the forefront of
the environmental movement, including working on critical issues of
climate change as well as fighting for renewable energy, green jobs,
and environmental justice.
This bill undermines the Clean Air Act's ability to crack down on air
pollution, threatening the quality of life for our children, our
families, our communities, including my constituents in the East Bay,
many of whom suffer unfairly from poor air quality.
Now, let me just tell you this personal story. Many of my childhood
friends who grew up with me in my neighborhood, a polluted neighborhood
in El Paso, Texas, many of them were dead before they turned 55 years
of age, or many of them who are still alive have chronic or
debilitating diseases. These tragedies can be directly related to
environmental degradation of the neighborhoods in which I lived and
grew up in in El Paso, Texas.
Also, let me just say, this bill is unjust because it really does
refuse to fund EPA at a level where there can be some justice in terms
of the overall programs of environmental administration, where it can
implement its core mission of protecting human health and the
environment. This means that more women and more children and more
people facing or living in poverty and more communities of color are
bearing the brunt once again of pollution, environmental degradation,
and climate change. Sadly, this is in line with the Republican plan to
balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

Rather than Republicans taking actions to create jobs, this bill guts
funding to create jobs--especially green jobs. Rather than the
Republicans taking action to protect our Nation's clean water supply
and open spaces, this bill takes us back to dirty water and closed
parks. Rather than taking action to ensure that people across this
country can trust our government--and they want to trust us--to protect
the water that they drink and the air that they breathe, this bill
rolls back the standards and protections aimed at protecting public
health.
Mr. Chairman, as a person of faith, I believe that there is a moral
and ethical responsibility to protect the natural resources provided by
our Creator. This measure before us prohibits us from acting on that
very, very serious and important responsibility.
How can we here make decisions that knowingly harm people? How can we
make decisions that pollute our environment? How can we make these
crass decisions, as Members of Congress, that will increase health
hazards leading to diseases such as cancer?
People elect us because they trust us to make decisions that protect
and enhance their quality of life. They want us to preserve our
beautiful planet. Future generations are counting on us. This bill
really does let them down.
We need to defeat this horribly destructive bill and move quickly to
matters that the American people expect us to address, like to create
jobs, raise our debt ceiling, and to protect the public health.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5462]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. While our Nation stumbles toward a potential default,
the Republican Party is wasting our time with consideration of a bill
that will not move through the Senate and which the President has
already threatened to veto. But even though this legislation is a
futile effort, it does clearly articulate the philosophy of the
Republicans in this House of Representatives. This is a bill that
really makes one shake one's head. It is an astonishing effort to
destroy hard-won, longstanding, and successful and popular laws. It
cuts valuable health and environmental programs. It caps the
responsibility of corporate polluters and balances minimal cost savings
on the back of our most precious natural resources.
H.R. 2584, the funding bill for the Department of the Interior and
Environmental Agencies, completely guts funding for public lands and
public health programs that the American people care about and
desperately need.
A 64 percent cut to the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program and
a 95 percent cut to the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Funds means we can expect a rapid increase in endangered and extinct
species on Federal and non-Federal lands alike.
An 80 percent reduction in the Land and Water Conservation Fund means
we should not expect adequate maintenance of landmarks, including
Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Yellowstone National Park; or
California's Big Sur coast.

{time} 1730

A 40 percent cut to the National Landscape Conservation System means
27 million acres of national monuments, wilderness areas, scenic
rivers, and other treasures will be inadequately protected.
A 60 percent cut to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
means our birds, fish and wildlife resources will lose protections that
keep these populations viable.
A 55 percent reduction to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund means
less protection for water quality improvement projects in the United
States.
And a prohibition of funding for the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative means my home State of Illinois and the great Lake Michigan
will lose millions of dollars in Federal assistance to promote good
jobs and clean drinking water for millions of our citizens.
While this bill severely cuts these and other priorities, it provides
handouts to corporate polluters in the form of policy riders. These
riders would threaten the enforcement of the public health and
environmental laws which have protected our country for decades.
One rider reverses a moratorium on uranium mining on the rim of the
Grand Canyon, and would turn one of our Nation's most iconic landmarks
into an eyesore. Another extends loopholes in the Clean Water Act,
jeopardizing drinking water for 117 million Americans; and many others
weaken the Clean Air Act and limit regulations against toxic air
pollution, which saved an estimated 160,000 lives just last year.
The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act have protected American health
and welfare for 40 years, and have been the catalyst for green energy
investment and job creation. More than 80 percent of the American
people believe the EPA should not be prevented from performing its
duties, and the Gallup Poll reports that four out of five Americans are
personally concerned about the water they drink, as well they should.
Although this legislation is dead on arrival at the White House, it
poses a fundamental debate about the type of country we want to hand
over to our children and grandchildren. Do we want to be a Nation that
oversees the disappearance of animal populations, wetlands and national
parks because we aren't willing to ask for one penny more from
millionaires and billionaires? Do we want to be a Nation that turns
away from water treatment and infrastructure in the hopes that no one
will notice? Do we want to be a Nation that values the profits of
corporate polluters over the health of children?
The Republican majority has clearly stated its position. I oppose
this bill. The funding cuts and destructive policy riders that riddle
this bill turn back the clock on vital environmental and health
policies. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to uphold our
commitment to clean air, clean water and preserved natural resources.
This weekend, my granddaughter, who celebrated her 10th birthday, had
her party on Lake Michigan and enjoyed the precious clean water. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this attack on our American resources and
our values.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I've been listening from afar
to this discussion on the floor, which is so, so fascinating. The
former majority, wanting so desperately to become the majority again,
is suggesting that by way of this bill we're taking the heart out of
America's infrastructure program.
The fact is, in just recent years, the former majority increased
spending in all of these categories at levels that would almost startle
the people if they'd ever see the detailed facts. The fact that we are
not increasing spending to their wish lists ahead, in some way, becomes
a cut in their mind's eye when we're faced with the reality that the
covered wagon that took us to California from the East is about to go
over the cliff of bankruptcy if we don't do something about spending.
This same voice, or series of voices, is currently doing battle over
the debt limitation, and they're suggesting that we're holding this up
because of some loopholes in taxes for the so-called ``rich.''
Conversations taking place by many of the rich of the House indeed
reflect the reality that what they really want is more spending and
more funding for these programs. While we're attempting to make an
effort to cut back spending and to cut the impact of government on the
private sector, these same voices will not give up until they have an
opportunity to impose more taxes.

One of the two parties having this discussion wants more spending on
government programs and wants more taxes. The other side of this
discussion would suggest we ought to cut back spending, make sense out
of our budget and, indeed, recognize that the private sector, in
keeping some money in their jeans in order to invest in the private
sector, is really the way to create jobs.
With that, it's fascinating to watch this discussion. I'll be glad to
come back three or four more times and have this discussion, Mr.
Chairman. In the meantime, I certainly would hope more people would
talk about what they really know about the environment or really know
about the Interior bill rather than the rhetoric that is part of next
year's campaign.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. What a fortuitous moment to have the opportunity to
follow my colleague from California.
Indeed, I do know something about the Interior budget. I was the
Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior, and I know full
good and well what the Department of the Interior means to America.
Early this morning, I left Sacramento. My mind was very much on the
debate you just suggested: What are we going to do about the deficit?
But it didn't take long to realize, as I sat by the window, as I
moved over the Sierra Nevada mountains into Nevada, then across to the
Rockies, and across this entire Nation--for most of the way, it was
rather clear--that we have an awesome, unbelievably beautiful country.
We're the strongest Nation in the world, and we have great economic
strength.
This bill, however, would take this great Nation, the great beauty
and the incredible people of America, and put them at risk. It would
put this Nation's extraordinary beauty and resources at risk. That's
what this is about. This isn't going to solve the budget deficit one
way or the other. This is a miniscule part of the overall Federal
budget. It is important--important because

[[Page H5463]]

it is about this Nation's physical and human health. We're talking
about the Environmental Protection Agency.
This bill as written would bring to the people of America poison. It
is the poisoning of our rivers and our air. Use whatever word you want
about cleanup--use the nice words--but we're talking about poisoning
the rivers and the air of America. That's what this bill does. When you
take the Environmental Protection Agency and you take away its ability
to protect us, then you are allowing poisons to be in our water and in
our air and in our land.
You look at this bill, and you're talking about the extraordinary
physical nature of America. Do you want the great mountains of the
Appalachians to be flattened so you can have more coal to burn and then
foul the atmosphere? That's what this bill does.
Do you want to take away the ability of this Nation to protect your
precious Mojave Desert? That's what this bill does.
Do you want to allow those who would destroy by grabbing the
resources of this Nation without even bothering to pay a decent
royalty? That's what this bill does whether it's the oil in the gulf or
the copper in a new mine in Arizona.
I've listened to the Republican bills day after day on this floor and
in committee, and they would strip away the protections that Americans
want for their health and for their land. That's not what we should be
doing.
Do you want to know where the money is? My colleague from New Jersey
said it very well:
It's in Afghanistan and it's in Baghdad. We're building the bridges.
We're cleaning the rivers. We're providing the water and the electrical
systems there to the tune of $150 billion a year.
Bring our troops home. Bring our money back to America. Build
America. Rebuild America. There is the answer. Not in this way will you
ever solve the deficit.
By the way, this bill lays off people--15,000 people at the EPA
alone. This bill will not build infrastructure. This bill will take
away the infrastructure for our sanitation systems, for our water
systems. That's what this bill does.

{time} 1740

My colleague from California knows full good and well what's intended
here. It's to give our resources to the polluters. It's to foul our
air. It's to remove the ability of the people of America, not some
government in Washington but the people of America, who have for the
last 40 years demanded clean water, that their resources be protected,
that the commons be protected. It is the people of America that want a
future that's good for their children, that want a future that's
viable, that want a future that does not have poisoned water and air.
That's what the people of America want. This bill goes exactly the
wrong direction.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the fiscal 2012 Interior and Environmental appropriations bill.
I do want to start on a positive note. The bill would restore the
President's proposed cuts to mitigation fish hatcheries. That's a good
thing. It would increase funding for the Indian Health Service, and it
would largely maintain funding for the National Park Service operations
and the Smithsonian. So I commend the subcommittee for those decisions.
But I'm afraid the list of positive things is pretty short. So I want
to, in the time I have, list some of the devastating cuts that this
bill includes. And while our friend from California has suggested that
these really aren't deep cuts, I believe the content of this bill
belies that notion.
The bill before us picks up where H.R. 1 left off last spring making
numerous and deep cuts to the programs that protect our air, water,
public lands, and wildlife. Here are just a couple of the most
egregious cuts in this bill:
First to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This funds the
acquisition of public lands so they're protected from development and
can be enjoyed by future generations. The Land and Water Conservation
Fund has a dedicated revenue stream from offshore drilling royalties.
It takes nothing from the General Fund. And yet this bill would cut
Land and Water Conservation funding by 80 percent--the lowest level for
the program in 45 years.
It threatens completion of the acquisition of the Rocky Fork tract in
Tennessee and several treasures in North Carolina that need protection.
Every Member of this body should ask: How many acquisition projects
would this halt in my State? There is no reassuring answer.
Secondly, the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill continues the
Republican majority's assault on the EPA. After imposing a 16 percent
cut in the current fiscal year, the majority is now proposing a further
18 percent reduction in the agency's budget. That would push agency
staffing to 1991 levels. The goal of a cut so massive is plain and
simple: to ensure that the EPA doesn't have the resources it needs to
fulfill its core mission, and that mission includes lifesaving and
life-enhancing research, largely based in my district, that Research
Triangle part.
Third, the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The
SRFs provide funding directly to the States to fund water
infrastructure projects that enable communities to better manage
wastewater and polluted runoff and to protect clean and safe drinking
water. This provides one of the most basic services taxpayers expect--
clean water. And yet this bill would cut funding for these two programs
by nearly a billion dollars combined.
Given how essential water supply is to economic growth, this is
ironic at this particular time as our communities struggle to retain
and regain jobs. I suggest to colleagues, ask your State and local
governments how they're going to make up this difference.
Mr. Chairman, as if these cuts weren't bad enough, the majority has
loaded this bill with legislative policy riders and funding limitations
that will roll back 40 years of progress towards clean air and clean
water.
These anti-environmental riders have no place in an appropriations
bill. They will not save the country a penny, and they will cost tens
of thousands of lives. They will expose our children, families, and
communities to unnecessary illnesses, and they will degrade our
irreplaceable natural resources.
The majority claims that these cuts are needed to demonstrate fiscal
discipline. Mr. Chairman, this book is a textbook case in false
economies. In gutting critical environmental protection programs, it
piles up frightful economic and human costs for the future.

Our constituents and our environment today and in future generations
deserve better than what this bill is offering. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this shortsighted appropriations bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Well, congratulations. This is probably the
most radical anti-environment bill that the House of Representatives
has ever considered. It cuts open space funding to the lowest level in
a half a century. It opens the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. It
denies the existence of climate change and eliminates funding for
Federal agencies to monitor and adapt to it. It contains more than
three dozen anti-environment policy riders that eviscerate the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and other landmark environmental statutes.
The bill desecrates the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and a long line of
bipartisan conservation leaders while it also endangers public health.
The Republican majority claims to be concerned about spending, but
this reckless bill will impose billions of dollars, Mr. Chairman, of
health care costs on Americans by increasing the incidence of asthma,
emphysema, heart attacks, and even premature death. This anti-
environmental bill will increase health care costs by up to $539
billion according to the Congressional Research Service. Since
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP are responsible for 33.9 percent of total
health care costs,

[[Page H5464]]

this Republican bill will cost taxpayers some $179 billion more.
In addition, it will cause more than 60,000 premature deaths, 20
million lost days of work, and 36,800 additional heart attacks in
America.
This bill eliminates funding for critical and conservation
priorities, completely defunding the Forest Legacy program. It defunds
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration program. It blocks Environmental
Protection Agency implementation of public health standards for
particulate, lead, greenhouse gas and other pollutants. It allows the
unregulated destruction of one of America's two most biodiverse
regions, southern Appalachia, by repealing Clean Water Act standards to
protect streams from mountaintop removal.
It imperils the cleanliness of public drinking water by allowing
unregulated disposal of coal, waste, and pesticides, and casts into
regulatory purgatory developers and others seeking clarity of Clean
Water Act regulations.
The Republican majority seems to be living in an alternative reality.
As Americans face unprecedented drought in the Southwest, record floods
in the Mississippi basin, record heat here in eastern and midwestern
cities, accelerating sea level rises, and other symptoms of global
warming, this bill blocks funding even to monitor global warming. Not
only do the Republicans deny the existence of global warming,
apparently, they have even blocked funding to monitor its impacts.
This reckless policy rider doesn't just endanger polar bears, coral
reefs, and countless other species and ecosystems; it endangers
American infrastructure from the Norfolk Naval Base to the Jefferson
Memorial.
It endangers public health by increasing smog pollution and heat-
related deaths, as we've seen from the recent heat wave that swept
across the east and midwest United States, setting record temperatures
here in Washington, D.C., Newark, and other cities across this eastern
seaboard.
I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless legislation that defunds
critical public lands programs, eviscerates 40 years of bipartisan
environmental standards, and desecrates the memory of Teddy Roosevelt.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1750

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, our country is facing an incredibly
important moment as critical decisions need to be made regarding the
national debt and our long-term deficit and how to constrain spending.
Members on both sides of this aisle recognize the reality that we need
to restore fiscal responsibility in our budget.
However, Mr. Chairman, in times of national importance, we need to
stay focused on what our country needs and what's best for the American
people and avoid the temptation to play politics, as this bill does.
Far too much has been carried out by the majority party under the
guise of cutting the deficit and fiscal responsibility when it's
actually policy-making to implement a hard right, radical, anti-
environmental agenda which can actually cost more money in the short,
medium, and long term.
Mr. Chairman, the cuts proposed by the majority in this bill have
nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. They have everything to do
with implementing radical anti-environmental ideology. The bill makes
sweeping cuts to critical programs that protect the public's health,
reduce our expenditures for health care, protect our environment, and
keep industry from running over the public and consumer rights.
Yet at the same time it does that, Mr. Chairman, this bill actually
increases spending on programs that are little more than handouts and
subsidies to oil and gas companies and mining companies, in particular,
one that the government waste watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense
has called ``the granddaddy of Federal subsidies.'' This isn't about
saving taxpayer money in this bill; it's about slashing environmental
protections while giving handouts and subsidizing the dirtiest, most
influential industries.
There's more pork in this bill than in an Iowa hog lot. This is
supposed to be a spending bill that attempts to balance various budget
priorities against one another. It's not supposed to be a grab bag of
provisions demanded by the Nation's worst polluters, energy companies,
and other special interests who receive handouts under this bill.
Yes, this bill would do away with the Clean Water Act, putting the
rest of us in danger because mountaintop coal mining companies and
factory farms want it. This bill does away with key provisions of the
Clean Air Act, undermines protections of our public lands, and repeals
the Endangered Species Act to satisfy a few at the expense of the many.
The bill will put more toxic mercury, arsenic, and lead into our air
and put our children's health at risk by blocking standards to cut
toxic air pollution from cement kilns, allow more soot pollution in our
air, block EPA from moving forward with carbon pollution standards for
new vehicles after 2016, jeopardizing a process projected to create up
to 700,000 new jobs and save 2.4 million barrels of oil every day by
2030.
States would also be blocked from moving ahead with their own clean
car standards, threatening the health of America's children, elderly
citizens, and other vulnerable populations by blocking EPA's ability to
limit dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and other large
stationary sources.
This bill also expedites uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, gives
special legal exemption to grazing on public lands, eliminates
endangered species protections for animals from big horned sheep to
grey wolves, and more. Yet it increases spending for the 1879 mining
law and other elements that actually threaten to endanger our
environment and are an additional handout to Big Oil.
Mr. Chairman, this bill isn't a serious funding proposal. It's a
polluter's wish list of subsidies, handouts, and pork. The majority can
call it what they will, but don't say that this bill serves the cause
of cut-cutting while it lards up programs that are little more than a
subsidy to wealthy mining and drilling interests.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $6,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is increase the
funding for our Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement by $5 million. And what it would do is it would allow
BOEMRE to quicken the pace of permit approval and, in turn, promote the
rate of oil and gas investment in the gulf region. To accomplish this,
we will reduce the Rangeland Management Fund by $6 million, which still
leaves that fund above its fiscal year 2011 funding level.
Let me point out to you why this is the wise thing to do. In response
to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the resulting oil spill last
year, in May, the administration issued a temporary moratorium, halting
permits of oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf. The
moratorium was lifted in October of last year; but since then, the
issuance of permits has been slow. President Obama directed BOEMRE to
reorganize itself into two independent groups: one that handles revenue
from oil and gas leasing, and the other that regulates the oil and gas
industry. This is all a change that most of us believe is necessary and
wise.
However, the speed of permitting activity has not returned to pre-
Deepwater Horizon levels. There is a significant and growing backlog of
drilling plans pending approval. The number of pending deepwater
exploration and development plans has increased by more than 250
percent. This is up from a historical average of 18 plans pending to
now nearly 65 pending approval.
Also there's a drastic decline in drilling permit approvals.
Deepwater exploration and development drilling permit

[[Page H5465]]

approvals have also declined by approximately 80 percent, down from an
average of nearly 160 per year to a pace of only 30 per year. Shallow
water exploration and development drilling permits approvals have also
dropped by nearly 50 percent from an average of 390 per year to a pace
of fewer than 180 a year.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that there was a recent study that
showed that increasing the pace of permitting and, subsequently, the
pace and scale of investment in the gulf would create 230,000 domestic
jobs in 2012 as well as more than $44 billion in U.S. gross domestic
product.
I just want to focus on that number for a second, Mr. Chairman,
because as we have been here for the 112th Congress, the American
people have been demanding that we use the money we have efficiently so
that we can invest in the American people and get a return on our
investment. So here we are asking the American people for $5 million
and are asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
earlier this year proposed legislation that was purported to increase
drilling and to lower gas prices. Well, now they have the opportunity
to take $5 million, invest it in BOEMRE, and have the opportunity to
create 230,000 jobs.
There are 14.1 million people in this country who are actively
seeking employment and cannot find it. Here we have a chance to help
230,000 of them in fiscal year 2012 alone, and we have the ability to
increase our gross domestic product by $44 million.
Mr. Chairman, I think that's what the American people are demanding.
They want us to use our money wisely. That's what this amendment does.
And I will just ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this. It's a job creation amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The amendment would take $6 million from BLM's Lands and Resources
and transfer it to BOEMRE. The BLM's management account has already
been cut $43.5 million below fiscal year 11, $15.5 million below the
President's request. This fund allows the BLM to take care of more than
245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres; further
cuts to this account would not be warranted.
I want to commend the gentleman for the location where he wants to
send the money. I have no big opposition to the increase in the BOEMRE
spending. But we did the best we could to balance this particular piece
of legislation. BOEMRE has already been increased by $37 million above
fiscal year 2011. It's also been increased significantly in several
continuing resolutions. Therefore, because of the location of the
offset, I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $10,617,000)''.
Page 10, line 21, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,617,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1800

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, again I rise to talk about what I
consider to be wise investments into the future and the stability of
this great country.
For the last 21 years, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
has created jobs and served as an important investment tool in our
Nation's economy and for wetlands in every single State. NAWCA has been
responsible for restoring over 26 million acres of wetlands, equivalent
to the size of the State of Ohio. Not only did it restore over 26
million acres, it also creates nearly 7,500 jobs annually and hundreds
of millions in worker earnings every year.
If we look at the fiscal year 2011 appropriations with $37.5 million,
it is down from $47.6 million for fiscal year 2010. This bill allocates
only $20 million for fiscal year '12, a cut of 47 percent from fiscal
year '11 levels and 58 percent from fiscal year '10 levels.
Here is the important point, Mr. Chairman: The law requires that each
Federal dollar put into the program be matched by $1 in non-Federal
funds. Because the competition for these dollars is so great, on
average, each Federal dollar is matched 3 to 1.
Mr. Chairman, over and over again I keep saying that the American
people are looking for us to spend money in this great country, where
we get a return on our investment. Now we have another program where,
for every dollar we spend on this program, the American people get $3.
That's what we should be doing in this time of great economic hardship.
I am asking my colleagues on the other side to look at where we're
spending money in this bill and put money where we're going to get a
good return on our investment, we're going to create jobs, and at the
same time we're going to preserve and restore our wetlands.
That, Mr. Chairman, I think, is the responsible thing to do, the wise
thing to do, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
I would now yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana
for yielding.
I rise in support of the Richmond amendment and in opposition to H.R.
2584, the Interior and Environment appropriations, and I do so because
we cannot afford to make such drastic cuts to programs that benefit our
Nation's drinking water, deplete our air pollution standards, and
reduce the beautiful landscape.
For example, in Illinois, where I live, the drinking water systems
face a required investment of $13.5 billion over the next 20 years to
replace aging facilities and comply with safe drinking regulations. In
2009, total Federal funding for drinking water was less than $3
billion, which included a one-time $2 billion infusion of funds from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Within Cook County, a large portion of my district, we can take only
half an inch of rainwater before flooding takes place. This means sewer
water and other contaminants flood both the streets and homes. We
cannot afford to reduce the health and safety of our citizens, and we
cannot disrupt our environment.
Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding, urge support of his
amendment, and urge that we defeat the overall appropriation bill.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just say that this is
another one of my small attempts to make an awful bill just a little
bit better, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair.
Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his
amendment, but he again targets the account that we talked about in the
last amendment, and that is the Bureau of Land Management's land and
resources account which, as I indicated during the last amendment, is
already cut by $43\1/2\ million below the fiscal year '11 level and
$15\1/2\ million below the President's request.
In addition, this time the gentleman attempts to reach the
Secretary's account and wants to reduce it by $6.8 million. Nobody
likes to stand up for bureaucrats or the Secretaries around here, but
that account has already

[[Page H5466]]

been cut by $33\1/2\ million. Any further reductions could impede the
new Office of Natural Resource Revenue, which collects royalties for
on- and offshore oil and gas production, which I know is so important
to our friends in the minority.
For those reasons, again not because of the place where the gentleman
wants to put the additional funds but because of where they come from,
I urge opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Hochul

Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $4,452,000)''.
Page 3, line 17, after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $4,452,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment is going to have
appeal for both sides of the aisle. I have sat here and listened for
some time, particularly on the Republican side, about the need to be
cutting our expenses. Well, my amendment does just that.
My amendment actually removes $4.4 million in spending increases and
returns those very funds to deficit reduction. Those of us who also
believe that the taxpayers should not hand over an additional $4.4
million just to help out the oil and gas industry would also support
this amendment.
What my amendment does is remove a $4.4 million increase in funding
for oil and gas management. I just cannot stand here and support an
additional increase in taxpayer spending at a time when the other parts
of this budget are being slashed.
Forgive me today if I don't have a lot of sympathy for Big Oil. Last
quarter, Exxon posted $11.4 billion in profits, in one quarter alone,
Mr. Chairman. Royal Dutch Shell posted over $6 billion profit in one
quarter alone. The additional $4.4 million added to help out the oil
and gas companies to cover their permit application processing is
literally pocket change for these big companies.
We live in tough economic times, and we all came to Congress to make
tough decisions. We need to cut spending. That's why I ask my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment and cut
this spending increase.
My amendment, I assure you, does not address the merits of drilling
whatsoever. This is simply an issue of fairness for the taxpayers. In
times of government austerity and record profits for oil companies,
this amendment is a simple statement that these companies should pay
for the administrative expenses associated with processing their
applications.
Some people don't have a problem asking our seniors, our families,
and our small businesses to pay more during these tough times. Well, I
do. I think it is fundamentally unfair to increase spending in their
areas while at the same time we are hurting our seniors. Almost every
other area of this bill is being slashed, but the one that greases the
skids for oil companies to get their approval is being increased over
last year's budget. Something is just not right with our national
priorities, and I believe that reasonable Democrats and Republicans
will agree.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for
the budget deficit and reducing the budget deficit, but I rise in
opposition to this amendment.
This amendment would limit the BLM from spending $4.5 million of
offsetting collections for the processing of application of permits to
drill. The BLM still collects the fees, they just wouldn't be able to
spend the funds.
Mr. Chairman, this makes little sense as those fees offset the cost
to administer the oil and gas permitting program. In other words, these
programs are paid for by the industry, not by taxpayers. In other
words, the BLM will have the cost of these programs but won't be
allowed to spend the fees it has collected.
So I have a problem with this amendment, and I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hochul).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.

{time} 1810

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
An amendment by Mr. Huelskamp of Kansas.
An amendment by Mr. Cleaver of Missouri.
An amendment by Mr. Richmond of Louisiana.
An amendment by Ms. Hochul of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 237, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 632]

AYES--175

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gosar
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

[[Page H5467]]

NOES--237

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--20

Bachmann
Berg
Boren
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Cohen
Costello
DeFazio
Dingell
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Hinchey
King (IA)
Lynch
Mack
McDermott
Olver
Richardson
Shuler
Waters

{time} 1837

Messrs. CASSIDY, BOSWELL, and SOUTHERLAND changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. COLE, Ms. JENKINS, Messrs. PERLMUTTER, HOLDEN, SCHRADER, DONNELLY
of Indiana, and PAYNE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Huelskamp) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 284, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 633]

AYES--126

Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachus
Bartlett
Benishek
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Canseco
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Culberson
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)

NOES--284

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--22

Bachmann
Berg
Boren
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Cohen
Costello
DeFazio
Dingell
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Hinchey
King (IA)
LaTourette
Mack
McDermott
Moore
Olver
Richardson
Shuler
Shuster
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
the vote.

[[Page H5468]]

{time} 1844

Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Cleaver) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 634]

AYES--165

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--248

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--19

Bachmann
Berg
Boren
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Cohen
Costello
DeFazio
Dingell
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Hinchey
King (IA)
Mack
McDermott
Olver
Richardson
Shuler
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1850

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Richmond) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 635]

AYES--221

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Flores
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nugent
Nunnelee
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (NC)
Rangel
Renacci
Richmond
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano

[[Page H5469]]

Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--192

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Austria
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Guthrie
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--19

Bachmann
Berg
Boren
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Cohen
Costello
DeFazio
Dingell
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Hinchey
King (IA)
Mack
McDermott
Olver
Richardson
Shuler
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1856

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Hochul

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Hochul) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 636]

AYES--141

Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--271

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--20

Bachmann
Berg
Boren
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Cohen
Costello
Crowley
DeFazio
Dingell
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Hinchey
King (IA)
Mack
McDermott
Olver
Richardson
Shuler
Waters

{time} 1903

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Nugent) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state

[[Page H5470]]

of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 2584) making appropriations for the
Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.

____________________